4 ms·

My point, in fact, was that the conflict is _over_ the perception of privilege. Indeed, it has to be. The corollary to your statement: >privileged groups hav

My point, in fact, was that the conflict is _over_ the perception of privilege. Indeed, it has to be. The corollary to your statement: >privileged groups have historically tended to perceive equality well before disadvantaged groups (and its true emergence). ... is that disadvantaged groups tend to perceive equality after its true emergence. Please disentangle the current context (gender) from this discussion so we may examine a power struggle in the abstract--which is to say, I am _not_ commenting on whether or not gender equality has 'emerged' because such a question is a) too detailed, and b) probably way too ambiguous, because equality is not well defined. (and c) true gender equality, at least from my perspective, require an abolition of gender using lgbtq viewpoints) Groups act in their self-interest. Privileged groups are required to act as if they do not--equivalently, they are asked to place disadvantaged groups within their 'self'--equivalently, their sense of identity is dissolute. Thus (to bring the discussion back in context) my statement was not about 'correctness' or 'taboo,' but the fact that the conflict is _over_ what is 'correct' and 'taboo.' There is a vague discomfort in this topic with the idea of 'girl power.' The wave is beginning to build in the other direction. But those who stray too far, to identify with their group, are shot down by the taboo. (Incidentally, I was not trying to toe that line, merely trying to comment on the line's existence.) We are not in stasis. At some point the wave will have crashed and those 'privileged' with 'unprivileged' status will lose that privilege, and those 'unprivileged' with 'privileged' status will as well. Finally, I consider myself 'queer.' Examine which 'status' that accords my viewpoint, since you are readily prepared to ascribe membership to classes based on viewpoints.

Cushman 15y ago
First, since it wasn't clear, my use of "you" in that last bit was rhetorical. Wasn't intending to address anyone in particular, sorry about that. But since you mention yourself, sure, let's talk that— What would you make of a heterosexual, cisgendered man saying that he doesn't really think people with non-standard gender identities are discriminated against? Again, that's not a taboo thing to say. He's not speaking from bigotry, just ignorance. He has no reason to know or care whether discrimination is going on or not. That's privilege. That's the hallmark of privilege. It's taken for granted. We're just "them". The wealthy, the white, the straight, the cisgendered, the male— we don't need identity, not in this country, not today. We don't need marches or flags or bumper stickers. Every day is our day. And so of course we feel worried by a phrase like "Girl Power" or "Gay Pride" because, not knowing real discrimination, we think that's what it looks like. So I just stopped by to say, you know... No.
- Helianthus 15y ago
  >What would you make of a heterosexual, cisgendered man saying that he doesn't really think people with non-standard gender identities are discriminated against? So now that I'm a member of an "unprivileged" viewpoint, I'm granted the privilege of determining what constitutes ignorance and privilege in other people--you granted it directly by asking me. In this way you are propagating the inequality of privilege. It is enough for me that a viewpoint is wrong; I do not need to associate it with a group. (Or at least, I do my best.) We are in a war over privilege and who has it: the honest attempt is to balance out the economic and societal privilege with privilege in discourse, privilege in judgment, who has a 'right' to feel a certain way. The dishonest attempt is where selfish action leads those who have power to hold onto it. In a theater of discourse as muddled as the internet, as cacophonous as our cities and streets, the combat is about shutting down viewpoints, which is _not about who is right_. Privilege is not a coherent, sane, or consistent concept. I work as a programmer, and am privileged financially as a result. Should I give up this privilege when the simple fact is _society needs programmers?_ By having privilege do I forfeit the right to be proud of my career? Is there a net privilege quantity that I possess? The only determinative answer I have to these questions is the last one, and it is a solid 'No,' because _each privilege I supposedly possess/lack acts along a different axes_, and sometimes a privilege or lack thereof provides benefits and consequences simultaneously. Discrimination, likewise, is not a coherent, sane, or consistent concept. "Knowing real discrimination"--you reference an absolute concept that is actually based on your personal evaluation of what constitutes real discrimination. There is no real discrimination or fake discrimination: all discrimination is discrimination. Some of it is valid: no one is complaining that Stanford doesn't let in people without graduating middle school. Some of it is invalid: the Westboro nuts are morons. Some of it cannot be helped: despite all the progress of feminism, some women just want to get married and submit to their husband, and we are left with no course but to respect that choice. (I respect it: do you?) And some of it we _recognize_ as technically 'unfair' but are hoping to mitigate larger effects: affirmative action. The OP is making a comment about the wider sea. You didn't really provide any evidence to counter his large-scale commentary except for (implicitly) denying his group any privilege to _even contemplate_ the wider sea. That's the problem with these sorts of discussion: someone can say "We're moving towards equality pretty well, overall" and be attacked with "There is still discrimination X." Both statements evaluate as true, so a fight starts anyway, plus it gets tied up into people's identity (that is something you did _explicitly_, in fact) so people get pissed off. For what it's worth, here's my take: the demographic shift for males in the US is broadly towards lower education and employment. Additionally the heterosexual relationship has an altered power balance: forces in the legal system that were discriminatory against women have been targeted for elimination for the past however many years, while _not_ being targeted for men. How much discriminatory cruft remains from our hetero-normative past? It is almost a given that social forces move too far, take too much, and then have to balance out. There are very few conservative revolutions, very few careful idealists. So how _unlikely_ is it that we have not moved past a point, or will very soon, where the equal status of men and women is ambiguous? Arguably the point of equality is _at _ the point in time where equality is ambiguous, because otherwise there wouldn't be much to argue about! (At the very least we can use this to provide lower and upper bounds, eh?) Your knee-jerk reaction, "No," may very soon be out of date.

