Explaining Privilege: It may not be what you think.

[Politesse]

I totally understand the concept of privilege as it's being used, but I also understand how the word itself has caused a lot of misunderstandings, due to that word's more traditional meaning. I think it would have been better to simply point out that there are a lot of people who aren't being given the basic human rights that we all should be entitled to in a free society, instead of equating those rights as some type of a privilege.

If only a small minority has a certain advantage, though, is it really a basic human right in a meaningful sense? I see how social elites are comforted emotionally by the idea that the privileges they've been granted are or should be equally accessible to everyone, but it simply isn't so. If there are more exceptions to the rule than recognitions of the rule -- if you can walk into any corporate boardroom in this country and make an incredibly accurate guess as to what sort of a demographic group you'll find inside, or any prison - is it really a rule for all, or just for some? It seems to me that if everyone actually had all those rights, we probably wouldn't have ever called them privileges. Privilege as compared to what? But those privileges aren't fairly distributed to everyone, and never have been. I really appreciate the OP and think it is very accurate in its social description of how privilege works in practice. But I don't know if I entirely agree with the semantic claim. From a broader historical perspective, a lot of these "privileges" are essentially spoils of war, the direct product of injustices that were never addressed or accounted for. To the extent that women, Blacks, rural white farmers, and gays have begun to claim some of those privileges some of the time was the result of direct, concerted political activism on their part, a project requiring several centuries of hard labor and sacrifices, and whose goals are yet incomplete. No one "granted" these rights to our society's untouchables, they've had to claim those privileges with their own hands and against fierce resistance every step of the way.

 

[Gospel]

It's as if yall need an invitation to suggest a better word or something. What exactly about the word privilege which means special rights, advantages, or immunities (please pay attention that it doesn't mean it has to be all three attributes at once as it can be one of the three) do you have a problem with specifically? And for the love of Talos at least attempt to suggest a better word.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The word is defined for the purposes of THIS discussion in the OP. The idea was to show that privilege applies to more groupings than race, and that even white, cis gendered, heterosexual men can be lacking in a privilege and that black working class women can still be privileged.

I don't know why I try.

Ya know what?
Just fight and fuss like y'all always do.
I'm going out back, sitting on the deck and drinking me a cup of tea.

 

[Gospel]

Y'all got me in trouble man (kicks an innocent rock). Last time imma try to help y'all ass.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

There is nothing wrong with using the word privilege in this context. It is also an epidemic symptom of white privilege to suggest that there may be an issue here, but the way it is being communicated is too sensitive for my white ears to hear. What is the appropriate way to say 'Black lives matter' when the common interpretation through google translate into caucasian is 'White lives don't matter' (among a certain subset anyway)? What is more likely: White privilege would gain traction, reach a broader audience, and societal changes would be imminent - but for the PR problem created by the messaging; Or that there is a portion of society who deny the existence of the problem, or couldn't care less that it exists, and whose mind wouldn't be changed regardless of how perfectly it is couched?

aa

 

[Toni]

Toni, you say you don't see [insert your examples here] as privilege because they shouldn't be, then later say you recognize that's how it is for you. You do see it, you just desire others to be on equal terms (as seen in your closing statement). It's like you get it but somehow don't at the same time.

I think all that Toni is saying is that the word, "privilege" may be the problem, not that some people aren't treated as equals by others. I totally understand the concept of privilege as it's being used, but I also understand how the word itself has caused a lot of misunderstandings, due to that word's more traditional meaning. I think it would have been better to simply point out that there are a lot of people who aren't being given the basic human rights that we all should be entitled to in a free society, instead of equating those rights as some type of a privilege.

Still, I don't think this is going to change until people live and work together and begin to accept each other as equals. My neighborhood was once all white, but it's becoming a lot more racially diverse as more homes have been sold over the past year, or two, due to the older folks down sizing, dying or moving in with family members. There are a large number of mixed race marriages and relationships here. I applaud that because when we stop looking at each other based on our race or ethnicity and simply see each other as members of the human race, things will gradually get better. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but negativity never helps move us forward. So, I do my best to interact with and befriend people who may not be just like me, when it comes to a multitude of things.

This is always a difficult subject to discuss without a lot of misunderstandings.

