Privilege Discussion Thread

[neamhspleachas]

I'm trying to understand the concept of privilege and how its used in social justice discourse. I've read through a number of articles in the thread where people posted resources on privilege, and I think I'm forming a coherent sense of what the term means. A lot of these ideas have struck me as epiphanies, although I'm sure they are completely common-place observations to people more familiar with these issues. Still, I was hoping I could run some of the ideas by you to ensure that my interpretation is not completely idiosyncratic. Instead of posting a wall of text listing all my myriad confusions, I should probably take things one by one. My first big (purported) insight about privilege is that the concept doesn't refer to just any advantage possessed by a socially dominant group.

We can separate two distinct kinds of social disparity. First, there are statistical advantages that certain social groups possess over other groups, where It does not follow that every member of the former group will possess the relevant advantage. The wage gap is an example of this. It is likely that a man will earn more over a lifetime than the average woman performing the same job (at least, that's my understanding), but it might still be the case that some particular man earns less than the average woman. Another example of this kind of disparity is the differential likelihood of being a victim of violent crime among white and black people in the US. It is of course possible that some unfortunate white person experiences more violent crime in his or her life than the average black person, but that doesn't vitiate the statistical generalization.

The second kind of disparity is not statistical. It is an advantage that every member of some social group possesses. The nature of this advantage usually has something to do with the emotional significance of certain experiences. It might not be completely impossible for a man to be catcalled, but it is impossible for that experience to have the same kind ofoppressive valence as it does for a woman. Because of the statistical truth that women are far more likely to be victims of sexual violence, even if a man is catcalled it will not feel as threatening (or at least, not threatening in the same way) as it might for a woman. This advantage accrues to all men. There are certain oppressive experiences we are shielded from purely by virtue of being male (or perhaps cis male).

My understanding is that it is the latter sort of disparity people are referring to when they talk about privilege, so arguments along the lines of "I'm a man and I make no money at all, so where's my privilege?" miss the point. Is this an accurate reading of the concept? I ask because I sometimes see privilege used to refer to any disparity that advantages a socially dominant group, but it does seem to me that most people working on social justice interpret the concept in the more specific manner I describe. Does my separation of these two forms of disparity make sense to those of you more familiar with this stuff?

[JediPsychologist]

Dude, you nailed it. In fact, you parsed it out with more detail than I think I ever could.

To me, the thing that makes the second example so difficult to teach or describe is its subtlety. You can't un-learn a lifetime of experience just by trying out a thought exercise. And even if I describe to you, in great detail, what it's like for me (as a woman) to walk out my front door every day, you will still approach the hypothetical situation differently and without that lens of ever-present fear. This is for two reasons: 1) it's a hypothetical situation. You get to walk away when it's done. And it's really hard to shake off that temporary mindset and truly get the experience. 2) You've simply lived a different life. You're a man, you're physically stronger, and you haven't spent 20+ years receiving the same societal cues that I've received. Cues that tell me that the state of things (that state being that I am in danger - to some degree - whenever I am in public) is what it is and I cannot escape/change/avoid it. Also, cues that tell me to shut up and sit down whenever I draw attention to how wrong that is.

I tried a thought exercise like this with my boyfriend, and he just couldn't get past this idea of "So go somewhere else. Somewhere safer." I tried explaining: "But then I'm just somewhere new, with a new set of dangers, and now they're unfamiliar. I need to gauge my surroundings all over again and decide whether I feel safe here, too, and the answer is never 100% 'yes.' There is always some degree of concern; something to be wary of."

It's a difficult concept to convey. And I think, at its heart, that's what privilege is. It's subtle. It's a world view that tells you that everything is okay and people are just complaining about minor, uncommon nuisances, and that true danger/disparity/bigotry/what-have-you isn't really that common. It's rejecting the notion that these things are commonplace and fundamental and nested deep within human culture. It's not always conscious, in fact it's usually done out of totally legitimate ignorance. That's what makes it so hard to combat.

