"check your privilege"

[Rain Dragon]

Does their gender or their race have anything to do with the discussion? If the five of you are talking about building a bridge, why does it matter that the lone woman have an "unequel voice"? Should a man, regardless of the context of the conversation, count for a fraction of a woman dependent on their make up? Should those four men building the bridge be 1/4th a person so that the split in gender is even? If there were ten men and ten women would the men count as one person?

I think that part of the post makes the most sense paired with the example below it.

If we're talking about building a physical bridge, then gender likely doesn't help build the bridge. Being the only bridge engineer out of the five people however would.
If we're talking about womens' experience in a university then the men likely won't have the first hand experience of going to a university as a woman.

It's important then that those five people whether building a bridge or improving university life for a group listen to the different ideas and weight them properly within the context rather than try to create a universal thing for every situation.

Going back to the bridge example with four people with average knowledge of bridges and one bridge engineer, if the engineer can get across that they are a bridge engineer, this is how they'd build this bridge and this is why it improves the bridge then the other four people have learned how to build a better bridge and can spread the bridge building word after it works.
But if they say hey, the majority have said build the bridge this way without properly looking at that context then the bridge is more likely to be a worse bridge than if they could properly understand and explore the engineer's likely many ideas and experiences on building a bridge. (Not to say any of the four's bridge ideas wouldn't also improve the bridge, but that the balance doesn't have to be split exactly 1/5 in planning for there to be a balanced bridge building experience!)

[Tvtyrant]

Without social and systemic oppression there would not be gangs in the first place.

Like the poor oppressed Irish and Italian mobs? Or the systemically and socially White biker gangs? What social and systemic oppression do you believe leads to mercenaries and cartels?

Heck, Fraternities are the definition of privelege and are identical to gangs. Initiation rights, drugs, violence.

[Zebalas]

Like the poor oppressed Irish and Italian mobs? Or the systemically and socially White biker gangs? What social and systemic oppression do you believe leads to mercenaries and cartels?

Hey you are the one saying they are the same thing. You tell me.

[Tvtyrant]

Hey you are the one saying they are the same thing. You tell me.

See Frats above. Gangs are just a basic form of human organization, and are found in all classes of society. I'm going to need some evidence that their formation is from oppression when occupied by minorities but not when white biker gangs are formed.

[Zebalas]

See Frats above. Gangs are just a basic form of human organization, and are found in all classes of society. I'm going to need some evidence that their formation is from oppression when occupied by minorities but not when white biker gangs are formed.

Gang activity is very prevalent in lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos where underprivileged children are often recruited. Economic hardships often fall on families with children under the age of 18. Poverty stricken adolescences commonly resort to gangs because a gang can give youth a sense of control and a way to make money. Youth that are craving a role model can seek this out in a gang.

[WarKitty]

I think that part of the post makes the most sense paired with the example below it.

If we're talking about building a physical bridge, then gender likely doesn't help build the bridge. Being the only bridge engineer out of the five people however would.
If we're talking about womens' experience in a university then the men likely won't have the first hand experience of going to a university as a woman.

It's important then that those five people whether building a bridge or improving university life for a group listen to the different ideas and weight them properly within the context rather than try to create a universal thing for every situation.

Going back to the bridge example with four people with average knowledge of bridges and one bridge engineer, if the engineer can get across that they are a bridge engineer, this is how they'd build this bridge and this is why it improves the bridge then the other four people have learned how to build a better bridge and can spread the bridge building word after it works.
But if they say hey, the majority have said build the bridge this way without properly looking at that context then the bridge is more likely to be a worse bridge than if they could properly understand and explore the engineer's likely many ideas and experiences on building a bridge. (Not to say any of the four's bridge ideas wouldn't also improve the bridge, but that the balance doesn't have to be split exactly 1/5 in planning for there to be a balanced bridge building experience!)

Right - I'm presuming a discussion where the experience and/or treatment of the minority is the topic at hand. Presumably the 5 men do in fact not know as much about the experience of women in a university setting compared to the actual woman. They may have useful things to contribute! But they may also bring a lot of stuff that's really not useful because of the perspective it's coming from (the perpetual "I don't want to be harassed" vs "how can I meet women" comes to mind).

I thought that Universities were majority women now.

In any case, since the '90's when it required a faculty or student I'D to read the books I've*wanted the University ended, and the educators sent to schools, and the books to public libraries, instead of hoarding knowledge for an elite.

Varies a lot by field. I was thinking primarily of graduate school too - there tends not to be near as much interaction between departments as well, so your particular field's statistics tend to have more effect than statistics on women as a whole.

[Zebalas]

To read books? That's absurd. Nowadays you only need ID to take books but you can read them just fine.

Denay acess to books is like contradictory to the purpose of a library.

[WarKitty]

To read books? That's absurd. Nowadays you only need ID to take books but you can read them just fine.

Denay acess to books is like contradictory to the purpose of a library.

It's the journals that are hard - a lot of them require a university login.

[Zebalas]

It's the journals that are hard - a lot of them require a university login.

That's true but I don't think people not involved in academia really want to read journals.

[2D8HP]

...I WAS PHYSICALLY ATTACKED BECAUSE OF MY RACE[...] I was attacked by three dudes who jumped me[...]in High School. I'

Not me. I was punched unconscience by a group of guys, across the street from my high school instead.

No slurs were uttered, I was sucker punched, but since they were all of a similar shade that I was not, and since I'd grown up hearing those slurs, I assume that it waa racial, but who knows?

