No, it doesn’t. My cite is the linked definition which doesn’t include the caveat you’ve decided to add to it.
I’m not sure that anyone thinks otherwise. Identity politics seems to be about bringing issues to light that have to do with identity within the context of the current state of our society. Fixing these issues is a separate matter.
How isn’t it? The unemployed white blue collar is on the average better off that the equally unemployed black blue collar. Maybe he realizes it, maybe not. But in any case he’s going to watch TV and see some Uni professor, vastly more privileged than himself (regardless of this person’s skin colour), lecturing him about “white privilege”. Why on earth wouldn’t he be royally pissed off?
The issue is the emphasis given to “white” or “male” privilege, while socio-economic condition, for instance, has a massive impact on whether someone is privileged or not. Once again, this unemployed blue collar might be better off than his black ex-coworker. But he’s still at the lowest of the totem pole. Ignoring this and telling him about how privileged he is is really totally out of place. A bit like going to a burial and telling the mourning family that they should feel lucky because some other family’s relative died from a much more painful disease.
As long as two college students in a comparable situation mention that the white one is more privileged than the black one, that’s mostly fine, I guess, but when they begin to spread the word to the wider world and begin to lecture people who are in fact much less privileged than themselves by any serious standard, I see a big issue. “Check your privileges” indeed. But check all your privileges, not just the ones that are trendy, or just the ones that make you feel that you’re amongst the “oppressed” when you’re in fact, if anything, amongst the “oppressors”.
And there are others inborn “privileges”. Being born in a wealthy country. Being in good health. Or being rather smart. People don’t decide to be not that bright, and despite it seriously impacting their prospects of success in life, nobody is shedding many tears for IQ-disadvantaged people.
Seriously, if you compare being born a gay black female in an upper class family and a straight white male in an impoverished family, who do you think has the best prospect at a successful life? And as result, who should “check one’s privileges”? I’ve no doubt it’s the first one and think as a result that her saying that white straight men should check their privileges is bordering the offensive. Not even bordering, in fact. I think it’s plain offensive.
Now, this privileged black gay woman isn’t going to compare herself with impoverished white straight man. She’s going to compare herself with equally privileged straight white men working, say, in the same audit company. Then, she might find herself at a disadvantage, and might rightfully complain about this specific unequality, her specific situation. But belonging to the upper crust, she would be rather well inspired to not lecture the really unprivileged about their supposed privileges.
Of course, given that her specific issue is in fact systemic, there has to be some people reminding everybody that white people generally have it better, all other things being equal. But when it becomes trendy to repeat this point ad nauseam, while mostly ignoring the other massive sources of inequity, and especially to express it in such a dismissive way as “check your privileges”, one shouldn’t be surprised when the really unprivileged you’re pointing your finger at just because they’re of the wrong (or right) race and gender are mightily pissed off.
Pretty much nobody who appears in the media, and even IME pretty much nobody who maintains an internet blog is in any position to use an expression such as “check your privileges”. Bunch of lucky people who should instead count their blessings, and if they really want to address this issue should avoid being dismissive and offensive while doing so, and remind themselves that it’s only one issue amongst many that people have to face.
In fact I suspect that few people on this message board are in a position that should make them feel entitled to say “check your privileges” to a whole group of people, because they’re likely to be themselves more privileged than the majority of this group.
clairobscur, well said. And, if I might add to your excellent post; campaigners on social and cultural issues tend to be disproportionately from upper and middle classes; which leads to a situation where a well-off individual is accusing a poor one of being privileged.
In the same way, a gay person from a poor family and from a working class/poor station is not going to be necessarily see their sexual preference as being the cause of their problems and advances in gay rights as bringing relief to them. Gay marriage ain’t much use when you have no prospects and little chance of actually ever getting married or having a long term relationship.
That’s usually because you won’t listen to the poor one, and just dismiss their concerns as whining.
It upsets you when people that are well-off, that you cannot simply ignore and brush off, express the concerns they have about those to whom you refuse to listen.
I don’t see how this conflicts with the point you quoted from me, except for your comparison between an upper class gay black female with a poor white male. As to their relative privilege, I think it depends on the circumstances, and again I don’t see how it’s useful to compare them. In some circumstances one will be more privileged (or experience more benefits), and in others, the other one will be.
As to all your complaints, that just sounds like complaints about being a jerk. I agree – progressives shouldn’t be jerks, and use privilege as a cudgel.