[Ginny]

Yes. To look at it a slightly different way, you could draw a distinction between "bad stuff I experience because of some individual or circumstantial factor" and "bad stuff I experience because of some key part of my identity." A man who makes less money than most women will likely blame it on the major he chose, the fact that his boss hates him, his inability to wake up in the mornings, or something like that. A woman subject to catcalling usually views it as part of the cost of existing as a woman. The same man, on getting a great job, is not likely to continue thinking of himself as forever doomed to a low-wage lifestyle. The same woman, on moving to a town where she's never subject to harassment, is likely still aware that she's vulnerable to harassment if anything changes... if she moves again, or if a bunch of assholes come to town, or if she goes on vacation. Harassment remains part of her reality in a way that low income doesn't remain a part of the man's reality. Does that make sense?

[OrneryPest]

Speaking of women catcalling men, I recall an experience of mine about a month ago. I was out for a walk just after lunch, and was walking past one of our more popular bars, and three or four drunk hillbilly women came staggering out, and one of them looked at me and yelled, "Hey, yo looks lak a man whut need a HUG!!" and she came running towards me with her arms outstretched. She ended up falling face down in a puddle, so I laughed. I did not feel threatened. Now, if a drunk man acts that way towards a woman, I can easily see how she would feel threatened. I therefore resolve never to act that way towards any woman.

[JediPsychologist]

Yes. To look at it a slightly different way, you could draw a distinction between "bad stuff I experience because of some individual or circumstantial factor" and "bad stuff I experience because of some key part of my identity."

This is a minor point, but a pet peeve of mine: it's because of the way society dictates people should treat people like me - people with this "key part of my identity." There is nothing inherent about being female that requires that I attract dangerous, violent attention, or get put down when I try to voice my opinion. The fault is in human culture, not in me.

But your point still stands. I just twitch whenever I see people phrasing it that way, and feel the need to clarify. There's always the danger you'll be taken the wrong way.

[Zagloba]

The second kind of disparity is not statistical. It is an advantage that every member of some social group possesses. The nature of this advantage usually has something to do with the emotional significance of certain experiences. It might not be completely impossible for a man to be catcalled, but it is impossible for that experience to have the same kind ofoppressive valence as it does for a woman. Because of the statistical truth that women are far more likely to be victims of sexual violence, even if a man is catcalled it will not feel as threatening (or at least, not threatening in the same way) as it might for a woman. This advantage accrues to all men. There are certain oppressive experiences we are shielded from purely by virtue of being male (or perhaps cis male).

I wouldn't get too hung up on whether a disparity is truly inherent or merely statistically probable. There will dependably be outliers, and the more you listen in on conversations about privilege/advantage/injustice, the more you'll notice outliers being brought in as supposedly devastating counterexamples. That line of argument works well in mathematics; it's terrible for understanding something as complicated and fuzzy as society.

[JediPsychologist]

I wouldn't get too hung up on whether a disparity is truly inherent or merely statistically probable. There will dependably be outliers, and the more you listen in on conversations about privilege/advantage/injustice, the more you'll notice outliers being brought in as supposedly devastating counterexamples. That line of argument works well in mathematics; it's terrible for understanding something as complicated and fuzzy as society.

In statistics it's entirely irrelevant. All social phenomena are arranged on a bell curve. You can't disprove the trend by presenting an outlier; anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant and not a relevant or productive way to discuss social phenomena.
(In case that was confusing, I'm agreeing with you.)

[Kestra]

One of the examples I use when trying to explain the privilege concept is hailing a cab: in my hometown, as in many US cities, it is difficult to get a cab if you are a black man. If it is late at night, it is downright impossible. I only know this because (cliche) some of my friends are black (/cliche), and when we are coming home from the bar, my boyfriend or I always volunteer to hail a cab, because we all know that if our buddy tries, we will be waiting all night. If I didn't go out drinking with my black friend, I simply wouldn't know about this problem. It is invisible to me. It is, of course, illegal to refuse service based on race, and there is actually a plain-clothes police sting operation that deals with this periodically, but it is very difficult if not impossible to prove.

As I grow older, more of these "invisible" economic privileges become obvious. The high rate of denial of minority loan applicants is another one: you can see a trend if you look at all loan applications, but its very hard to prove in each individual case. And unless you are comparing notes with similar applicants of other races, how would you even know?

[Ginny]

Yes. To look at it a slightly different way, you could draw a distinction between "bad stuff I experience because of some individual or circumstantial factor" and "bad stuff I experience because of some key part of my identity."

