Question | +3 | 0 | -3 |
Race: | White | Asian | Black or Hispanic |
Born in: | N. America or Western Europe | Asia | Anywhere else in the world |
Assistance from family | Trust fund | Helped when they could | no financial assistance |
Family: | Close-knit | Family with problems | no family at all |
I’ve been wondering if there’s a simple way to measure privilege. I don’t expect it to be perfect, but possibly a way to score ourselves with a bit of objectivity.Wow, this looks like the bigoted stuff we hear from the regressive wing of the political left. Reminds me of a 'friend' who wouldn't date "white" guys because of their privilege. In a devil's advocate argument, she upheld her claim to native ancestry while saying I was totally white because I was only 1/64th native; I wasn't minority enough to negate my privilege...anyway..Any thoughts on this concept and on adding to it?
Question +3 0 -3 Race: White Asian Black or Hispanic Born in: N. America or Western Europe Asia Anywhere else in the world Assistance from family Trust fund Helped when they could no financial assistance Family: Close-knit Family with problems no family at all
Wouldn't it be used as an ingroup/outgroup tool for social justice warriors to rally around in their crusade against the other?Yup, I used to have friends like that. They were always asking everyone to check their privilege. They weren't hurting anyone, but it did get annoying after awhile.
The regressive left is "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities"eh, I use it more broadly than that.
Bigotry happens within minority communities because we all live in a racist oppressive patriarchy. Of course minorities can be bigoted. Of course black men can be sexist. Of course some Japanase Americans look down on Thai people. I could go on, but the we all live in a bigoted society, and bigotry towards each other is the default. Many people would like to move away from bigotry, but it's hard.
Anyways, I was actually coming here to say the opposite, that checking your privilege is passe. Individuals are more nuanced then that. I'm black and was raised by a single mom, but my black father paid for my private school and all our living expenses when I was a kid. I had a trust fund too (only 8k though).
http://www.checkmyprivilege.com/
ETA:I was actually thinking that I would prefer to start a post here on the forums by admitting I score a +75 on the privilege meter, rather than having to endure another lecture accusing people of not understanding how privileged they are. On some threads, the privilege arguments and justifications are longer than the commentary on-topic. So that's what I've found annoying. Just trying to take a shortcut to get there faster.QuoteWouldn't it be used as an ingroup/outgroup tool for social justice warriors to rally around in their crusade against the other?Yup, I used to have friends like that. They were always asking everyone to check their privilege. They weren't hurting anyone, but it did get annoying after awhile.
On some threads, the privilege arguments and justifications are longer than the commentary on-topic
such as curtailing freedom of speech in support of an advocated freedom from offense (banning halloween costumes, Jerry Seinfeld on campus, cartoons of Mohammed), using racial slurs against those who do not advocate racial justice, shutting down free thought and open discussion against those who do not fit in with one's view of progressivism, setting the bar lower for non-privileged folks ("The soft bigotry of low expectations"), etc.
I think we can have this discussion because it hits on the broader theme on why someone would be compelled to group people by "privilege-ness". I wasn't looking to go point for point, because these are just illustrations for the broader meme which is liberal regressives. Looks like we have agreement on that first point and third point so going onto Seinfeld. Yeah, he feels he cannot make jokes because the atmosphere is PC-on-steroids and that is his choice. So, sure let's just swap him out for Bill Maher's disinvitation, or anyone in this list: https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Disinvitation-Report-2014-Infographic.pngQuoteOn some threads, the privilege arguments and justifications are longer than the commentary on-topic
Well, I find it entertaining, but hey, some people might like your plan.Quotesuch as curtailing freedom of speech in support of an advocated freedom from offense (banning halloween costumes, Jerry Seinfeld on campus, cartoons of Mohammed), using racial slurs against those who do not advocate racial justice, shutting down free thought and open discussion against those who do not fit in with one's view of progressivism, setting the bar lower for non-privileged folks ("The soft bigotry of low expectations"), etc.
