Wow, bc-- that’s incredible!
I agree with bc. I am not at all denying privilege and my kids are in the same boat as his. I just get tired of privilege being used as a baseball bat and the assumption that if one has a certain color skin and SES, one’s life is automatically charmed and you haven’t ever had any real issues to deal with in life. I find it patronizing, unempathetic and untrue.
We get it PG. The privileged need empathy, too. Okay. Empathy all around.
Um… those would be cowhide, not pighide.
I have difficulty with the use of the term “privilege” itself, in this context. In my view, a privilege is something that is consciously granted to a person by another person, and that could be revoked. If something is a human right, it is not a privilege. Rights are inalienable. A “privilege” is also not identical to an “advantage,” in my view.
In some of the common lists of privileges, some of the items that are listed are actually rights. These should be insisted upon as the due of every person. To classify them as “privileges,” in my view leads to the presumption that these could be taken away–but that should be impossible, for a human right.
Also, in many of the common lists of privileges, some of the items that are listed are clearly “advantages,” (e.g, being Caucasian), but they were not consciously granted by anyone. At our present state of genetic engineering, they are basically impossible to take away. I think “advantage” would be more accurate than “privilege,” to describe many of the items that are not rights, but are beneficial to the possessor/recipient.
I would guess that the use of “privilege” in this context arose from the use of “under-privileged” to describe people in challenging life circumstances. This is probably because that term was thought to be nicer in some way than “disadvantaged.” So the opposite of “under-privileged” must be “privileged.” I view this as a euphemism being turned on its head, and not coming out quite right.
Privilege exists only in a comparative context (look up the definition).
If everyone is equal than no one has “privilege”. The terms “privilege” and “fortunate” are not synonymous. You can be fortunate, but not have privilege.
Also, I have a lot of trouble with the one step forward/one step back formulation of advantage.
Being an actual crime victim sets one many steps back, not just one.
I disagree with PG about the relative safety of walking around at night, as a male vs. female. There are a large number of places where men are much safer than women. For example, on my campus, it is much safer for a man to go from the lab to the parking garage late at night, than it is for a woman. This means that if a woman wants to work in the lab late at night, she needs either to arrange for an escort, or to deal with realistic fear while going to the parking garage. Back when the dorms were split by gender, the men often sent one person out on a late night “food run.” If the women were going to have something, they ordered in.
I had the great fortune to be a graduate student in a time and place where women were actually safer walking around in the late evening than men, and I can tell you that it was truly liberating!
Also, the people who think that catcalls are no big deal and are actually flattering seem to be referring to the “soft” version of catcalls (e.g., “Hey, baby.”) Many catcalls are extremely vulgar. They are disturbing. Obviously, they are not the equivalent of being an actual crime victim (in terms of steps back), but they are distressing, and not flattering.
Great insight, QM.
That’s what bothers me about the trivial examples on the privilege list (members of your gender portrayed unflatteringly on TV type of thing). Why - is there some inalienable right that all women should always be portrayed positively?
Thanks, PG.
I also think that rights should be separated off the list of privileges, on any list that includes rights. In my view, it is essential for everyone to defend the rights of others. Rights are inalienable. Denial of a right should provoke outrage.
Denial of a privilege (in my terms), on the other hand, could engender sympathy and attempts to improve the situation of the person who lacks a privilege, but it is not an attack on civil society for a person not to have a privilege. Being taken on a trip to Europe by one’s parents falls into the privilege category, in my opinion. It would be nice if everyone had that opportunity, but I don’t view it as absolutely crucial for a fair society.
quote. Why - is there some inalienable right that all women should always be portrayed positively?
[/quote]
Men are portrayed unflatteringly a LOT.
I actually think that the way people are portrayed in media makes a big difference. For example, it’s my opinion that a significant factor in the rapid acceptance of same-sex marriage was that gay people have been portrayed positively on TV in recent years. Thank “Will and Grace,” and even “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”
Women are still often portrayed as subservient, and as sex objects. (Not ALWAYS; please spare me the counterexamples–I’m talking about trends.) But things have changed. I was just watching “Three Days of the Condor” on Netflix. That movie was made in 1975. I question whether a moviemaker now would have a female character behave like the Faye Dunaway character behaves in that movie. And compare the way black characters behave in “Gone with the Wind” and “12 Years a Slave.”
Based on GMTPlus7’s post, I did look up the definition of “privilege” in a couple of sources. Admittedly, the definitions do not agree precisely with the distinctions among rights, advantages, and privileges that I am making, but I think there are elements of the distinctions that are important, nevertheless.
Merriam Webster gives as the first definition: “a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others.”
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary gives “A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by a person, or a body or class of persons, beyond the common advantages of others.”
In both cases, I will go with my I-like-the-good-side-of-Thomas-Jefferson’s-philosophy-and-not-the-bad-side-of-the-man-himself point of view, to say:
Rights are not “given” (unless by God). Rights are inherent in each human being, and are inseparable from them. It is a responsibility of each citizen to ensure that rights of other people are not violated, by themselves or by others.
