Lefty loonies and liberals, what the hell happened to us?

[Revoltingest]

That's not the idea of "privilege," though. The whole idea isn't to make people feel guilty, but to bring awareness of the common struggles faced be lesser privileged members of society. Yes, it can be very broad, as I could go on about the extroverted privilege in society, because natural introverts are put into an unfavorable position in our society, but it's breadth doesn't matter. It is the bringing awareness of these unique challenges that does, and working to not take away privilege but to add equality by bringing awareness of the privileges of the majority/dominant class. It's not about reducing the privilege of men to speak and be heard, but giving women a more fair chance of being heard themselves.

"Privilege" is a concept which can raise awareness, but it is also used to castigate (as happened to Mystic). It's unnecessary for calling attention to disadvantaged groups. As for men v women....you'll have a hard time convincing me that one or the other is relatively "privileged" overall. I say it's better to focus upon systemic injustices worked against each on a case by case basis. POS (Privilege Obsession Syndrome) smacks too much of assigning rank to victimhood status.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a homophobic culture, yes, it is a privilege to be heterosexual and not have to come out to one's parents about one's sexual orientation. In Iran, being a Muslim makes you privileged (compared to other people there). In the Bible Belt, being a Christian makes you privileged. In certain parts of Asia, it is a privilege to have understanding parents who don't overly and obsessively pressure you to excel academically. In Saudi Arabia, it is a privilege to be a man rather than a woman.

Certainly, things will vary from country to country. Where I live, "homophobic culture" would be an absurd claim. Here, the difficulty of coming out to one's parents would be just another of difficulties every kid faces.

Privilege is not a universal term; it is primarily relative. A working-class person in the U.S. is privileged compared to the people starving in Africa but disadvantaged compared to most people in the U.S. You also have to consider the fact that there are natural advantages and disadvantages (e.g., birth defects and genetic susceptibility to some diseases) that people can only minimize but not eliminate completely, and then there are completely artificial disadvantages such as racism, ethnicity-based discrimination, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, ableism, poverty, etc.
I think it is helpful to understand what one's status in their culture entails and how that status affects a person's quality of life. If you are privileged, I believe it is a responsibility to do what you can to help others who are less fortunate than you are—be it through giving to charities, speaking out against racism and sexism, supporting LGBT rights, or doing more than one or all of those things.

I understand what adopting the "privilege" perspective is about. I just don't buy the arguments that it has any utility compared to simply observing that some groups have a disadvantage.
Anyone prone to saying "Check your privilege!", deserves the response, "Check yer own, bub!". It would always be valid.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Certainly, things will vary from country to country. Where I live, "homophobic culture" would be an absurd claim. Here, the difficulty of coming out to one's parents would be just another of difficulties every kid faces.

I disagree that it is just another difficulty. I still have not come out to many family members, and my reservations are based on keeping personal safety. That is all together a larger degree of difficulty than telling them I would rather commit to a career in dance instead of engineering (nothing personal again engineers mind you).

That was a rough conversation, and one that took many years of awkward conversations afterward. But I never felt as if my safety or my life would be in danger if I let them know. On the other hand, coming out and revealing my orientation? To all my family members?

NO. WAY. I know what they like to do with queers.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Certainly, things will vary from country to country. Where I live, "homophobic culture" would be an absurd claim. Here, the difficulty of coming out to one's parents would be just another of difficulties every kid faces.

Apparently not for all kids:

Make It Stop (September's Children) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand what adopting the "privilege" perspective is about. I just don't buy the arguments that it has any utility compared to simply observing that some groups have a disadvantage.
Anyone prone to saying "Check your privilege!", deserves the response, "Check yer own, bub!". It would always be valid.

Well, try saying that to most LGBT people in the Bible Belt and tell me what response you receive.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree that it is just another difficulty. I still have not come out to many family members, and my reservations are based on keeping personal safety. That is all together a larger degree of difficulty than telling them I would rather commit to a career in dance instead of engineering (nothing personal again engineers mind you).
That was a rough conversation, and one that took many years of awkward conversations afterward. But I never felt as if my safety or my life would be in danger if I let them know. On the other hand, coming out and revealing my orientation? To all my family members?
NO. WAY. I know what they like to do with queers.

As difficult as that would be, non-gay kids face great stress in sundry areas. You faced that one, & therefore might see straight kids as privileged, but each one of them has demons to face, eg, grade stress with helicopter parents, falling in with the wrong crowd, depression, social ostracization, poverty, bullying, disease, etc, etc. At that age, things are rough all over, & no one should claim greater legitimacy of one's own pain. To call them "privileged" smacks of dismissing them & their obstacles.

 

[Revoltingest]

Apparently not for all kids:
Make It Stop (September's Children) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, try saying that to most LGBT people in the Bible Belt and tell me what response you receive.

Just in case you're displaying a little sanctimony, remember that in the Bible Belt, I'm one of the "unprivileged" as a vocal heathen who praises defeating The Confederacy.

Note: I get along well with southern Bible Belters because I never tell them to check their privilege. They appreciate this.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Just in case you're displaying a little sanctimony, remember that in the Bible Belt, I'm one of the "unprivileged" as a vocal heathen who praises defeating The Confederacy.

Note: I get along well with southern Bible Belters because I never tell them to check their privilege. They appreciate this.

Oh, I know all about being a "heathen" in a Bible Belt-like place. At least we can agree that such status is unprivileged.