This is a minor point, but a pet peeve of mine: it's because of the way society dictates people should treat people like me - people with this "key part of my identity." There is nothing inherent about being female that requires that I attract dangerous, violent attention, or get put down when I try to voice my opinion. The fault is in human culture, not in me.

But your point still stands. I just twitch whenever I see people phrasing it that way, and feel the need to clarify. There's always the danger you'll be taken the wrong way.

I should have phrased more carefully perhaps... I definitely meant "because of the way my culture responds to a key part of my identity."

[TheMongoose]

I am a 28 year old white middle class straight male living in the parts of the UK where no-one cares that I'm an atheist.

So I am basically the living embodiment of The Privilege.

[ischemgeek]

Pretty much, yeah.

On a less-academic level: Privilege is not having to worry about or experience certain negative things because of some part of what (not who) others perceive you to be, while also being more likely to experience posititive things for the same reason. A man will, in general, not be sexually assaulted when he goes out to drink. A woman is far more likely to - in fact, some women have it happen several times, and in some areas, relatively mild forms of sexual assault like groping and forcible kissing are so common that women who go out to drink expect to be subject to them at least once in the night (such is the case in my city, to the shock of all men I've ever told this fact to). A white person will, in general, not have to worry about being unfairly denied a job because of their name or how they look. A black person will. A hetero person usually doesn't have to worry about having life-changing injuries inflicted on them for hitting on someone. People who are gay, lesbian or bi do. A cis person in general doesn't have to worry about having someone try to kill them for merely existing. A trans* person does. And so on. I've chosen extreme examples here, but less-extreme instances exist, too: A WASPy able-bodied man doesn't have to have slurs thrown at him, is oblivious to dog-whistle racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or classism unless he goes out of his way to learn about it, doesn't have to think about whether a place he wants to go is accessible to him, etc. Further, a WASPy able-bodied man is more likely to get a job, be approved for a loan, get a promotion or pay raise, get a good job review, etc.

Another point that I think was missed is that all of these have a cumulative effect such that someone who's disadvantaged on two fronts is worse off than someone disadvantaged on one but better off than someone disadvantaged on three. In other words, a trans white woman will usually be worse off than a cis white woman but better off than a trans black woman.

[Kestra]

Pretty much, yeah.
Another point that I think was missed is that all of these have a cumulative effect such that someone who's disadvantaged on two fronts is worse off than someone disadvantaged on one but better off than someone disadvantaged on three. In other words, a trans white woman will usually be worse off than a cis white woman but better off than a trans black woman.

For those that were unaware, the word for that is "intersectionality"; it comes up a lot on feminist and social justice blogs. A popular slogan is "my feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit", a sort of take-that to feminists who focus predominately on problems faced by *white* women, and ignoring the problems of women of color and/or excluding their input. Here's a (very angry) post about that issue from last year: http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/10/10/my- ... -bullshit/

[tiny]

I don't remember where I read it, but someone somewhere explained privilege as 'being welcome and safe'.

If you have privilege, a social space (occupation, location, role etc.) is open for you, and you can go there, knowing that no one will object to you being there. No one will seriously and aggressively question the legitimacy of you occupying that certain social space. Only very general unspoken rules apply to you and you are easily forgiven for any faux-pas.

If you don't have privilege, you stick out like a sore thumb to those who do. You are noticed, your presence will be questioned, you will be subject to more harsh social rules, your mistakes will be used to undermine your legitimacy.

This leads to people who have privilege in very many social places to react with disbelief and butt hurt when a social space is barred to them. Like white people who don't get to use the n-word, or cis-gendered people who don't get to use the t-word. Not having every available privilege all of a sudden is a completely new experience that some have a really hard time coping with.

[fiainros]

This leads to people who have privilege in very many social places to react with disbelief and butt hurt when a social space is barred to them. Like white people who don't get to use the n-word, or cis-gendered people who don't get to use the t-word. Not having every available privilege all of a sudden is a completely new experience that some have a really hard time coping with.

I really like this thought. It explains a lot.

I'd also like to point out that you can be privileged in some ways but not in others. I'm a cis-married white woman. I experience many disadvantages and unsafe things as a woman, but still have privilege as cis and white. It can be hard for me to see where I'm privileged in those ways. Because, as someone else pointed out in their own experience, I'm blind to them. I don't know they are happening until someone who does experience them points it out.