That was the experience of most every guy I grew up with, no matter their skin shade (not the girls, they mostly didn't get punched, they suffered other forms of harassment).

The slurs and punches would come either from someone bigger, or in a group.

Thing is all my friends suffered, even the mixed kids who you'd think would be spared.

One big difference was that my black friends would get hit by grown men when they were teenagers, but for my white friends they mostly got hit by teenagers when they were kids (a lot to not miss about the '70's and '80's).

By late July, me and the other neighborhood kids, 3/4's of which were not my skin shade, would all play elaborate games of hide and go seek, tag, and pretending that we were members of the same team of dubbed Japanese heroes that we all watched on "Captain Cosmic" where we would climb fences all over the block (sometimes having to run from dogs), and there was little racial strife (except for music sometimes).

Sweet summer days.

Come September, and school and the strife would start.

Not with kids from the block, and seldom with kids in the same class, but other classes?

Yes.

The bigger the school, and the more strangers, the more you had to "mind the territories"

Eventually I walked out of high school forever and woukd go to first the public library, and then two miles up the road to the University libraries instead (when I was big enough to pass for a college student).

How I envied the college students books and bathrooms with stall doors and paper.

[...]For a personal example - some of the conversations about street harassment I've been in. I've heard all the lines about how "I'd love it if women randomly hit on me, what's the big deal"[..]

Those guys are ignorant idiots, who lack basic empathy and imagination, memory, and maybe eyes?

My friends who were girls were already getting followed and "flashed" in 6th grade, and I remember when me and a friend (another teenager) were waiting for the BART train and some old guy would "hit on" her while I was right there, plus the times when creepy old guys would hit on me as well.

How can those guys your talking about think that would be welcome?

Did they came from all boys schools in small towns?

[...]The second problem is that when I've seen that phrase used it's NEVER used to try to move the conversation.

I'm guessing that "Check your privilege" is like calling someone a "SJW", or "virtue signaler" and is a way of announcing tribal affiliation, and telling someone of the "other tribe" to be silent.

I mean, except for an elite group, the vast majority of people are struggling too hard to get what they have to feel very privileged, even when they see others getting a worse deal.

We as humans tend to judge life using our own experiences as a medium and a lens, that doesn't work all the time because we tend to assume lots of things....

I sure do!

I've heard it in person.

I must be privileged than, because I haven't.

The worry I'm having is we're getting to the point where there simply is no way that's not seen as rude and off-putting to have any sort of important discussion about social issues with anyone you don't know intimately, unless you can put it into something you can quantify.

That is not workable. Many very important social issues can't be easily quantified. And sometimes there is no way at all to make a point to someone without saying no, your experience doesn't apply here, because you're assuming how things work for you is how they work for someone else and that isn't the case.

You cannot make a change if every way you could realistically engage with someone who doesn't understand is seen as rude.

Um... progress is always seen as rude, otherwise it would already happen, many examples come to mind, but....

Virtue signal is mostly a phrase used by the extreme opposite group. So it's used by even still another group....

Different "tribe" otherwise much the same type of usage, AFAICT.

Who gets to be the representative of each viewpoint? Who gets to decide what counts as an individual viewpoint? Who gets to take those turns? If there are 5 men and one woman (which is far fairer than the gender roles I got in academia), that one woman's voice is going to be drowned out pretty quickly if you're insisting that everyone get an even share. And it's often made worse - there are studies that women do often get interrupted or cut off much more frequently than men, and men by and large don't notice when this is happening, so they get the idea that it's a fair discussion when it's not.

There's also a fatigue aspect. Not every discussion is without consequences. To use a completely over the top example, suppose I was regularly dealing with people arguing that I should not attend university due to my gender. And every time there was a discussion about the experience of women in the university, someone wanted to come in and present their argument as to why women shouldn't be attending university. I think you could see where the women would feel that at some point, dealing with that same argument every time prevented them from ever moving past it.

I thought that Universities were majority women now.

In any case, since the '90's when it required a faculty or student I'D to read the books I've wanted the University ended, and the educators sent to schools, and the books to public libraries, instead of hoarding knowledge for an elite.

EDIT:

...Varies a lot by field. I was thinking primarily of graduate school too - there tends not to be near as much interaction between departments as well, so your particular field's statistics tend to have more effect than statistics on women as a whole.

That makes sense.

Still it's hard for me to see anyone who gets to be a University student as anything other than privileged, a privilege I wish we all could enjoy.

To read books? That's absurd. Nowadays you only need ID to take books but you can read them just fine.

Denay acess to books is like contradictory to the purpose of a library.

Nope, ID to enter, besides I'd like those books to be fully available to everyone, like most public library books.

To me Universities are the privileged making their children (and a very few tokens) more privileged.

I hope I'm not overstepping, but I'd like education (and the time and safety to get one) be a common birthright.

Let kids have a quiet and safe place to read, and maybe teachers who teach things besides organized violence!

It's the journals that are hard - a lot of them require a university login.

That's true but I don't think people not involved in academia really want to read journals.

So say the knowledge hoarders.

Some of the happiest moments of my life were at the Doe library, and the Morrison reading room, and the bastards took that away so that only a selected elite could use them.
FURTHER EDIT:
Check YOUR privilege

Sorry Zeblas, though was rude of me, and I assumed that local conditions apply elsewhere.

For all I know maybe Universities in your area teach the public and allow people to read the works they contain.

[WarKitty]

Still it's hard for me to see anyone who gets to be a University student as anything other than privileged, a privilege I wish we all could enjoy.

