Tournament of Privilege
I'm not sure if you're familiar with Gawker, but I found THIS rather interesting - and perhaps slightly problematic. It's Gawker's Privilege Tournament, and I far from the first to talk about.
Ostensibly, it is designed to foster dialog, to get people thinking, and to remind readers that privilege (and lack thereof) can take myriad forms. But some disagree. I've read criticisms of this that include accusations that it is a tool of the hegemony to make the rest of us battle it out and the "tournament" being denuded of situational context and reduced to a competition between arbitrary categories. That said, may simply find it amusing - as it is likely intended to be.
I, of course, did vote, and in addition to getting me to think about privilege it forced me to think about statistics and viability of categories as well. Some of these are pretty damned obvious: cisgendered male v. intersex? Pretty v. ugly? Unless you live in a bizarro land, those are pretty obvious. I'm going to go out on a very well-supported limb and bounce and say that "protestant," "straight," "white," and "cisgendered male and female" are going to be out the first round. But others are more more subtle: male to female transperson v. female to male? Bisexual v. Lesbian? Those are more nebulous.
There are also those that could be geographic. Jewish v. Catholic? Do you live on Long Island or Los Angeles? Even Latino/Hispanic v. South Asian can be affected by geography. Theoretically, both could be immigrants, but not necessarily. Here in Northern New Mexico, the Hispanic people are the second oldest ethnic group - second only to the Native Americans - and the old families still own most of the land and control the politics. Taos County has never had an Anglo Mayor of Sheriff or County Commissioner, nor have many areas of the Southwest. But I also know how Mexican nationals are treated in big agriculture. I would assume that the assumption is that one is American when answering this, but different areas bring on different privileges and prejudices. For example, in the Pacific Northwest I encountered many people who felt that Native Americans were horrifically over-privileged in terms of fishing/hunting rights, scholarships, gambling/tobacco/firearms, land ownership, and taxation, yet history tells a different story. Is this a matter of perspective? Does history even matter? Your answers for "Jewish" might depend on it.
Other categories might hinge on presentation and viability. Being a Sikh is more visually obvious than being Buddhist. (Well, unless you're a monk.) Being blind is more easily noticeable than having a mental illness and being a quadriplegic/paraplegic more instantly obvious than having an eating disorder. And, whilst we're at it, how does the fact that many people believe that the eating disorders are more prevalent in populations with a higher sociology-economic status play into this?
And how do one's own experiences play into this? Short v. amputee? I'm short, but fully-limbed and there's not contest: I have more privilege. Homeless v. over-educated and under-employed? Yeah, I'll have the give it to the homeless. They're far less privileged than I.
And I'm not even sure what to think of the allergy category.
What do you think of all of it?
Ostensibly, it is designed to foster dialog, to get people thinking, and to remind readers that privilege (and lack thereof) can take myriad forms. But some disagree. I've read criticisms of this that include accusations that it is a tool of the hegemony to make the rest of us battle it out and the "tournament" being denuded of situational context and reduced to a competition between arbitrary categories. That said, may simply find it amusing - as it is likely intended to be.
I, of course, did vote, and in addition to getting me to think about privilege it forced me to think about statistics and viability of categories as well. Some of these are pretty damned obvious: cisgendered male v. intersex? Pretty v. ugly? Unless you live in a bizarro land, those are pretty obvious. I'm going to go out on a very well-supported limb and bounce and say that "protestant," "straight," "white," and "cisgendered male and female" are going to be out the first round. But others are more more subtle: male to female transperson v. female to male? Bisexual v. Lesbian? Those are more nebulous.
There are also those that could be geographic. Jewish v. Catholic? Do you live on Long Island or Los Angeles? Even Latino/Hispanic v. South Asian can be affected by geography. Theoretically, both could be immigrants, but not necessarily. Here in Northern New Mexico, the Hispanic people are the second oldest ethnic group - second only to the Native Americans - and the old families still own most of the land and control the politics. Taos County has never had an Anglo Mayor of Sheriff or County Commissioner, nor have many areas of the Southwest. But I also know how Mexican nationals are treated in big agriculture. I would assume that the assumption is that one is American when answering this, but different areas bring on different privileges and prejudices. For example, in the Pacific Northwest I encountered many people who felt that Native Americans were horrifically over-privileged in terms of fishing/hunting rights, scholarships, gambling/tobacco/firearms, land ownership, and taxation, yet history tells a different story. Is this a matter of perspective? Does history even matter? Your answers for "Jewish" might depend on it.
Other categories might hinge on presentation and viability. Being a Sikh is more visually obvious than being Buddhist. (Well, unless you're a monk.) Being blind is more easily noticeable than having a mental illness and being a quadriplegic/paraplegic more instantly obvious than having an eating disorder. And, whilst we're at it, how does the fact that many people believe that the eating disorders are more prevalent in populations with a higher sociology-economic status play into this?
And how do one's own experiences play into this? Short v. amputee? I'm short, but fully-limbed and there's not contest: I have more privilege. Homeless v. over-educated and under-employed? Yeah, I'll have the give it to the homeless. They're far less privileged than I.
And I'm not even sure what to think of the allergy category.
What do you think of all of it?