[ceepolk]

But even when they do get pointed out, the most likely reaction is to deny the privilege, reject the explanation, and in many cases, get hostile at the person who is trying to tell them that they're coming from a position of a very particular kind of ignorance.

And there are people who get salty at the mention of the word privilege. I've had people tell me that they never want to hear me say that word. Can you imagine? It's just amazing what people in a position of power are willing to put on the person they're hurting.

[DanDare]

But even when they do get pointed out, the most likely reaction is to deny the privilege, reject the explanation, and in many cases, get hostile at the person who is trying to tell them that they're coming from a position of a very particular kind of ignorance.

And there are people who get salty at the mention of the word privilege. I've had people tell me that they never want to hear me say that word. Can you imagine? It's just amazing what people in a position of power are willing to put on the person they're hurting.

I have only become aware of this whole area of discourse since elevatorgate. During that time I have observed the stiff reaction. I have received a similar reaction from my own atheist community for being an A+ supporter.

I have only a few observations in their defence. One is that privilege is talked about mostly in general terms. Under those circumstances it can seem that there is an attempt to replace a religious authoritarianism with a secular authoritarianism. The people who cite edge cases where things aren't so bad aren't, I believe, aren't always trying to switch the discussion. They are afraid that we mean the edge cases and are angry that we should impose such solutions. Remember the atheist community has taken a long time to tell religious authorities that they can no longer use "being offended" as something to hide behind, and along we come talking about "privilege" in the abstract and easily appearing to be taking offence as a way to forbid questioning, impugn motives or dismiss arguments.

Speaking of privilege, has anyone out there got an Australian spell checker for Firefox? I have to fight the American spelling all the time and its a bit tiring.

[maiforpeace]

Speaking of privilege, has anyone out there got an Australian spell checker for Firefox? I have to fight the American spelling all the time and its a bit tiring.

No, I insist on American spell check - I have spelling privilege.

[ceepolk]

But even when they do get pointed out, the most likely reaction is to deny the privilege, reject the explanation, and in many cases, get hostile at the person who is trying to tell them that they're coming from a position of a very particular kind of ignorance.

And there are people who get salty at the mention of the word privilege. I've had people tell me that they never want to hear me say that word. Can you imagine? It's just amazing what people in a position of power are willing to put on the person they're hurting.

I have only become aware of this whole area of discourse since elevatorgate. During that time I have observed the stiff reaction. I have received a similar reaction from my own atheist community for being an A+ supporter.

I have only a few observations in their defence. One is that privilege is talked about mostly in general terms. Under those circumstances it can seem that there is an attempt to replace a religious authoritarianism with a secular authoritarianism. The people who cite edge cases where things aren't so bad aren't, I believe, aren't always trying to switch the discussion. They are afraid that we mean the edge cases and are angry that we should impose such solutions. Remember the atheist community has taken a long time to tell religious authorities that they can no longer use "being offended" as something to hide behind, and along we come talking about "privilege" in the abstract and easily appearing to be taking offence as a way to forbid questioning, impugn motives or dismiss arguments.

I have heard many, many rationalizations for why it's all right for people to do things like this.

they're not all right. If I speak to someone about how their view is privileged, I'm telling them a lot of different things at once - I'm telling them that they're quite ignorant of what life is really like for a marginalized person, and how their perspective signals to marginalized people within hearing distance that they support a worldview that is actively and yet unconsciously keeping people down so that their superiority lies undisturbed by knowledge.

Coming back with some study and some statistic about things being not so bad isn't them getting their foot off my neck. it's pressing down on my throat while they tell me they're not actually doing it and that I should shut up about it and it continues the pattern of justified suppression carried on in a mental attitude that actively supports veiling that it's going on right now, but their right to deny it and stay comfortable takes every priority off my right to be perceived as a human being worthy of respect.

And it makes me want to get away from them as fast as possible, because they're going to keep on hurting me, because they don't feel like questioning themselve when told about something they're doing to hurt a marginalized person. They don't feel like realizing that these studies they cherry-pick without even realizing they're cherry-picking them are conducted by people with societal power. They don't feel like connecting the negative responses that make it so people who aren't a lot like them in many ways gathering in spaces away from them is something that they're responsible for.

Even if they don't know it.

