Privilege explained in gamer terms May 16, 2012 Caperton Spawned on second base, but thought they rolled a double. From John Scalzi: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.
@Ryan Wouldn’t that be an afterlife…where you have to start from the first level but with all your previous equipment and knowledge? Sounds a bit like Pure Land Buddhism. Or maybe it’d be like if you’re reborn as your grandchild?
I was wondering if this was going to show up here and thus is arrives <_<. Sigh, I'm curious to what commentators here as apposed to the people I saw commenting on it on my facebook this morning.
It’s nice, but a few points irritate me a bit. One, it’s a bit hilarious/sad that privilege has to be explained with reference to video games, which are also nearly exclusively marketed to straight white men, so it’s yet more of pandering to their backgrounds & experiences rather than having them try to see life from other people’s point of view. Which I guess is the way it’s going to be, but. Also, it’s interesting that he refers to straight, white men with third person plural pronouns (and then switching to second person). The author is definitely male (I’m guessing not trans), is married with a daughter, so probably straight (or possibly bi) and there’s no mention of his race/ethnic background in his bios, so I’m guessing he’s white. Oh, and he says he’s a “white guy who likes women”, so there we go. But still, it’s “how life works for *them*” and not “for *us*” in the first line. I get the impression he’s trying to distance himself from clueless privileged men by doing this, but it also seems like he’s ignoring his own privilege by not acknowledging that he’s a part of this group as well.
But still, it’s “how life works for *them*” and not “for *us*” in the first line. I get the impression he’s trying to distance himself from clueless privileged men by doing this Yes, it’s a status signal.
OK, the link to Scalzi is everywhere, and of course you should link to it. But really? “Spawned on second base, but thought they rolled a double.” Seriously? You roll things in tabletop roleplaying games, and I am aware of none — and certainly there are no very popular ones — in which you can “roll a double”. That phrase alone is meaningless if you’re trying to refer to games of that type. But the piece talks about video games, which have nothing to do with rolling anything, much less a double. Spawning at least actually refers to video games, but it doesn’t connect to anything else in the sentence, and there’s not a “second base” to spawn on. The entire sentence makes no sense at all. If you’re going to try to make a gaming joke, can’t you at least make a good one? This isn’t funny AND adds nothing to the conversation. What was the point?
I have to giggle at the irony of this analogy; if the author had actually played any of these RPGs, he might have taken note of how much easier the game is for female characters to play than the males. Always easy to find a puppy dog to fetch all the difficultly obtained things for you, to enjoy, you see. All you have to do is pretend they have a shot with you. Wait, am I talking about Real Life or the game…? 😉 P.S. I am not entirely serious with the above statements, but, seriously, the metaphor is so poor on so many levels, despite being a good bumper-sticker for sheeple.
Sifting through the people whining, “Well, what I am supposed to do about it? It’s not my fault I was born with privilege!” was this gem of a comment: If you use the fact that you’re [playing] on the easiest difficulty mode to help yourself, you’re playing a bad guy; if you use it to help the people who are struggling with hardcore mode, you’re a good guy. Which one are you going to play? Love it!
I think it was a solid effort. It’s 101-level stuff, of course. It’s not perfect, but if you read it it brings in: gender, orientation, race, wealth/class, intelligence, beauty (at least to the extent that the RPG stat “charisma” could be used as a proxy for that), health… Is it perfect? No. As for Scalzi’s own privilege, gk: I can’t speak for him but my understanding is that he’s a straight white guy who grew up poor. So, easy difficulty setting with wealth as “dump stat.” I don’t think the point of his post was to pretend he had no privilege himself.
I initially liked the metaphor (being a gamer myself), but the more I think about it, the more I believe it ultimately fails. For starters, there are other characteristics a person might have – wealth and physical ability/health being the big ones – that constitute an even easier mode. Also, there are specific situations where being a straight, white male is actually a little bit harder (e.g. college applications). With that in mind, I think a better gaming analogy is to say that straight, white males are the default around which the content is balanced (yes, another Feminism 101 point, but a more apt one, I think). In pen & paper games (e.g. D&D), humans usually have average starting stats with no particular bonuses or hinderances, and other races/species vary around that mean – e.g. elves get a boost in dexterity and a reduction in endurance, dwarves get the opposite, etc. Humans are the “default”. In various MMOs, certain races/species get special powers, but level slower than humans. And in video game design generally, when the game designers and QA testers are balancing the difficulty of the content, they start with an average/default character build and test against that. Well, in the real world, the “designers” running the show for most of American/European history have been straight, white males, so we’ve balanced the content around that as the default character build.
I initially liked the metaphor (being a gamer myself), but the more I think about it, the more I believe it ultimately fails. For starters, there are other characteristics a person might have – wealth and physical ability/health being the big ones – that constitute an even easier mode. This was covered in both the original article and the comments. Wealth and physical ability are stats, and if you’re given enough points in those stats, you obviously have an easier time. That’s part of the idea of people starting out with different points and also having an easier time (if you’re SWM for instance) getting points to put in those stats. So, like, the random computer generator gives a SWM 30 points, and gives the gay black female 50. And with those points, 5 are allotted to wealth for him and 15 of them for her. However, in the time it takes for SWM to get 10 points, which puts him at the 15 points the GBF started out at, she’s earned 3 points. So yes, she’s still above him in terms of wealth at 18 to 15. Doesn’t matter; he was able to get 10 points in the same amount of time she only got 3. That’s privilege. Also, there are specific situations where being a straight, white male is actually a little bit harder (e.g. college applications). Are you shitting me?
Also, there are specific situations where being a straight, white male is actually a little bit harder (e.g. college applications). Here in Britain they solved this problem by making it so that the college or university doesn’t get to know about your gender, sexual orientation or race. So they just have to go off your grades and what you write in your personal statement. Though I guess it’s probably quite easy to tell gender from a personal statement.
Used that word, automatic discount of all previous and following opinions. Plus there was the assumption that the gamer on the other side of the computer screen is heterosexual male, thus will be swayed by the wimmins.
Plus there was the assumption that the gamer on the other side of the computer screen is heterosexual male, thus will be swayed by the wimmins. Yeah, there was a lot wrong with the post, but I see the word “sheeple” and my brain shuts down. Same thing happens with quotes from the bible.
Also, there are specific situations where being a straight, white male is actually a little bit harder (e.g. college applications). Actually, numerous college admissions officers have admitted and written about how, now that girls are consistently edging out boys in academic performance by a small margin, it is much easier for boys to get into college. They’re held to a much lower standard.
Oh, so he’s a new one around these parts? Lovely. And if he’s hanging around in the “When Feminists Face Abuse” thread, he must be a charmer, too.
R. Dave, I think what you are have missed is the difference between character generation, the difficulty setting on which a computer game is set at, and how they relate to privilege. The post isn’t strictly about comparing character generation and leveling in tabletop terms to privilege, but character generation and gameplay in computer games to privilege. If you wanted to take out the human element, you could say that to be a heterosexual, cisgendered, wealthy, currently able bodied white male would be like playing the US in Civilization on the easiest mode and get a good starting place with access to water and fish, whereas someone who was wasn’t was playing in God mode. The disadvantages stick with you throughout your life, but if you play REALLY well, and are lucky enough to not have shitty neighbors that don’t wipe you out immediately, you might do okay.
Eh, the metaphor comes across a bit clunky and really needs to be stretched to fit in places. And then you’re having a discussion about the appropriateness of the metaphor rather than talking about privilege itself. Awesome. All in all, it seems like it’s actually a more complicated and harder to defend explanation than actually outlining privilege in the real world. And his stupid views on the word privilege being the big bugaboo just sends him off in a kind of useless direction.
It’s not his bugaboo about the word privilege. He’s had the privilege discussion on his blog a few times, and it’s invariably gets side-tracked into people throwing hissy fits over the use of the term “privilege”. So this is his attempt at “See, I took out the word. Will you now please discuss the actual concept?” It semi-worked. This discussion got somewhat further along than any previous discussion, even if it still often got sidetracked. Keep in mind that Scalzi’s blog has a fair number of quite conservative regulars, so 101 is almost always going to be a big part of the conversation over there.
The real question is how the hell do you feel proud of yourself if you’re stuck playing the game on “easy mode”? If no matter how low you started on stats or weather or not your spawn point was so bad it was off the game map entirely, every single accomplishment you’ve made has been and will be against advisories that are less difficult to fight. No matter how many points you get, ultimately you get zero respect from other gamers because everybody else earned their points more than you did. In essence, you’re born into a world where all of your accomplishments gained while playing “US Civilian” aren’t worth anything because your game is rigged. If somebody in that position told me they wanted to quit playing because there was no point I’m not sure what I’d tell them.
In essence, you’re born into a world where all of your accomplishments gained while playing “US Civilian” aren’t worth anything because your game is rigged. If somebody in that position told me they wanted to quit playing because there was no point I’m not sure what I’d tell them. This is snark, right? You are not seriously complaining because the game is rigged in your favor, are you? You are not seriously whining because your your path is relatively easy and others may point that out to you, are you? Such delicious irony. I stand in awe.
In essence, you’re born into a world where all of your accomplishments gained while playing “US Civilian” aren’t worth anything because your game is rigged. If somebody in that position told me they wanted to quit playing because there was no point I’m not sure what I’d tell them. This is snark, right? You are not seriously complaining because the game is rigged in your favor, are you? You are not seriously whining because your your path is relatively easy and others may point that out to you, are you? Methinks it’s just a variation on Going Galt, Iris – the idea that they’re not really privileged, they’re just the ones who are actually getting things done, and if we’re going to disrespect them by telling them that they’re doing it easier than the rest of us then they’ll take their ball and go home and THEN WE’LL BE SORRY.