Yes, you have it exactly right. I struggle with the word privilege as used in this context precisely because I know and was raised by people who certainly were not privileged and realize how foolish the word privilege sounds to people who may have grown up and may still struggle keeping the lights on as food on the table and worse than that.

I don’t see the assumptions of belonging and deserving whites as ‘privilege.’ I see the fact that persons of color, members of the LGBTQ community, non-Christians, and other minorities are treated as less deserving or undeserving or much, much worse as racism and bigotry.

Another way to look at isis the problems many people have when they hear: defund the police. I see both the use of privilege and defunding the police as horribly poorly chosen terms to describe very real, very serious issues in desperate need of being solved.

 

[Toni]

There is nothing wrong with using the word privilege in this context. It is also an epidemic symptom of white privilege to suggest that there may be an issue here, but the way it is being communicated is too sensitive for my white ears to hear. What is the appropriate way to say 'Black lives matter' when the common interpretation through google translate into caucasian is 'White lives don't matter' (among a certain subset anyway)? What is more likely: White privilege would gain traction, reach a broader audience, and societal changes would be imminent - but for the PR problem created by the messaging; Or that there is a portion of society who deuny the existence of the problem, or couldn't care less that it exists, and whose mind wouldn't be changed regardless of how perfectly it is couched?

aa

I don’t think it is ‘too sensitive.’ I think it is far too loaded a term and one that is unlikely to be accepted by many people who desperately need to hear it and to see it and understand that however poor they grew up, putting in a nice suit of clothes and visiting the right hair dresser will gain them entry and acceptance in places that persons of color so rarely enjoy—and that their skin color allows them to escape a great deal of scrutiny and worse at the hands of the police.

How do you think being told they are privileged plays to people who barely make ends meet in a very modest and inexpensive community? To people whose biggest ambition is to actually own their own house trailer?

I don’t give stuck about the struggles of people like me who have gained some economic security or who grew up in such circumstances, we nice, white upper middle class professionals. But honest to god—it’s almost as though whoever coins such terms is either vastly tone deaf, lacks any emotional intelligence at all or is deliberately sabotaging The cause.

Black lives matters makes sense. Couching as privilege being treated as a decent human makes it sound as though you want white people to be treated like crap rather than you want everyone to be treated well.

 

[Worldtraveller]

There is nothing wrong with using the word privilege in this context. It is also an epidemic symptom of white privilege to suggest that there may be an issue here, but the way it is being communicated is too sensitive for my white ears to hear. What is the appropriate way to say 'Black lives matter' when the common interpretation through google translate into caucasian is 'White lives don't matter' (among a certain subset anyway)? What is more likely: White privilege would gain traction, reach a broader audience, and societal changes would be imminent - but for the PR problem created by the messaging; Or that there is a portion of society who deny the existence of the problem, or couldn't care less that it exists, and whose mind wouldn't be changed regardless of how perfectly it is couched?

aa

I don’t think it is ‘too sensitive.’ I think it is far too loaded a term and one that is unlikely to be accepted by many people who desperately need to hear it and to see it and understand that however poor they grew up, putting in a nice suit of clothes and visiting the right hair dresser will gain them entry and acceptance in places that persons of color so rarely enjoy—and that their skin color allows them to escape a great deal of scrutiny and worse at the hands of the police.

I get what you're saying, but, and I don't mean to be crass, it doesn't fucking matter.

Denialists like derec and LP (amazing how often those two are on the same side of these arguments) will still shit all over it. They don't want to change the word because of the word. They want to argue about the word, because either they know the concept it entails is accurate and they are trying to change the subject, and/or they are too chicken shit to actually address the points.

It's like the whole thing with Kapernick kneeling. It was peaceful, as harmless as one could get, and the white wing still freaked the fuck out over it. It isn't about his actual actions, it's about avoiding the conversation all together.

Fuck them. Don't give them any more ammunition than they already get from Newsmax and Oann.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're assuming the discrimination is real and on a big enough scale to matter.

I have a very simple response for this.

You are assuming that the discrimination that you have never personally experienced is not real and doesn't matter.

You're a blind man insisting that purple doesn't exist.

 

[Toni]

I totally understand the concept of privilege as it's being used, but I also understand how the word itself has caused a lot of misunderstandings, due to that word's more traditional meaning. I think it would have been better to simply point out that there are a lot of people who aren't being given the basic human rights that we all should be entitled to in a free society, instead of equating those rights as some type of a privilege.