Even if the dominating view assures them that it's not really *their* fault.

Even if they're a fish and they haven't noticed the water they swim in.

Even if they really do mean well, and don't intend to hurt, intimidate, or suppress the marginalized people around them.

Don't tell me that they don't really understand. I know that, all right? I'm not stupid. I know they don't get it. It's really, really obvious. But when you tell me that "they don't understand" and tell me things "in their defense" you're telling me that I am the one who has to forgive their trespasses against me because they don't know any better.

I have a counteroffer.

How about you tell them? How about you say "I know this goes on, and I hate it, and I want to take the load off you, because I know that those in power expect you to do all the work of telling us what's wrong without ever being mean about it and to continually pander to our position of power while you tell us how we're hurting you, from a position of inferiority that is constantly simultaneously denied and enforced. I'll go tell 'em. I'll defend you. I'll support you."

Because I would surely appreciate some help from somebody besides Tim Wise.

[simpleflower]

Post removed by author

[ceepolk]

I can't stress this enough. If folks here really truly want atheism plus to be inclusive, safe, welcoming, and diverse, they have to realize the enormity of how much work it will really, really take to make that actually true.

I said before that I wasn't intending to post here. I was just going to lurk and see what happened. But I saw enough potential that I decided, impulsively, to speak. And I'm reaping the consequence of that speaking. I'm announcing that I am here. I'm saying that I want a space like the one Atheism+ says it wants to be. I'm saying that I don't want to hide my presence from the status quo. Instead of hanging back to wait and see what will result, I will risk it and speak, one more time.

Because my impulse to participate in discussion and the result of doing so made it hit home for me - I really do want that space. But to have it I have to put myself in danger. I have to step away from my usual stance of "no education for anybody" and try one more time to tell people who really want this what it's going to take. I have to speak out. Because I know that a lot of people who want this don't know what they're in for, and they don't know why they don't know it. I have to take the chance that this time, my efforts might not be wasted.

I have to try, one more time, to explain why I'm usually not here. I have to peel the layers of protection off and speak. I have to push back my fear of what will happen if I don't stay silent, and speak. If I really want atheism+ to succeed, I have to take the chance, one more time, that I will be heard and understood and heeded. That I can be the push that transforms good intentions to truly good action. That I can say the things folks regularly prove that they don't want to hear, and that I can say them, and they can accept the discomfort that it will inevitably take to hear me. That they will not respond with violence, harassment, threats, and attacks, and that they will stand up and shield me from those who might try it anyway. I know i'm asking you to be uncomfortable. If Atheism+ is going to succeed, I must ask you to be uncomfortable. One more time. And hope it works.

But it's so egotistical. So many have tried over decades. Why would anyone listen to me?

[simpleflower]

But it's so egotistical. So many have tried over decades. Why would anyone listen to me?

I listen to you and love what you have to say, and agree with much of it. I cheer you on 4 sure =)

[SubMor]

I feel that ultimately, years later, I will look at atheism+ as a nice attempt to create a safe space that was, unfortunately occupied eventually by the same smug people from the same privileged backgrounds saying the same things with no inkling of empathy in the slightest for those they are oppressing, while obscenely insisting they are compassionate and have the best intentions and that I should be quiet and listen to them because they know better than I do about my own suffering and that if I am not engaging in positive thinking I am being irresponsible in life.

You (plural, as in the forum membership collectively) have my indefinite consent to verbally kick my ass if I ever fall into this category. I'd like to offer my commitment to fighting against this epically-not-helping-ness, and I'll do whatever I can to work with you to avoid that result. If anyone sees that attitude here, it needs to be promptly called out and eviscerated (in as productive a manner as possible).

I feel like participation in these forums should make the above disclaimer implicitly true of everyone, but hey.

[maiforpeace]

I too share the concerns of Alyss. I've been involved in some groups, and unfortunately too often, the rich and privileged get in quandry over these issues, wring their hands over it, and then they get bored and move on to something else, and nothing is ever done.

Because of that, I think we need to come up with better strategies to keep their attention AND their commitment to social justice by being more assertive about making sure they follow through on solutions to the problems.