Nope, ID to enter, besides I'd like those books to be fully available to everyone, like most public library books.

To me Universities are the privileged making their children (and a very few tokens) more privileged.

I hope I'm not overstepping, but I'd like education (and the time and safety to get one) be a common birthright.

Let kids have a quiet and safe place to read, and maybe teachers who teach things besides organized violence!

Privilege is a relative concept. So I can (an am) be privileged by being born in a middle class family where I had the education and backing to get into university. At the same time I definitely got the sense that once I was there, there were distinct disadvantages for me as a woman. And I know of women who were driven out by sexual harassment.

Privilege is very rarely an all or nothing thing. It's more like there's a bunch of different axes and you can be more or less privileged on any given one, but they're also interconnected in weird ways.

[2D8HP]

Privilege is a relative concept. So I can (an am) be privileged by being born in a middle class family where I had the education and backing to get into university. At the same time I definitely got the sense that once I was there, there were distinct disadvantages for me as a woman. And I know of women who were driven out by sexual harassment.

Privilege is very rarely an all or nothing thing. It's more like there's a bunch of different axes and you can be more or less privileged on any given one, but they're also interconnected in weird ways.

Your right about women being harassed enough to fear being outside alone, I heard the tales and even saw it happen to my friends.

Boys get bullied and harassed as well, but that doesn't change that it's mostly males doing the punching.

It would've been nice if adults would stop the punching instead of organizing it.

[Vinyadan]

The worry I'm having is we're getting to the point where there simply is no way that's not seen as rude and off-putting to have any sort of important discussion about social issues with anyone you don't know intimately, unless you can put it into something you can quantify.

That is not workable. Many very important social issues can't be easily quantified. And sometimes there is no way at all to make a point to someone without saying no, your experience doesn't apply here, because you're assuming how things work for you is how they work for someone else and that isn't the case.

You cannot make a change if every way you could realistically engage with someone who doesn't understand is seen as rude.

Isn't that how it should be? It's one thing to discuss matters, but it's a different thing to try and convert people to abandon their ways. Assume that someone came to you and told you "you aren't a good xxxxxx, because..." The first thing I would think is "What does he want? He knows nothing about me or my life!"

Making a discussion in general and then asking, "do you recognize yourself in this?", sounds much better to me, because, this way, you are letting the other person talk about the subject that she undoubtedly knows better than you: herself. And then you can explain that it isn't like that for everyone.

[Florian]

It's possible that it could be used well, but again it's important to remember that because somebody comes from a position you PRESUME to be privileged does not make that the case in absolute.

I think I can understand what you're trying to say there. Correct me if I'm wrong: "Don't presume that any white cis male has privileges because he is a white cis male". If I'm right, then I generally agree with you.

But also keep in mind that debating culture and hot topics are very different between the U.S. and the EU and a lot of the stuff that swaps over is simply.... odd.

For example, something that comes up in local public discussions a lot lately, is the question "What's up with the east?" (referencing to eastern Germany, the former DDR, alternatively to the eastern EU member states). This is generally asked from a privileged position, because the underlying question really is "Why is the east not like us?". So "check your privileges" is the correct answer to it.

Privilege is very rarely an all or nothing thing.

Depends on the scale of things. I am privileged to have grown up in a functioning democracy. I know that because a good third of my fellow countrymen have grown up in what was basically a dictatorship.
I am privileged because I grew up in a country with free universal healthcare and free universal education, but also with the option to switch back and forth to a privately paid version of both. I know that because I've been in countries that have either/or, but not both.

This are very real privileges that actually matter and that some people are so used to, they forget they have them.

[Razade]

If we're talking about building a physical bridge, then gender likely doesn't help build the bridge. Being the only bridge engineer out of the five people however would.

Barring any metaphysical bridges you want to bring into the situation, with you 100%.

If we're talking about womens' experience in a university then the men likely won't have the first hand experience of going to a university as a woman.

Right. Now here's the follow up. Does that disqualify those four men from speaking about the issue? Because unlike building a bridge, you don't have to go to university to be a woman in a university. Meaning, there's no classes for it. It's just a state of being and maybe one or all four of those men have known OTHER women in OTHER universities and feel they have some feedback to give. Are they allowed? Do they have to check their privilege of being a male while giving advice other women have given them? Because it's all anecdotal at this stage of the game right? It's all personal experience so does Women A's experiences trump Man B's mother's experiences that he witnessesed and discussed with her?

Where do we draw the line. Obviously not one for every situation but that's what at lot of people are proposing. Not you. You're not proposing that but people like AMVF are discussing those people.

It's important then that those five people whether building a bridge or improving university life for a group listen to the different ideas and weight them properly within the context rather than try to create a universal thing for every situation.

Indeed, that's certainly reasonable. I won't ask you to answer for people proposing a universal setting.

Going back to the bridge example with four people with average knowledge of bridges and one bridge engineer, if the engineer can get across that they are a bridge engineer, this is how they'd build this bridge and this is why it improves the bridge then the other four people have learned how to build a better bridge and can spread the bridge building word after it works.

Sure, the person has more qualifications maybe. But they can still be wrong. Experiences doesn't make one an expert. So to de-couple this. Just because a woman is a woman in a University that doesn't mean a man isn't wrong when giving a solution or weighing in on options to help improve the situation. So why check their privilege if their suggestion is correct?