These examples are interesting. Those who want to ban halloween costumes can be on the left (costumes are sexist) or on the right (costumes are too sexy). For Jerry, I think that's an interesting question, the line between distasteful, and bigoted. I think people always have the right to be offended. Have you heard of any colleges that banned Jerry Seinfeld? In his interview he says that he doesn't do college tours anymore, because people don't laugh at his jokes. That's his right. But colleges banning him would be a whole different thing. I couldn't find any ones that banned him in my cursory google search.
I'm confused about the cartoons of Mohammed that you brought up. As a liberal I support the cartoons, and I'm against banning them. Is it supposed to be the opposite?
Using racial slurs and shutting down open discussion is terrible no matter what. I do understand though, as conservatives can come off as angry, which makes the liberal who is trying to explain something upset, and doesn't want to talk anymore. I see this happen VERY often.
For setting the bar lower for non-privileged folks. That goes pretty deep, and goes to what kind of society do you want to live in. Anecdotaly my ex-girlfriend, who was white, was held to a lower standard to get into college. Affirmative action for poor people. I can see that a rich person could be upset that she didn't deserve her spot and that rich person had to go to another school. But I can also see from the university's side, wanted to give someone a leg up in life as well as wanted the school to be 99% rich kids, instead of 100% rich kids. But if you don't think that privilege exists, I can see how that would be confusing/ unfair.
Looks like I hijacked your thread BlueHouse...
http://www.checkmyprivilege.com/
I’ve been wondering if there’s a simple way to measure privilege. I don’t expect it to be perfect, but possibly a way to score ourselves with a bit of objectivity.Wow, this looks like the bigoted stuff we hear from the regressive wing of the political left. Reminds me of a 'friend' who wouldn't date "white" guys because of their privilege. In a devil's advocate argument, she upheld her claim to native ancestry while saying I was totally white because I was only 1/64th native; I wasn't minority enough to negate my privilege...anyway..Any thoughts on this concept and on adding to it?
Question +3 0 -3 Race: White Asian Black or Hispanic Born in: N. America or Western Europe Asia Anywhere else in the world Assistance from family Trust fund Helped when they could no financial assistance Family: Close-knit Family with problems no family at all
edit: I know you are well meaning but would this index of your lead to any actions that aren't discriminatory? Wouldn't it be used as an ingroup/outgroup tool for social justice warriors to rally around in their crusade against the other?
Just my musings, the privilege meter is scoring high on my bullshit meter.
The point of thinking about privilege is not so a person can wear it like a badge ... It's so that each of us, when we start thinking about how lazy / stupid / undisciplined / misguided other people are, we can check our own selves and try to put ourselves in their shoes. So that we don't assume we are all starting from the same starting line. So we can stop patting our own selves on the back for how awesome we are in comparison to others, when really we had a lot of support and helpful circumstances that others might not have had.
The point of thinking about privilege is not so a person can wear it like a badge ... It's so that each of us, when we start thinking about how lazy / stupid / undisciplined / misguided other people are, we can check our own selves and try to put ourselves in their shoes. So that we don't assume we are all starting from the same starting line. So we can stop patting our own selves on the back for how awesome we are in comparison to others, when really we had a lot of support and helpful circumstances that others might not have had.
Really, your level of privilege doesn't matter to anyone else, unless you are making some harsh / unwarranted / myopic points about what other people should be doing with their lives.
Scalzi has an interesting POV: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
If I wanted to win the game of life as easily as I could, I would probably create a character that is born wealthy, attractive, able-bodied, educated, great family, nice and safe location, white, and heterosexual. ...
The point of thinking about privilege is not so a person can wear it like a badge ... It's so that each of us, when we start thinking about how lazy / stupid / undisciplined / misguided other people are, we can check our own selves and try to put ourselves in their shoes. So that we don't assume we are all starting from the same starting line. So we can stop patting our own selves on the back for how awesome we are in comparison to others, when really we had a lot of support and helpful circumstances that others might not have had.
Really, your level of privilege doesn't matter to anyone else, unless you are making some harsh / unwarranted / myopic points about what other people should be doing with their lives.