If only a small minority has a certain advantage, though, is it really a basic human right in a meaningful sense? I see how social elites are comforted emotionally by the idea that the privileges they've been granted are or should be equally accessible to everyone, but it simply isn't so. If there are more exceptions to the rule than recognitions of the rule -- if you can walk into any corporate boardroom in this country and make an incredibly accurate guess as to what sort of a demographic group you'll find inside, or any prison - is it really a rule for all, or just for some? It seems to me that if everyone actually had all those rights, we probably wouldn't have ever called them privileges. Privilege as compared to what? But those privileges aren't fairly distributed to everyone, and never have been. I really appreciate the OP and think it is very accurate in its social description of how privilege works in practice. But I don't know if I entirely agree with the semantic claim. From a broader historical perspective, a lot of these "privileges" are essentially spoils of war, the direct product of injustices that were never addressed or accounted for. To the extent that women, Blacks, rural white farmers, and gays have begun to claim some of those privileges some of the time was the result of direct, concerted political activism on their part, a project requiring several centuries of hard labor and sacrifices, and whose goals are yet incomplete. No one "granted" these rights to our society's untouchables, they've had to claim those privileges with their own hands and against fierce resistance every step of the way.

You are correct: those RIGHTS are not fairly distributed nor have they ever been, at least in American history.

And they should be.

I think that in the US, we tend to imprison people for far too long, with far too little attempts at helping the incarcerated gain the education and job skills, help with substance abuse and mental health issues. This holds true of white prisoners as well as those who are not white. It is a travesty made worse by the fact that we tend to incarcerate far more persons of color than we do white people for lesser crimes and for longer sentences. We need to correct this injustice for all, not only for those who were/are treated abysmally unfairly because of the color of their skin or their country of their ancestors or origin or their first language, etc.

I do not give a fuck whether white home ownership or white educational levels or white income levels or white access to health care is effectively a spoil of war. I don't see justice as a zero sum game. It is justice for all or there is no justice.

EVERYONE should be given equal rights. That is not a privilege.

 

[Toni]

I do not care at all whether my feelings or the feelings of other white people are hurt by the word privilege.

I do care, most passionately, whether the language chosen prevents those who need to hear that they have enjoyed certain RIGHTS and privileges not extended to others, not because they earned them but because they are seen as more deserving by virtue of their complexion and accent. People who fear they will lose their place in society, a place that may have been hard fought for and won by the labors of generations will not be won over by hearing that they are privileged. They are much, much more likely to see how rights have not been afforded people equally human because of their skin color because they actually KNOW people of different skin colors, etc.

Words matter. Very much. Especially when you are trying to effect much needed change.

 

[Gospel]

Ok, lemme put it this way. As a black man in America, I recognize I have privilege compared to an Arab in Yemen. I don't feel any way bad what's so ever about the word, I feel bad about the living conditions of some Arabs in Yemen.

 

[Politesse]

I totally understand the concept of privilege as it's being used, but I also understand how the word itself has caused a lot of misunderstandings, due to that word's more traditional meaning. I think it would have been better to simply point out that there are a lot of people who aren't being given the basic human rights that we all should be entitled to in a free society, instead of equating those rights as some type of a privilege.

If only a small minority has a certain advantage, though, is it really a basic human right in a meaningful sense? I see how social elites are comforted emotionally by the idea that the privileges they've been granted are or should be equally accessible to everyone, but it simply isn't so. If there are more exceptions to the rule than recognitions of the rule -- if you can walk into any corporate boardroom in this country and make an incredibly accurate guess as to what sort of a demographic group you'll find inside, or any prison - is it really a rule for all, or just for some? It seems to me that if everyone actually had all those rights, we probably wouldn't have ever called them privileges. Privilege as compared to what? But those privileges aren't fairly distributed to everyone, and never have been. I really appreciate the OP and think it is very accurate in its social description of how privilege works in practice. But I don't know if I entirely agree with the semantic claim. From a broader historical perspective, a lot of these "privileges" are essentially spoils of war, the direct product of injustices that were never addressed or accounted for. To the extent that women, Blacks, rural white farmers, and gays have begun to claim some of those privileges some of the time was the result of direct, concerted political activism on their part, a project requiring several centuries of hard labor and sacrifices, and whose goals are yet incomplete. No one "granted" these rights to our society's untouchables, they've had to claim those privileges with their own hands and against fierce resistance every step of the way.

