Let's talk about privilege theory

[Rosa Partizan]

and especially how calling out certain privileges is used to shut down valid opinions. I used to be a big supporter of this stuff, but some feminist blog here in Germany is pushing it way too far. To sum it up a bit sharply: If you're white, cis and hetero, no matter if man or woman, you have to stfu. I've seen this today when they discussed Emma Watson's speech. The bottom line was: She shouldn't be speaking on behalf of women because she doesn't know the struggles of POCs, lesbians, transwomen etc (she even mentioned her awareness of having privileges in society, but this blog doesn't care, as always), so she's not in the position to talk about feminism and everything she said is only useful to white cis hetero women. This is something that happens regularly in these groups: You get shut down on nearly everything. Last time that happened to me I discussed that Nicki Minaj's representation doesn't look any different than big black booty-fetish stuff and that this type of sexuality probably wouldn't exist without the male gaze. Some black women called me "white feminist" and that her representation is "empowering her very own sexuality". Yeah, whatever.

So, when do you think that throwing in privilege is correct and when is it misused? Just write whatever comes to your mind, I really don't care, just wanna discuss it.

[DOOM]

I still don't get how it's empowering to shake your ass in front of white label bosses to still their lust and need for money.
It's basically commodification of the female body part 234618

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There are situations where it is either not appropriate or not welcome for certain groups (normally straight white men such as I) to either discuss or comment on an issue, or to be in attendance at an event. So that's the first thing - there should always be spaces where minority groups can safely discuss what is on their mind, what issues are facing them and potential responses they have/actions they want to take.

For example, I don't think it's massively helpful for men who call themselves feminists to attend a meeting on patriarchy-related subjects and start arguing the basis of feminism with women, less working class women and women of colour/gay women etc.

Having said all of that, in your run-of-the-mill discussions on more general day-to-day concepts (such as the idiocy that is Nicky Minaj), I don't think that an opinion is necessarily less valid for its authors race, gender or sexuality, unless it involves the sort of subject material where their characteristics would make their opinion less valid (a man talking about rape, for example).

[Sasha]

i got told to "check my privilege" a while back by an so called "abolitionist" in a debate on sex-work.
i still dont know what that means as i'm pretty sure that i have been a lot closer to sex-work and sex-workers than she will ever be.
it has become a really pathetic cop-out.

now obviously privilege is a real thing, and we should all be aware of it and how it affect us and those arround us but like all in essence sensible theory people whill always run with it and abuse it (and germans are the best at that ;-) )

[Quail]

I think in spaces where "privilege theory" is dominant it's important to note that there is a difference between using an awareness of privilege to ensure that marginalised groups get the space and opportunity to discuss the oppression they face and how to fight against it, and abusing the idea of privilege in order to shut down a conversation.

On one hand, it's not appropriate for a man to lecture a woman about feminism and dominate the conversation - because enough of that happens in the world in general, and also privilege can make a person blind to just how pervasive oppression is, so I think we would all benefit from shutting up and listening to people who experience forms of oppression that we don't, to get their perspectives even if we don't agree 100% with their politics. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the idea that someone who does benefit from certain privileges can have some kind of understanding of oppression. People who educate themselves, who actively engage with marginalised people and their struggles against oppression can have a good understanding of how that stuff works. I don't think it's healthy to dismiss their opinions purely on the basis that they're (for example) a white straight man, unless obviously they're making some tired old strawman that everyone is sick of hearing/unpicking.

[Creative Destruction]

i got told to "check my privilege" a while back by an so called "abolitionist" in a debate on sex-work.
i still dont know what that means as i'm pretty sure that i have been a lot closer to sex-work and sex-workers than she will ever be.
it has become a really pathetic cop-out.

now obviously privilege is a real thing, and we should all be aware of it and how it affect us and those arround us but like all in essence sensible theory people whill always run with it and abuse it (and germans are the best at that ;-) )

"check your privilege" seems to come from tumblr armchair warriors. it's annoying as shit.

[Lily Briscoe]

I think the sort of feminists who don't have anything better to talk about than female celebrities shaking their asses are probably a complete lost cause anyway.

[ColumnNo.4]

I think everyone should be aware of certain privileges awarded them by their sex, race, etc. however that shouldn't exclude them from discussion.

[Lily Briscoe]

On the main topic of the thread, though, I don't think privilege theory is a useful tool for understanding structural oppression. It's basically an academic fad that came out of the Maoist-influenced American 'New Left', and the political implications of it are pretty consistent with its origins. I mean, the whole idea that not experiencing whatever kind of special oppression constitutes 'privilege' ends up in some really bizarre conclusions, such as white chronically-homeless men being structurally 'privileged' in all kinds of ways, or 99% (or whatever) of working class people being privileged by virtue of not being trans. It's an ideology that could be easily adapted to justify austerity measures and general attacks on supposedly "privileged" sections of the working class.