Here's the problem I have with this whole concept as I see it applied in action. Once someone is given a "free pass due to lack of privilege" on any ONE topic they are not expected to be able to succeed in ALL endeavors. I find this mindset maddening.
...
I'm perfectly happy paying taxes to help people on their path to success. Give them a leg up as they do the work to succeed? All for it.
I am totally unwilling to pay taxes to help people stay on a path to failure, and to raise more children to fail in the same way.
Scalzi has an interesting POV: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/If I wanted to win the game of life as easily as I could, I would probably create a character that is born wealthy, attractive, able-bodied, educated, great family, nice and safe location, white, and heterosexual. ...
The problem I have with this "difficulty setting" model (and to some extent the privilege concept in general) is that it portrays various personal attributes as being strict "disadvantages", while ignoring that these attributes are part of what make us who we are and shape our life experiences.
When you say that if you had omniscient powers, you would choose to be born as a person with a certain set of privileged characteristics, what you are missing is that that person wouldn't be you at all. You ended up the way you did as a result of the sum of everything you went through in life, as influenced by certain innate characteristics. A different version of "you", born into different circumstances and facing different challenges, is not just a version of you with an easier difficulty setting -- it's a different person entirely. When you say you would rather be that other person, what you are really saying is that you wish that you had never existed.
Even if a person is facing a hard time in life, do you really think that they would better off if they never existed? Most people wouldn't choose to erase themselves from existence just because they have some of the attributes in your list.
The narrative shouldn't be that it's better to be a man than a woman, or to be neurotypical rather than autistic, or to be thin rather than fat (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/what-will-replace-trucks-as-the-next-dumb-purchase/msg827263/#msg827263), or any variety of other attributes. These diverse characteristics lead to differing and intersectional life experiences that make people different from each other (or in some cases, actually not that different), but not worse. Any disadvantages come from societal structures, not from the characteristics.
The advocacy should be directed at making society more egalitarian for everybody, not at saying that some characteristics are worse than others.
A poor person is going to say life would be easier if they had money, not that they are better off if they didn't exist.
A poor person is going to say life would be easier if they had money, not that they are better off if they didn't exist.
The "difficulty setting" model works well for wealth, but that's mainly because wealth is sui generis relative to the other things under discussion. Rather than being an innate characteristic itself, it's more along the lines of something that is loosely predicted by certain other characteristics. In other words, wealth is a "second-order" privilege. For first-order privileges, the difficulty setting model really does not work very well, for the reasons I gave in my previous post (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/privilege-meter/msg994529/#msg994529). From the balance of your post, it seems you actually agree with me, so I won't be belabour the point, other than to say that the "difficulty setting" model is very problematic for the reasons given previously.
This is all part of a larger meme of otherizing in terms of identity politics, such as classifying oneself, or another, by privilege as if such generalizations can meaningfully describe the attributes of a person.
For example. we no longer have codified, institutional racism so we look for microaggressions. It's getting harder and harder to find boogeymen.
Yeah, this is a great way to divide / separate / segregate people instead of recognizing we're all humans, created by God with inalienable rights and unique souls, and getting on with life.
People who aren't white men aren't just making this shit up. It's just that you don't see it or have to deal with it on a daily basis, that's why you think it doesn't exist.
And that my friend is the crux of the privilege conversation. Just because you don't see it happening doesn't mean it's not happening.
I'll walk that back. We live in a time where institutions are now seeking to institute discriminatory practices to the detriment of the majority, such as african american only housing or race-based admissions. But as far as discrimination from the majority we have addressed major sources of institutional racism from the Fair Housing Act, Civil Rights Act, 14th amendment, the 19th amendment and so on. I'm not aware of codified institutional practices in the US that say "Thou shalt allow or deny provisions of programs according to race."For example. we no longer have codified, institutional racism so we look for microaggressions. It's getting harder and harder to find boogeymen.
You really think there is no longer codified institutional racism?
Wow. I want to live in your world.
In a conversation it is not helpful to shut down discussions the way you have. This is something I decried earlier. If you would like to further the discussion, I have open ears.