… um no, I was actually asking how somebody in that position should justify keeping a job or feel any accomplishment. I’m literally asking, if you consider yourself proud to have accomplished a major carer goal or achieving something, is all of that a lie if your game is on “easy mode”? Do you just stop trying and kill yourself because you will never be able to play the game for real? are all of your accomplishment’s fake? If you win a gold metal in the Olympics and you were taking steroids, you can STOP taking steroids and earn your place through honest competition. If your an “easy mode” player you cant just choose hard mode instead right? How do you go about re earning the accomplishment’s you have in honest competition? Does the fact that your on “easy mode” mean that everything you are proud of about your life is in reality worth nothing because you can never play a mode as hard as others? I’m not being snaky I’m actually asking a question here, if somebody approaches me and says “my accomplishment’s in life don’t matter because I’m a straight white male, so I will never know if I actually deserve any of the accolades I’ve been given since everything single in my life will always be easier than it is for everybody else” and then literally decides to jump off a bridge, do I even tell them they shouldn’t? How would I argue that?
@unaccomplished, do the basketballers who are nearly 7 feet tall feel that the points they score are worthless just because the guy who’s only 6’2″ has to jump higher in order to dunk? Or do they still think being on the winning team is pretty neat?
No one is saying all straight white dudes accomplishments are null and void because privilege. If you meet a guy who is suicidal because his accolades mean less because of his privilege, I think he has other issues. I’m not being snarky, I think it would be hella difficult to convince him his life is worth living. Or you could say, “Well, at least you make more money.” (that was snark).
@tigtog I didn’t ask how many people do you think are like that, I asked if somebody think’s that of themselvs what would be the correct thing to say to them?
pinkie pie aka unaccomplished, congratulations on your arbitrary morphing of your name field, and welcome to permanent moderation.
What about doing every quest you can, so you have a lot of accomplishments to be proud of? What about teaming up with other players who have a tougher game than you, to help them accomplish things they might not otherwise be able to do? Acknowledging your privilege isn’t about feeling guilty or minimizing your accomplishments; it’s about looking at other people and realizing that their game isn’t the same as yours. If thinking about privilege makes you think about how bad you feel, you’re missing the point.
The real question is how the hell do you feel proud of yourself if you’re stuck playing the game on “easy mode”? If no matter how low you started on stats or weather or not your spawn point was so bad it was off the game map entirely, every single accomplishment you’ve made has been and will be against advisories that are less difficult to fight. It doesn’t mean you’re unaccomplished, it just means you’ve faced fewer obstacles. The article asks you to acknowledge that fact, if only to yourself, in order to understand the concept of “privilege.” As a white, economically disadvantaged single mother I have overcome a number of obstacles. I recognize, however, that a number of those obstacles were easier to overcome just by “virtue*” of my skin color, and that those same obstacles are more difficult to overcome for an economically disadvantaged single mother of color. It doesn’t mean I haven’t accomplished anything, it just means some of my accomplishments were easier to come by than would be for a woman of color in my exact same circumstances. (*virtue being society’s favorable perception of said trait, which is neither virtuous nor evil, just a visible indicator of my genetic make-up)
No ones saying that the accomplishment of white male people is worth nothing because things were historically a bit easier for them than other people. The accomplishments are very important, hell I think most of the most important accomplishments that we use today are done by white male people. And they should be well proud of that like. But one can also acknowledge that there is sometimes stuff that is made harder by being female, and in this instance males have privilege and in some instances things are harder when being male, and this is female privilege. Also heterosexual people are privileged in that they can get married usually to someone that they love while homosexual people cannot in many countries. Also there is white privilege, which white people have. It’s not about being worthless, it’s about recognizing that other groups of people have some problems because of society and biology.
The real question is how the hell do you feel proud of yourself if you’re stuck playing the game on “easy mode”? If no matter how low you started on stats or weather or not your spawn point was so bad it was off the game map entirely, every single accomplishment you’ve made has been and will be against advisories that are less difficult to fight. Yes, well, if this does bother you, congratulations! You have found a personal motivation for fighting to end structural social inequality! Because it fucks up the game; it’s a bad set-up and not worth whatever measure of personal advantage any of us might individually enjoy. Don’t hate the player, hate the game, right? (Although I continue to reserve the right to hate players who behave like assholes, exploit and feel entitled to their advantages.)
… um no, I was actually asking how somebody in that position should justify keeping a job or feel any accomplishment. I’m literally asking, if you consider yourself proud to have accomplished a major carer goal or achieving something, is all of that a lie if your game is on “easy mode”? Do you just stop trying and kill yourself because you will never be able to play the game for real? are all of your accomplishment’s fake? Well, it’s not really my job to point out to you how you can find fulfillment and meaning in your life. And, way to derail the thread into talking about you and how bad being privileged as a SWM makes your life.
Methinks it’s just a variation on Going Galt, Iris – the idea that they’re not really privileged, they’re just the ones who are actually getting things done, and if we’re going to disrespect them by telling them that they’re doing it easier than the rest of us then they’ll take their ball and go home and THEN WE’LL BE SORRY. I was not familiar with the term “Going Galt” – is this the Galt in one of those Rand books I read decades ago? No matter – you have described it perfectly. I am sure it makes me a bad person, but I so desire these people to take their ball(s) and go home.
@Iris I am not a straight white male, nor was I attempting to “Go Galt” @Chiara That model makes much more sense to me, the original article makes no reference to the fact that everybody’s game is different so “easy mode” isn’t universal, it just applies to many game quests. [MODERATOR NOTE: The name field on this comment has been edited to include a known alias of this poster]
No ones saying that the accomplishment of white male people is worth nothing because things were historically a bit easier for them than other people. A bit? More like people who aren’t white or male have historically been denied opportunity after opportunity and experienced the most abusive, horrific oppression imaginable–being systematically stripped of their culture, bodily autonomy, and in many cases very lives. I think most of the most important accomplishments that we use today are done by white male people. I assume you are referring to technology or perhaps famous literature or something? Regardless, this sentiment of yours is inaccurate and offensive. Maybe it’s inevitable though given the general problematic nature of the concept of “accomplishment,” which normally seems to pit one person against another in a competitve fight for superficial social approval. [T]his is female privilege. Bullshit false equivalency. No such thing exists.
Let’s face it, the only reason for writing articles like this is to beat down white men, instill guilt in them and to promote racism. Since, you know, only LGBT and PoC can be individuals ; straight white men are all the same.
Let’s face it, the only reason for writing articles like this is to beat down white men, instill guilt in them and to promote racism. I disagree, but going with that for a moment….. only LGBT and PoC can be individuals ; straight white men are all the same The very fact that we are constantly referred to as “the gays” while straight people are just, y’know, themselves, means we are not individuals, just some other (non-swm default). Same goes for poc. And women are just walking perpetually-potentially-pregnant uteri. Don’t like being shoved into a one-size-fits all box? Being treated like a problem that needs dealt with? Neither do we.
Since, you know, only LGBT and PoC can be individuals ; straight white men are all the same. I like the use of generalizing terms to refer to the evil groups who keep generalizing at you. Whiny losers? I KNOW. I read the comments on this article a couple of places and all I thought the entire time was “Fuck, straight whites dudes are so fucking whiny.” I know not all straight white dudes deny privilege and the sample I had was fairly biased, but fuck could they whine.
Let’s face it, the only reason for writing articles like this is to beat down white men, instill guilt in them and to promote racism. White Men: Not Getting That It’s Not All About Them, Since FOREVER.
Let’s face it, the only reason for writing articles like this is to beat down white men, instill guilt in them and to promote racism. Since, you know, only LGBT and PoC can be individuals ; straight white men are all the same. Aaaaand the person-who-totally-didn’t-understand-the-article award goes to Wirbelwind! This is such a joyous occasion.
White Men: Not Getting That It’s Not All About Them, Since FOREVER. Is this the place where I can also state my preference for smaller breasts? That’s what women want to hear right? Privilege denied! #whitemenhazthesad
Between reading the comments on Kotaku, Scalzi’s blog, and dealing with the straight white males at a game forum I participate in, seriously, I have lost faith in humanity. They don’t seem to understand that pointing out privilege in an attempt to level the playing field does NOT equal oppression. The only time they ever even SEEM to care about discrimination is when it’s supposedly being committed against themselves. It’s enough to make me want to bash my head into a wall.
I see, I see. Well, thank you for explaining your attitude towards straight white men. I will surely treasure it, value it and act accordingly.
Wirbelwind, who exactly are you responding to? I’m sure you don’t mean to appear as if you view one person (who?) responding above as some sort of spokesman for the mythical feminist hivemind, do you?
Wirbelwind, “Let’s face it, the only reason for writing articles like this is to beat down white men, instill guilt in them and to promote racism. Since, you know, only LGBT and PoC can be individuals ; straight white men are all the same.” It’s not anti-SWM (straight white male), guilt-instilling, or racist because the author isn’t putting them down in any way by trying to create awareness of SWM privilege. He’s also not denying SWMs their individuality and personhood; when he says that SWM is the easiest difficulty level, so to speak, he’s referring to the privilege SWMs generally have because of being SWM. Nowhere is he saying that all of them are the same, or that they all have it easy. In fact, he even says this: “…you’re playing on the ‘Straight White Male’ setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.”
After thinking a bit more on it, the metaphor is way more fail than I first thought. And one of the biggest reasons is that Scalzi chose to avoid a loaded word, “privilege,” for another, perhaps more loaded word (to gamers), “easy mode.” So, either he didn’t know any better or he was being disingenuous. It would have been less insulting to his target (which is supposedly his aim) and, you know, more accurate to say that SWM is a poorly balanced option compared to other classes or whatever. Something like: “Imagine you were playing WoW, but the gender you selected sometimes impacted how much gold you got for turning in quests? And it was consistently giving more gold on average if you selected male. Wouldn’t that be a shitty, imba decision? Or, imagine that the shade of skin you tinted your character impacted the chance for the town guard to decide to attack you for no reason? Or narrowed the level requirement for quests? Or decreased the amount of rep you get with factions? Or, imagine there was an ‘orientation’ box that you had to click that might have a lot of the same implications?” Granted, that involves a certain amount of familiarity with the subject matter. But you shouldn’t make a metaphor about gaming, aimed at gamers, if you can’t bring that level of familiarity. Otherwise, stick with “being a straight white male is a lot like living in a society with an enormous system of prejudice that’s more often than not in your favor in a way that’s easy to overlook.” But I guess that’s just so much more inflammatory than telling a random someone who has had a hard life that they’re living it on easy mode lulz.