But if they say hey, the majority have said build the bridge this way without properly looking at that context then the bridge is more likely to be a worse bridge than if they could properly understand and explore the engineer's likely many ideas and experiences on building a bridge. (Not to say any of the four's bridge ideas wouldn't also improve the bridge, but that the balance doesn't have to be split exactly 1/5 in planning for there to be a balanced bridge building experience!)

Right but what if it's the reverse like asked above? What if the one person is wrong and they're just talking out their butt? Or adding qualifications they don't have or their experiences don't align with reality or any other number of variables.


Being a woman doesn't inherently make you the spokesperson of all women's issues in a University. It just makes you the spokesperson of you.

[Rain Dragon]

Does that disqualify those four men from speaking about the issue?
Do they have to check their privilege of being a male while giving advice other women have given them?

Where do we draw the line. Obviously not one for every situation but that's what at lot of people are proposing.

I apologise in advance for all the snipping but I just want to quickly answer your questions before leaving this thread be.

For the first question, no not at all. It does however mean one should consider this concept in the conversation just as one should for example consider confirmation bias exists and whether one is accounting for this.

I definitely agree that more people of a group (ideally all) can and often do contribute to solutions, peace and/or whatever else the goal was.

I don't agree the check your privilage idea should be used to permenantly silence and/or exclude.
I do agree the check your privilege idea should be used to ensure everyone can come to an understanding.

[S@tanicoaldo]

So say the knowledge hoarders.

Some of the happiest moments of my life were at the Doe library, and the Morrison reading room, and the bastards took that away so that only a selected elite could use them.
FURTHER EDIT:
Check YOUR privilege

I think this illustrate the idea well, both 2D8HP and AMFV didn't go to college(I think AMFV went to but didn't finish) and you both seem to come from struggling economic backgrounds (Sorry to assume satuff).

So we can say you two are unprivileged in the education and economic aspect compared to me and WarKitty who are both born in a middle class familly and able to go to college.

That doesn't mean we are better then you two it just means we had different oportunities, we didn't work for this oportunities, we were giving those advantages automatically.

So if we started saying "People who didn't go to colllege are lazy" or "People who didn't get a college degree are not as smart" I bet you guys would have stuff to say to us, one of those is "Check your privilege" even if you don't use that specific expression, becuase your perspective is different and you are better qualified to talk about how a person who was not able to go college feel or is.

So I think that's the idea behind the expression.

[thorgrim29]

Like most of the current social justice culture war thing I feel like this is a case of basically sound principles being misunderstood and misapplied (intentionally or not) and used as cudgels in conversations with people who will take them as insults because they are basically used as such.

In this case the principle is that you should be introspective enough to realize that not everybody lives in the same situation as you and that they might have lacked some of the advantages that you have had in life, often based on physical and mental ability, family and socio-economic background and "membership" in a minority group. Therefore you should let that awareness colour your judgement of and interactions with others.

A classic example of really well-meaning people not considering their privilege is tax credits for poor families with children. The idea is to help out poor people but they typically miss the mark because poor people generally don't do their taxes so you end up just helping middle class people, but this is really hard to wrap your head around if you're the sort of person working on tax policy.

I do think that "check your privilege" might work as a shorthand when you're talking to people who understand the underlying principle but it's extremely counter-productive when you're trying to convince somebody who is not already on-board because even if you have all the good faith in the world they will have probably run into it being used as basically "hur dur you're a white man therefore your opinion is worthless so shut up" and by uttering those 3 words you will shut down any possibility of getting somewhere.

[WarKitty]

[QUOTE=Vinyadan;23077435]Isn't that how it should be? It's one thing to discuss matters, but it's a different thing to try and convert people to abandon their ways. Assume that someone came to you and told you "you aren't a good xxxxxx, because..." The first thing I would think is "What does he want? He knows nothing about me or my life!"/QUOTE]

I mean, part of the thing that's often happening is you're trying to say "your ways are hurting other people, and you're not seeing that because of where you're coming from." People aren't talking about matters for funsies - they're talking about them because they think something bad is happening and people need to change what they're doing in order for the bad thing to not be happening.

For an obvious example, I obviously want the guy shouting out his car window about how he wants to touch me to change his ways.

Right. Now here's the follow up. Does that disqualify those four men from speaking about the issue? Because unlike building a bridge, you don't have to go to university to be a woman in a university. Meaning, there's no classes for it. It's just a state of being and maybe one or all four of those men have known OTHER women in OTHER universities and feel they have some feedback to give. Are they allowed? Do they have to check their privilege of being a male while giving advice other women have given them? Because it's all anecdotal at this stage of the game right? It's all personal experience so does Women A's experiences trump Man B's mother's experiences that he witnessesed and discussed with her?

I've found this generally isn't the case where people are wanting to invoke privilege.

A more common example, and something I've actually seen happen - women want to talk about sexual harassment and how certain behaviors make it harder for them to be taken seriously and feel like they can be safe and accepted. However, there are more men than women, and what many of the men want to talk about is how it's hard for them to get a date and how the women wanting to focus on work is preventing them from getting a date. And the conversation ends up by sheer numbers being far more about the romantic difficulties of the men involved (because from their perspective that's what's important) than the women's desire to feel safe and like their romantic choices aren't going to affect their ability to do their jobs.

That's a case where privilege is going to be invoked, because it's clear that since the men in question haven't experienced the subject under discussion, they're not taking it seriously. And if the conversation ends up staying focused on how men can't get a date, the women's objection is going to be effectively shut down because they don't have the voice to keep pushing it against what the majority want to talk about.