You are correct: those RIGHTS are not fairly distributed nor have they ever been, at least in American history.

And they should be.

I think that in the US, we tend to imprison people for far too long, with far too little attempts at helping the incarcerated gain the education and job skills, help with substance abuse and mental health issues. This holds true of white prisoners as well as those who are not white. It is a travesty made worse by the fact that we tend to incarcerate far more persons of color than we do white people for lesser crimes and for longer sentences. We need to correct this injustice for all, not only for those who were/are treated abysmally unfairly because of the color of their skin or their country of their ancestors or origin or their first language, etc.

I do not give a fuck whether white home ownership or white educational levels or white income levels or white access to health care is effectively a spoil of war. I don't see justice as a zero sum game. It is justice for all or there is no justice.

EVERYONE should be given equal rights. That is not a privilege.

Then the problem is already solved. Ask any conservative or "moderate", they'll swear up and down that everyone already has equal rights. Because by the letter of the law, they do. The inequities are created by the "extra" that privileged classes enjoy more than any formal institutional depravation of subaltern classes. So how are we to fix these inequities without acknowledging the existence of privilege, whatever you want to call it? Some of those privileges are ridiculous, and actually couldn't be granted to everyone. We can't all have mansions. We can't all dehumanize the retail workers who "serve" us. We can't all take a vacation whenever the hell we feel like it. That's some people claiming much more for themselves than is reasonable, and their society patting them on the back for doing so instead of being rightly critical. Because accusing someone personally of having an unearned privilege is "rude".

 

[TomC]

Ask any conservative or "moderate", they'll swear up and down that everyone already has equal rights.

Dayum.
Sometimes you have Rush Limbaugh's ability to get your opinion across.

Tom

 

[Toni]

You are correct: those RIGHTS are not fairly distributed nor have they ever been, at least in American history.

And they should be.

I think that in the US, we tend to imprison people for far too long, with far too little attempts at helping the incarcerated gain the education and job skills, help with substance abuse and mental health issues. This holds true of white prisoners as well as those who are not white. It is a travesty made worse by the fact that we tend to incarcerate far more persons of color than we do white people for lesser crimes and for longer sentences. We need to correct this injustice for all, not only for those who were/are treated abysmally unfairly because of the color of their skin or their country of their ancestors or origin or their first language, etc.

I do not give a fuck whether white home ownership or white educational levels or white income levels or white access to health care is effectively a spoil of war. I don't see justice as a zero sum game. It is justice for all or there is no justice.

EVERYONE should be given equal rights. That is not a privilege.

Then the problem is already solved. Ask any conservative or "moderate", they'll swear up and down that everyone already has equal rights. Because by the letter of the law, they do. The inequities are created by the "extra" that privileged classes enjoy more than any formal institutional depravation of subaltern classes. So how are we to fix these inequities without acknowledging the existence of privilege, whatever you want to call it? Some of those privileges are ridiculous, and actually couldn't be granted to everyone. We can't all have mansions. We can't all dehumanize the retail workers who "serve" us. We can't all take a vacation whenever the hell we feel like it. That's some people claiming much more for themselves than is reasonable, and their society patting them on the back for doing so instead of being rightly critical. Because accusing someone personally of having an unearned privilege is "rude".

What, exactly is this ‘extra’ that I have that I do not deserve simply by living and breathing?
Nothing that I do not reverently believe every single human being deserves NOW.

Yes, there are plenty of conservatives who believe that everyone already has equal rights and in theory, they are correct. In practice? Of course not.
I’m not arguing that there is not significant systemic racism and other dogs discrimination.

I’m saying that couching being treated as a fully human person as privilege is not going to improve anything. Instead, it will deepen and widen the chasm that divides people.

You know who changes their opinions about race, etc.? People who actually know people who are different than they are.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ask any conservative or "moderate", they'll swear up and down that everyone already has equal rights.

I really hate it when social issues that are complex get turned into partisan mudflinging.