Cushman 15y ago

First, since it wasn't clear, my use of "you" in that last bit was rhetorical. Wasn't intending to address anyone in particular, sorry about that. But since you mention yourself, sure, let's talk that— What would you make of a heterosexual, cisgendered man saying that he doesn't really think people with non-standard gender identities are discriminated against? Again, that's not a taboo thing to say. He's not speaking from bigotry, just ignorance. He has no reason to know or care whether discrimination is going on or not. That's privilege. That's the hallmark of privilege. It's taken for granted. We're just "them". The wealthy, the white, the straight, the cisgendered, the male— we don't need identity, not in this country, not today. We don't need marches or flags or bumper stickers. Every day is our day. And so of course we feel worried by a phrase like "Girl Power" or "Gay Pride" because, not knowing real discrimination, we think that's what it looks like. So I just stopped by to say, you know... No.

Helianthus 15y ago
>What would you make of a heterosexual, cisgendered man saying that he doesn't really think people with non-standard gender identities are discriminated against? So now that I'm a member of an "unprivileged" viewpoint, I'm granted the privilege of determining what constitutes ignorance and privilege in other people--you granted it directly by asking me. In this way you are propagating the inequality of privilege. It is enough for me that a viewpoint is wrong; I do not need to associate it with a group. (Or at least, I do my best.) We are in a war over privilege and who has it: the honest attempt is to balance out the economic and societal privilege with privilege in discourse, privilege in judgment, who has a 'right' to feel a certain way. The dishonest attempt is where selfish action leads those who have power to hold onto it. In a theater of discourse as muddled as the internet, as cacophonous as our cities and streets, the combat is about shutting down viewpoints, which is _not about who is right_. Privilege is not a coherent, sane, or consistent concept. I work as a programmer, and am privileged financially as a result. Should I give up this privilege when the simple fact is _society needs programmers?_ By having privilege do I forfeit the right to be proud of my career? Is there a net privilege quantity that I possess? The only determinative answer I have to these questions is the last one, and it is a solid 'No,' because _each privilege I supposedly possess/lack acts along a different axes_, and sometimes a privilege or lack thereof provides benefits and consequences simultaneously. Discrimination, likewise, is not a coherent, sane, or consistent concept. "Knowing real discrimination"--you reference an absolute concept that is actually based on your personal evaluation of what constitutes real discrimination. There is no real discrimination or fake discrimination: all discrimination is discrimination. Some of it is valid: no one is complaining that Stanford doesn't let in people without graduating middle school. Some of it is invalid: the Westboro nuts are morons. Some of it cannot be helped: despite all the progress of feminism, some women just want to get married and submit to their husband, and we are left with no course but to respect that choice. (I respect it: do you?) And some of it we _recognize_ as technically 'unfair' but are hoping to mitigate larger effects: affirmative action. The OP is making a comment about the wider sea. You didn't really provide any evidence to counter his large-scale commentary except for (implicitly) denying his group any privilege to _even contemplate_ the wider sea. That's the problem with these sorts of discussion: someone can say "We're moving towards equality pretty well, overall" and be attacked with "There is still discrimination X." Both statements evaluate as true, so a fight starts anyway, plus it gets tied up into people's identity (that is something you did _explicitly_, in fact) so people get pissed off. For what it's worth, here's my take: the demographic shift for males in the US is broadly towards lower education and employment. Additionally the heterosexual relationship has an altered power balance: forces in the legal system that were discriminatory against women have been targeted for elimination for the past however many years, while _not_ being targeted for men. How much discriminatory cruft remains from our hetero-normative past? It is almost a given that social forces move too far, take too much, and then have to balance out. There are very few conservative revolutions, very few careful idealists. So how _unlikely_ is it that we have not moved past a point, or will very soon, where the equal status of men and women is ambiguous? Arguably the point of equality is _at _ the point in time where equality is ambiguous, because otherwise there wouldn't be much to argue about! (At the very least we can use this to provide lower and upper bounds, eh?) Your knee-jerk reaction, "No," may very soon be out of date.