[Aedilred]

Bit of a side-topic, then back onto the main topic.

One major thing I dislike about the "check your privilege" interjection is that it seems to call a thing "privilege" which I would have called basic civil rights. This is disturbing for a variety of reasons:

- Basic civil rights ought to be rights, not privileges.

- The idea that you can and should strip someone of their "privilege" is very problematic when you realize that it's actually civil rights.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who has this problem with the phrase as commonly used.

[Zen]

You don 't know anything about a persons life just because you know their sex, race, gender or sexuality.

So don't assume you do.

[Liquor Box]

Without social and systemic oppression there would not be gangs in the first place.

Do you have any basis for that remark?

There are examples of gangs that belong to the dominant race and gender, who come form relatively wealthy backgrounds. The only people they have been oppressed by (as far as I can see) is legitimate law enforcement.

Gang activity is very prevalent in lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos where underprivileged children are often recruited. Economic hardships often fall on families with children under the age of 18. Poverty stricken adolescences commonly resort to gangs because a gang can give youth a sense of control and a way to make money. Youth that are craving a role model can seek this out in a gang.

Gangs may be more prevalent where people are relatively poor (although poor does not necessarily equal oppressed), but that is not the same thing as your earlier comment that there would not be gangs without oppression.

[Zebalas]

So say the knowledge hoarders.

Some of the happiest moments of my life were at the Doe library, and the Morrison reading room, and the bastards took that away so that only a selected elite could use them.
FURTHER EDIT:
Check YOUR privilege

Sorry Zeblas, though was rude of me, and I assumed that local conditions apply elsewhere.

For all I know maybe Universities in your area teach the public and allow people to read the works they contain.

No need to apologize, but yeah I never went to university, I did get a scholarship but had to quit to take care of my Mom who got very sick.

After that my brother passed away and I became the guardian for his sons. So I never had time for that.

But I did help around the kids when they were in college and I love going to university events.

But me? I'm a humble metalworker.

Do you have any basis for that remark?

1. Gordon, R A. (2004). Antisocial Behavior and Youth Gang Membership: Selection and Socialization. Criminology, 42(1), 55-89.
2. Joseph, J. (2008). Gangs and Gang Violence in School. Journal of gang research, 16(1), 33-50.,
3.Stretesky, Paul B. and Pogrebin, Mark R. 2007 "Gang-Related Gun Violence: Socialization, Identity, and Self" Journal of Contemporary Ethnographyvolume 360 (issue 1): Pages 85-114 (Retrieved from Database Illumina on August 6, 2009)
4. Shields N., Nadasen K., Pierce L. The effects of community violence on children in Cape Town, South Africa (2008) Child Abuse and Neglect, 32 (5), pp. 589-601.
5. Feinstein, Diane. "Gang Violence: An Environment of Fear." U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein. 2006. 13 Aug 2009 <http://feinstein.senate.gov/06speeches/s-gang-violence1023.htm>.
6. Malec, Danny(2006)'Transforming Latino Gang Violence in the United States',Peace Review,18:1,81 — 89
7. Miller, W.B.. " Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a Crime Problem in Major American Cities." 1977 Web.13 Aug 2009. <http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=137446>.
8. Stephan, James. "State Prisons Expenditures, 2001." Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report (2004): Print.
9. Huff, R.C. "Crime and Delinquency: Youth Gangs and Public Policy" 1989; 35
10. McCorkle, Richard C. and Miethe, Terance D.(1998)'The political and organizational response to gangs: An
examination of a “Moral panic” in Nevada',Justice Quarterly,15:1,41 — 64

There are examples of gangs that belong to the dominant race and gender, who come form relatively wealthy backgrounds. The only people they have been oppressed by (as far as I can see) is legitimate law enforcement.

I was not talking about those types gangs.

Gangs may be more prevalent where people are relatively poor (although poor does not necessarily equal oppressed)

Do you have any basis for that remark?

but that is not the same thing as your earlier comment that there would not be gangs without oppression.

I was talking about one specific type of gang. The type where youth feel that uniting as a gang is a way many oppressed individuals can overcome prejudices. A gang can offer its members a sense of protection and belonging. Many of the inequalities that gang members fight against stem from racism and from the fact that they are of a minority group. In this nation there is a high value placed on being "white". Ore claims that inequality stems from the values we as a society attach to the differences we see between us and other people. The key way that gangs lash out against this inequality is through violence. Violence has become a standard operating procedure with in gangs. The violence has essentially become a culture. Guns give gang members a false sense of power and importance because of the drastic impact guns can make.

[Razade]

I've found this generally isn't the case where people are wanting to invoke privilege.

Cool, lucky you. I might point out that perhaps men don't generally feel like they have a right to invoke privilege because when they do they're told they're already the top of the food chain. Just...just a thought. It also could be that there is a global patriarchy and men just have this awesome "get out of crap" free card. Reality doesn't bare that out in most of the world (not denying there are some patriarchies still hanging on) but ya know. I find most people who do invoke privilege checking don't actually live in the reality I find myself inhabiting anyway so it's moot.

A more common example, and something I've actually seen happen - women want to talk about sexual harassment and how certain behaviors make it harder for them to be taken seriously and feel like they can be safe and accepted.

I can't speak to the validity of the first statement and I'd challenge you to back up the assertion you're making about the commonality of your example. Wow...that..came off snooty. How's this. Hitchen's Razor. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Moving on.

I'm not saying that doesn't happen and it's a real issue. But to say men have a lesser voice or no voice at all just because they're men is....laughable at best and misandrist at worst.