I like this comment, not because I agree with it, but because I enjoy watching people misconstrue the meaning of things and rant, things this comment is sure to incite.
I’m trying to figure out how “all other things being equal” is such a difficult concept to grasp. All other things being equal, tall people use more soap. That doesn’t mean that taller people are soap-greedy, or that they should use only as much soap as everyone else, or that any one tall person would never use less soap than any one shorter person. A person who’s 6’4″ and 36″ around may still use less soap than someone who’s 5’1″ and 50″ around, despite being taller. A 6’2″ office worker will probably use less soap than a 5’4″ coal miner. But controlling for surface area, skin absorbency, dirt levels and constituents, and application technique–all other things being equal–tall people use more soap. Say you’re a straight, white boy growing up next door to a black, bisexual girl. You go to the same school. Your mothers know each other from work. You do the same activities. You get the same grades. Your lives are going to be equally easy, right? No. You’re a straight, white male in a world built for straight, white males, and she’s the Other. Fast forward ten years, and you’re at the same college in the same program (although she’s had to fight through harassment and discrimination to get there). You’ve gotten comparable grades and comparable jobs after graduation. But then the economy goes south, and your company lets you go. Now she’s the privileged one, right? Still no. Because make everything equal again and put her out of a job, and she’d suffer discrimination in the job market that you don’t have to. All other things being equal, you’re still functioning as a straight, white male in a world built for straight, white males, and she’s still the Other. You’re playing on Easy Mode. That doesn’t mean that the game is never legitimately difficult, because games often are. But all other thing being equal, players on harder settings have to work harder to get where you are.
@Caperton but all other things aren’t equal. if your “a straight, white boy growing up next door to a black, bisexual girl” and the school you both go to is Howard University, your school is not easier because your white. If the job you both get is working at a plant parent hood, your job is not easier because your male. The entire world is not built for straight white men, only large parts of it, so placing a “mode” on all of life is impossible. All things are not equal in life
@ randomized: A white person to an HBCU =/= a POC going to any other school of higher education. A man working at Planned Parenthood =/= a woman working at any other healthcare facility.
Randomized: On the contrary. When it comes to gender, at least, the “glass elevator” effect for men entering traditionally female environments is well documented. A man working in Planned Parenthood or as a social worker or as an elementary school teacher will indeed have it easier than a woman doing the same thing. A historically black college/university is, like a women’s college, an oasis for those of us whose identities are routinely degraded in the mainstream culture. Every black student at Howard and every woman at Barnard knows that outside campus is a world hostile to his/her ambitions and identity. A white guy at Howard simply does not have that pressure or experience, so his time will be easier.
@Caperton, But all other thing being equal, players on harder settings have to work harder to get where you are. Agreed. But as someone else already pointed out, all other things are *never* equal. If the argument is ceteris paribus, everyone will agree and we can stop talking about the practical implications thereof, because we can also logically conclude that even for two individuals that will never work because we cannot even contemplate all contingencies. Using ceteris paribus like you do it can *only* work in a system that reduces admissible dimensions of differntiation. If you cluster people into only three dimensions – race, class gender – as is common in feminist intersectionality debates, that will allow a useful application of ceteris paribus, but it’s also describing reality in a rather simplistic way. Of course, this clustering is unfair, and, among others, this is a core point of Judith Butler’s, results in erasing individual experiences. The justification is that clustering is necessary in order to get *some* experiences heard at all is certainly valid, and “check your privilege” is certainly an occasionally useful reminder to consider one’s position in the world around oneself, but we should be clear that it’s a concept that will *only* work within the axiomatic framework created to get to precisely *that* conclusion. I’d be a lot happier applying the term if I believed there was agreement that it’s a politically and discoursively useful, yet philosophically and logically ultimately flawed concept to describe individual people’s reality.
But Sam, the point of the concept of privilege isn’t to “describe people’s individual reality”– it’s to describe the system in which we all exist and which confers certain advantages on some groups and not on others. It has nothing to do with individuals and their experiences, and it especially doesn’t describe the experiences of privileged individuals. That is to say, being white is not a big part of my everyday reality– it’s not something I have to think about on a day to day basis, and it’s not something I’m consistently made aware of. That’s privilege. I do, though, have to think about being a woman on a daily basis, and am constantly reminded of my gender and the fact that I am other. That’s because, on the axis of gender, I am not privileged. But my white privilege doesn’t mean that my life is automatically better than every single POC’s, just like my lack of male privilege doesn’t mean that my life is automatically worse than every man’s (setting aside the impossibility of measuring things like a “better” or “worse” life for a moment). Privilege has little to do with individuals and their lived experiences, though it does obviously affect the experiences and lives of individuals. The point is not to describe straight white men’s lives as automatically better, because obviously they aren’t. (And the opposite, as well– I bet Michelle Obama’s life is, by most people’s standards, a lot better than many white men’s, despite the fact that, as a black woman, she lacks their privilege on two axes).
If the job you both get is working at a plant parent hood, your job is not easier because your male. I, for one, don’t care who’s doing my check ups as long as no one takes away my right to abort my ficus.
@Angel H Why not? I have witnessed the same oppressive behavior at both locations, what makes them unequal? Every black student at Howard and every woman at Barnard knows that outside campus is a world hostile to his/her ambitions and identity. A white guy at Howard simply does not have that pressure or experience, so his time will be easier. I would agree, a white person’s pressure would not likely come from outside the school (although it may very well), but they would instead experience pressure from within. (this is a common experience from what I have witnessed) As such, I would disagree that their time would be easier than a black person’s time in any other institution. @PrettyAmiable Wonderful, sadly you are not the majority. @Sam I agree whole heatedly, sadly such a position is impossible to embrace unless one views privilege as a universal contextually relative constant. Most feminists do not typically subscribe to such a view point (as demonstrated with the “female privilege does not exist” comment above)
ch, But Sam, the point of the concept of privilege isn’t to “describe people’s individual reality”– it’s to describe the system in which we all exist and which confers certain advantages on some groups and not on others. It has nothing to do with individuals and their experiences, and it especially doesn’t describe the experiences of privileged individuals. ahm, if “privilege” weren’t considered useful to describe individual realities, what’s the point of telling guys to “check their privilege”? I mean, seriously, what’s the point of telling me “you have privilege” if the concept of privilege doesn’t even contain assumptions about it’s effect on individuals (in gamer terms: “the lowest level” / “it’s easier for you”). Again – “groups” necesarily refers to clusters of ascriptive markers of certain dimensions of differentiation reasonably attributable to individuals (white, male, rich; black, female, poor). Only allowing three dimensions creates a simplistic model of reality, which one may legitimately find useful to highlight *some* clusters of experiences that have not traditionally been highlighted (like those of poor black lesbians) in social discourse, is necessarily creating a poor model of reality and, if such a model is used to a priori assign assumed credibility to perspectives, the only result will be a reversed hierarchy. In other words, in feminist/intersectionality discourse, being a white heterosexual male is a rather “a hard level” to play ;).
ahm, if “privilege” weren’t considered useful to describe individual realities, what’s the point of telling guys to “check their privilege”? I mean, seriously, what’s the point of telling me “you have privilege” if the concept of privilege doesn’t even contain assumptions about it’s effect on individuals (in gamer terms: “the lowest level” / “it’s easier for you”). Because while a blanket statement of “all men are more privileged than all women” is incorrect and not useful, that doesn’t mean that individual men don’t exhibit their privilege in particular situations. When someone is showing their privilege, “but not all men have it easier than all women!!!eleventy!” is not really a good defense. People who want to deny privilege exists, or deny that it’s a useful concept, harp on how it’s overly simplistic, while completely ignoring the concept of intersectionality — yes, maleness is one source of privilege. There are any number of axes along which someone may be privileged or not privileged, and they all work together to define an individual’s reality. But and still, a man who is disadvantaged in a multitude of other ways may still exhibit male privilege. And I’m REAL sorry that it’s hard for straight white dudes to get to talk about themselves and other stuff in the narrow universe of feminist discourse; it must really be hard to be “disadvantaged” in an area that exists in large part because of the rampant privilege enjoyed by your group. The support group meets on Tuesdays. (Which is to say — it’s profoundly offensive to talk about how one’s voice isn’t heard as loudly in feminist discourse when the realities of privilege for non-privileged population mean shitty treatment/lower pay/fewer promotion opportunities/fewer job opportunities altogether in the workplace, harassment and discrimination pretty much everywhere, less access to resources, etc etc etc.)
I would agree, a white person’s pressure would not likely come from outside the school (although it may very well), but they would instead experience pressure from within. (this is a common experience from what I have witnessed) As such, I would disagree that their time would be easier than a black person’s time in any other institution. Are you seriously comparing the amount of pressure that a historically black college/university can bring to bear on a white student with the pressure a white-dominated and institutionally racist society brings to bear on a black student? That’s a pretty powerful black college you’re imagining, then. Either that, or white kids are a bunch of weaklings.
Further, if the white kid at Howard feels that the pressure you describe is simply too much for him, he can transfer. He can transfer to a non-historically black college/university with no loss of prestige, no loss of connections, no loss at all. Whereas the black kid–where, precisely, is he going to transfer to escape the overwhelming white dominance of the US?
KAJ, When someone is showing their privilege, “but not all men have it easier than all women!!!eleventy!” is not really a good defense. well, I guess then it’s a good thing I didn’t use that one… 😉 People who want to deny privilege exists, or deny that it’s a useful concept, harp on how it’s overly simplistic, while completely ignoring the concept of intersectionality — yes, maleness is one source of privilege. Ahm, did you *read* what I wrote above about intersectionality and privilege being a discoursively useful while logically flawed concept? But and still, a man who is disadvantaged in a multitude of other ways may still exhibit male privilege. You do realize the notion of “exhibiting male privilege” is making a statement about individual behaviour and its assumed origin – which means that privilege needs distinctive attributes and can be applied to describe individual realities, something with ch above denied, and which I reacted to. You seem to agree with me in this respect. it’s profoundly offensive to talk about how one’s voice isn’t heard as loudly in feminist discourse You did notice the smiley at the end of the sentence, right? It’s still a correct observation, though likely not particularly problematic in most cases, and your reaction is basically a confirmation thereof.
