I think that Frictional Minnesota, Fouria G and Central Avenue have basically said everything that I have wanted to say on this matter so far, in a less combative way than I might have, and I greatly appreciate that.
I have seen the term applied in an online context, but I don't think I've ever encountered it in the sense that certain races (or sexualities or genders) are automatically unwelcome.
Speaking of which, I went to the CWCki page on Women's Rights and found this passage:
It is obvious that Chris is aware of the idea that objectifying women is frowned upon; every time he makes his female characters use their feminine qualities (to put it altogether too mildly), he is quick to add a disclaimer that he respects the women for both their minds and bodies, and/or make the claim that the characters are doing it because they want to fight for the women's rights. However, due to his mental block, he fails to understand what society would consider a correct course of action, to wit, to become more Alpha before objectifying the women in the first place, and that disclaimers like these make him appear to be a mangina.
Because I find the definition of the term (as we are discussing it) to be logically invalid. It's like a house without a foundation. You can keep adding on to it, slapping new coats of paint on it, move it to greener pastures but it's still going to keep falling over.
I still don't understand why this is the case. It seems perfectly coherent to me. In what way is the concept itself flawed? I don't believe you have demonstrated this. You have attacked other concepts, you have attacked aspects of the presentation of the concept and aspects of the methodology of those popularizing it, but I don't understand why the concept itself is logically invalid.
No. For instance, I'm a Southern Baptist Christian. I'm not a 7-Day Creationist but I do believe that the entire Bible is truth. However, I believe in an absolute adherence to the seperation of Church and State, and ne'er shall the twain ever meet, with science falling directly under the interests of the state. And with science, you have the scientific method. Whenever something goes on or changes in my government, I want to make damn sure that it is the product of rational minds and critical thinking. This excludes religion and untested, unproven, unscientific notions. The fact that there is a movement which erupted from one person's persuasive, uncited, single-minded, uncollaborated essay trying to push this notion on the public is at odds with rationality and critical thinking, no matter how nice and sweet it looks on the surface.
Yet plenty of things were observed in non-scientific contexts before being subject to scientific study.
I don't think that there is a movement that believes in the concept of privilege because that article was just that persuasive. McIntosh simply gave a name to and raised awareness of a commonplace phenomenon.
Yes, I am very aware that blacks have and still do suffer discrimination. As for the latter question here, I'm guessing this was a typo and you meant to ask if I felt discriminated for being white.
No typo, but probably poor phrasing. I'll reword it: do you believe that you are subject to the exact same stereotypes and prejudices that you would be if you were black?
If not, then I'm really not sure what we're disagreeing about, other than your apparent dismissal of anyone who uses the commonplace term for this phenomenon as irrational.
Now, I'm not saying that means it doesn't exist, just that these issues are much more complex than "white privilege" is really equipped to address, or if "white privilege" is a way to make other's aware of these problems, what's up with the middle man? Can't we just skip to pointing out these problems and addressing what the actual cause of symptom is?
We could, but I think it's useful to have a general term to describe what appear to be closely related phenomena.
Personally, I think that is what most real activists do try to do. Most activism I have encountered, that is, social programs and the like, do do that.
It's different when you're given the anonymity the internet offers, because then you're more inclined to just lash out at anyone who doesn't agree with you. Plus, it's also much easier to white knight for every other group of people than it is to go out and actually do something to help any of them. I'm not saying that's deliberate--it's probably not, honestly.
From this you then get the convoluted chains of logic trying to justify not helping any of them (usually something along the lines of it being cultural imperialism). It honestly kind of saddens me since these same people could be actually doing things to help fix the problem instead of just pointing and yelling, which is what they're doing, in my own.
Well, being aware of privilege doesn't make you an activist, but to the best of my knowledge, this is terminology most activists use. If this was just some Internet thing I probably wouldn't bother to defend it at length.