The OED let me down, since an advantage enjoyed by a person falls within their definition of privilege. I still think that the “given/granted” element of privilege is an important part of the definition (at least in the olden days 
) So one might have advantages by accident of birth (and I do), yet not have those be “privileges.”
On the TV issue, I agree that there are unflattering portrayals of both genders. My spouse objects to the existence of such a large number of “Doof Dad” characters, from time to time.
The problem with these privilege exercises are that they are generally used to promote, support, and indoctrinate students with a far-left political agenda, primarily for the purpose of distributing grades and rewards based on ethnicity and social class rather than merit. Many of the questions can be condensed to: “Did your parents make good and responsible choices in your conception and upbringing?”
A lot of the questions are designed to promote the idea of minority victimhood. And yet I received a good thumping for the sin of being white as a pre-teen. My wife has gotten what she believes was a ticket for Driving While White. Many affluent Southerners will have strong accents which they will modulate when talking to Northerners. I’m not sure this is a sign of being “underprivileged,” as the exercise suggests. Most affluent parents work nights and weekends at least part of the time. When I was in school my father attended almost no school functions because he was almost always traveling, and just had less than a happy home life. So I had every financial advantage, but a lack of parental involvement. These tests rarely ask questions to uncover these types of problems. The fact is that every child has to overcome problems and schools ought not be in the business of telling some of them, “Oh, you’ve had it easy!” How do they know?
Children will and should benefit from the good choices and sacrifices made by their parents. The fact that someone is enrolled in college and able to even take part in a “Privilege” test is a pretty good indicator that they have been given every opportunity to succeed in life. So just take the opportunities you have and do the best you can with them. And if you’re parents made choices that caused you to have less “Privilege,” resolve not to repeat the mistakes for your own children.
Well, I guess lack of empathy takes you a step back, too.
"The problem with these privilege exercises are that they are generally used to promote, support, and indoctrinate students with a far-left political agenda, primarily for the purpose of distributing grades and rewards based on ethnicity and social class rather than merit. "
I disagree that it’s used for the purposes of distributing grades, etc. based on ethnicity and social class rather than merit - I haven’t seen that. I do believe that it has turned into the unintended purpose of suggesting that affluent-white-people should feel guilty for and/or be held to task for every ill in society. I can both feel empathy for the young black man who gets the cops called on him for no other reason other than his skin color, while simultaneously feeling that I am not “responsible” for that since it wasn’t me who did it.
This description represents really only one end of the libertarian spectrum.
There is a fast-growing segment of libertarians, which represent the other end of the spectrum, of which I am part - social conservative, fiscal conservative, libertarians. This segment is the response to the the second part of your post, i.e., the PC police.
Specifically, in the purest sense, libertarians are really for live and let live, and understanding that tolerance goes both ways. However, the PC police have tried to turn many things into a live by our way and accept our belief or else, which, of course, is opposite of live and let live, and is antithetical to true tolerance.
I think the entire idea of using race and sex to determine who is privileged is incredibly arrogant.Oh you poor thing, I have so much empathy for your suffering, you are a woman or non-white.
How about just treating everyone with dignity and respect? Makes it simple. We are all individuals, not groups. The desire to categorize and separate people is offensive.
Great post earlier by @bclintonk and I appreciate @QuantMech’s commentary on catcalling.
I agree with Hunt’s commentary of how certain groups are represented and portrayed in media and its significance. Just an example, Black-ish is a great show that portrays the many faces, personalities, backgrounds, and lifestyles of a Black family and their friends. Fresh Off the Boat is another win. When was the last time an Asian family was the center role? Modern Family…and on and on. Representation is important.
In addition to being offensive, it is rather peculiar actually, as the logic is lacking in making such divisions, based on the goals people say they desire.
It is interesting the exact same people who so quickly segment people by race, ethnicity, sex, and other groupings etc., are the exact same who say we are all equal and should treat each other the same. Huh?
If we are to treat people the same and we are all equal, why all the categorizing and segmenting? My DS made a great point in one of his classes that the PC students were stumped to answer, “Why are you and the college so surprised that people come to college and segment themselves into groups? The first thing the college application does is ask you to segment yourself into a some group, identify your group, define your group, select special programs based on your group etc. Have you and the college ever thought that it enforced people and even trained some to think of themselves as members of groups, not as members of the college as a whole, even before they got to campus? There are even different orientations, separated by group identity. So what did the college expect to happen the rest of the time on campus, except for continued grouping, as that is what you told students to do explicitly from the get go?”
Similarly, this privilege thing is just a more granular way to separate and segment people. Philosophically, people are confusing equality and sameness. Being equal in terms of the law and respect, does not mean we are the same in terms of skills, ability, biology, etc. It seems rather silly to define natural differences as privilege. Why not simply use what God give you to the best of your ability and waste not your time comparing to others re things you cannot change or were not given? I cannot believe people even waste their time even thinking this stuff up - too much time on people’s hands.