Are you seriously comparing the amount of pressure that a historically black college/university can bring to bear on a white student with the pressure a white-dominated and institutionally racist society brings to bear on a black student? That’s a pretty powerful black college you’re imagining, then. Either that, or white kids are a bunch of weaklings. Only if you are also privileged economically to also be able to transfer schools and move. If you don’t have that option or Howard has something within it’s educational program that you require, leaving isn’t so easy. And yes, I’m pretty sure getting beat up by your fellow classmates, diminished by your professors, threatened, etc because of the color of your skin affects white kids at Howard just like it does black kids at Yale or Harvard. In addition, the entire US is not “white dominated”, only several portions of it. This is the problem with the analogy exactly, it is inaccurate because it assumes the premise that we are all playing the same game, but we aren’t. We are all doing different quests that have some things harder and others easier based on our game settings, a single mode that makes ALL quests easier doesn’t exist
Yeah KAJ, chillax. There was a smiley. I think the concept of intersectionality is subtler than you give it credit for being. Subtle doesn’t mean useless.
In addition, the entire US is not “white dominated”, only several portions of it. The power-structure of the US is white dominated. The legislative system system is white-dominated. The justice system is white dominated. The seats of power are white-dominated. The big corporations are white-dominated. And somehow having a few historically black colleges/universities makes it all the same? Bullshit. As for economic privilege, I was unaware that Howard was a public university and its costs were so significantly lower than any other institution of higher education as to make transfer prohibitive. Let me check: ah, I was unaware of that because it’s not true. But somehow, getting beaten up by fellow students is totes equivalent to being harassed and beaten up by cops?
But somehow, getting beaten up by fellow students is totes equivalent to being harassed and beaten up by cops? Or being killed by your neighbors… Or having your selfless death being reduced to a welfare queen stereotype… Or having your history mocked… Or having the study of your history mocked… But yeah, Randomized. It’s totes the same.
Angel H., I read that hit piece on Black Studies in the CHE blog and it was appalling. I’ve met Keeanga-Yamhatta Taylor and the fact that some white lady in a comfy chair can just smear some really passionate grad students (and activists doing amazing work) with such a broad ignorant brush and still be considered a serious person is ludicrous. People, read the Racialicious piece Angel linked to. Then try and imagine someone writing an asinine blog post pondering why we still need whole departments to study the Roman Empire, since all it does is lock us into victim mentality claptrap. You can’t, because some voices and opinions are mightily cushioned in academia. (there’s a reason for that. It starts with “p” and rhymes with…”privilege.”)
I read that hit piece on Black Studies in the CHE blog and it was appalling. I read about it before and I just read that article, and I agree so hard. The Black Studies courses I took forced me to deepen my understanding and awareness of my privilege and introduced me to the most impressive woman I have ever met. The idea that somebody would just taunt work from students who put effort and serious thought into those papers, and she didn’t even bother to read them…gah, I dunno. It made me want to flip a table.
Can someone please explain to me what is so offensive about the word privilege? I really don’t get why people are getting so sad panda about this article? For the record I am a queer white woman, and I know my life would be way more difficult if I was a queer native-american woman. Why is this such a difficult concept? Why can’t this guys just STFU already, no one is saying your life is super easy or your accomplishments don’t mean anything-the entire point of this article is just saying hey it would have been more difficult to achieve those things if you were a person of color/queer/a woman/poor/etc etc
I think privilege gets a sometimes-bad rap because of how some people use it as a lazy cudgel. Add that to a resentment/defensiveness that someone with privilege might have about being called on it, and stir. And the article was implicitly saying some pretty dumb and objectionable things, largely because the metaphor was weak at best.
The power-structure of the US is white dominated. The legislative system system is white-dominated. The justice system is white dominated. The seats of power are white-dominated. The big corporations are white-dominated. And somehow having a few historically black colleges/universities makes it all the same? No, that’s not what I’m saying. My point was that high government and big business do not represent 100% of America, and there are pathways through life in the US that are not dependent on the same social devices as the oval office or the traditional board room. In essence, just because you are privileged in the board room does not mean you are privileged any place else. And some of those other places actually invert the privilege scale against you rather than just attempt to have more level playing fields. Or being killed by your neighbors… Or having your selfless death being reduced to a welfare queen stereotype… Or having your history mocked… Or having the study of your history mocked… All of these things happen to “easy mode” players in some environments, my point was simply that these factors are just as equally based on one’s environment and subsequent life goals as they are race and gender. The idea of a “privileged” trait that is a bonus in every single situation is one I do not subscribe to. All people have privilege in some form or another, it is a granular adjective, not some simple quantifier you can have “more” or “less” of across every situation. no one is saying your life is super easy or your accomplishments don’t mean anything But they are saying that your accomplishments don’t mean as much as the accomplishments made by people who’s lives are not on “easy mode” because those same accomplishments were universally “harder” for them to achieve. It’s like saying straight, white, male astronauts should be proud of what they have achieved, but black, queer, trans, female, astronauts are more accomplished because their lives were universally harder than their straight, white, male counter parts. As such, they should think more of themselves than the straight, white, male astronauts, and straight, white, male astronauts should recognize that their accomplishments mean less because they were universally easier to attain.
Natalie- not sure your question wasn’t rethorical, but I’ll try anyway. I don’t think most people have a practical problem with the easier/harder level issue (theoretically, as I attempted to explain above, privilege is a lot weaker a concept than practically). The problem a lot of people seem to have with privilege is that it is often used as a discourse structuring device – that is to say, as you do: to shut (some) people up (those with assumed privilege) and give extra attention to others (those with assumed less privilege). In other words, it’s often used to redistribute discoursive privilege. So, clearly, when someone who has assumed privilege is talking about his or her experiences, and someone tells them to shut up and go check their privilege, because, given their privilege, their experiences are – within the privilege discourse – less valuable than those of people who have less privilege, that’s going to p*ss them off. Sometimes that’s collateral damage, and sometimes that’s the point of using the term. So if we were to talk about our respective opinons about x, or y, or z, and we disagree about something, you could easily tell me that I don’t understand x,y,z because of my privilege. Because your *not* having privilege, interestingly (and you can check this with your preferred encyclopedia for feminist standpoint epistemology) implies your (being a member of the assumed oppressed group) having an *epistemic privilege” (not kidding!) over me, *at least* with respect to everthing related to gender (or any other oppressed dimension). So, I have privilege, therefore you have epistemic privilege, and I have to shut up. At which point, at least theoretically, *you’d* have the privilege and *I’d have epistemic privilege* and therefore you’d have to shut up. On that level the whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense anymore – as opposed to the general introspective level. So, I believe that there would be much less opposition to the term, if the term weren’t usually used as a discourse framing device. But as one of the original points of the concept *is* to favour some voices that aren’t usually heard, that’s gonna create problems, particularly in the realm of gender – where, as I mentioned with a smiley above, feminists do have the discourse hegemony, and *they* are (potentially unknowingly – and, remember, being privileged means being able to be unaware of the privilege) privileged themselves. Of course, it’s hard to clearly separate that part of the debate from the rest of social/political/economic debates, in which things are either the other way around, or not as clearly defined. So it’s tough, and I understand the dilemma. But it’s also understandable that guys don’t like being shushed by being told they have privilege, when, particularly in gender debates, they really don’t. Ultimately, if you want to understand the world, privilege is a rather bad angle to look at it. It obscures reality. It turns people into clusters of observable ascriptive characteristics instead of attempting to understand them as a whole. But it’s useful for introspection, and also, to a certain extent, for activism. If applied carefully and with awareness of the potentially adverse effects it can have on the discourse.
I agree whole heatedly, sadly such a position is impossible to embrace unless one views privilege as a universal contextually relative constant. Most feminists do not typically subscribe to such a view point (as demonstrated with the “female privilege does not exist” comment above) If the job you both get is working at a plant parent hood, your job is not easier because your male. In other words, in feminist/intersectionality discourse, being a white heterosexual male is a rather “a hard level” to play ;). As the person who said female privilege doesn’t exist (and it doesn’t), I want to address these related ideas that Sam and randomized brought up. Basically, what I’m getting from them is that men are privileged in some ways and women are privileged in some ways, and that it can be hard for a man to make his way through a space where most of the other people are women and/or feminists. I don’t agree with this idea, and it hasn’t been borne out by my own personal experience. Back when I presented as a man, I participated in feminist spaces with some frequency over a period of four years, and I never found myself at any disadvantage. Even though the spaces were usually 80+% women, I felt that I experienced privileges that mirrored the privileges I experienced in the wider society. Sure, occassionally people would rightfully get on my case and tell me to “check my privilege,” but in general, I was allowed more time to speak than most; my opinions were treated as “serious,” “thoughtful,” even “objective;” people were quick to defend me against any perceived “anti-male” slights–even as others who were POC, disabled, LGBT, working class, etc. received no similiar defense against far more real and harmful instances of marginalization. And I saw the most of the feminist men around me receiving similiar privileges in these feminist spaces. So I can’t agree with the idea that men suffer any disadvantage just from being perceived as men, whether in feminist spaces or anywhere else. Again – “groups” necesarily refers to clusters of ascriptive markers of certain dimensions of differentiation reasonably attributable to individuals (white, male, rich; black, female, poor). Only allowing three dimensions creates a simplistic model of reality, which one may legitimately find useful to highlight *some* clusters of experiences that have not traditionally been highlighted (like those of poor black lesbians) in social discourse, is necessarily creating a poor model of reality and, if such a model is used to a priori assign assumed credibility to perspectives, the only result will be a reversed hierarchy. Sam, I think you are both mischaracterizing and severely underestimating the utility of intersectionality here. I’m not sure where you coming up with your “only allowing three dimensions” idea. The point of intersectionality has tradtionality not been to “only allow” certain dimensions, but rather to BROADEN the number of dimensions that are being considered. It has attempted to serve as a corrective for political discourses like class-centric Marxism or gender-centric radical feminism. And it is common among people who talk about intersectionality to not only consider race, class, and gender but also sexual orientation, ability/disability, gender identity, age. It’s also fairly common and encouraged to continually identify and discuss additional axes of oppression and additional forms of privilege–“thin privilege,” “Christian privilege,” “extrovert privilege,” etc. So I think the idea of intersectionality of oppression/privilege is one of the best ways to describe social reality. And I think it’s one of the best ideas that currently exists to support successful social justice activism.