There are plenty of people in this world who do apply double standards to people belonging to other groups, sometimes unwittingly. For this reason, I think raising awareness that this happens is a worthwhile thing to do. A small thing, certainly, but not a useless thing.
Well Corporal Forsythe noted that any non-Western country compares very poorly on compassion or not being dicks to minorities, and his point has not been challenged. So if we have to be even better than we already are, it leads to the question "How superior to everyone else do we have to be before we're good enough?"
It's not about being superior, it's about doing the right thing. It's about being considerate towards other people and it's about respecting your fellow citizens. I don't believe that failure to do this makes America or the Western world "damaged", as I said above, so if that's your objection (as, I believe, it is Corporal Forsythe's) then I don't disagree with you. But there shouldn't be a point where we say, "Right, I've done my bit to respect my fellow human beings and consider their points of view. Time to wallow in ignorance," (or worse, in knowing apathy).
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
It's not about being superior, it's about doing the right thing. It's about being considerate towards other people and it's about respecting your fellow citizens. I don't believe that failure to do this makes America or the Western world "damaged", as I said above, so if that's your objection (as, I believe, it is Corporal Forsythe's) then I don't disagree with you. But there shouldn't be a point where we say, "Right, I've done my bit to respect my fellow human beings and consider their points of view. Time to wallow in ignorance," (or worse, in knowing apathy).
Yes, that's my objection. If "a damaged culture" is defined as one where people are treated differently based on their skin colour or native language or religion or sex or sexual orientation or gender identity or whatever Other categories progressives recognize, contemporary Western civilization is far and away the least damaged one ever to exist in a world so fallen that I wonder if these activists actually expect an undamaged culture this side of the Eschaton.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
" We could, but I think it's useful to have a general term to describe what appear to be closely related phenomena."
But we have that word already,"inequality". "Privileges" is basically looking at inequality through the lens of the people who, supposedly, benefit.
This wouldn't worry me nearly half as much if it wasn't for the apparent fact that privileges isn't really built around an idea, but a specific group of people and almost always (if not, always) refers to them.
I can easily see how this is a determent to cases where a group that usually enjoys privilege are the ones who are on the short end ofin equality. A good real life example, being fathers in a divorce situation who want full custody of their children because they feel they are better caretakers than the mother and have to fight traditional general roles rather than a judge impartially deciding who would make a better caretaker for the children.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
I still don't understand why this is the case. It seems perfectly coherent to me. In what way is the concept itself flawed? I don't believe you have demonstrated this.
With these two posts I took what has been called the "standard resource of privilege" to which this article, by Mrs. McIntosh, is considered the origin of this whole privilege concept. I cited links showing quite clearly that despite the vintage of this essay, its importance to this movement has not been diminished at all. For your convenience, here's the Google Scholar link once again:
I must reiterate that this is the foundation that just about the entire movement accepts and to what I was referring to in my last post. I'm not going to rehash every point I made in those two posts, I'm simply going to state the facts here.
1. Everything in this article is entirely subjective, being from her perspective which in her own words is a "privileged white woman."
2. Nobody else's perspective is shared in this article except for second-hand anecdotes.
3. This article was not collaborated with anyone else, not even the "unprivileged" who are the very subject of this article.
4. Nothing is cited. Not a damn thing.
5. She presents a claim of a flawed western society as her proof for this concept yet does not even provide a metric so we can gauge this flaw. We're supposed to just accept what she has to say on the matter.
Fouria, there's five right glaring flaws with this whole thing right there.
The next argument that could be made, I would suppose (and this is my hypothesis, I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth) would be that despite these flaws the intentions of this concept are benevolent and the results will be positive. I disagree with this notion and here's my opinion why.
I've yet to see a single positive thing come from throwing around this privilege concept. The only thing I've seen it do that's not negative is simply be another label for a problem that we already know exists. The main tenet of this concept is to "accept" and "check" your "privilege" when we already have a superior method which is called "being a decent human being." If this whole jazz about "privilege" has done anything tangible to make someone's life better, I am not aware of it.