I'm a moderate. Liberal on some topics, conservative on others, never particularly extreme about any of them. I get tired of being lambasted as if I'm some sort of pariah with oozing sores simply because I don't conform to every fucking progressive talking point. It's stupid to just lump people together and to decide that all of your opponents are the same in every way, and then proceed to denigrate and demonize them.

 

[Politesse]

Ask any conservative or "moderate", they'll swear up and down that everyone already has equal rights.

I really hate it when social issues that are complex get turned into partisan mudflinging.

I'm a moderate. Liberal on some topics, conservative on others, never particularly extreme about any of them. I get tired of being lambasted as if I'm some sort of pariah with oozing sores simply because I don't conform to every fucking progressive talking point. It's stupid to just lump people together and to decide that all of your opponents are the same in every way, and then proceed to denigrate and demonize them.

So you disagree?

Who, specifically, do you think doesn't have equal rights under the law?

 

[southernhybrid]

Sorry it took me so long to post this. I was trying to respond to a post by Politesse but life called and I became distracted....so, some of this was written hours ago and may not make sense.


I don't know how we solve the problem other than what I said in an earlier post. We live and work together, and our kids go to the same schools You will never end all racism or all prejudice but the more we mix and talk to each other, the more we will come to understand each other and appreciate each other as being members of the human species. Or, perhaps, at least tolerate each other. The following is an example of the problem and the only possible solution I can think of.


I don't have a problem per se with the word privilege, although it sometimes sounds out of place and there should be a better way to describe the situation. Those of us who grew up in a different era, were taught that the term privilege was something applied to royalty, the ultra wealthy, and the powerful, so it's hard to equate it with some poor white person in the lower socioeconomic class having something special.

I was just explaining why some people have a problem with the word in my earlier post, and I'm trying to get that message across again. We should be able to discuss these things without judging each other in a negative light, or reacting emotionally. I think when we rush to judgement about why people feel the way they do, instead of discussing these things rationally and listening to the other person's concerns, it only causes more division. You don't change people by yelling at them.

I live in a lovely Black majority city, and that has given me the opportunity to have many Black friends, both casual and close ones. Yes, I consider it a privilege to get to know people from different backgrounds than myself. And, while I certainly have some benefits by having an education that always made it easy for me to find a job, and living in a nice middle class neighborhood, I have many Black neighbors who are or were also professionals.

You might even say that they have benefitted from white privilege since they live in a white majority neighborhood, where the police never harass any of us, regardless of our skin color. They most likely have been treated with prejudice in certain situations. I get it. It makes me outraged to think of my friends being treated that way! We've discussed those things openly at times. I'm just happy that my Black friends can walk down my street without having to worry about feeling out of place or having fears of becoming victims of racism.

So, do. they have a privilege over the poorer Black residents who live on the other side of town, as well as the poor white folks who live in those same neighborhoods? Maybe. The point is that the word can be very confusing, making a certain class of people resentful, as they can only see their own struggles and hardships, making it difficult for them to conceive that they have privilege.

 

[Metaphor]

Ask any conservative or "moderate", they'll swear up and down that everyone already has equal rights.

I really hate it when social issues that are complex get turned into partisan mudflinging.

I'm a moderate. Liberal on some topics, conservative on others, never particularly extreme about any of them. I get tired of being lambasted as if I'm some sort of pariah with oozing sores simply because I don't conform to every fucking progressive talking point. It's stupid to just lump people together and to decide that all of your opponents are the same in every way, and then proceed to denigrate and demonize them.

So you disagree?

Who, specifically, do you think doesn't have equal rights under the law?

In the US?

Females have the right not to have their genitals mutilated at birth, whereas males do not.

 

[TomC]

Ask any conservative or "moderate", they'll swear up and down that everyone already has equal rights.

I really hate it when social issues that are complex get turned into partisan mudflinging.

I'm a moderate. Liberal on some topics, conservative on others, never particularly extreme about any of them. I get tired of being lambasted as if I'm some sort of pariah with oozing sores simply because I don't conform to every fucking progressive talking point. It's stupid to just lump people together and to decide that all of your opponents are the same in every way, and then proceed to denigrate and demonize them.

So you disagree?

Who, specifically, do you think doesn't have equal rights under the law?

I don't.

It's legal, here, to fire me because I'm gay. It's illegal to fire someone because they're black or female or Christian or Italian. Gay isn't in the state anti-discrimination legislation.

Tom