The problem a lot of people seem to have with privilege is that it is often used as a discourse structuring device – that is to say, as you do: to shut (some) people up (those with assumed privilege) and give extra attention to others (those with assumed less privilege). Bullshit. That’s not what Natalie was saying at all. She wanted certain people to shut up, not because they are privileged, but because they don’t know what they are talking about and don’t understand basic sociology. For instance, like Natalie, I’m white and have white privilege and have no problem with this article because I recognize my life IS easier because I’m white. And all white people could recognize this save for the fact that many (most?) are in massive denial. So, clearly, when someone who has assumed privilege is talking about his or her experiences, and someone tells them to shut up and go check their privilege, because, given their privilege, their experiences are – within the privilege discourse – less valuable than those of people who have less privilege, that’s going to p*ss them off. How often does this happen? People with privilege are generally told to shut up, not when they are talking about their own experiences, but when they are pontificating about other people’s experiences, experiences that they don’t know anything about. Many men love to talk about what they think it means to be a woman; many white people love to talk about what they think it means to be a person of color. And most of these pontificators don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. And they should check their privilege and not assume that their experiences are universal or their opinions automatically correspond to reality. Because your *not* having privilege, interestingly (and you can check this with your preferred encyclopedia for feminist standpoint epistemology) implies your (being a member of the assumed oppressed group) having an *epistemic privilege” (not kidding!) over me, *at least* with respect to everthing related to gender (or any other oppressed dimension). No. Women understand being oppressed by patriarchy because they are oppressed by patriarchy. Men do not understand being oppressed by patriarchy because they are not oppressed by patriarchy. It’s pretty simple. One gains knowledge from experience, if you don’t have the experience then you don’t gain the knowledge. That doesn’t mean that women know more than men about “everything related to gender” (let alone everything related to oppression). Men have a gender, too, and they are qualified to speak to their own experiences in regard to their own gender. But it’s also understandable that guys don’t like being shushed by being told they have privilege, when, particularly in gender debates, they really don’t. Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit. As I said in my other post, men as individuals actually seem to get more time to speak than women as individuals in feminist spaces, just as men’s discoursive contributions are generally seen as more important in all spheres of life. Furthermore, it’s odd that you are implying feminism has a monopoly on “gender discourse” and “gender debates.” People like Dr. Laura or Adam Corolla do a far more successful job propogating their discourse on gender than feminists do. Feminists are the counterculture when it comes to gender discourse; they are not the mainstream by any means.
I don’t agree with this idea, and it hasn’t been borne out by my own personal experience. Back when I presented as a man, I participated in feminist spaces with some frequency over a period of four years, and I never found myself at any disadvantage. Even though the spaces were usually 80+% women, I felt that I experienced privileges that mirrored the privileges I experienced in the wider society. Sure, occassionally people would rightfully get on my case and tell me to “check my privilege,” but in general, I was allowed more time to speak than most; my opinions were treated as “serious,” “thoughtful,” even “objective;” people were quick to defend me against any perceived “anti-male” slights–even as others who were POC, disabled, LGBT, working class, etc. received no similiar defense against far more real and harmful instances of marginalization. And I saw the most of the feminist men around me receiving similiar privileges in these feminist spaces. So I can’t agree with the idea that men suffer any disadvantage just from being perceived as men, whether in feminist spaces or anywhere else. I can’t say I’ve experienced the same thing in all the feminist spaces I’ve been in but such a thing is irrelevant to my point. My point was that spaces where privileges are reversed exist, not that feminist communities is one of them. None the less, listing a series of what I would believe to be shuffled conditions of privilege would vastly derail the thread and would not “prove” you incorrect, so I am simply forced to disagree, and hope others within the social justice community feel the same.
LotusBecca, So I can’t agree with the idea that men suffer any disadvantage just from being perceived as men, whether in feminist spaces or anywhere else. I don’t think we’ll be able to solve this, and here’s why. From my perspective, what you’re doing in your reply is telling me that *my perspective is wrong* instead of accepting that *this is my perspective*, that, for me (and others), it often feels that way. It’s sort of the equivalent of “mansplaining” – you telling me that my understanding of reality is wrong – and it’s wrong *because of* my privilege, because usually having that privilege implies, in your opinion, that I have a distorted sense of reality. And, being the one who has privilege, I can’t legitimately challenge you in that discourse and, if I were to accept the premise of my own distortet sense of reality, the only logical response is deferral. That, however, is the ultimate intellectual oppression, so we’re stuck as long as we’re applying privilege as an epistemological tool (as opposed to an individual tool of introspection). Using this system basically leaves me (logically) powerless to disagree on specific issues without first getting around the epistemological problems posed by the discourse model that is used. That’s why this stuff keeps coming up even though it’s annoying. The point of intersectionality has tradtionality not been to “only allow” certain dimensions, but rather to BROADEN the number of dimensions that are being considered. Oh sure, the idea is right. But if you think this to the logical end, as, as mentioned, Judith Butler has done, you end up with individualism. To be useful politically, intersectionality *must* be reductive, and it is – it will never be able to correctly understand even a single individual. So, again, I understand the (political) benefit, but it should also be clear that a priori valuing some dimensions and not others is problematic.
Sam, you’re looking at this waaaay too abstractly and tying yourself up in all kinds of knots of big words and convoluted reasoning. What is really important to you here? I take it that you feel like your perspective have been repeatedly and unfairly dismissed in feminist spaces simply because you are a man. OK. I believe that this is how it’s been for you. But please understand that, as far as I can observe, this hasn’t been the experience of most male feminists. And if you think differently in regard to the experience of most men, you’ll need actual semblance of evidence to convince me, not just a long series of assertions and then name dropping Judith Butler. Also, Sam, please consider the possibility that your arguments are being dismissed not because of your privilege, male or otherwise, but because they don’t really seem to make much sense and you say plenty of things that aren’t factually true, as I addressed in a longer post to you that’s in moderation. Being a man may give you a leg up in feminist spaces (in my subjective, fallible opinion), as it does elsewhere, but it still won’t automatically ensure that people will take you seriously.
The idea of a “privileged” trait that is a bonus in every single situation is one I do not subscribe to. A privilege doesn’t cancel out an oppression. There is no zero-sum where everyone comes out equal in the end. A poor, gay, cisgender White man has male, racial, and cisgender privilege over a wealthy, hetero, trans, Asian woman, but that doesn’t mean he still isn’t oppressed because of his economic status and his sexuality. Also, oppression is not based on majority population versus minority population. (There’s a reason we’re called “The 99%”.) Just because a White person is in a situation we’re he’s the only White man in the room, does not mean he is now the one being oppressed. The *systems* of Whiteness, misogyny, heteronormativity, etc. that are the foundation of the oppression do not just disappear. You keep bringing up “White student at Howard” in your analogies, but you forget that the reason Howard and other HBCUs were founded were because Black people *were*not*allowed* to attend a school of higher education anywhere else. HBCUs are still up against the stigma of not being as credible as other colleges and universities just for the fact that they are HBCUs. So excuse me (or don’t; whatev) if being the lone White guy in a sea of Black academia does not get a lot of sympathy from me.
Hey LotusBecca Sam, you’re looking at this waaaay too abstractly and tying yourself up in all kinds of knots of big words and convoluted reasoning. I don’t believe I am, but I am aware that most feminists aren’t usually thinking about the epistemological consequences of the terms they’re using while using them – to them, like to you, the terms have a less strict meaning. What is really important to you here? I take it that you feel like your perspective have been repeatedly and unfairly dismissed in feminist spaces simply because you are a man. OK. I believe that this is how it’s been for you. But please understand that, as far as I can observe, this hasn’t been the experience of most male feminists. Well, yeah, it’s taken years to “learn basic feminist”, and I’m still not fluent, as you can see here 😉 I doubt I ever can be, because, well.. you know. I’m also reluctant to call myself a feminist because of that. And if you think differently in regard to the experience of most men, you’ll need actual semblance of evidence to convince me, not just a long series of assertions and then name dropping Judith Butler. She’s important in this context because she logically removed clearly defined subjects of oppression and privilege. Also, Sam, please consider the possibility that your arguments are being dismissed not because of your privilege, male or otherwise, but because they don’t really seem to make much sense and you say plenty of things that aren’t factually true, as I addressed in a longer post to you that’s in moderation. That’s a (remote ;)) possibility, of course! Looking forward to reading your reply in moderation 🙂
Oh sure, the idea is right. But if you think this to the logical end, as, as mentioned, Judith Butler has done, you end up with individualism. I think that’s only a problem if you regard all dimensions as significantly relevant to social position.
Well, yeah, it’s taken years to “learn basic feminist”, and I’m still not fluent, as you can see here 😉 I doubt I ever can be, because, well.. you know. I’m also reluctant to call myself a feminist because of that. OK, well at least you’re kinda self-aware on this. But the reason that you lack the ability and/or willingness to really accept or understand a feminist critique of patriarchy only tangentially relates to the fact that you are a man. There are plenty of male feminists, including on this very website, who understand feminism, are fluent, don’t deny their privilege, and are completely accepted by the feminist community. Mxe354 comes to mind since he just posted. The real in-group/out-group dynamic on a website like this is not women/men, but longtime, informed commenters (of any gender) who actually know what they are talking about vs. idiotic trolls (of any gender) who don’t know shit about feminism or progressive politics and flame out after a couple weeks. So basically you are misattributing your out-group status to being a man when it has very little to do with that. Now I’m not saying that you personally are an idiot or a troll in the strictest sense of those terms. I’ll be relativistic and say your arguments aren’t inherently stupid, but they do sound stupid to most of us, Judith Butler references notwithstanding.