However, there are more men than women,

Sorry to pick this out of a larger narrative but...wher. Where are there more men than women? Globablly that's not the case and it hasn't been the case in the United States Univisity scene for almost a decade. So where are there more men than women? In like...high paying jobs? Because that's true of some jobs. Please be specific. That, frankly, is one of the things frustrating me in this conversation. People (you weren't until just now) are talking in broad strokes and I'm trying to be very precise and specific on terminology and examples.

So. Clarify, if you could please.

and what many of the men want to talk about is how it's hard for them to get a date and how the women wanting to focus on work is preventing them from getting a date. And the conversation ends up by sheer numbers being far more about the romantic difficulties of the men involved (because from their perspective that's what's important) than the women's desire to feel safe and like their romantic choices aren't going to affect their ability to do their jobs.

I can't say much to this because that's honestly not my experience. My experience is a lot of women claim to have been sexually assaulted. The men in question (or man) have their lives ruined, are almost thrown into prison and then it turns out the woman was lying. Then nothing happens to the woman outside of just misfiling a police report. The man still has to live with the stigma of being a rapist/molester though. It never leaves them. Even though they didn't. Which makes their lives really rather hard.

Or, and this is an even more prevalent problem I have encountered, the constant crowing that men can't be raped. Or male rape is less bad than female rape because it only happens to convicts. Or that men can't suffer domestic, or any, abuse because they're not a minority or any other justification. Even though we know that men on average suffer just as much domestic and familial abuse as women but it's far less reported and even far less believed.

None of the above, mind, is to take away from the issue of harassment and rape and all the other stuff women have to deal with. Just pointing out we're approaching this, it seems, from two very different walks of life. Which just illustrates my point as to why the phrase is useless.

That's a case where privilege is going to be invoked, because it's clear that since the men in question haven't experienced the subject under discussion, they're not taking it seriously.

Well no...it's not clear...nothing you said indicated that they hadn't been abused or harassed. You left that out. In your example are the men doing the harassing or abusing not victims of the same? Because we know that people who are abused and harassed have brain chemistry changes and are more likely to also abuse and harass people. Are you saying that because they're not taking it AS seriously as you'd like them to that's evidence that they haven't? I was held at gunpoint and had my car stolen. I was seconds away from death, as far as I knew in the moment and still pretty sure I got damn lucky to walk away. I've had three attempted suicides, all very lucky to have come out of them. I talk about killing myself all the time in pretty light hearted manners. Just because I'm laughing about it doesn't mean I don't think it's serious. Sometimes, that's a coping mechanism.

And I think, rather honestly, that it says more about you than it does about me that you'd leap to the conclusion that a person couldn't have been the victim based on whatever criteria you're basing it off of instead of asking if they had. Or that you'd set up a scenario to prove a point and then omit the very real possibility that at least one or two men in the scenario hadn't gone through the same. Because if it's the former...shame on you. If it's the latter...you're being dishonest and I see you very clearly. I don't particularly care which of the two it is. Neither look good.

And if the conversation ends up staying focused on how men can't get a date, the women's objection is going to be effectively shut down because they don't have the voice to keep pushing it against what the majority want to talk about.

Again, I haven't had this experience and I think it's...well. It's weird. Because most guys I know don't care about that kind of thing. They aren't so thirsty as to focus on that when someone claims they've been harassed. None of that mitigates the above though. Because maybe they're so focused on wanting a date is because they feel some kind of pressure to be in a relationship. There's a lot of variables. You're setting up a scenario, and the more you talk about it the more I think it's the latter of the above and not the former, where the woman is in the right by default and the men are just pigs.

Which, again, is not very honest or fair of you.

I was talking about one specific type of gang. The type where youth feel that uniting as a gang is a way many oppressed individuals can overcome prejudices. A gang can offer its members a sense of protection and belonging. Many of the inequalities that gang members fight against stem from racism and from the fact that they are of a minority group. In this nation there is a high value placed on being "white". Ore claims that inequality stems from the values we as a society attach to the differences we see between us and other people. The key way that gangs lash out against this inequality is through violence. Violence has become a standard operating procedure with in gangs. The violence has essentially become a culture. Guns give gang members a false sense of power and importance because of the drastic impact guns can make.

It's rather unfair of you to say "there wouldn't be gangs if" and then when people point out that that's not the case you say "Well only these kind of gangs, in this exact situation I wish to define". That...that's very bad form.

[AMFV]

Going back to the bridge example with four people with average knowledge of bridges and one bridge engineer, if the engineer can get across that they are a bridge engineer, this is how they'd build this bridge and this is why it improves the bridge then the other four people have learned how to build a better bridge and can spread the bridge building word after it works.
But if they say hey, the majority have said build the bridge this way without properly looking at that context then the bridge is more likely to be a worse bridge than if they could properly understand and explore the engineer's likely many ideas and experiences on building a bridge. (Not to say any of the four's bridge ideas wouldn't also improve the bridge, but that the balance doesn't have to be split exactly 1/5 in planning for there to be a balanced bridge building experience!)

The problem is that experiencing adversity is not the equivalent of earning how to build a bridge. Experiencing adversity might give you a better insight into the framing of the problem. But it doesn't necessarily give you a proper insight in how to solve it. In fact when people try and solve problems often they hire outside consultants because the fact that they are not already emotionally invested in the way things are can give them insights that people who have had a great deal of experience might have.

