on checking privilege
LJ has had some great writing lately on confronting one's own privilege, particularly in the context of conversation or debate. Here's two that I've bookmarked:
Don't be That Guy by synecdochic, writing in the aftermath of the Open Source Boob Project
Being an ally part 1: listening to anger by sophiaserpentia
The comments on the latter are particularly worthwhile. This, ( Read more... )
I do not rush to decry it, I am merely aware that the comment (which at face value has a lot of 'rightness') Is generally used as far as I can see by those pushing the agenda of privilige to ignore any counterpoint argument. Any attempt to discuss that view rather than actally agree with it has generally been attacked. I find this equally rude, discriminatory and tending toward inequality.
At no point have persons suggested that their opinion is more germane than that put forward by others however I have repeatedly seen those views trampled by hordes of posters all very eager to call the person a masoginist or similar without actually considering what they were saying.
It is not correct (IMHO) that people should air their opinions without those opinions being open to question. Nor is it correct that theyy respond by attacking the person rather than the argument they raised.
The rush to decry is mainly from those who are attempting to push the privilige issue but who have not actually thought it through and are merely band-wagon jumpers who havent actually got a clue what it is they are angry about. Its rarwely those who thought and wrote sensibly about it in the first place.
Because a group have self identified as belonging to a lower social caste does not mean that anyone they have identified (with little more than an stereotype of their sex) as a higher social caste should tread carefully around them, nor do the lower group automatically gain the right to attack that person on the basis that they cannot empathise with them the underpriviliged.
That argues that everyone should automatically accept the existence of privilige as they state as an Axiom of any discussion whereas the existence of the privilige to the level they state is actually the area of discussion.
In the quote used here...
"If it's more important for me as a white hetero male to assert how i'm not "like that..."
That is only ever assessable by the person disagreeing with the presented notion of privilige. Only they can define whether they are a White hetero male and what is more important to them.
What actually happens (mostly not always)is that other persons decide unilaterally that they ARE a white hetero poster and it IS more important to them and then attack them on that basis. This is a dirert attack based not on notions of privilige or indeed the discussion but by a sexist assumption by the side of the argument demanding that the other side awknowledge their privilige.
There are two sides to every coin. Just because some groups are priviliged in one way does not mean that others are not differntly priviliged.
I have no idea if that makes sense.... hope so....
Reply
Leave a comment