If a privileged person made comments that suggested indifference to or tacit approval for the status quo, I think telling them to check their privilege would definitely make sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I know all about being a "heathen" in a Bible Belt-like place. At least we can agree that such status is unprivileged.

If a privileged person made comments that suggested indifference to or tacit approval for the status quo, I think telling them to check their privilege would definitely make sense.

I don't think accusations of "privilege" ever serve the cause of civil discussion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think accusations of "privilege" ever serve the cause of civil discussion.

I think they do if they are based on demonstrable facts. They can be very useful to drive a point home.

It seems to me that tacit approval of sexism and misogyny doesn't serve civil discussion either.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think they do if they are based on demonstrable facts. They can be very useful to drive a point home.

It seems to me that tacit approval of sexism and misogyny doesn't serve civil discussion either.

Does tacit approval of misandry & racism serve it?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

As difficult as that would be, non-gay kids face great stress in sundry areas. You faced that one, & therefore might see straight kids as privileged, but each one of them has demons to face, eg, grade stress with helicopter parents, falling in with the wrong crowd, depression, social ostracization, poverty, bullying, disease, etc, etc. At that age, things are rough all over, & no one should claim greater legitimacy of one's own pain. To call them "privileged" smacks of dismissing them & their obstacles.

I have two examples of where one personal difficulty was far greater than another one. If one wishes to generalize and see no contrast in social and psychological impact of difficult childhood and disappointing parents to fearing for ones own life, then there really is nowhere else to go.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Does tacit approval of misandry & racism serve it?

No.

Assuming we are talking about such approval and not legitimate and fact-based descriptions of social and cultural phenomena.

 

[Sunstone]

I think they do if they are based on demonstrable facts. They can be very useful to drive a point home.

It seems to me that tacit approval of sexism and misogyny doesn't serve civil discussion either.

Well, some folks think the truth shouldn't be spoken if it offends anyone. LOL!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Well, some folks think the truth shouldn't be spoken if it offends anyone. LOL!

Sunny...didn't you know that "truth" must pass the litmus test of the Self-Made Marlboro Man American Myth first? I mean, if Chuck Norris scoffs at a claim, it must not be true. And it must not be American.

 

[Sunstone]

Sunny...didn't you know that "truth" must pass the litmus test of the Self-Made Marlboro Man American Myth first? I mean, if Chuck Norris scoffs at a claim, it must not be true. And it must not be American.

What interests me is that some of the very people who would scoff at the notion you should not criticize a religion for fear of offending its adherents seem to embrace the notion feminists should not tell the truth for fear it will offend men. I find that fascinating.

 

[Revoltingest]

So feminist truths like "Dead Men Don't Rape" shouldn't be criticized, eh? And you wonder about why people recoil at such misandry & histrionics.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What interests me is that some of the very people who would scoff at the notion you should not criticize a religion for fear of offending its adherents seem to embrace the notion feminists should not tell the truth for fear it will offend men. I find that fascinating.

It is most certainly fascinating. How to define it?

Chauvinism? No that's too close to "chauvinist pig" and men feel insulted.

Privilege? No, that implies that men are sitting around eating Bon Bons and don't have any difficulties in their own lives, and men feel insulted.

Male Gaze? No, that's another term men don't like.

I GOT IT!!! Let's describe the dichotomy in terms like Cute Fluffy Bunny Pookie Bear, or Hot Stud Muffin Testosterone Dripping Deliciousness depending on how the ego is to be stroked that time of the day.

Would that be an accurate and authentic term while making sure that men don't feel insulted?

 

[Sunstone]

It is most certainly fascinating. How to define it?

Chauvinism? No that's too close to "chauvinist pig" and men feel insulted.

Privilege? No, that implies that men are sitting around eating Bon Bons and don't have any difficulties in their own lives, and men feel insulted.

Male Gaze? No, that's another term men don't like.

I GOT IT!!! Let's describe the dichotomy in terms like Cute Fluffy Bunny Pookie Bear, or Hot Stud Muffin Testosterone Dripping Deliciousness depending on how the ego is to be stroked that time of the day.

Would that be an accurate and authentic term while making sure that men don't feel insulted?

Well, I think you've finally gotten your priorities right. Whether someone takes offense or not trumps any consideration of whether something is true or not. This is a principle honored in nearly every village worldwide by the village's idiots.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is most certainly fascinating. How to define it?

Chauvinism? No that's too close to "chauvinist pig" and men feel insulted.

Privilege? No, that implies that men are sitting around eating Bon Bons and don't have any difficulties in their own lives, and men feel insulted.

Male Gaze? No, that's another term men don't like.

I GOT IT!!! Let's describe the dichotomy in terms like Cute Fluffy Bunny Pookie Bear, or Hot Stud Muffin Testosterone Dripping Deliciousness depending on how the ego is to be stroked that time of the day.

Would that be an accurate and authentic term while making sure that men don't feel insulted?

I presume then that you won't object to the term "feminazi", since it accurately describes some feminists, & we wouldn't want to avoid the truth just to spare feelings.

 

[Sunstone]

I presume then that you won't object to the term "feminazi", since it accurately describes some feminists, & we wouldn't want to avoid the truth just to spare feelings.

It's intriguing that you believe the word "feminazi" (which is commonly used to compare feminists to a group of criminals who began a war that murdered 50 million people) "accurately describes some feminists" while at the same time believing yourself to be more or less objective and fair-minded.