Also, with regard to the OP, I think it's pretty telling that internet privilege theorists view Emma Watson's privileges in terms of her being "white, cis, and hetero" rather than in terms of her being, you know, a celebrity multi-millionare... Perhaps Oprah would have been a better choice.

[Lily Briscoe]

So that's the first thing - there should always be spaces where minority groups can safely discuss what is on their mind, what issues are facing them and potential responses they have/actions they want to take.

What is on 'their mind'? 'Minority groups' tend to have the same kinds of divisions and differences in opinion and perspective that you find among 'non-minority groups'...

[Devrim]

Yes, it's quite ironic that the proponents of privilege theory come from America academia, certainly one of the most privileged (in the real sense of the word) groups in the world.

It's a load of reactionary sociological nonsense.

Devrim

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Privilege theory is an inherently liberal concept and should have no place in revolutionary leftist discussions. It is incredibly reductionistic to the point of absurdity and worthlessness.

The reasons for the "privilege" of different groups honestly depend on that group and the aspects of "privilege" are so disparate that it's difficult to really address them all in one statement.

For example, society views the straight cis white male as the sort of "standard" human being, and this is viewed as an example of "privilege". In reality, the issue doesn't go very deep: straight cisgender white people are a majority of the population of the United States (in the creation of cultural material, people tend to either seek to emulate themselves or the median person) and in the case of whites the most consistently demographically present (so much of the already existing cultural material is centered on these groups). As for gender: males have, throughout human history, tended to dominate the public sphere where females dominate the domestic sphere. Because of this, males tend to be more "visible".

The fact that men tend to end up in the public sphere where women end up in the domestic sphere is worthy of being discussed in itself. I don't really think this is an example of "male privilege" in any meaningful sense. The reasoning for this comes from the interaction of biology and the environment/material conditions in which humans live. The inclinations and physical traits of the human sexes lend themselves to the establishment of gender norms - not at all unlike any other animal. These norms vary as the material conditions of a given society develop over time. A big problem here is the fact that the domestic sphere is very much marginalized where it is, in fact, a very important part of society. The real reason why, for instance, full-time parents (of either gender, but obviously these would tend to be mothers) are not given the respect they deserve - is that this labor cannot be exploited by a capitalist. More generally, the whole liberal individualist ideology tends to value visible individual public figures (the "great man" theory of history). In that sense, I don't think it a bold prediction to say that a post-capitalistic society would entail greater respect both for the traditional labor of women and the decision of some men and women to go against the norm for their gender. The latter of these is already happening to some extent within the context of capitalist society, but it is meaningless without (and true equality of the genders cannot be attained without) the former. The solution to the problem of gender equality, then, is the abolition of capitalism.

It's sort of similar with "white privilege". People of African ancestry in particular have been at a great historical disadvantage throughout their time in the Americas - but throughout the past 150 years, proletarian whites have been similarly disadvantaged. One thing people often point to is the difference in IQ between races, and how groups such as Asians and Jews which average higher IQs than whites, tend to be more successful. The problem with this is that intelligence as measured by IQ (rational/logical intelligence) may be a important trait, but is not the only important trait - it holds no intrinsic value greater than that of, say, creativity or athletic ability. The reason it is elevated to such a high status is that it strongly correlates with traits favored by the market in the modern day. The problem of racial inequality cannot be solved by affirmative action programs which, rather than challenging the genuine privilege of rich whites, punish the most disadvantaged whites at the expense of the least disadvantaged people of minority groups. Rather, it can only be solved through the abolition of capitalism.

(well this is my first post in a while)

[Skyhilist]

I used to be pretty reactionary with regards to this and deny white privilege - wish I could go back and straighten myself the fuck out tbh. It's obvious that groups like white's have more privilege. But in terms of the official "white privilege theory", I do have my reservations about that, because the theory seems to assume that a certain amount of privilege is always inherent, and seems to imply that the amount of privilege that a group has over time is static and unchanging, which I don't really see as true. I might just be misinterpreting what the theory is saying itself though tbh.

[The Feral Underclass]

The notion that a black woman is not at a social disadvantage and experiences society differently because of her race and gender, to a white man based on his race and gender, who experiences the same society at an advantage, is demonstrably true. You can literally identify how this a fact. Dismissing that as "liberal" or suggest it is "reactionary" to identify it, is pointedly absurd.

[The Feral Underclass]

Privilege theory is an inherently liberal concept and should have no place in revolutionary leftist discussions. It is incredibly reductionistic to the point of absurdity and worthlessness.

The reasons for the "privilege" of different groups honestly depend on that group and the aspects of "privilege" are so disparate that it's difficult to really address them all in one statement.

