"Privilege" and the Assassination of Effective Discourse

[amused]

That only happens at Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Dunno, I see more North Africans than blacks in our KFCs

Since I was traveling I tried some KFC for the first time in years.

It will be years before I try it again.

[Svartalf]

Since I was traveling I tried some KFC for the first time in years.

It will be years before I try it again.

Can't fault you for that... I deemed it great as a kid, but it seems to have turned to crap since.

[rainbow]

That only happens at Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Dunno, I see more North Africans than blacks in our KFCs

They would get more if they offered free watermelon.

[Svartalf]

I doubt that it's in OUR blacks' cultures... many of them are more into mint tea

[rainbow]

I doubt that it's in OUR blacks' cultures... many of them are more into mint tea

We have never tried cooking OUR whites in mint tea. Does it improve the flavour?

[Svartalf]

Dunno, here we get more wings and drumsticks than white meat.

[pErvinalia]

yeah, i'm still trying to get my head around this whole privilege thing as used by the A+ and, dare I say it - radical feminists.

[Santa_Claus]

It's just a new form of women nagging.

FACT.

[Audley Strange]

yeah, i'm still trying to get my head around this whole privilege thing as used by the A+ and, dare I say it - radical feminists.

I actually admire some Radical Feminists in the same way I admire some Sola Scriptura Fundamentalist Christians. They have such a pure conviction of their beliefs, can intellectually debate that position (okay they may be wrong, but at least they've thought about it.) and you know they've thought about it, it defines them. I disagree with a lot if not all of their views, but at least they are consistent in them.

However like misogyny, they are using the word privilege to mean something it does not mean and they are using them as accusatives to provoke and attack because it helps avoid rational discussion and because the reaction to it will be hostile and thus prove their point. No matter how you frame it misogyny is not sexism. If they said "there are still parts of society which have entrenched sexism" I'd not disagree. However they don't, they make this assumption that there is a societal default which is an all encompassing oppressive hatred of women. It would be akin to me saying that rather than there being some parts of society that has a mistrust of the Jewish faith, society is run by and for Nazis who want to gas jews and blacks.

So no matter how you frame it, privilege is defunct. There is no "private law" that allows the evil white man to discriminate against women. If they said "there are still some entrenched cultural biases" I'd not disagree.

The reason it seems to me that they do not, is because to do so would point out that women also have attitudes of both traditional sexism and entrenched cultural biases. You can't have that if you are set on being a victim.

[Bella Fortuna]

This thread is actually in an area that's supposed to try to be free of derails, folks...

[Svartalf]

This thread is actually in an area that's supposed to try to be free of derails, folks...

It looks ready to be transferred to the pub and a daughter thread started in its place.

[Bella Fortuna]

This thread is actually in an area that's supposed to try to be free of derails, folks...

It looks ready to be transferred to the pub and a daughter thread started in its place.

I wouldn't mind a split off of that stuff to the Pub... (I can't manage it now as my presence here is erratic at the moment)

[hiyymer]

When you (female, black, etc) wonder why your paycheck is less than the white guy doing the same job, chalk it up to privilege. No it doesn't help to talk about it. I had the discussion with my white alpha investment banker male neighbor one day, and his reaction was that for his kids' sake he hopes it never goes away. Life isn't fair.

[Audley Strange]

When you (female, black, etc) wonder why your paycheck is less than the white guy doing the same job, chalk it up to privilege. No it doesn't help to talk about it. I had the discussion with my white alpha investment banker male neighbor one day, and his reaction was that for his kids' sake he hopes it never goes away. Life isn't fair.

Life isn't fair, but it is not privilege. It might be a cultural bias, it might be that female black etc are less likely to negotiate, but it is certainly not law. In fact there are laws in most places that prevent such things. So in such a case, rather than aimlessly whining about privilege perhaps they would be better off finding out what legal routes they can take. If for example a women in the same job earns more than me, there may well be many factors. Perhaps she gets a tax rebate, perhaps sh'es been their longer, perhaps she negotiated a better salary or was wooed into that job by a better offer. The Good Lady Strange earns more than almost anyone on her floor including her own managers, including gay staff, asian staff, female staff and male staff because she negotiated a higher starting salary. Should that then be considered a matriarchal privilege, or could it be that some people are happy with what they have until they find out someone has more and refuse to accept that might actually be their own fault?

[pErvinalia]

However like misogyny, they are using the word privilege to mean something it does not mean and they are using them as accusatives to provoke and attack because it helps avoid rational discussion and because the reaction to it will be hostile and thus prove their point. No matter how you frame it misogyny is not sexism. If they said "there are still parts of society which have entrenched sexism" I'd not disagree. However they don't, they make this assumption that there is a societal default which is an all encompassing oppressive hatred of women.

The funny thing is that situations where men are disadvantaged compared to women, they actually class that as a problem of the patriarchy as well. Essentially discounting the fact that real men experience real social stereotypical hardships and disadvantage, and then, *hey presto*, they transfer it all back onto men by invoking the "patriarchy". If the net result of that was - We are all in this together in some fashion or other - as, I think 'normal' feminists might think, then that might be entirely reasonable (I haven't actually looked into this too deeply, so I accept it could be batshit insane). But the problem is with the radical lot like A+ et al, they invoke this in a kind of circular logic to always have men at blame, EVEN IF the men being blamed are terribly disadvantaged. It's a self-fulfilling paradigm. Men can't both be a cause and a victim of the patriarchy. Not in a logically coherent way. I have no problem with accepting that on the balance men get it better than women in our societies. But to progress from that point to the point that a man's opinion is pretty much ALWAYS irrelevant, or even more pointedly - PRIVILEGED!!11!! in it's most prerogative sense - is irrational and unhelpful and ultimately divisive and destructive.