Really? How exactly would a minority, homosexual female from a well off background be less privileged than a poverty stricken, majority ethnic group, male heterosexual?
From outward appearances, all you see is the minority status.
She can dress up, but she has to.
A black guy has to wear a suit in order to not be thought of as a thug.
If a white guy isn’t wearing a suit, it is thought that his suit is at the cleaners. More or less the same on the women’s side, but I know nothing about women’s fashion, so I cannot give an example.
She can be fired in many places legally, and still in most places without legal recourse (even if illegal) for being gay. Do you get that threat for being straight? Do you have to hide your sexuality from your boss or co-workers for fear of harassment or dismissal?
Have you ever, in your life, ever actually been concerned about being raped?
So, yeah, as a white straight male like myself, there are quite a number of perspectives that you are never even exposed to, that other people are not privileged enough to be able to ignore.
And, as you were very vague, I thought you meant accusing you of being privileged in general, as you do have a number of social advantages that are granted to you for no reason other than your skin color and genital arrangement that are not granted to others. But, now that you were specific, do you understand why, even if she has more money, you still have a number of social advantages she does not?
That would also be a thing that I, even as an agnostic/atheist, would have no particular bother with. If they’re reasonable and knowledgeable, they can thank whatever deities they like.
It’s generally not done in Australia, though - religion is generally seen by the average person as being a private matter which shouldn’t be involved with politics, although obviously we have Christian political parties etc.
Like I said, I’ve got no problem with someone being devoutly religious, I just don’t want them representing me in parliament if possible.
The same is loosely true here in the UK.
I don’t really care either way, if they’re reasonable and knowledgeable.
If you do it, you’ll find plenty of swm with lower scores (higher scores?) than gay transgendered left-handed colorful people. The whole problem with identity politics is that it reduces people to representatives of groups, rather than individuals. Or, to use different language, it judges people by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character. And it’s insulting - some would argue - to assume people should vote according to their category, rather than for what’s best for their country.
If nobody gives a shit, why BLM? Why the Women’s March? Why Women’s Studies, Black History, the arguments over textbooks? Why did Madeleine Albright argue there’s a “special place in hell” for women who don’t vote for Hillary? Why “check your privilege” & “cultural appropriation”? Why so much pressure to get women into STEM?
I’m not sure you’re listening. You should check your privilege. You should listen more, and talk less. Your opinion, after all, is informed by your social context. Also, you didn’t earn everything you have.
There’s no doubt about it. Studies show, for example, that when it comes to dating, black men have the most options, Asian men the fewest. Strangely the situation is exactly reversed on the other side. Asia women have it best. Black women have the fewest options.
But what are you going to do? Create forced dating program?
Anyway, when it comes to done to it, attractiveness and wealth are way more important than race.
And people are more open about it. I have a (hispanic) friend who says he won’t date black women. Period. He does’t find them attractive. I’ve argued with him; I’ve known tons of hot black women. But in the end who he dates and who he finds attractive is up to him.
Yeah, except… black women might not find Asian men attractive, and vice-versa. Arguably, that why the problem exists in the first place.
It doesn’t muddle the debate if the debate is whether other factors (wealth & attractiveness, for example) are greater privileges than race.
They should pay more than $500. There’s not near enough elementary school teacher who are men. Some folks think boys poorer academic performance has something to do with that.
That’s due to culture and society – and probably a part of one type of privilege/lack therof (even if it’s one we don’t talk about that often).
Non-sequitur – what does this have to do with what LHoD said?
I suppose this is meant as a caricature, but chances are LHoD would be willing to consider that he has plenty of privilege, some which may make it harder for him to understand certain arguments. What privileges do you think are involved in this particular criticism?
Its opposite for LTR such as marriage though; Asian men tend to be some of the most married cohort.
Traditional owners can be a slippery concept. Nearly everyone who lives anywhere descends from people who came from somewhere else. Europe is particularly hard, for example, because there have been so many waves of invaders over the millennia.
The Maori came from somewhere else, and were not above invading for the sake of land.
Australia is also complicated. People who study such things date the earliest colonization of Australia from 60,000 to 125,000 years ago. It has been colonized many times since then.
Wikipedia, for example says:
Neanderthals were arguable the original owners of Europe, though they were displaced about 40,000 years ago.