Okay, so what should I do now that I recognize that I have privilege? Do I quit my job and forfeit my college degree, since I acquired both unfairly (I guess my own perception that I sometimes work hard and plan well is delusional)? Seriously, what is the end game of this concept of "privilege"? All anyone seems to say is to "check your privilege." Great, I accept that I have privilege according to your definition of it. What now?
There is an excellent list of suggestions at http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146 . The short answer is, no, you don't quit your job and forfeit your college degree; you aren't bad for having privilege and "checking your privilege" isn't supposed to make you feel guilty for having it.
The post is a little long, but I think you would get more benefit out of reading it yourself than you would out of my poor attempts to summarize it.
That post is extremely long, and there's no way I'll make it far when it begins with things like:
> One of the greatest things we, as privileged people, can bring to a discussion being held by non-privileged groups is our closed mouths and open ears/minds. When you enter a minority space, you need to realize that this is their soapbox, not yours. Your privilege gives you many other soapboxes that you can take advantage of, so when participating in a discussion held by a non-privileged group or individual your primary goal is to pay attention to what they say about their issues, lives, and oppressions.
What rubbish. My views are worth less because of my privilege. In other words, any time there is a discussion or debate between two people, the person with less privilege is right, or at least has a greater right to express ideas. This idea of intellectual worth-asymmetry seems to always accompany claims regarding privilege, and I'll have nothing of it.
> Well, finding a balance between accepting your privilege and fighting against it is not easy. I still struggle with it on a daily basis. But, one way to start is to listen to and take feedback from non-privileged groups. They are a good judge of how your actions come across to them.
Of course, the best judge of an individual's reaction is that individual. That's a truism. But here we have another clear implication that the reactions of an individual with lower privilege are more proper or more valuable than the reactions of an individual with higher privilege.
> You Can Only Sympathize, Not Empathize...But, no matter how strong the link is, the facts remain that no two oppressions are the same. And it’s you, as the privileged party, who needs to be extra careful about when and how you draw links. While the intent may be to show solidarity, the result is all too often that you come off as defensive, trying to one-up the non-privileged groups and appropriate their oppression. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ever try to make connections, but rather that you should think about how the connections you’re drawing will come off to others.
In other words, analogies are generally not allowed in discussions involving a privilege disparity. There goes one effective means of discourse.
> Revisiting “Politically Correct”...Part of engaging in a language of respect and equality is in recognizing the validity of a person’s choice to use language, and “politically correct” terms, even if you may not understand or agree with them.
Surely the irony of appealing to linguistic subjectivity to defend political correctness isn't lost on the author(s).
> The same power dynamics that create privilege have created a hierarchy of prejudice so that discrimination against a privileged group is not the same as discrimination against a non-priivleged group. This is because discrimination against a non-privileged group is backed up with institutionalized power, whereas discrimination against a privileged group is often a singular act and therefore easier to avoid.
Wow, let it never be said that arguments against this type of belief are straw man arguments, unless of course this article is satire. The notion that a male getting raped by a woman can in any way be seen as inherently different or less of an injustice than a woman getting raped by a man is, simply put, appalling.
> Intent Isn’t an Excuse...while malicious intent may add icing to the cake, it does not dictate whether or not an offense has been made. “That wasn’t my intent,” all too often translates into “your reactions to what I did are invalid because I didn’t mean any harm.”...It, in essense, privileges the sayer/doer’s opinion/feelings over that of the non-privileged person or group that they have offended.
And this article repeatedly makes it clear that the non-privileged person's opinions and feelings are more valuable.
> Make an Effort to Learn the Lingo...What’s not fine, however, is telling a non-privileged group that their terms are wrong. You, as the privileged participant, don’t get to define what is and is not appropriate usage in a minority space.
Well there goes linguistic relativity. Now it's clear that any terms used by less privileged people are correct, period.
That's as far as I made it. If there is eventually a reveal that the entire article is satire, then the joke is on me, although I wouldn't be surprised. There some serious Poe's law going on here.
You say your questions are genuine, and then you obtusely interpret the answers you're given to suit the attitude you wish to project on your interlocutors. You could've saved everybody a lot of time if you didn't lie about your defensive intentions from the start.
If you're admittedly ignorant, how can you tell whether the answer is ridiculous or there's something critical you're not understanding? What happens if the answer is not ridiculous but is utterly inconsistent with your current picture of the world?
> how can you tell whether the answer is ridiculous or there's something critical you're not understanding?
Did you read my responses? I explain why I think each quoted section is ridiculous. Most of the quoted sections are not empirical claims that I am disputing ("my current picture of the world"), but are rather claims about opinions or normative claims which I am disputing.
Sorry, I don't think you're understanding me. Ironically, this is a demonstration of the point I was trying to make. :D
You see/read/hear something. It doesn't make sense to you. It seems ridiculous. How do you know whether it actually is ridiculous or there's something critical you're not understanding?
Assuming you believe the theory of evolution, consider how fundamentalists think about it. They will say it's "obviously ridiculous" and have a million reasons why. Nevertheless, it's not ridiculous. Rather, there's something (many things) critical they're not understanding.
It "seems" ridiculous because it contradicts their prior understanding of the world. How can you tell when something is actually ridiculous or it's your prior understanding of the world that needs to be changed?
This is a more general and personal question. Feel free to divorce it from the issue of gender and privilege if you like, it's really a question of "personal epistemology."