@Sam So, I have privilege, therefore you have epistemic privilege, and I have to shut up. At which point, at least theoretically, *you’d* have the privilege and *I’d have epistemic privilege* and therefore you’d have to shut up. On that level the whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense anymore – as opposed to the general introspective level. The kind of privilege you have cannot be compared with the kind of privilege the other has. Yours is social privilege as a result of your status in society; the other’s is epistemic privilege as a result of their unique ability to fully observe the oppression they are facing (because they are the ones suffering from it). That’s not social privilege, at least not in any relevant sense. Therefore, I don’t think it follows that the one with epistemic privilege has to shut up as well. (I don’t think the socially privileged person ought to shut up just because of the other’s privilege, but let’s just assume that’s true for the sake of argument.)
And they should check their privilege and not assume that their experiences are universal or their opinions automatically correspond to reality. This is why I think that asking someone to check their privilege does not carry any presuppositions of individuality (as Sam argued earlier), because like you said, it’s just a reminder that not everything can be seen from the perspectives of privileged people.
LotusBecca, I’m white and have white privilege and have no problem with this article because I recognize my life IS easier because I’m white. And all white people could recognize this save for the fact that many (most?) are in massive denial. Easily most. Look, I’m not denying my male/cis/white/ablebodied/het/class/educational/nottoomanyneuroses/acouplemoredimensionsexcepttonsofmoney privilege on that level of analysis, as I’ve repeatedly said. Yes, my life would likely be harder than it is if things were different. I have all that privilege, and I’m probably not using it sufficiently to help make this world a better place. But, again, that’s not the level of discourse I’m concerned about. As I said, I’d propagate the use of the term privilege on that level myself, if its problematic epistemological nature were at least openly acknowledged. But I don’t think it is. People with privilege are generally told to shut up, not when they are talking about their own experiences, but when they are pontificating about other people’s experiences, experiences that they don’t know anything about. Well, usually, in gender debates, it’s about issues that affect both sides of the equation, so it’s often a bit more difficult than merely talking about one’s own experiences or pontificating about someone elses. Gender is a relational construct, after all. But it has been my experience that it is not uncommon to attempt to shut men up when they talk about their own experiences (particularly if they don’t speak “feminist”) even when those experiences appeared to be very relevant to the question at hand. I should note that, indeed, that is an experience mostly based on online debates. In real life, things are usually more civilised in this respect (both ways). I mean really, go through debates on this site and you’ll find tons of debates in which guys talk about their own experiences with respect to the matter at hand and they get told to check their privilege (“shut up, you’re a guy”), PHMT (“we know this, so no discussion is necessary”), that they’re probably Nice Guy’s ™ (“You’re pissed at women because you can’t get laid, so don’t bother us with your problems”), and, of course, whataboutzemenz (“really, can’t you just shut up, already”)? I’m not saying that this reaction is not the result of experience online, it probably is, and thus, in the strictest sense, it’s probably not merely because of the commenter being a man (appearing to be a man) but because of prior experiences with other commenters who appeared male. Still, the dynamic is very much reality. Maybe you’ll notice it next time (it’s also a problem, because it creates adverse selection of comments). That doesn’t mean that women know more than men about “everything related to gender” (let alone everything related to oppression). Men have a gender, too, and they are qualified to speak to their own experiences in regard to their own gender. Well, here’s a quote from plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/ Feminist standpoint theory claims an epistemic privilege over the character of gender relations, and of social and psychological phenomena in which gender is implicated, on behalf of the standpoint of women. So, while men may be qualified to speak about their experiences as men, usually, the feminist claim is that they don’t understand their own gendered experience as well as women. This is, apparently, still the epistemological basis of most (non-explicitly post-modern) feminist theory. Furthermore, it’s odd that you are implying feminism has a monopoly on “gender discourse” and “gender debates.” You’re right. It doesn’t. But it by and large has a monopoly on *INTELLIGENT* gender debate (not all feminist debates are intelligent gender debates, of course, but try finding an intelligent debate about gender outside of the feminist realm. Sure, there are *some* academic debates, but for general debate, what else is there?) Now I’m not saying that you personally are an idiot or a troll in the strictest sense of those terms. I’ll be relativistic and say your arguments aren’t inherently stupid, but they do sound stupid to most of us, Judith Butler references notwithstanding. So we agree to disagree? I’ll take that as a compliment, honestly 🙂
mxe354, therefore, I don’t think it follows that the one with epistemic privilege has to shut up as well. not merely because of the epistemic privilege, but because of the consequence I mentioned. Let’s assume your talking about x with someone, and you’re a person with assumed social privilege with respect to x and the person you’re talking to has no social privilege with respect to x, standpoint epistemology implies an epistemic privilege of the oppressed person. So the person you’re talking to is a priori defined as being better able to grasp x than you are *because of your assumed social privilege*. Thing is, once that has been established, the table necesarily turns, as automatic intellectual deferral to someone else’s opinion is the ultimate intellectual oppression. So, in turn, the person you talk to now has social privilege (with respect to your relationship) and *you* now logically have epistemic privilege with respect to the relationship you’re in with the person who holds epistemic privilege over you with respect to x. it’s just a reminder that not everything can be seen from the perspectives of privileged people. If it were universally acknowledged that “privilege” is merely that, again, I’d say, let’s go check our privilege right now… but it’s not only used that way.
Sam, Let’s assume your talking about x with someone, and you’re a person with assumed social privilege with respect to x and the person you’re talking to has no social privilege with respect to x, standpoint epistemology implies an epistemic privilege of the oppressed person. So the person you’re talking to is a priori defined as being better able to grasp x than you are *because of your assumed social privilege*. Thing is, once that has been established, the table necesarily turns, as automatic intellectual deferral to someone else’s opinion is the ultimate intellectual oppression. So, in turn, the person you talk to now has social privilege (with respect to your relationship) and *you* now logically have epistemic privilege with respect to the relationship you’re in with the person who holds epistemic privilege over you with respect to x. I missed the part about intellectual oppression – my bad. Anyway, I’m not sure if the social privilege of each person can be compared so easily. You have social privilege in regards to the wider society in that, if you were, say, a poor black lesbian, you would most likely have a much harder time in many aspects of life (education, careers, housing, etc.). But the social privilege of the other person as a result of the intellectual oppression you are facing cannot, I believe, be defined similarly. Maybe I’m missing something here, but that’s how I see it.
Thing is, once that has been established, the table necesarily turns, as automatic intellectual deferral to someone else’s opinion is the ultimate intellectual oppression. So your problem with the concept of privilege is that you will always be at the disadvantage in discussions about being a woman, being queer, being Trans, being a POC, etc. because you lack the lived experience of these things? And this is a problem you can’t just deal with? I’m serious, why is it such a problem? You disagreeing and not getting to be deemed an expert is a form of oppression? I just don’t see your abhorrence to not getting to be an important voice in all things. You’re not. No one is. I like to engage on discussions of race and racism, I try to always keep in mind my privilege as a white person. If I have a TRUTH that I deem unquestionable and I get shut down and told my privilege is showing I try to fucking think about and consider what I have said and how it is problematic. Hell, even if it’s someone else deemed problematic I try to listen, because I can always learn and I want to be a good ally, a genuine ally. Even in the exceptionally unlikely occasion that someone is needlessly attacking me, I would shut up. Because, once again, I am not an expert on the life of POC. I never will be. There is no way I can be.
librarygoose, To be fair, I don’t think Sam is chiefly concerned with being regarded as fundamentally unable to grasp the oppression that another group faces. And IIRC, he said a while back that knowing about one’s privilege is, in fact, important. Here, he’s just talking about what he deems incoherence in standpoint epistemology.
I get that. His problem is that inherit in privilege is the fact that he will not have privilege in discussions of his privilege. He deems it oppressive because “Check your privilege” can be used as a silencing tactic in academic discussion. But seriously, I have no idea why it bugs him so hard.
His problem is that inherit in privilege is the fact that he will not have privilege in discussions of his privilege. This. This. Yes. This! Frame it. Mount it. Librarygoose wins all internetz.
First of all, I want to say that I have enjoyed the conversation in this thread, and while it’s not on topic of the post, I have found it enlightening. LocusBecca (#86), OK. I believe that this is how it’s been for you. But please understand that, as far as I can observe, this hasn’t been the experience of most male feminists. And if you think differently in regard to the experience of most men, you’ll need actual semblance of evidence to convince me, not just a long series of assertions and then name dropping Judith Butler. My perception matches Sam’s (in the specific case of online feminist discourse). I am a male who often reads, but rarely participates, in feminist discourse. Obviously two voices do not prove anything (especially since you don’t know me), but I am piping up to provide you another data point for you. (from #83) Bullshit. That’s not what Natalie was saying at all. She wanted certain people to shut up, not because they are privileged, but because they don’t know what they are talking about and don’t understand basic sociology. For instance, like Natalie, I’m white and have white privilege and have no problem with this article because I recognize my life IS easier because I’m white. I agree with your sentiment about having no problem with this article. It’s pretty clear that privilege exists, and being aware of it is a good thing. In specific reference to the discussion you and Sam were having, privilege is often used well in the way you describe when people are speaking for others. However, in my perception, it has often been used as a silencing device, specifically in the online feminist sphere. It is a hard topic to show either side, because people’s perceptions of what is speaking for someone else differ. There is not always a clear divide between someone being silenced for speaking for others, and being silenced because the alternate viewpoint they present is not wanted to be heard. Also LocusBecca, as evidence of the kind of thing Sam is talking about, see the above posts by librarygoose and Angel H. You and Sam were having a civil discussion about the meaning of privilege and how it does or does not apply to feminist debates. librarygoose then asserted that Sam has a huge problem with the concept of privilege because he doesn’t have it, and claims that Sam feels the concept is oppressive. Sam has said several times that he is aware and agrees with the implications of privilege (see posts #61, #70, #94, etc.). It’s possible that I am misreading Sam, but I don’t think he ever says that privilege is oppressive. He does say that using privilege as a silencing tool can be oppressive, but that is a very different from saying that privilege itself is oppressive. In my experience, posters who present as male are not given the same benefit of the doubt that others are, and are much more likely to have their arguments extrapolated to “and I also love everything about the patriarchy”. Sam — I don’t think the privilege argument is nearly as circular as you make it sound. In regards to gender, you are privileged, and as such you should defer when somebody tells you that your experience doesn’t match theirs. Assuming there is a female “genered discussion” privelige (i.e. females have privilege when talking about gender privilege), then when discussing that privilege specifically, then you have epistemic privilege. That does not also mean you have epistemic privilege in gender. I realize this sentence is very convoluted, but it boils down to the fact that privilege is not a thing you universally have or don’t have, it’s something you have or don’t have in regards to a specific topic. It’s not the case that when a straight man and a straight woman talk about queer identity the woman has epistemic privilege. librarygoose, Sam was talking about the definition of privilege and its implications from an academic point of view, he was not being whiny about the fact that he has it. From post #99, it seems like you understand that. If that’s true, I don’t understand why you were so unfair in post #97. You imply that he does not “try to always keep in mind [his] privilege”, and does not “always learn” and “want to be a good all, a genuine ally”. I do not see where in his posts lead you from “sometimes I feel oppressed in genedered discussions” to Sam being a false ally who is unwilling to listen.