[WordsArentReal]

In response to the first post, I would just like to emphasize what I believe only ischemgeek and, obliquely, tiny have mentioned so far, which is that privilege does not have to be the absence of a negative factor, but can be the possession of a positive. For me, the most salient example of this is ADHD versus its unnamed contrary trait. ADD is mostly a disorder existing at the interface between a person and some social system designed without them in mind e.g. student vs schoolsystem or employee vs career expectations. At first confrontation, the classroom doesn't necessarily enact specific penalties on a student with ADD (although many do,) but the children with the contrary trait are presented with a system that has been specifically designed for them. They are thus privileged in positive sense and it is only the zero sum nature of competitive grading and various social feedbacks that make the difference between everyone else's grades being raised and yours being lowered irrelevant.

-Colin

[DanDare]

But even when they do get pointed out, the most likely reaction is to deny the privilege, reject the explanation, and in many cases, get hostile at the person who is trying to tell them that they're coming from a position of a very particular kind of ignorance.

And there are people who get salty at the mention of the word privilege. I've had people tell me that they never want to hear me say that word. Can you imagine? It's just amazing what people in a position of power are willing to put on the person they're hurting.

I have only become aware of this whole area of discourse since elevatorgate. During that time I have observed the stiff reaction. I have received a similar reaction from my own atheist community for being an A+ supporter.

I have only a few observations in their defence. One is that privilege is talked about mostly in general terms. Under those circumstances it can seem that there is an attempt to replace a religious authoritarianism with a secular authoritarianism. The people who cite edge cases where things aren't so bad aren't, I believe, aren't always trying to switch the discussion. They are afraid that we mean the edge cases and are angry that we should impose such solutions. Remember the atheist community has taken a long time to tell religious authorities that they can no longer use "being offended" as something to hide behind, and along we come talking about "privilege" in the abstract and easily appearing to be taking offence as a way to forbid questioning, impugn motives or dismiss arguments.

I have heard many, many rationalizations for why it's all right for people to do things like this.

they're not all right. If I speak to someone about how their view is privileged, I'm telling them a lot of different things at once - I'm telling them that they're quite ignorant of what life is really like for a marginalized person, and how their perspective signals to marginalized people within hearing distance that they support a worldview that is actively and yet unconsciously keeping people down so that their superiority lies undisturbed by knowledge.

Coming back with some study and some statistic about things being not so bad isn't them getting their foot off my neck. it's pressing down on my throat while they tell me they're not actually doing it and that I should shut up about it and it continues the pattern of justified suppression carried on in a mental attitude that actively supports veiling that it's going on right now, but their right to deny it and stay comfortable takes every priority off my right to be perceived as a human being worthy of respect.

And it makes me want to get away from them as fast as possible, because they're going to keep on hurting me, because they don't feel like questioning themselve when told about something they're doing to hurt a marginalized person. They don't feel like realizing that these studies they cherry-pick without even realizing they're cherry-picking them are conducted by people with societal power. They don't feel like connecting the negative responses that make it so people who aren't a lot like them in many ways gathering in spaces away from them is something that they're responsible for.

Even if they don't know it.

Even if the dominating view assures them that it's not really *their* fault.

Even if they're a fish and they haven't noticed the water they swim in.

Even if they really do mean well, and don't intend to hurt, intimidate, or suppress the marginalized people around them.

Don't tell me that they don't really understand. I know that, all right? I'm not stupid. I know they don't get it. It's really, really obvious. But when you tell me that "they don't understand" and tell me things "in their defense" you're telling me that I am the one who has to forgive their trespasses against me because they don't know any better.

I have a counteroffer.

How about you tell them? How about you say "I know this goes on, and I hate it, and I want to take the load off you, because I know that those in power expect you to do all the work of telling us what's wrong without ever being mean about it and to continually pander to our position of power while you tell us how we're hurting you, from a position of inferiority that is constantly simultaneously denied and enforced. I'll go tell 'em. I'll defend you. I'll support you."

Because I would surely appreciate some help from somebody besides Tim Wise.

ceepolk, that's very passionate, but it does not seem to connect with what I was talking about. It seems to only connect with what you think I was talking about or expected to hear. Again you are talking about the subject at such an abstract level I cannot know what you are arguing against. You seem in this reply to assume anyone that want's to examine the issue and get down to the nuts and bolts is immediately disagreeing with you about something. How can we explore this, so that I can learn something useful, without the tirade please?