What I am aware of is how it's been use to marginalize people. Here's one: Have you heard of the Michigan Women's Music Festival? The short of is it's a "women's only space" and that's all fine and good. One year a woman who underwent SRS (which is nobody's business but hers) was singled out at the event and thrown out. Then a policy was put into place so that only "women-born-women" were allowed into the event. The reason? Transgender/Transsexual/Post SRS women have enjoyed "male privilege" in their life, and I'm sure we all can imagine just how wonderful that "privilege" must have been for someone growing up with gender dysphoria. Nowadays they've been enlightened (shamed) and revoked that policy. But that's just one example I can think of.
I know that not everyone does this, but just about everything I've seen regarding this "privilege" notion has been either a useless gesture or label, ridiculous (the roundabout logic) or just fucking mean (above) which helped me arrive at the opinion I hold right now.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
\What I am aware of is how it's been use to marginalize people. Here's one: Have you heard of the Michigan Women's Music Festival? The short of is it's a "women's only space" and that's all fine and good. One year a woman who underwent SRS (which is nobody's business but hers) was singled out at the event and thrown out. Then a policy was put into place so that only "women-born-women" were allowed into the event. The reason? Transgender/Transsexual/Post SRS women have enjoyed "male privilege" in their life, and I'm sure we all can imagine just how wonderful that "privilege" must have been for someone growing up with gender dysphoria.
Oh yes, that. The epistemology that underlies "privilege" is questionable ("You can never know what I've known, your argument is invalid!"). This makes how it seems to have taken over the progressive movement without having rebutted philosophical critique disturbing.
The epistemology that underlies "privilege" is questionable ("You can never know what I've known, your argument is invalid!"). This makes how it seems to have taken over the progressive movement without having rebutted philosophical critique disturbing.
Comments
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
This is one of those times.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i'm on a horse,
The Old Spice commercials are misandric?
I always thought the intent was to parody MANLY commercials that actually took themselves seriously.
As opposed to The Old Spice Guy.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"SHOW US YOUR TITS"
"I AM WILLINGLY COMPLYING WITH YOUR REQUEST"
I do.
why would you embed that, Odradek.
I have gone out of my way to avoid that thing since I first heard of it.
And now you embed it here.
Now I have to shoot myself with a nailgun.
I hope you're happy.
I don't think that there is a movement that believes in the concept of privilege because that article was just that persuasive. McIntosh simply gave a name to and raised awareness of a commonplace phenomenon. No typo, but probably poor phrasing. I'll reword it: do you believe that you are subject to the exact same stereotypes and prejudices that you would be if you were black?
If not, then I'm really not sure what we're disagreeing about, other than your apparent dismissal of anyone who uses the commonplace term for this phenomenon as irrational. We could, but I think it's useful to have a general term to describe what appear to be closely related phenomena. Well, being aware of privilege doesn't make you an activist, but to the best of my knowledge, this is terminology most activists use. If this was just some Internet thing I probably wouldn't bother to defend it at length.
There are plenty of people in this world who do apply double standards to people belonging to other groups, sometimes unwittingly. For this reason, I think raising awareness that this happens is a worthwhile thing to do. A small thing, certainly, but not a useless thing. It's not about being superior, it's about doing the right thing. It's about being considerate towards other people and it's about respecting your fellow citizens. I don't believe that failure to do this makes America or the Western world "damaged", as I said above, so if that's your objection (as, I believe, it is Corporal Forsythe's) then I don't disagree with you. But there shouldn't be a point where we say, "Right, I've done my bit to respect my fellow human beings and consider their points of view. Time to wallow in ignorance," (or worse, in knowing apathy). And now I have as well.
Fortunately, I can't see any reason why I would want to post there.
(Although that goes for reddit in general, really.)
Doesn't mean an "undamaged culture", so defined, is not worth striving for.
Although the use of the word "damaged" there is still odd.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis