From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


Look people, I know this site is strongly biased, but couldn't you at least try to look rational Drink! and put a criticism section in this article? As it stands, it almost seems as if this nonsense is something more than an opinion. After all this is sociology, not science.

You can read the criticism section on Wikipedia[1]. Although none of the criticisms are very damaging (citing Andrew Breitbart is not a good sign). Maybe there are better criticisms, maybe they aren't. Annquin (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Sociology is a science, specifically the scientific study of societies. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 06:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Albeit, not a very well respected one. Basic examples of privileges talked about in this sense include:

The fact that sexual promiscuity is a socially desirable trait in men, but is often denigrated in women. Unless you fool with someone's sister. In many places, such as Iraq, this will kill you. What a privilege knowing you madame.

The ability of straight people not to worry about being attacked or insulted for their sexual orientation, and their ability to show romantic affection in public without raising eyebrows. Unless you are in the Middle east where such behavior is often punished with severe beatings. Also, straight people are often attacked despite their sexual orientation as most attacks and personal insults are not gender related.

The ability of the dominant ethnic group in any given nation to avoid racial profiling and/or to secure more lenient prison sentences. Not being recognizably different is not an ability.

The ability of people "looking native" to get better rates and service in the tourist industry - sometimes this is even enforced as a law with different rates for citizens and non-citizens. So, just book your travel plans online where the agent can't see you.

The ability to use a gendered bathroom straightforwardly, when compared to the experiences of transgender or otherwise gender-nonconforming people. If you don't look like Bigfoot, you probably don't have this problem

The ability to effectively manage the workload of day-to-day life, when compared to the experience of chronically ill people. Such people are generally not expected to work and can usually claim disability payments from the government

The ability of the rich and powerful not to worry about the financial implications of an accident or unexpected illness, when compared to the poor - this is drastically exacerbated in jurisdictions with weak or non-existing social safety nets. This is not so much a privilege as an expense that the rich can afford. Class envy can be ugly.

The ability of certain light-skinned people of color, "straight-acting" gay/bisexual people, and the like to pass as part of the privileged classes even though they're not members of it. Every girl crazy about a sharp dressed man.

The fact that people will rarely question the illness of a person whose illness is openly visible, like a broken leg or cancer, and are looked down upon for doing so, but people will frequently question those with invisible illnesses, like Fibromyalgia or mental illnesses. This can get to the point where people have been attacked for parking with their handicapped placard or plates that they got because of an invisible illness, and is another form of passing privilege. If you can really think of a broken leg as a privilege I am impressed by your humility.

The ability of some transgender persons to be readily identified by others as the gender that they identify as. This is also called "passing privilege." Of course you are presuming that even though they can pass they are really not a member of their chosen gender. Not PC.

The availability and affordability of education, including parental financial support. This is not a privilege but a service that is paid for, usually by hard work.

The coinciding of national holidays with Christian holidays such as Easter and Christmas, reducing the need for make-up exams and time off of work. Atheists make out like bandits here.

The fact that for a man to be in public without a top is often socially acceptable, while it seldom is for a woman.[8] Don't you have to want something for it to be a privilege?

The fact that Christian schools and churches are hardly if ever attacked[9] yet synagogues and Jewish schools have to be protected by police almost constantly and receive almost as many (or more) bomb threats and actual attacks as government buildings in most European countries

Tell that to Black Southern Baptists.

The fact that when Christian churches are attacked, they are typically historically African-American churches. That's not much of a privilege. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Your responses are very much flawed. Let's take the first as an example:

The fact that sexual promiscuity is a socially desirable trait in men, but is often denigrated in women. Unless you fool with someone's sister. In many places, such as Iraq, this will kill you. What a privilege knowing you madame.

Just because something isn't always a privilege doesn't mean that it isn't on balance or in most cases a privilege. People with four limbs have innumerable privileges over those who have none. Yet just because it's easier to fit someone with no limbs into a box and ship them, this does not mean that limbed people have no advantages. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Now you get it: advantages are not privileges. They are essential for human ontogeny. Just saying it doesn't make it so. These types of hypotheses are contrary to real science, to wit: evolutionary biology. That is not nearly as serious as not passing the giggle test.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure they are. It's possible to have something be an ontogeny or identity and simultaneously a privilege. If you assert otherwise, note that this is the null hypothesis -- assuming no contradictory characteristics between "identity" and "privilege" is simpler (requries fewer assumptions), and so the burden is on you to prove otherwise. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

[The burden is on you to prove anything you claim is a fact. You are spouting nonsnse]Ariel31459 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Privileges are advantages you receive from others due to having attribute X. CorruptUser (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

[When you put it that way I can see how some might find that completely useless. I have always been given atttibute Y when they were asking for X]Ariel31459 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much everything in your wall of text is dumb, ill-informed & missing the point. Let's stick with that first example since Fuzzy hasn't exactly nailed what's wrong with.

"Unless you fool with someone's sister" is classic patriarchy mentality: the notion of the man as protector of his mother's, sister's &/or daughter's honour. This doesn't contradict the preceding sentence (sexual promiscuity is a socially desirable trait in men, but is often denigrated in women); it reinforces it - expecting men to screw around if they can get away with it & women to remain pure. & If they don't of course it's all about how the men feel about it rather than their own desires.

I see some of your other examples saying things like "that's not a privilege; it's about having more money" as if that's not the same thing, & others saying "yeah but what about the Middle East" as a complete red herring. No points. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

[ It's not the same thing: people earn money and their right to the thing they are buying is beyond dispute.You lost points weasel, you just won't admit it. Also you are a lazy critic, using personal opinions, ideological assumptions, and no empirical reference.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)] So tell me, was there something wrong with my Don Giovanni comment? I was upset when the devils dragged him to hell too, but I was only 14 and I got over it. There is a lot in life that bothers me, like 10 hot dogs in a package and only 8 buns in a pack. See, your problems are your own business. Thanks gang for editing your heart-felt or puerile comments, but isn't erasing my comments the way of the poor loser? I love this stuff.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's not promiscuity itself that's desirable in men but ability; a guy is "better" if he can bed any woman that he wants rather than if he does bed any woman. People forget the difference, and that bothers me. CorruptUser (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh no you don't! Women who have the "ability" to attract almost any man through the means of their physical attractiveness are widely admired. Reciprocity is hard to avoid here.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
But that's exactly what CorruptUser said? That the ability is cause for admiration? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Privilege: "It describes the benefits and advantages held by one group relative to another." See, both male and female subgroups share the so-called advantages of being attractive. This particular example can be used to demonstrate the incoherent ways in which the privilege concept has been misapplied to the point of absurdity. First of all, it is clear that being able to procreate with a large number of females is an advantage (Darwinian), but it is an advantage held by one group of males (resp. females) with respect to another group of males ( resp. females). How is being admired for this trait an advantage? If you, for example, were known for this trait ( assuming you are gender appropriate), I don't think most males (resp. females) would trust you around their female (resp. male) friends. Is envy an advantage? That assertion will require some effort to prove, don't you think? Apart from the question of actual advantage, the act of defining human nature in terms of privilege necessarily entails psychological interpretation corrupted by ideological perspectives. We have this instead of limiting the domain of privilege to material and freedom considerations, as in the traditional male/female wage divide or American "whites only" conveniences of the 20th century. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm doing my best to follow your line of reasoning, and it could be my fever, but I gotta be honest — you lost me somewhere in there. What it is that you're explaining, exactly? What was your point? Not trying to be flip. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. My point is the idea of privilege becomes incoherent when applied to human nature. How could it be an advantage "to be admired for the ability to sleep with many woman?" It should generate envy, resentfulness and lewd stories. Sorry for the delay, my account has been in the vandal bin for some months nowAriel31459 (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
First off, it's not that "being admired for having the ability to sleep with many woman" is an advantage; it's that if a woman does decide to sleep around she gets shunned when we don't shun the man in the same way for doing the same. So it's a double standard.
Second, while you could argue that there's a difference between "privilege" and "double standard", it's a nuance that doesn't much matter to the overall discussion, and if you are getting caught up in those nuances chances are you aren't really interested in honest discussion so much as trying to shut the whole discussion down.CorruptUser (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Double standards do not always entail real advantages. It is a matter of opinion whether men are admired for aggressive sexuality. Men who date many unattractive woman are often ridiculed by their peers. A woman who will sleep with many men, will at least have many male suitors. Supposing then the truth of the assertion, acquiring the admiration of others is not a privilege. Privileges might result from the admiration of others. Not being shunned is no privilege. Has Taylor Swift been shunned due to her frequent and various partnerships? As I pointed out to the Reverend, privilege is inconsistent with psychological interpretation. It is useful with respect to well defined rights. The rest is nonsense.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The point. Is there one? CorruptUser (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The privilege concept is only coherent with respect to measurable, well-defined qualities concerning individuals outside of a dominant class. Admiration is far from being well-defined. With regard to the example you seem to like so much: who are these people who have the ability to have sex with as many of the opposite sex as they would desire? The typical man would be unable to represent this class, while the typical woman, would likely be able but unwilling to actively do so. I experienced a lot of grief in college coming to grips with this sad fact. But I feel much better now. In any case, envy is not the same as admiration.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm really worried that I sound stupid here, but if your point was that "envy is not the same as admiration", then sure, I absolutely agree. I don't get the rest, though — we talking about some kind of theoretical maximum attractiveness? Towards whom, by whom? Are we talking about some kind of sexual equivalent to homo economicus, who can "have sex with as many of the opposite sex as they would desire"? Doesn't stuff like that only really apply to people like Genghis Khan? And what's with calling such people — hypothetical or whatever — a "class", per se? Or do you mean more like a set (viz. set theory)? I'm really sorry if it sounds like I'm being flip; I assure you I'm not trying to. But from my admittedly limited point of view, this conversation seems to have spun off completely into territory where I can't follow. Just being honest; ignore me if need be. Maybe I've missed something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The example from the text under discussion is "The fact that sexual promiscuity is a socially desirable trait in men, but is often denigrated in women." CorruptUser includes shunning in the scope of denigration. Perhaps the problems with the argument you notice are due to the incoherence of the example with the definition of privilege. The outlying class under discussion is that of promiscuous women. The underlying privileged class being successfully promiscuous men. One can simply declare that "sexual promiscuity is a socially desirable trait in men," but I don't know how you could prove it, and it sounds like it might only be true in a domain containing mostly teenage boys from a small town, or isolated school district. But to get on to the incoherence. A disadvantage to being a member of a small group can become an advantage in a much larger one. While a promiscuous woman might aggravate a small society of males by frustrating their desires, she would be most welcome in a larger venue and her promiscuity would likely lead to a number of advantages. Some people need to read Dale Carnegie again.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Excuse my fever. Just to be clear, what's "outlying" and " underlying" mean in this context? Dunno if I've ever heard those terms in use like this, per se. And if you don't mind me asking, who's Dale Carnegie? Someone you think I ought to read? Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
My word choice is not part of any social science jargon. I apologize if it appears to suggest expertise. I use outlying in the sense of outlier. Both promiscuous sexes are outliers of society. I use underlying in the sense of being a subset of a larger or universal set. Flowery I suppose. Dale Carnegie is the author of The Art of Making Friends and Influencing People. I know I don't have to go on about that. Peace.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your time taken. Also, "flowery"? Anyhow, I Googled that Carnegie guy — seems to have been an influential figure (though his TOW pages were written like advertisements). Thanks for notifying me of his existence, anyways. I'm very interested in the gray zones of folk/pseudopsychology, AA and all that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"The ability of the dominant ethnic group in any given nation to avoid racial profiling and/or to secure more lenient prison sentences. Not being recognizably different is not an ability.

The ability of people "looking native" to get better rates and service in the tourist industry - sometimes this is even enforced as a law with different rates for citizens and non-citizens. So, just book your travel plans online where the agent can't see you." First off, well color me surprised, one of the primary aspects of privelege is that it's not about skill based ability, especially in the example regarding intesectionality. Second, profiling is not about recognizability, but increased scrutiny on individuals of that group, based on the supposed (true or false) prevalence of a behaviour on that group, criminality in the case of black people. Whatever is the cause, ghettization and protracted poor social conditions, poverty, a black individual might receive more scrutiny based on what the group does or is believed doing. It also impacts men in general, to a lesser extent, being more represented in crimes like rapes and murders. As you see, then it can also go against the strawman "sjw" narratives, which attempts a double standard on more privileged/dominant groups like white males. "The ability of straight people not to worry about being attacked or insulted for their sexual orientation, and their ability to show romantic affection in public without raising eyebrows. Unless you are in the Middle east where such behavior is often punished with severe beatings. Also, straight people are often attacked despite their sexual orientation as most attacks and personal insults are not gender related." Sorry but that not only contraddicts itself but you prove the very point you want to argue, stating that straight people are attacked despite their sexual orientation. Despite is the key word, I mean, you should add layers, both straight and gay people can be attacked for whatever reasons I guess, but straight people hardly if not never for their orientation, get it? The fact that in in middle east pubblic affection is severely punished is beyond the point, as that applies manyfolds to gay people. "Now you get it: advantages are not privileges. They are essential for human ontogeny. Just saying it doesn't make it so. These types of hypotheses are contrary to real science, to wit: evolutionary biology. That is not nearly as serious as not passing the giggle test." Is it clear that here we're not talking about skills or aquired privileges, for most part, but social ones? Being admired or not as reprehnsed for promisquity, not persecuted for their sexuality, not racially profiled (but this is more complex) are not privileges like having born able bodied, or say taller or more conventionally attractive, they depend on what the society think of you. Homophobia, slut shaming, as result of double standard (not the double standard itself) depenend of the bigotry present in the society. The less the society is bigot in these regards, the less being straight is a privilege over being gay and the less the difference in treatment toward promiscuous women. "Privilege: "It describes the benefits and advantages held by one group relative to another." See, both male and female subgroups share the so-called advantages of being attractive." completely irrilevant and besides the point of slut shaming. It's not about how attractive you are, both men and women are lauded for that, but that says nothing about their sexual activity, which is what is regarded differently. The woman being more likely to be considered negatively depending on the number or partners, the men more regarded to be considered positively, at least from people who share these patriarchal tenets. Now, if you mean the privilege concept is more complex and can't be applied linearly, we agree.-- (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If you mean that the privilege concept is useful for speaking censoriously about the larger part of a bell curve, we agree.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, sorry if it's not clear what does this have to do with censorship. Or you mean speaking with contempt? Also not clear what you mean with the larger part of a bell curve. You mean the more represented and featured group of any given topic, for example a particular job field. Another way you might be referring to a bell curve is a majority group. But it's clear that nothing featured on the examples have anything to do with bell curves, as we are talking about bigotry, to keep them cut and dry as examples :). Nothing here implies speaking with contempt toward people of the privileged group in themselves at all. We should make it clear that such privilege is not a fault unless one participates on marginalizing further the disadvantaged group. So straight people have no fault, in not being targeted for their sexual behaviour in themselves, men have no fault in not risking rape as much, nor in not being reprimended or shamed to the extent of women for promiscuity (and it has to be clear that in society both, depending on the groups my might hear both signals encouraging it and shaming it, to different extent). They are at fault if they slut shame or shame and marginalize gay people. Of course if a woman slut shames another, depending on the context, she's also at fault in perpetuating an oppressive paradigm and construct, at least if it's used in the same form which wouldn't equally condemn men. Basically both men and women can learn the same biases, living both in the same society and culture, learn the same constructs and might or might not embrace them as well, obviously. It's just a way to describe societal dynamics. The reaction to it also adds an element of complexity, as one of it's effects is the impression some get that now, as a whole, an opposite extreme is encouraged, for example the impression that men are getting shamed more for promiscuity and the idea that women are instead empowered, despite often that's seen separately.-- (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Censorious has nothing to do with censorship. A good dictionary will come in handy. Also, normal curves have everything to do with describing animal behavior. I suggest you try to express your ideas in short sentences, for clarity. Most of the things that seem clear to really smart people are not so clear to the rest of us. I do assume that you are smart. You seem to be stuck on a kind of Platonistic theory of ideas unfortunately: paradigms and such. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
If I came off as condescending, I'm sorry as it was far from my intentions. I'm not a native english speaker, but anyway it appears I assumed the right meaning among the possible ones (speaking with contempt) and used it as a base for argumenting the rest, it was just to be sure of what you meant. I didn't say bell curves aren't useful to describe statistical behaviours, but that they don't invariably have to do with privilege and I explained why. You still didn't explain, so I still assume by center of the curve you mean the majority, represented by the peak of the curve, relative to a given statistic. There are examples where privileges, yeah are about bigotry of part of the majority against a minority, which is the example of straight people. It doesn't imply speaking censoriously about straight people, if that happens it's stupid and shows a stupid way to understand this concept, either from naive strawman "sjw" with black and white mindset or opposers of the concept strawmanning it honestly or dishonestly. But in the case of women, for example, they are not a minority, nor are poor people a minority, except that is another kind of privilege, which is outside of this scope, as it's often gained and aquired. I don't think it's necessary to be really smart to understand this and often smartness is relative and it's a matter of interests and how one uses and exercises/train one's brain. In your case I'd even say you are over complicating it, maybe in a way to play devil advocate or contrarian, but no, I'm kidding and don't want to overassume as it's just an impression one might get, but not that you are less smart. By paradigm I simply indicated a social construct a frame, with which people see the world, sometimes a ruleset to which they adhere, in this case the one which perpetuate slut shaming, homophobia etc. Of course we all have paradigms, but the key is being open to critic and expand one's view.-- (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Your reply is very clear, even beautiful. There is not much to disagree with. I am not a critic of social justice. I am a critic of theory for achieving social justice, in so far as it may be obtainable. Sometimes the experts in a field are not so good at nomenclature. Take mathematics (my field), for example. Why use the term "imaginary number?" The number i is no more imaginary than is π. This is particularly troublesome in the case of "privilege" because in English, a privilege is something you are given that may be taken away by some authority. For example, the ability to drive an automobile is considered a privilege in the U.S. I presume the idea of examining privilege, as a self-help tool, is supposed to improve social sensitivity to particular problems. I am reminded of the Buddha who resolved to bring enlightenment to the world, no matter how impossible that might be. How can one object to such resolve? Take "slut shaming" for example. This is no easy problem given that Christians are generally mildly genophobic. Also the term "slut shaming" is again problematic because actually calling someone a slut is very rude, and would likely cause a fight should the lady in question have a champion present. I personally never use that word and would be offended for others to use it in my presence. Paradigms are, in the end, just special examples.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Come on, rationalwiki, you can do better than this[edit]

Some of the examples are pretty flawed. Take the claim that women are more likely to be raped. This is useless as an example of male privilege unless it includes an additional claim, either that rape is the worst crime imaginable (worse than being murdered?) or that women are also at least equally likely to be victims of all other crimes. At it is written, if women are more likely to be raped but men are more likely to be murdered then the example clearly fails (I don't know if men being more likely to be murded is true or not but the article needs to deny it to make sense).

Apart from that, though, the concept of privilege, while it may have a basis in fact, is in my experience frequently used to shut down opposing viewpoints and prevent rational discussion. I can't count the number of times I've seen people use this as a reason why one must "defer to the lived experiences of marginalised people": or in other words, accept unsupported anecdotes without question. The more loony activists even say that science and even logic are tools of the privileged people or similar shit. It's also often used to suggest that "privileged people" should have less or no right to express their opinions in certain contexts even when they're based on rational argument. And, perhaps most nefariously, it's often used to effectively eliminate the focus on people as individuals, and instead define them (and their rights!) based on membership of some group, which has incredibly disturbing implications for indvidual human value and dignity (not to mention being irrational since people have ethical value only as individuals and most "identiry groups" are just social constructs). Some of this needs to be mentioned in the article. Cornucopia (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The point isn't that women are more likely to be raped, it's that risk/fear of rape seriously restricts women's behaviour compared to men. (And comparing raw rape or murder rates isn't the important thing, the deciding issue is whether women and men in the same circumstances will suffer the same fate: e.g. if more women were violent criminals or got into fights, women might be more likely to get killed. But if women all stay home because they're afraid of getting attacked, then looking at raw rates of crime is irrelevant.) Annquin (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I think Cornucopia is right to suggest that privilege can be used as a censoring tactic (where the worst off wins) and this deserves a mention on the page.
In response to Cornucopia's comparison of female and male rape and murder rates, it could be reasonably argued that females have "murder privilege" and males have "rape privilege" -- in that both have advantages in different areas. However, given that the rate of rape is astronomically higher than the rate of murder, it is also clear that the male privilege here is far larger than the female privilege. The argument that "male privilege exists" does not require that female privilege does not exist -- only that it be smaller than male privilege. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 16:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The comparison is completely bogus. Rape is a crime in which, overwhelming, men target women because they are women. It's a specific phenomenon & observations about it shouldn't be explained away with ill-fitting parallels in other crimes which are not gendered in similar ways. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
[Replying to last two comments]I'm not saying this is wrong, just that it needs to be included in the article in a clearly explained and logically valid way. As it stands, what's written in the article doesn't follow.
"does not require that female privilege does not exist -- only that it be smaller than male privilege"
This seems to make the notion of privilege utterly meaningless. Surely "group x is privileged over group y" should mean that x is overall better off than y. But to say that y is also privileged over x in some situations means you're not saying anything ultimately useful. There's nothing conceptually interesting about "men have it better in some ways and women have it better in others". Cornucopia (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
More threads from this guy? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently he's upset RationalWiki's writing isn't shitty enough any more - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

A question[edit]

What is meant by:

This privilege blindness sometimes leads those who ostensibly support equal rights to inadvertently marginalize the concerns of less-privileged groups.

I don't really understand this, exactly how does privilege blindness cause equal-rights supporters to marginalize less-privileged groups? Maybe a clarification or example would be nice. --TheGrandmother (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand it because it is not intuitive. Not your fault granny. So-called privilege blindness is an aspect of human nature. More generally, people are blind to a great many things, most of which we should prefer, in their particular regard, to be blind, e.g., ones own immanent death. The brain evolved to edit out irrelevant information, in order to prevent it being overwhelmed with interpretable data. Social justice advocates want privilege-related data to be considered relevant. This is fine as an ideal, but brains do what brains do, and to be brutally honest, most people are not intelligent enough to be aware of their own blindnesses. This ability of being so aware has traditionally been called wisdom. It is all well and good to call on others to be wise. Peace on earth! while we are at it.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You state that...
"most people are not intelligent enough to be aware of their own blindnesses." if it's a question of intelligence? Rather, human beings are simply not able to — and that really is the long and short of it, as far as individuals are concerned anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You are not wrong....with exceptions. What you wrote is true for all but possibly a very few exceptions, the wise, and they have negligible influence.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
(EC) This is a defeatist attitude. As with any other cognitive bias, you'll never rule it out completely can achieve a lot in terms of self-awareness. The key is paying attention to other people's concerns, especially people who are marginalised or affected by issues more directly than you, & rethinking how your own attitudes to these issues might be influenced by your perspective. Returning to the original question, examples of privilege blindness inadvertently marginalising other people include pretty much any iteration of "I'm not prejudiced, but..." or men who say they support gender equality but complain that modern feminists have gone too far, etc. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Stupid question: what does (EC) stand for? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Edit clash, ie two people editing at the same time causing one to be blocked. --Pippa (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pippa Gotcha, thanks! Th hug.gif (Though the term is actually "edit conflict", methinks...)
@Ariel31459 I didn't write it, Will Storr did. Though I wish I could take credit. As pertains to "wisdom", my only conception of what that word might truly mean lies closer to here.
@Weasel Well, my hope is that we might be able to stand above it as a group (somehow). Much like science was invented largely to compensate for the enormous biases of both individuals and "non-competitive" groups. As regards your examples, they are good (and I'd like to add the friend argument to that list), but it's certainly not the case that being in favor of gender equality means endorsing every incarnation of feminist thought. One cannot agree with all feminists, and that was never the idea, either. See hereWikipedia. For example, as a sex-positive feminist, I certainly think the anti-porn crusaders have fallen off their rockers. That doesn't make me any less feminist, and neither does marching with sex workers in support of their rights and against stigma. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Weaseloid "Any sentence that starts with the words "I'm not prejudiced, but...," or similar formations ("not racist, but" or "not homophobic", "not sexist", etc.) is likely to contradict itself very rapidly. If you are saying a sentence that starts with "I'm not X, but...", this very likely means that you are X..." Citation Needed.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, don't be like that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. Some of my best friends are pseudo-scientists.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The best part about being a pseudoscientist is getting to do pseudoresearch, in a pseudolab, on pseudoexperiments, furthering one's pseudotheories for future pseudopublication in a pseudojournal! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Privilege and Reductionism: the curious case of promiscuous women[edit]

"The fact that sexual promiscuity is a socially desirable trait in men, but is often denigrated in women." This is the first example of "Privilege" given in the article and it is an instructive example of the kind of examples one should not use in a factual article. Reductionism is a logical pathway to the axiom "where there are double-standards, or any kind of oppression, then Privilege is the proximate cause." This axiom is at best a rule by fiat, and can lead to error. At any rate, the first example of Privilege, as already stated above, should be one of the clearest, well-documented examples one can find. Instead we get one that is, as the wags often say, not even wrong. This section is not designed to attack the general notion of Privilege, nor dispute that classes of underprivileged people exist. It is meant to point out 1) clear examples of privilege exist and should be used, and 2) not all undesirable disparities may be attributed to the simple concept of Privilege.

Studies referred to in the following articles (seem to) show that young women have on average, more sexual partners than their male counterparts and also that women themselves are responsible for shunning sexually promiscuous women. The first conclusion may be viewed, from a modern perspective, as an attractive advantage or at least, not unattractive. The second, is problematic. It seems that even women who are themselves promiscuous do not accept that behavior in their peers and do not want promiscuous female friends (see ref. 3). This suggests "The fact that sexual promiscuity is socially admired in men but shunned in women" is at best a dubious example of privilege.Consider examples of online articles* on the subject of female promiscuity include: (1) Harpers Bazaar, "When it comes to Promiscuity, are Women the New Men?" (; (2) IOL, "Loose Women Shunned by All", (; (3) New York Daily News, "Women Shun Promiscuous Peers." ( (4) The Daily Mail (London), "In the Age of Promiscuity, Women have more Sexual Partners than Men, (

The following real exchange took place on my user talk page. The correspondent states 1) that the author might be technically correct, but facts don't matter in the face of injustice, and 2) After the fashion of a true believer, questions the author's motives in writing such a text:

"And how exactly does the gender of those discriminating against women affect whether or not women are discriminated against? As I've said elsewhere... 1) It might technically not be privilege, but the difference is pedantry that matters about as much as whether the volcano next door is spewing magma or lava; the more important thing is that you do something about it, not whether you get the name right. 2) If you are getting this worked up over pedantry, chances are you don't really care about it at all and are trying to use the issue as part of some form of wedge strategy, whether that's denying there's gender discrimination of any form or some nonsense about how men suffer more than women from discrimination. Never mind that discouraging women from being promiscuous kind of hurts men too... CorruptUser (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)"

It doesn't by definition. I honestly don't understand why you would suppose my answer could be otherwise. But you can't define your way out of the problem I have posed: the so-called privileged class is not the class denying the privilege to women, which ipso facto brings into question whether an actual privilege is involved. I am arguing about whether an example is a good example. This is meant to be a technical discussion about a single example. The point is not whether there is discrimination, it is whether the discrimination can rightly be called due to privilege. I don't see how it can. It is not meant to attack the idea of privilege. You actually write, "It might technically not be privilege," and I say fine, then we agree. Then maybe it should not be the first freaking example of privilege in the article on that subject. How deep do you want to bury the body? Ariel31459 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
There. It's fixed into a form of privilege. Now move on with your life already. CorruptUser (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you referring to the privilege of disputing pseudoscience?Ariel31459 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
No, the phrasing of promiscuity in women and men. And wow, "that the author might be technically correct, but facts don't matter in the face of injustice"? Really? Way to mischaracterize what I had said. What I had said was that the particular nuance of whether as phrased was a double standard or privilege was unimportant to the overall discussion. It's sort of like arguing about whether the erupting volcano is spewing magma or lava. CorruptUser (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
"a double standard or privilege was unimportant to the overall discussion." Yeah, in a discussion of the correctness of an example, admitting it might be incorrect but acceptable anyway is inconsistent with rational usage.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
You weren't and aren't trying to have a debate about the phrasing, you are intentionally creating drama over a very minor point. A point that is now currently moot, so hooray, you won or whatever. This is the real world, not elementary school, we aren't required to tolerate you if you are obnoxious. CorruptUser (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@corruptuser: Well gee, I was creating drama over the fact that the first example given of privilege is not a clear example and I have argued, effectively I think, that it isn't even a correct example. A privilege should involve something group A has and group B would like to have.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we have a privilege list[edit]

We could use a longer privelage list like these:

CheeseburgerPlate Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of the word "ability"[edit]

I wonder if this word is commonly used in the literature concerned with privilege. Standard usage suggests a skill of some sort is present in the individual who has an ability. One might therefore unconsciously assume it is sound for individuals to have privilege acquired through their own merit. In the language of evolutionary biology the so-called ability is typically called an "advantage." Should "advantage" be substituted for "ability"? Ariel31459 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Serious Problems[edit]

This article is absolute garbage. It's chock full of conspiracy theory and false claims. Half of the claims under privilege are either totally false, sensationalized, or havve nothing to do with privilege. One of the most egregious is the claim that not having to worry about violence or murder as much is a male privilege, when in reality males are disproportionately affected by all forms of violence except for rape. This is basic and easily accessible sociological data. If you can't at least attempt a degree of unbiased information, don't publish. That's what rational wiki is supposed to try to avoid. — Unsigned, by: / talk

As to your first edit, that's bullshit. Self isolation of the ingroup for high risk activities leads to a disproportionate rise in causalities for said ingroup. This is very basic logic and reason, as in child level. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Privilege is not only about skin color[edit]

If white privilege is a real thing, then black privilege should be too. Since only white people are accused of racism. (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of a man named Louis Farrakhan?-Flandres (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The article doesn't say "the only determination of privilege is skin color". One issue with the word "privilege" is that the term originated within American activists, and thus tends to be used primarily for social stratification issues within the American social hierarchy. When in reality, the concept could be extended to worldwide cultures. For example, I do believe that the concept of "privilege", although I rarely hear it described as such, could apply to the caste system in IndiaWikipedia, which is not (primarily) related to skin color. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention that you guys are engaging with a bad faith actor. Check their edits for more info. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I see this BoN is a shithead (you know you're in for a doozie when the first fuckin' edit is a Godwin's Law candidate, about the ADL of all organizations), still good to have this information out there I think. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about the blindness section[edit]

In the section about Privilege blindness the article says

from a man's chronic inability to get women to talk to him

What exactly is meant by that and how is it an example of Privilege blindness? — Unsigned, by: 2A02:908:1B6:1080:68F4:BAA8:5995:9B4F / talk

Good Question. Let me add a date here to show time elapsed.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


I love how i got called a sexist and a racist (FOR CITING EXAMPLES OF WHITE PRIVILEGE), and christian privilege, straight and cis privilege also but no it all got deleted facts are scary i know at rationalwiki — Unsigned, by: / talk

Some of your claims are cited as "facts" without citations to back them up. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
No they were backed up with citations I was just told i'm racist and stuff and the other exmaples above me had no citations but they get to stay humm just a bit biased huh I know facts are scary literally everything I said is true so you're just terrible at debating debate me on modern day debates bruh you'd get DESTROYED! — Unsigned, by: 2607:fea8:2ba0:1f6:b1f7:84fb:7f72:b616 / talk / contribs
I don't think we should take a troll who talks almost exclusively in buzzwords and memes seriously. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, none of these have citations. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of citations, I would feel a lot better about this article if there were some citations to academic articles about the actual privilege construct and how it might be applied to understanding social differences. It seems to me that just listing social disparities and claiming privilege were a sufficient explanation seems incommensurate with the the goal of lucidity. If privilege explains all social disparities, it explains none of them.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────HEY YOU WANT MY CITATIONS ALSO IM NOT A TROLL and I love how you include no citations but that's fine because it fits your agenda which is disconnected with reality.

  • The fact that men are given 63% longer sentences for the same crimes.
  • The fact that if a man and a woman both commit a crime, the man is twice as likely to be jailed than the women is.

You can find that

— Unsigned, by: 2607:fea8:2ba0:1f6:b1f7:84fb:7f72:b616 / talk

Dear BON (bunch of numbers), at the risk of appearing to be sententious, you are misinformed if you believe all the editors at this wiki agree with the content of every article. This article is related to social justice, and as such, it is difficult to form a general opinion about it with which all would be in agreement. This is the way with modern ideas. They need to be worked out. Clearly this article has that short coming, to wit, if every social disparity represents a privilege, then there are a boundless number of examples, and one knows not how to regard them relative to one another. Your list seems intent upon registering disparities suffered by men. I had a Jewish Uncle who liked to say, "It's good to be in pain. That's how you know for sure that you are alive." As Uncle Ben (not the rice guy) used to say, "with great power comes great responsibility." There are plenty of examples in the article already, with no clear way to delimit the category. This is a problem I have already mentioned above.
If you suppose that there are some privileges that women enjoy unavailable to men, then you can only be accused of paying attention. For example, from my own discoveries with regard to auto repair: I always send my wife for the purpose of asking for and receiving immediate service whenever my car needs minor repairs. So instead of "bring it back next week," she gets it done the same day by demanding service in a manner that might get me thrown out of the station. A real problem with this article is the complete generality of applicable classes. Consider that tall men, as a group, are much preferred over shorter men for social pairings. I don't think privilege arguments should apply in either of the aforementioned examples. The article itself is too vague to make such distinctions. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Please define privilege in the sociological sense. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, to the BoN, have you considered that posting things like "humm just a bit biased huh I know facts are scary literally everything I said is true so you're just terrible at debating debate me on modern day debates bruh you'd get DESTROYED!" might make people take you a tad less than seriously? Especially since you posted it as a run on sentence and have also repeatedly attempted to whitewash the Eric Hovind article. Given all of these factors, I think the conclusion that you are in fact a troll is more than understandable. After all, we are what we pretend to be... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie That's what I want to know, among other things. The first sentence of this article is: "Privilege is a key concept within a sociological and social justice context." While I do not intend to contribute to writing this article, as a reader I find it vague.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 "Privilege" is an umbrella term denoting set of social norms within a given society, norms which directly or indirectly benefit a certain group or groups (usually the most politically powerful with a sort of downward gradient) at the expense or exclusion of others. Here in America, that would be a white Protestant cisgender heterosexual male of an upper middle class to upper class background, who engages in monogamy and traditional social norms. The more "like" this someone is, the more "privileged" they are. (again, this exists as a gradient for social norms, there will of course be exceptions.) This is part of why you'll see some level of overlap in certain bigoted stereotypes. "Camp gay" being an extension of Toxic Masculinity (I really hope I don't have to explain Toxic Masculinity as well), and arguments against Trans people using the bathroom that they align with borrowing from older scares concerning gay people. This is because these people exist in a sort of perceived inverse of that social ideal, which our culture pushes as "what success looks like" Any further questions? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Yes. Your own words will do and something like them should lead the article. Do you want to rewrite the lead? Say, to quote you directly:
"Privilege" is an umbrella term denoting set of social norms within a given society, norms which directly or indirectly benefit a certain group or groups (usually the most politically powerful with a [sort of] downward gradient) at the expense or exclusion of others. Here in America, that would be a white Protestant cisgender heterosexual male of an upper middle class to upper class background, who engages in monogamy and traditional social norms. The more "like" this someone is, the more "privileged" they are.
Also, some articles in this wiki have links for every proper noun in their texts. If you would include a term like "toxic masculinity," or "Camp Gay" (the latter term being unknown to me) it wouldn't hurt to be able to refer to a glossary for the interested reader. To be frank, if the reader already knows all of these things, what is the point of the article? This article has lost the plot, I think.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 I do not feel that my explanation is article worthy. If someone were to use it as a basis for a more refined explanation I'd be fine with that. TV Tropes has a page on the "Camp Gay" trope/stereotype. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommieI am not a troll you just think that because I have a different opinion than you, but you are biased and facts are scary, and you would get destroyed. Also how did I whitewash Eric Hovind's article I made it non biased since you were just insulting him calling him a racist, uneducated (though he's graduated from college), an idiot and kept saying he lost debates. So i made it unbiased and then I get banned I love how yall know my edits are right that you can't tell me why what I'm saying is wrong you just ban me and ur reasons (even though I'm not vandalising and trolling) I just get called a twat or a bigot or an idiot, or an incel or told I have no friends. So basically I get cyberbullied, also I know that me putting examples of female privilege won't be put on even though they are true and have evidence because it doesn't fit you're untrue bias and agenda. — Unsigned, by: 2607:fea8:2ba0:1f6:642d:2fb2:78c0:7067 / talk / contribs
Everything after "I am not a troll" ought not have been posted, as it is meritless conjecture. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie No it's not it's a problem with this site that is has a strong biased and it ignores many facts to have its bias it's no worse than Conservativepedia, also you would get destroyed in a debate you're just scared. Also explain how making an article unbiased (removing the ad hominem attackts about how he's ignorant even though he has more degrees than you, and dumb and a liar and a racist). I love how you don't care I get banned for telling the truth and me getting cyberbullied you don't care about that. — Unsigned, by: 2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:5DFD:CBA4:416E:50A1 / talk
Firstly, I'm glad to hear that we're no worse than CP, though that seems like damning with faint praise. Secondly, do you have a Discord account? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Yes I do have discord , and I exaggerated as CP is worse(the homosexual "agenda" is on their page) but still not good no where near that.You talk badly about ken ham, ray comfort, eric hovind, ross douthat, william lane craig or any other christian. Talked badly about Steven crowder, Ben Shapiro, Lauren chen, or any other republican. Talked badly about Tj Kirk, Sargon of Akkad (well he deserves it though he's the only one who could lose to Kristi Dumbass Winters), Thunderfoot,Shoeonhead, Chris Ray gun and anyone else who doesn't believe in SJWS PROPAGANDA — Unsigned, by: 2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:5DFD:CBA4:416E:50A1 / talk
Get on. You have until eleven PM CDT. Fail to show up and you forfeit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you send another link I wanna be on the server. — Unsigned, by: 2607:fea8:2ba0:1f6::5 / talk / contribs

wealthy kids and crime[edit]

I am not sure one could draw the conclusion from that article that Rich kids are more likely to commit crime. The reference is a little bit disingenuous, saying "Crime is also widely assumed to be a problem of youth in poverty, but I have found comparable levels of wrongdoing' among well-off suburban students and inner-city youth." Soon describing it as "rule-breaking". It seems a bit ridiculous to compare cheating rates to chest-stabbing rates.

Added [citation needed] tag but will probably delete later. Kauri0.o (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)