For example, society views the straight cis white male as the sort of "standard" human being, and this is viewed as an example of "privilege". In reality, the issue doesn't go very deep: straight cisgender white people are a majority of the population of the United States (in the creation of cultural material, people tend to either seek to emulate themselves or the median person) and in the case of whites the most consistently demographically present (so much of the already existing cultural material is centered on these groups). As for gender: males have, throughout human history, tended to dominate the public sphere where females dominate the domestic sphere. Because of this, males tend to be more "visible".

The fact that men tend to end up in the public sphere where women end up in the domestic sphere is worthy of being discussed in itself. I don't really think this is an example of "male privilege" in any meaningful sense. The reasoning for this comes from the interaction of biology and the environment/material conditions in which humans live. The inclinations and physical traits of the human sexes lend themselves to the establishment of gender norms - not at all unlike any other animal. These norms vary as the material conditions of a given society develop over time. A big problem here is the fact that the domestic sphere is very much marginalized where it is, in fact, a very important part of society. The real reason why, for instance, full-time parents (of either gender, but obviously these would tend to be mothers) are not given the respect they deserve - is that this labor cannot be exploited by a capitalist. More generally, the whole liberal individualist ideology tends to value visible individual public figures (the "great man" theory of history). In that sense, I don't think it a bold prediction to say that a post-capitalistic society would entail greater respect both for the traditional labor of women and the decision of some men and women to go against the norm for their gender. The latter of these is already happening to some extent within the context of capitalist society, but it is meaningless without (and true equality of the genders cannot be attained without) the former. The solution to the problem of gender equality, then, is the abolition of capitalism.

It's sort of similar with "white privilege". People of African ancestry in particular have been at a great historical disadvantage throughout their time in the Americas - but throughout the past 150 years, proletarian whites have been similarly disadvantaged. One thing people often point to is the difference in IQ between races, and how groups such as Asians and Jews which average higher IQs than whites, tend to be more successful. The problem with this is that intelligence as measured by IQ (rational/logical intelligence) may be a important trait, but is not the only important trait - it holds no intrinsic value greater than that of, say, creativity or athletic ability. The reason it is elevated to such a high status is that it strongly correlates with traits favored by the market in the modern day. The problem of racial inequality cannot be solved by affirmative action programs which, rather than challenging the genuine privilege of rich whites, punish the most disadvantaged whites at the expense of the least disadvantaged people of minority groups. Rather, it can only be solved through the abolition of capitalism.

(well this is my first post in a while)

The fundamental premise of your argument is that privilege theory negates the desire to abolish capitalism. That is untrue. Privilege theory is not an alternative to anti-capitalism, it is simply a way of understanding that struggles for liberation are not simply confined to economics.

Do you think that when capitalism is suddenly abolished, male attitudes towards women are suddenly going to disappear? That the entire working class are going to suddenly stop dividing male and female social roles, or stop enforcing gender binaries or realise that heterosexual culture is domineering? You can see in revolutionary practice how men replicate the same patriarchal dynamics even though they call themselves communists. Look at how many sexual assaults against women occur in revolutionary organisations and the way they are covered up? Another example being how often in far-left gatherings, women end up performing the same domestic tasks as in the traditional home, i.e. cooking, cleaning etc, and men are perfectly comfortable to allow that to happen.

Millennia of social oppression against women and black people and gay people isn't going to disappear just because the economic basis of society has changed. Those oppressions are engrained in our social functioning and attitudes and require identifying; they have to be challenged concurrently with the quest to abolish capitalism. All that privilege theory does is identify what those oppressions are, how they manifest themselves and how you combat them in your daily life and struggle. Why do you object to that? The problem with these threads is that none of the critics of privilege theory ever understand it. Especially idiots like Devrim who are still stuck in the 1970s.

My suggestion to people like him is update your fucking politics and deal with it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, it's quite ironic that the proponents of privilege theory come from America academia, certainly one of the most privileged (in the real sense of the word) groups in the world.

So you acknowledge that privilege exists, then?

[Devrim]

So you acknowledge that privilege exists, then?

Of course there is privilege in the world. It just doesn't correspond to anything that comes out of privilege theory at all.

Especially idiots like Devrim who are still stuck in the 1970s.

My suggestion to people like him is update your fucking politics and deal with it.

I'm not getting into a discussion with you as I think you are rude, abusive, and don't have anything interesting to say.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Of course there is privilege in the world. It just doesn't correspond to anything that comes out of privilege theory at all.

That sentence literally makes no sense. If you acknowledge that social groups have advantages (privilege) that other social groups do not, then privilege theory clearly does have something to say and clearly does correspond to your thinking.