Easily most. Look, I’m not denying my male/cis/white/ablebodied/het/class/educational/nottoomanyneuroses/acouplemoredimensionsexcepttonsofmoney privilege on that level of analysis, as I’ve repeatedly said. Yes, my life would likely be harder than it is if things were different. I have all that privilege, and I’m probably not using it sufficiently to help make this world a better place. I’m really glad to hear this. It sounds like you recognize that you have a great deal of privilege, and you feel a little guilty that you are not using your favorable social position to push for benefical change in the world. Well, there’s no need to feel guilty. And at any point you can choose to step up your game as an ally to oppressed people if that’s what you want to do. But it has been my experience that it is not uncommon to attempt to shut men up when they talk about their own experiences (particularly if they don’t speak “feminist”) even when those experiences appeared to be very relevant to the question at hand. I should note that, indeed, that is an experience mostly based on online debates. You know, I know exactly what you’re talking about in this paragraph. Believe me. I used to identify and present as a man; I was active on feminist blogs before I fluently spoke “feminist.” I would talk about my views and while they were often well received, they also were frequently criticized, sometimes quite forcefully or dismissively. At different points, people said I was wasting their time with 101 level stuff, that I was being patronizing, that I was a Nice Guy or an asshole. . .during one conversation three years ago where I particularly regret my contribution I was (accurately) identified as engaging in rape apology. And I’d often feel defensive when I got these reactions; I’d often think that people were treating me unfairly. And occassionally I’d get pissed and act like a jerk. But you know what? Getting these responses helped me become a better person. Looking back, I appreciate every time someone has called me out for an ignorant view or unexamined privilege. And in the long run, I decided it would be better to keep an open mind and start welcoming the critiques. I thought it was important that these discussions were making me uncomfortable. I came to realize that recognizing one’s ignorance (contrary to how you feel) is NOT a form of intellectual oppression, at all. It’s liberating. When you accept that others know more than you about something, then you are able to listen to what they are saying and learn something new. It’s like librarygoose was saying in regard to a white person talking about race with a person of color–points I completely agree with. If I’m talking to a person of color about race issues, I don’t want to be regarded as equally knowledgable about race so that it’s easier for me to score rhetorical points in a debate. My main concern on race issues is that the oppression of POC is horrific and wrong and needs to end. I want to listen and learn to what POC say about their own lives so that I can be as effective an ally as I possibly can be in their fight against oppression. This requires me understanding that I still have some subconscious racist ideas and feelings that I need to get over, as well as understanding that even if I get over all that, my limited perspective as a privileged white person will still always be with me and to understand things I’ll need to stay humble and realisitic, whether I’m introspecting OR talking to others. So, while men may be qualified to speak about their experiences as men, usually, the feminist claim is that they don’t understand their own gendered experience as well as women. This is, apparently, still the epistemological basis of most (non-explicitly post-modern) feminist theory. Well, I would agree that most women have a richer understanding of what it’s like to be a woman than most men do about what it’s like to be a man. This is because being part of an oppressed or marginalized group forces you to become more cognizant and reflective on that part of your identity. Privileged parts of your identity are more likely to seem “normal” and therefore be more invisibe to you. For example, I have a far deeper understanding of what it means for me to be transgender or to have social anxiety than I do of what it means for me to be white or to have a college education. Perhaps you can relate to this Sam. You said you don’t have a ton of money, so therefore you are part of the 99% and experience class oppression. Now I’m just speculating, but perhaps you also experience disadvantages due to something like being a political leftist (a marginalized political group) or an atheist/agnostic (a marginalized religious group)? And perhaps you’d notice that you seem aware of the social consequences of having certain political ideals, in a way that centrist independent voters AREN’T aware of the social consequences for them of their views. But [feminism] by and large has a monopoly on *INTELLIGENT* gender debate. Well, Sam, as a feminist, I’ll take that as a compliment! My past snippiness probably revealed how I’ve been annoyed with you at points, but overall, I’m enjoying engaging with you.
[P]rivilege is often used well in the way you describe when people are speaking for others. However, in my perception, it has often been used as a silencing device, specifically in the online feminist sphere. Calling someone out for unexamined privilege is not the same thing as silencing them. People like me or librarygoose appreciate being called out for unexamined privilege and use it as an opportunity to learn more about others and society and grow as a person. And I think this is a pretty common perspective among political leftists who believe in intersectionality. The people who generally experience being called out for theirs privilege as “silencing,” as far as I can tell, are those who don’t seem to really want to examine their privilege. These people don’t feel that they can agree with or entertain the possible validity of the critique they’re getting, and therefore their only options are to be silent or get defensive. Also [Lotus]Becca, as evidence of the kind of thing Sam is talking about, see the above posts by librarygoose and Angel H. You and Sam were having a civil discussion about the meaning of privilege and how it does or does not apply to feminist debates, librarygoose then asserted that Sam has a huge problem with the concept of privilege because he doesn’t have it, and claims that Sam feels the concept is oppressive. I agree with librarygoose, and I certainly don’t think she was trying to silence Sam. I think she was reaching out in an attempt to relate to him. And Sam does seem to have a problem with the idea of being in a discussion with someone and getting called out for his privilege. He is fine with reflecting on his privilege in solitude on his own time. But he thinks when people in discussions critique him as he is displaying privilege this is evidence of a faulty epistemiology on their part and is a type of intellectual oppression. At least that’s how I’m reading him.
Calling someone out for unexamined privilege is not the same thing as silencing them. Completely agreed. The people who generally experience being called out for theirs privilege as “silencing,” as far as I can tell, are those who don’t seem to really want to examine their privilege. There are a lot of people, especially on the internet, who should be called out. But I do feel that it happens to a fair number of people who don’t deserve it. What the percentage is probably widely depends on the site. It’s not always the term “privilege” specifically, but also “man-splaining” and general sacarstic replies of “yay menz, guess we wimmins should get back in the kitchen”. You have not at all engaged in this behavior in this thread, you have in fact been the opposite of that. I agree with librarygoose, and I certainly don’t think she was trying to silence Sam. My language was imprecise, I’m sorry. I don’t think she was trying to silence him either. I think she was reaching out in an attempt to relate to him. Then in the future I would suggest that there are better ways of relating than being aggressive and suggesting he only cares about being important. He is fine with reflecting on his privilege in solitude on his own time. But he thinks when people in discussions critique him as he is displaying privilege this is evidence of a faulty epistemiology on their part and is a type of intellectual oppression. At least that’s how I’m reading him. That’s not how I am reading him, but maybe I’m wrong. I read him as trying to question what seems to be an inconsistancy in the way the word privilege is used, in that it both applies to and does not apply to a large group of people. I think he was then saying that using privilege as an excuse (?) to not listen to the voices of privileged individuals when talking about their own experiences is a form of oppression. I don’t think he was saying that the concept of privilege itself is oppressive.
When you peeps are saying episteomlogical or whatever it is, what exactly do you mean? I looked up the word but I don’t really get how you’re using it.
But I do feel that it happens to a fair number of people who don’t deserve it. I think this is the crux of where you and I see things differently. I assume we’ve been looking at some of the same sites and threads. . .and you see men getting dismissed unfairly relatively frequently; I see it happening almost never. Just as you believe librarygoose was being “aggressive” while I don’t think she was. So it’s pretty clear to me we just interpret the same phenomena differently. And most of the time even the most snarky and sarcastic of dismissals seem pretty warranted to me, and the men who are being dismissed seem pretty fucking sexist. So yeah. That said, I know where you’re coming from. Before I was such a committed feminist (and leftist) I would often interpret things in the way you are currently. I believed that women or POC or queers on internet forums were often being overly aggressive and unfair to those with privilege. Needless to say, as my political perspective evolved so did my interpretation of what was happening on these websites.