Privilege is a relative concept. So I can (an am) be privileged by being born in a middle class family where I had the education and backing to get into university. At the same time I definitely got the sense that once I was there, there were distinct disadvantages for me as a woman. And I know of women who were driven out by sexual harassment.

Privilege is very rarely an all or nothing thing. It's more like there's a bunch of different axes and you can be more or less privileged on any given one, but they're also interconnected in weird ways.

This is true, and is the core of why I'm saying that you shouldn't assume a stranger's privilege or probably even a friend unless you're very close. Because privilege is not a simple thing, and really "checking your privilege" is most suited to personal introspection, where it is actually important and useful, but for you to tell that to somebody else, that's a big assumption, and not necessarily ones that are positive. I mean look at the "racing" example video, where people with privilege are basically framed as cheating in the race of life.

I think this illustrate the idea well, both 2D8HP and AMFV didn't go to college(I think AMFV went to but didn't finish) and you both seem to come from struggling economic backgrounds (Sorry to assume satuff).

[

You don't have to apologize, that isn't an assumption I've said as much. Although not finishing college was a choice for me, not a forced situation. Also I didn't have to pay a cent for college, since it was already being paid for since I'd been in the military for five years. So there is that aspect of things as well. Again the actual situation is more complex than "I'm part of the 'poor' group"

After my father rejoined the Army, I was pretty comfortably middle class, and then upper middle class for the end of my teenage years. My experiences with extreme poverty had definitely given me a different sense of things, but I wasn't poor forever. That's a big problem with using categories like financial wellbeing to assess people's life experiences, it just doesn't work, because real life is complicated. Although I will admit that I am unusually complicated example. But just because somebody is well off now doesn't mean they have no experience with poverty, and just because somebody is poor now doesn't mean that they've always been so.

So we can say you two are unprivileged in the education and economic aspect compared to me and WarKitty who are both born in a middle class familly and able to go to college.

But again, I am from a middle class family, I just wasn't always. When I turned 18 and left for the Marines, my family would probably have been considered upper middle class, or on the edge of that, at least in the region where I lived. See again, you can't make assumptions because life is complicated, and people are complicated.

That doesn't mean we are better then you two it just means we had different oportunities, we didn't work for this oportunities, we were giving those advantages automatically.

Well I had a free ride to college and chose not to finish. So you've worked a little there at least. At least worked to take advantage, no? Again boiling it down to, "I just got a degree," is a little bit unnecessarily self-demeaning, at least to my line of thought.

So if we started saying "People who didn't go to colllege are lazy" or "People who didn't get a college degree are not as smart" I bet you guys would have stuff to say to us, one of those is "Check your privilege" even if you don't use that specific expression, becuase your perspective is different and you are better qualified to talk about how a person who was not able to go college feel or is.

Actually I would counter with examples rather than claiming that as somebody who doesn't have a degree I have inherently more and better knowledge on the matter. Ergo, I'd use proof rather than dogmatic, and probably false statements, which is much better for moving discussion forward.

I mean, part of the thing that's often happening is you're trying to say "your ways are hurting other people, and you're not seeing that because of where you're coming from." People aren't talking about matters for funsies - they're talking about them because they think something bad is happening and people need to change what they're doing in order for the bad thing to not be happening.

For an obvious example, I obviously want the guy shouting out his car window about how he wants to touch me to change his ways.

That's fair, but unless you are a having conversation with him specifically, it's not really going to do much.

I've found this generally isn't the case where people are wanting to invoke privilege.

A more common example, and something I've actually seen happen - women want to talk about sexual harassment and how certain behaviors make it harder for them to be taken seriously and feel like they can be safe and accepted. However, there are more men than women, and what many of the men want to talk about is how it's hard for them to get a date and how the women wanting to focus on work is preventing them from getting a date. And the conversation ends up by sheer numbers being far more about the romantic difficulties of the men involved (because from their perspective that's what's important) than the women's desire to feel safe and like their romantic choices aren't going to affect their ability to do their jobs.

I think that there is something to be said though for discussing the men's romantic situations in this conversation. Not because it's super critical but because if you're trying to look at a big sexist mess, you can't exclude a big aspect of it.

That's a case where privilege is going to be invoked, because it's clear that since the men in question haven't experienced the subject under discussion, they're not taking it seriously. And if the conversation ends up staying focused on how men can't get a date, the women's objection is going to be effectively shut down because they don't have the voice to keep pushing it against what the majority want to talk about.

A.) You are making a lot of assumptions about how the men are taking this, and you're making a pretty broad statement that the men in question have never experienced sexual harassment, which may or may not be the case. Since males are discouraged from reporting sexual harassment or even bringing it up. So you're acting on a pretty clearly shaky assumption from the start.

B.) If you are in an environment where shouting somebody down is an option, you aren't convincing anybody, that's just a shouting match. And you shouting back at them, doesn't help anything. Even if it's a cutting remark about their privilege, which again you are likely in actually not really all that aware of.

C.) I mean if they feel uncomfortable talking about it, maybe that's a sign that they aren't really sure of how to proceed. Fixing societal problems is incredibly hard, sometimes impossible. Getting Larry a date, that's a solvable problem right there. That's much easier to talk about.

[Zebalas]

It's rather unfair of you to say "there wouldn't be gangs if" and then when people point out that that's not the case you say "Well only these kind of gangs, in this exact situation I wish to define". That...that's very bad form.

I can see how that comment in a vacuum would give that idea but in the context of the conversation it makes sense, Tvtyrant was referring to gangs from lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos not all forms of organized crime, all you need is some text interpretation skill to see that.