I'm not getting into a discussion with you as I think you are rude, abusive, and don't have anything interesting to say.

Devrim

That's perfectly fine with me. I have enough sexist, old men to deal with in my daily life without adding you into the mix.

[Palmares]

This is something I've said in the past:

For me at least, I think one important point is how the obsession with certain social struggles detracts from the greater totality. Of course there needs to be a balance between the totality and the necessary parts, as they are dependent on each other.

However, on a more day-to-day level, the way one may experience this (and thus critique it), is how extreme PC analysis can lose the point of critiquing oppression in the first place, whilst also becoming extremely divisive, and for me, also creating a consciousness of hyper-sensitivity (from within this mentality of self-victimisation).

In my past, I have been a very PC person. I admit, I have been an arsehole. I have also called out douchebags on their shit. It's a tough balance, and to some degree, I'm still trying to disamantle/unlearn some of the ultra-PC consciousness that has been instilled in me (whilst also resisting becoming a disrespectful un-PC fuckhead).

For example, if someone says something sexist, then call them on their shit. However, this act in of itself does not make someone "fucked". Everyone makes mistakes. We all live under the same structures of oppression, so noone is perfectly onto it. So yeah, tell them off, in a diplomatic non-devisive way. Unless they say something really fucked, then, well, it's one's own prerogative to tell them off as they see necessary. It's definitely not clear cut. But hey, if you were to tell every single person you meet in every context for all the mistakes they make... you'll have few friends, and certainly won't be gathering allies to building any sort of movement.

I remember, there were times when I was sensitive to so many words that people I knew would say. I was obviously hanging out in less PC communities at these times. I would feel so tense. I would feel so angry. I started to realise this was a real problem. Sure, tell people off when they say shit stuff, but it's not appropriate in all contexts, and is not sustainable.

And in practice now, I still admit it can be sometimes difficult to ascertain when is the right context to "call someone out" or similar, but at least I feel I can now better communicate and socialise with people outside of PC communities without feeling (more) anxious about what words people use, etc.

To add to that, I think the, what people call, "oppression olympics" is a very dangerous precedent that is becoming normalised in some western radical communities. It's basically a competition of who is the most oppressed, but in a weird turn of events, the focus shifts to the "guilt" of the "oppressors". It's a way for some people to weld large amounts of social capital, and is simply (re)creating rules and hierarchy, using "privilege" as a smokescreen.

But you know, then the difficult part is to not react to such dogma with equally ignorant dogma of the opposite scale. Just because someone calls you a "white devil" doesn't mean you should join the KKK...

I remember a ridiculous example of the "oppression olympics" I witnessed was from this "trans-femme-boy" I knew. I have no issue what they identify as, however, I had in the past been suspicious of their superficial politics. This became much more evident to most, when years later they (after spending alot of time with ultra-PC folk in the US) starting calling people out here in Australia for transphobia. However, they misjudged how much social capital they had compared to those they were calling out. Thankfully, my friend who had doubted me for so long, finally saw idiocy that was this person. They simply wanted to kick out some "cis-men" from their house. Like, sure, they don't have to live with cis-men if they don't want to, but it became clear they moved into this house with those guys already in their thinking they could kick them out afterwards. Nasty. But of course, there were still those of believed them.

But the story doesn't end there.

They returned to the US. Good riddance. But... I remember I came across their tumblr (trendy quipster!) one time, and witnessed that they were being publicly called out on there for "cultural appropriation". Apparently, they had been spotted at some big queer gatherings with dreadlocks.

This was the stupidest, but also funniest thing I've ever seen! Someone who calls people out on nothing, being "out oppressed" by some POC folk. All a bunch of idiots to me, but funny to witness. Getting some of their own medicine.

Got loads more stories, but that's one of my favourites!

[Rugged Collectivist]

There are situations where it is either not appropriate or not welcome for certain groups (normally straight white men such as I) to either discuss or comment on an issue, or to be in attendance at an event. So that's the first thing - there should always be spaces where minority groups can safely discuss what is on their mind, what issues are facing them and potential responses they have/actions they want to take.

For example, I don't think it's massively helpful for men who call themselves feminists to attend a meeting on patriarchy-related subjects and start arguing the basis of feminism with women, less working class women and women of colour/gay women etc.

Having said all of that, in your run-of-the-mill discussions on more general day-to-day concepts (such as the idiocy that is Nicky Minaj), I don't think that an opinion is necessarily less valid for its authors race, gender or sexuality, unless it involves the sort of subject material where their characteristics would make their opinion less valid (a man talking about rape, for example).

So, why is it okay for straight white guys to talk about Nicki Minaj's ass, but not rape or the basis of feminism? What criteria are you using to sort these topics?

TBH the first few posts of this thread sound like "it's okay to call people out, as long as it's not me"