Political Correctness and Examinations of Privilege

[Robin Of House Hill]

What would you find suitable?

[Shryke]

I did, by using several adjectives and more than one post.

Adjectives are not an argument. You expressed that is was something, you did not explain why it was that thing.

No I am not, and neither is my point.

I even called the article racist.

Again, white heterosexual men born into poverty should be rising out of classes they were born in at a higher rate than all others if it is indeed the easiest setting of life. If not, the author needs to add more adjectives besides male, white, and heterosexual. Not that it wouldnt still be a shit article if he did.

Nice job cutting off the part of my post where I address exactly this.

Again, since you don't think racism is non-existent, your point doesn't even make sense. Black people (for example) are disadvantaged further then white people of exactly similar circumstance.

[Daario's*before*Snows]

Can you just elaborate on what you think of privilege as an institutional force? Do you recognize that there are advantages to being straight, being white, being male?

Again, these are not necessarily indicators that every SWM has it great. It's bonuses that are likely to apply.

Im saying for these white advantages to apply, it takes more than simply being male and heterosexual.

You need to be raised in a relatively low crime area, you need the majority of people around you to also be white, you need parents that are also in on the white privilege.

Many other factors apply, not just heterosexual and white.

[Shryke]

So once you are aware of your privileges, what next? Give up being white, heterosexual or male?

Solo is convincing, class problems seem more worthy of a study, and a more efficient point of attack to correct inequalities.

No, work to make sure society doesn't disadvantage those who aren't white and heterosexual and male. It's not complicated.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Something I've been thinking about is how tightly tied together all the "isms" are. For instance, it is my impression that at least in the US it is easier for a man (holding all else equal) to be upwardly mobile in social class (that tricky thing that we don't acknowledge exists). That is, it is my impression that a woman is "punished" more for a social solecisms than a man would be for the same or similar transgression. In addition it is my impression that the "barriers for entry" are lower for men. I don't know for sure but I would imagine this holds true x isms. Thoughts?

I've read it's more of a substitution effect. People were tested for racial and sexaul predjudices and they found that that black man were more often subject to negative racial biases than black women were. I'll see if I can dig it up later.

[Stalker]

Yeah, there's a chunk of it that's sappy bullshit no doubt.

I have to wonder why you would post it then. There are certainly things one could discuss in relation to relative privilege and race issues, but linking such a poorly written piece isn't doing that cause any favour.

[Angalin]

I have to wonder why you would post it then. There are certainly things one could discuss in relation to relative privilege and race issues, but linking such a poorly written piece isn't doing that cause any favour.

Actually, I linked it, not Sci, because Scalzi's blog post is much more recent that the McIntosh piece and illustrates how much has *not* changed since McIntosh wrote her article 30-odd years ago. If you have other suggestions for related reading matter, do post links to those.

Wrt to how privilege, class, gender and race intersect: the other day I was chatting with a friend who'd spent some time in DC last fall to work on the Democratic campaign, and we briefly touched on how an African-American male became President before a white woman did. You could do a Venn diagram on that (but I'm not going to as today's chores are knocking at the door. Will catch up later).

[Castel]

It seems that a bit of devil's advocate work is needed, here.

Using the pie metaphor, assume that the pie contains 100% of the privilege/power/advantage. Everyone wants as much of that pie as they can get. If one group has more than others, how is it in the interest of that group, to give up any of its privilege/power/advantage?

The traditional answer is that it isn't,from a purely amoral perspective.But if you even plan to diverge from the role that your position puts you in you might need to. If you want to have paternity leave or equal consideration for custody then it's in your interest that some of these "privileges" (not being seen as the primary care-giver and thus being able to go out and do work) are gone.

It seems to me that all these issues are interconnected, it technically seems to be to your benefit to retard social progressive movements but they've already made some progress and you have to live in that new world.

I do think it's unfortunate that a lot of this has become, from what I see, about signaling the correct response rather than a matter of educating. The more I come to see how subconscious a lot of this is the more I begin to wonder about how to properly fix these kinds of things.

To be fair to Scalzi he did seem to be trying to educate people but it came off as condescending to me.

I just don't think his article is useful because there's an emotional backlash to someone telling that that hard thing YOU did, your hard life came with benefits that you probably didn't even notice. I don't see how you can talk someone out of that mindset or mollify them, they'll always swing back to "my life was hard".

[Shryke]

That's a problem with any discussion of privilege ever. Even Scalzi's rather mild metaphor gets backlash.

People don't wanna acknowledge their privilege as a general rule.

[Sci-2]

I have to wonder why you would post it then. There are certainly things one could discuss in relation to relative privilege and race issues, but linking such a poorly written piece isn't doing that cause any favour.

It has good parts as well.

[Järv]

The traditional answer is that it isn't,from a purely amoral perspective.But if you even plan to diverge from the role that your position puts you in you might need to. If you want to have paternity leave or equal consideration for custody then it's in your interest that some of these "privileges" (not being seen as the primary care-giver and thus being able to go out and do work) are gone.

That argument implies that there are aspects of the female gender role that one could see as advantagous in comparison to the male gender role. If you want to convince males to embrace social change via this route, you need to present privilege lists to them that show the advatnages of both gender roles.

[Robin Of House Hill]

That's a problem with any discussion of privilege ever. Even Scalzi's rather mild metaphor gets backlash.

People don't wanna acknowledge their privilege as a general rule.

I have privilege. I acknowledge it. Why would I be willing to relinquish it?

[Fenryng]

Thank Cthulu I have my life on the easiest setting; I am too damn dumb to be able to successfully level up any other way. Plus, I am already tired on this setting by itself; too old to want to work harder at anything.

[Shryke]

That argument implies that there are aspects of the female gender role that one could see as advantagous in comparison to the male gender role. If you want to convince males to embrace social change via this route, you need to present privilege lists to them that show the advatnages of both gender roles.

Why?

[Sci-2]

How much of privilege is something you relinquish personally? Seems more about shedding subconscious motivations/flaws.

As to why one would want to from a strictly pragmatic sense, where the mechanism of action as Solo put it is done via the market, it leads to better competition.

[Castel]

As to why one would want to from a strictly pragmatic sense, where the mechanism of action as Solo put it is done via the market, it leads to better competition.

Why would you want better competition if you're privileged? If you're benefiting from subconscious biases and in-group networks why should you want to lose that though? If you're not in that system sure, but otherwise fuck it.

It's pragmatic on a greater scale than the one Robin Hill cares about I imagine.

[Järv]

Why?

Because the method implied in Castels argument is: "Show males what they can gain if they give up privileges!"

[Castel]

Because the method implied in Castels argument is: "Show males what they can gain if they give up privileges!"

To play Devil's Advocate to my own argument I'm not even sure that Robin will even consider those things "privileges".

[sologdin]

Because the method implied in Castels argument is: "Show males what they can gain if they give up privileges!"

the slick answer is that male privilege, for instance, imposes an externality on the system. beneficiaries should be made to internalize their costs, which privilege shunts aside. these costs are market inefficiencies, which degrade the function of the economics. it is essentially a broken window problem.

[Sci-2]

If you're benefiting from subconscious biases and in-group networks why should you want to lose that though? If you're not in that system sure, but otherwise fuck it.

But the people in charge of hiring would want to ensure, in theory at least, that they are getting the best candidates.

There's also negative media attention, which allows consumers to utilize their buying power to enact change.