[WarKitty]

That's fair, but unless you are a having conversation with him specifically, it's not really going to do much.

We're back to the same problem here though. Unless you can sit down and have a personal conversation with everyone who's causing the problems (many of whom don't have that kind of relationship with the people they're causing the problems for), you can't really make any changes at all or get your message across.

I mean if they feel uncomfortable talking about it, maybe that's a sign that they aren't really sure of how to proceed. Fixing societal problems is incredibly hard, sometimes impossible. Getting Larry a date, that's a solvable problem right there. That's much easier to talk about.

Honestly, I can't fix that it's uncomfortable. What I'm saying is if 90% of people have one problem, and 10% of people have a different problem, if you give everyone a fair share you're going to end up pretty much entirely talking about the problem the 90% have and the problem the 10% have is going to get drowned out.

Usually this isn't done by shouting match. It's done by a polite, ok I hear what you're saying, but if men have to worry about harassment won't it mean that we can't get a date? Isn't it unfair that it's so hard for a man to get a date? And that happens over and over and over again. So you're faced with choice of either being rude and alienating and saying "look, we're not talking about your problems right now" or spending all your time answering what the majority sees as the problem they want to talk about.

There's a related concept called tone policing. Basically it's the idea that there's a point where asking a minority to be polite and respectful of everyone and include everyone's feelings and only then will you listen means that you're never going to listen. Because unless someone has infinite time and energy that simply can't be done.

There's also an issue that, if you're used to your needs being the most important ones, it's going to feel like you're being neglected. That's just being human. If we bake a pie together, and I've been getting 2/3 and you've been getting 1/3, then my initial reaction to trying to make it more fair is likely to be "hey, why are you trying to take my pie away from me?" And some things - time and attention being some of them - are limited resources.

[AMFV]

I can see how that comment in a vacuum would give that idea but in the context of the conversation it makes sense, Tvtyrant was referring to gangs from lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos not all forms of organized crime, all you need is some text interpretation skill to see that.

You have no idea where TVTyrant is from. He's referring to gangs that bullied him as a kid. There are plenty of places where those are white supremacist groups, there are plenty of places where those are not strictly speaking composed of minorities. You are reading things into the comment that may not be there.

It's a big ****ing leap to "gangs from lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos" when what he said was "Like if I had comitted suicide from constant harassment it would be less awful then growing up in one of the gangs that harassed me." That's a pretty big jump. Without a lot of contextual support for it. I mean you can mention that he mentions hispanic gangs harassing white youth, but he doesn't specifically reference that this is the case for him.

Edit: Also if all gangs come from systemic oppression how do you explain Neo-Nazi gangs?

[Razade]

I can see how that comment in a vacuum would give that idea but in the context of the conversation it makes sense, Tvtyrant was referring to gangs from lower income neighborhoods and ethnic ghettos not all forms of organized crime, all you need is some text interpretation skill to see that.

Yeah no, I've been following the conversation this whole time. Telling me I need to learn to read doesn't get you off the hook. TvTyrant didn't bring in income. Not even once. He didn't mention ghettos. His examples were, I thought, rather clear. You're the one who made a broad sweeping statement to what he said. Several times in fact. First he brought up racial profiling of a white kid in a largely hispanic area. You assumed that he meant that that was low income. Which...doesn't speak well for you does it. To just assume that because they're hispanic they have to be low income. How gross.

Second, he re-itereated when you wanted to chalk that up to "just bullying" even though that's actual profiling and racism...which was his point...he then asked about suicide being less bad because of it. To which you countered back, without even discussing what he said, that without scocio-econimic issues there wouldn't be gangs. No clarification on what you meant by that because a gang doesn't require poverty.

Don't believe me? Here, here's the whole discussion chain. Full context.

But economic class is also a source of privilege.

Besides imagine if that kid was black, don't you think he's going to have a even harder time?
Dealing with racism, poverty and the addiction of his parents. In that sense the Caucasian kid is "privileged" not that he has it easy but that he won't have to deal with one of the things the black kid will have to face.

And there we have it. All people are really just categories of misery, and individual experiences are unimportant.

For instance, there is no way a white kid could be savagely beaten by his hispanic neighbors for his skin color, or chased up against a fence and stoned, or be excluded from his largely latino schools' culture. It is simply categorical.

Bullying is bad sure, but we are talking about social and systemic oppression here, both are terrible but just not in the same level.

Sure. Like if I had comitted suicide from constant harassment it would be less awful then growing up in one of the gangs that harassed me.

Without social and systemic oppression there would not be gangs in the first place.

There ya go. People can check what you were responding to if they want and they can determine if I'm arguing in good faith here. I certainly think I am but ya know....bias is a pesky thing. For clarity, AMVF mentioned meth heads vs Jaden Smith. Zebalas immediately brought in socio-economic issues which...had nothing to do with anything. Once again, Zebalas sees "Drug problem" and immediately goes for them being poor. Because only poor people do drugs.

Edit: Also if all gangs come from systemic oppression how do you explain Neo-Nazi gangs?

That doesn't fit their narrative so they don't classify that as a gang they're talking about. Zebalas is only talking about one very specific type of gang. Now. Now they're only talking about one very specific type of gang. They didn't want to be so specific before. Being held to the fire tends to do that though.

[Zebalas]

Can you please not Quote me on stuff I didn't said? I said no thing about Neo-Nazis, now you are just being treacherous and dishonest.