Hey everyone, sorry, I’m rather busy this weekend… couple of replies – C (#101), It’s not the case that when a straight man and a straight woman talk about queer identity the woman has epistemic privilege. Ideally, that’s how it should be. But as I already mentioned above, a) feminist standpoint epistemology claims an epistemic privilege for women *with regards to gender*. So, I guess whether or not that includes a debate about queer identity depends on the discussion of the scope of “gender”. That becomes particularly relevant with respect to *male* experiences, and almost inextricably problematic with respect to different perspectives with respect to a shared gendered reality. It’s a way of saying – if this is how he sees it, and that is how she sees it, she’s right. At that point it’s not about empathy or understanding other perspectives, it’s about an axiomatic structure that predefines who’s right and who’s wrong. Again – I am aware that most feminists don’t use the terms in that way when they’re saying “privilege”, but it’s still a problematic term. And I’d be happier using it if that problematic nature were recognized (and maybe addressed somehow). LotusBecca (#102), At different points, people said I was wasting their time with 101 level stuff, that I was being patronizing, that I was a Nice Guy or an asshole. . … and probably occasionally at the same time 😉 But you know what? Getting these responses helped me become a better person. Looking back, I appreciate every time someone has called me out for an ignorant view or unexamined privilege. Well, glad it worked out well for you. But I think you’re probably giving a bit of false credit to people who attacked you ad hominem for expressing your opinion, because you later changed your mind about some things. That you may now share the point of view of those who attacked you before doesn’t make their behaviour right ex-post, in my opinion. I came to realize that recognizing one’s ignorance (contrary to how you feel) is NOT a form of intellectual oppression, at all. It’s liberating. When you accept that others know more than you about something, then you are able to listen to what they are saying and learn something new. Oh sure. But again, that is different being in a debate where one’s position is defined as being wrong ex-ante. Well, I would agree that most women have a richer understanding of what it’s like to be a woman than most men do about what it’s like to be a man. Possibly, although I’d say it’s probably impossible to operationalize what it means to have a richter understanding of “oneself”. But, again, as I repeated in my reply to C above – and sorry if that was unclear from what I said earlier – that’s not what I’m concerned about: It’s that there’s a claim saying – women understand gender better, and that includes *your* gendered experience. When you raise a problem about something, and women don’t think it’s a problem, it’s not a problem. Well, Sam, as a feminist, I’ll take that as a compliment! My past snippiness probably revealed how I’ve been annoyed with you at points, but overall, I’m enjoying engaging with you. Same here. It’s been an unusually civil debate 🙂 LotusBecca(#106), I think this is the crux of where you and I see things differently. I assume we’ve been looking at some of the same sites and threads. . .and you see men getting dismissed unfairly relatively frequently; I see it happening almost never. Just as you believe librarygoose was being “aggressive” while I don’t think she was. So it’s pretty clear to me we just interpret the same phenomena differently. Exactly. So how do we decide whether C’s perception of those debates is merely an entitled expression of his privilege (the expecation to be given the benefit of the doubt, for example, to not be dismissed, being nice guyed, or assholed for views that are legitimaly problematic and not to be accepted without calling him out ad hominem) or a fair critique of the style of the discussion? Tough one. We’d probably have to apply something like ideal type speach to eventually get to the bottom of the misunderstandings – unless we assume epistemic privilege on behalf of women with respect to gender matters, which makes it easy to decide who’s right or wrong on this matter… and that’s the problem.
Sam, I think you are (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting standpoint feminism. I’m not familiar with the particular encyclopedia you cited, but I’m reading about standpoint feminism on Wikipedia, and it sounds much different than how you’re portraying it. Personally, I’ve gotten my ideas about how oppressed people tend to be more knowledgable than their oppressors about the nature of the social dynamics they’re in mainly from the author bell hooks. And my own observation, of course. So that’s where my perspective is coming from. And I don’t think you’ll find many feminists who say that it’s true a priori that all women know more about gender than all men. That’s a very rigid concept that I certainly don’t adhere to, nor, as far as I can tell, do most of the people on this blog. Maybe some of the Neo-Victorian cultural feminists on the “radfem” blogs believe in that. In my opinion, life is too complicated to make sweeping claims about who is always going to be “right” and who is always going to be “wrong.” That doesn’t mean that male privilege doesn’t often blind guys to the facts. But there’s no absolutes here. . .you’ll have to keep an open mind if you want to determine whether your male privilege is blinding you in a particular situation. Often it will be. Sometimes it won’t be. The main problem is many guys automatically assume that their privilege isn’t blinding them when it, in fact, is. And they make this assumption because it causes emotional distress and cognitive dissonance to accept a challenge to one’s fundamental beliefs about the world. Well, glad it worked out well for you. But I think you’re probably giving a bit of false credit to people who attacked you ad hominem for expressing your opinion, because you later changed your mind about some things. That you may now share the point of view of those who attacked you before doesn’t make their behaviour right ex-post, in my opinion. I’m a big girl. I can handle the occassional sarcastic jab. And actually, I prefer it when people are open with their real emotions, including frustration, rather than maintaining a false veneer of politeness or lifeless rationality. So how do we decide whether C’s perception of those debates is merely an entitled expression of his privilege (the expecation to be given the benefit of the doubt, for example, to not be dismissed, being nice guyed, or assholed for views that are legitimaly problematic and not to be accepted without calling him out ad hominem) or a fair critique of the style of the discussion? Things like “entitled” and “fair” aren’t things that objectively exist out there in the world. They are subjective value judgments that we as individuals apply to phenomena. And that’s fine. It’s OK for people to disagree about things. Some of the miscommunication that you and I are having, Sam, I think stems from a fundamental difference about how we view the world. You seem to think there is some sort of absolute moral or discursive truth that transcends the brute, empirical phenomena that exist in life. I don’t. All interpretation, all judgments of “rightness” and “wrongness” are inherently subjective in my opinion. And even though you are privileged, Sam, I would still encorage you not to mindlessly defer to other people’s judgment in a servile way. If you think women on blogs are treating you unfairly, then hold on to that opinion. But keep an open heart and an open mind. It will be in your own best interests in the long run, even when it’s scary.
Lotus, you’re right about the crux of our disagreement. Even considering that, I’m not sure we agree about the facts of the state of things (specifically the meaning of ‘relative frequency’). I fully agree that a majority of times the snark is warranted. For example, would you consider Sam’s comments to be “pretty fucking sexist”, and thus meriting the snark? I would say very much no. Sam, perhaps I’m wrong, but the concept of privilege is distinct from rights to speak. Privilege talks about the state of society and structures that benefit one group over another. Listening to underprivileged groups is a guideline that is an answer to ‘what should we do about privilege’. Even if the arguments you’re making about the circular logic of epistemic privilege are correct (which I don’t think they are), they have no implications on privilege as a concept, merely what should be done about privilege. Also, I don’t understand what you said at the end of #107. If I ignore the parenthetical phrase, it makes sense, but the phrase in parentheses appears to contradict the rest of the paragraph. And I don’t think you’ll find many feminists who say that it’s true a priori that all women know more about gender than all men. Well, I would agree that most women have a richer understanding of what it’s like to be a woman than most men do about what it’s like to be a man. I think both of those statements are more or less correct. However, I also feel that there’s a tendency for some female posters in the feminist sphere to extrapolate from “women have a richer understanding” to “I specifically have a richer understanding than you, fellow specific male poster, and thus I am right”. This is not the same as believing that they are right over any hypothetical man which could possibly exist, but present them with any specific male and they will believe that they are right over him.
I think that’s only a problem if you regard “all” dimensions as significantly relevant to social position. I believe they are. Well, I would agree that most women have a richer understanding of what it’s like to be a woman than most men do about what it’s like to be a man. Is there any data to support this theory? A privilege doesn’t cancel out an oppression. Agreed, I however also believe the reverse is true. Also, oppression is not based on majority population versus minority population. (There’s a reason we’re called “The 99%”.) Just because a White person is in a situation we’re he’s the only White man in the room, does not mean he is now the one being oppressed. Also agreed, being a straight white man in an environment that oppresses straight white men for being straight, white, and male does. I would say oppression is based on the social context between people within different environments, and the oppression shifts with each environment.
Just a note on unaccomplished: tigtog mentioned zir presence as pinkie pie, but I wanted to add randomized to that list and note that continued morphing will result in a ban.
I am also confused by Sam’s version of standpoint feminism, and the idea that there is some sort of formal logic in the idea of privilege that results in an inconsistency. Side note, I haven’t seen anyone answer the question about how you are using “epistemological”, did I miss it? unaccomplished/pinkie pie/randomized, I would say oppression is based on the social context between people within different environments, and the oppression shifts with each environment. Will you acknowledge that the nature of this is also influenced by the context of the other social environments people encounter?
Also agreed, being a straight white man in an environment that oppresses straight white men for being straight, white, and male does. I would say oppression is based on the social context between people within different environments, and the oppression shifts with each environment. So is what you’re trying to say is that you think a feminist site like this is an environment which oppresses straight white men for being straight, white and male?
@Caperton I didn’t realize earlier that name morphing counted as “sock puppeting”. I meant no disrespect. Will you acknowledge that the nature of this is also influenced by the context of the other social environments people encounter? Yes, I would very much agree that while every environment offers it’s own privileges to different groups of people, and that there are some privileges that present themselves within more environments than others. However, I would also say that the participation within these environments is not experienced by all members of a group of people. For example, of most the executive business environments likely grant privilege to cis men, but cis men operating within the environments that don’t, stand to not only exist in a field without privilege (read as a “fair” environment) but one where they are oppressed because they are cis and male. Thus making the idea of “special traits” that don’t offer “status” but instead make the entire game easier across the bored an inaccurate representation IMHO. A white man attempting to do business within an Asian or middle eastern business environment may be privileged economically within those spheres of influence but would almost certainly experience some oppression for being white. As was stated earlier, just because one is privileged does not mean that one is not also oppressed. It also doesn’t mean that the traits that cause your privilege in some areas don’t also cause your oppression in others.
@Chiara I am not a straight, white, man. As such I can not speak to weather or not they feel oppressed in this space.
@unaccomplished: Simply because you may potentially find yourself under a very specific situation where your previously-exploitable privilege no longer grants you status doesn’t mean that you can dismiss the oppressor-victim reality of societies at large. This is also ignoring the fact that there are plenty of universals; male>”non-male”, able-bodied>”non-able-bodied”, heterosexual>”non-heterosexual”, etc.
Simply because you may potentially find yourself under a very specific situation where your previously-exploitable privilege no longer grants you status doesn’t mean that you can dismiss the oppressor-victim reality of societies at large. “society at large” is made of “specific situations”, each with their own rules on which personal attributes constitute privilege or oppression. Within each situation, the oppressor-victim reality shifts, because designation of oppressor and victim shift. And when these rolls shift, the previously privileged individual is some times not just “not privileged any more”, but are actively oppressed instead. Being white in a bored room may or may not grant you privilege within discussion. Being white in the wrong part of town after hours may or may not get you shot. The latter is not just “lack of privilege” but active oppression. This is also ignoring the fact that there are plenty of universals; male>”non-male”, able-bodied>”non-able-bodied”, heterosexual>”non-heterosexual”, etc. None of these things are universally true, this is my exact argument.