Check Your Privilege

[Aea]

Okay, I think I'm getting it. Let's check: if you overheard me explaining this stuff to someone and telling them that this knowledge of cultural usage came from "an American", you would think I wasn't nice about you, and I should have used "an American person" instead, right?

Replace "American" with "Jap" and see if your argument still fits.

 

[sophie]

Okay, I think I'm getting it. Let's check: if you overheard me explaining this stuff to someone and telling them that this knowledge of cultural usage came from "an American", you would think I wasn't nice about you, and I should have used "an American person" instead, right?

Well no. It's more about reducing someone to a single characteristic when that characteristic signifies otherness or lower status.

I mean depending on how you emphasize it and how you phrase it exactly I absolutely could find it offensive. But because "American" doesn't tend to code for "a lesser being" it doesn't carry the same weight as the other words I pointed out. And as Aea correctly pointed out this does apply when certain historically denigrated nationalities are involved. Americans tend to get very uncomfortable when they get caught needing to say "Mexican" substantively for example. It's not one that is explicitly taboo like "a gay" or "a black" is, but you'll often see a slight pause where the American (particularly West Coast American) briefly considers whether "a Mexican" is polite verbiage.

 

[Camikaze]

I think it's probably worth pointing out that, as the words in question are carrying a whole lot of cultural baggage, they're also quite culturally specific. Calling someone 'a black' is not universally problematic in modern English. It is in American English (or most forms thereof). It is for the most part in Australian English, but for quite different reasons, importing different connotations, and building on a dramatically different history. It's probably useful to qualify characterisations of particular language rather than universalising them.

 

[Ryika]

If a man and woman are talking, then power relations are in favor of the man;

I would have understood that if you had said "If a man and a woman are wrestling...", but when they're "talking"? If I were a woman, I'd certainly be insulted by this.

In fact, even as a man I feel insulted by how you think of women as the inferior gender.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Religion or lack thereof is not an axis of oppression, so the person who said this is full of it.

I hope you meant "in the West" there. Still not true across the board even if so but less glaringly wrong, seeing as there are plenty of places in the world where one can be literally executed for the wrong religious beliefs.

 

[Daw]

I think it's probably worth pointing out that, as the words in question are carrying a whole lot of cultural baggage, they're also quite culturally specific. Calling someone 'a black' is not universally problematic in modern English. It is in American English (or most forms thereof). It is for the most part in Australian English, but for quite different reasons, importing different connotations, and building on a dramatically different history. It's probably useful to qualify characterisations of particular language rather than universalising them.

What about my Russian English then? This is exactly one of the times I think I shall give up my attempts to improve it. I mean, for an obvious foreigner it's all right to be an awkward dumbass, it's fine if that alien is able to put a bunch of words together to make a barely understandable phrase at all Becoming a less obvious foreigner while still being an awkward moron might put me in a vulnerable position...

Because, seriously, I see no problem with Aea's suggestion. To me, "a Jap" is just a short version of "a Japanese", and those are people living in Japan, and there's nothing wrong in that... The facts that they are people and sure have a massive variety of characteristics and features just go without saying, and it seems quite strange to me that it can be understood differently...

But thanks for clarifying things for me, I really appreciate it. I'll try to be cautious.

Edit: Owen, I didn't mention it in the original post, but my "thanks for clarifying" was addressed to you mostly, as you did the most part of the clarifying. I hope it was not offensive, it's just I am not sure anymore that it will go without saying...

 

[sophie]

No problem. It's understandable that you would have a hard time. You're running into the reason why true fluency in a language is so elusive. These little nuances in usage come from decades if not centuries of cultural and social context that a native speaker has been spending the better part of 20+ years immersing themselves in and perfecting. As Cami pointed out even then it can at times only apply to a specific dialect of a language; for example an Aussie's or Brit's rather more cavalier usage of a certain four-letter word beginning with c would be looked upon in the US with a heap of scorn and disgust, and those people ARE native speakers.

Jap is a nono because it was a pejorative(ish?) used in the 1940s which summons up images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and internment camps which means it's not a word that's looked upon too pleasantly in the US. Although on the taboo scale I wouldn't say it result in you getting punched in the face so much as a raised eyebrow or some side-eye in that "old person racist" kind of way.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well no. It's more about reducing someone to a single characteristic when that characteristic signifies otherness or lower status.

I mean depending on how you emphasize it and how you phrase it exactly I absolutely could find it offensive. But because "American" doesn't tend to code for "a lesser being" it doesn't carry the same weight as the other words I pointed out. And as Aea correctly pointed out this does apply when certain historically denigrated nationalities are involved. Americans tend to get very uncomfortable when they get caught needing to say "Mexican" substantively for example. It's not one that is explicitly taboo like "a gay" or "a black" is, but you'll often see a slight pause where the American (particularly West Coast American) briefly considers whether "a Mexican" is polite verbiage.

"gay" is now taboo? I thought that one was still safe. Too many subcategories of identity leads not only to confusion, but creates unnecessary separation an animosity.

 

[sophie]

"gay" is now taboo? I thought that one was still safe. Too many subcategories of identity leads not only to confusion, but creates unnecessary separation an animosity.

Again, adjective vs substantive:

"He's gay" - ok

"He's a gay" - not ok

 

[Farm Boy]

I live in a pretty heavily Hispanic/Mexican area and I don't think "Mexican" has translated into the frought term Owen seems to indicate is present on the Western coast, at least not here(just to show it's complicated Daw). The main stumbling block would be calling somebody who is Hispanic and Mexican simply because they look like one. There are plenty of family units where a parent might well be called Mexican, because he or she is, where the kids are Hispanic, not Mexican. Then again, perhaps field workers have a more enlightened attitude on this having shared more common experience on equal footing with the migrants(and families) in question? Perhaps it's because when "Mexican" is still a neutral descriptor people will fall back on more blunt terms when they want to be insulting. Might be the racists, having been shamed in a more PC environment, have fallen back on ruining a different word? I mean, you know a pejorative use when you hear it(at least when spoken), intentionally digging around to see if you should be insulted when it's not obvious is indicative of something different.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Daw, the problem you are running into is that there is very little in the way of understandable pattern as to what words have been seized upon by some group that wants to put down another group, and which of those attempted put downs have been accepted as successful enough to smear back onto the word itself.

I recently encountered some people who seemed to me to have ordered some sort of "do it yourself -ism kit." They had their own slur word; "watermelon". Their own defining characteristics of the group using broad stroke irrational statements; "watermelons are this" "watermelons are that." Their own "fitting" ends for these "watermelons;" "watermelons should be made to..." "we should gather up all the watermelons and..."

I was amazed, because these people came from a variety of states, but had clearly associated in their hatred sufficiently to establish their own hate language and co-opt a seemingly harmless word, sufficiently that when they called me a watermelon they proceeded into mocking me for not taking the offense they wanted me to take; "this watermelon is so dumb he doesn't know what we are talking about." I have wondered every time since that I have encountered a large green rinded fruit grown on a vine if we are going to need something new to call it.

 

[warpus]

cishet: cisgender heterosexual

The latter is more often the way it is used, or at least should be used. It's basically the diversity equivalent of the douchebag jar:

and cisgender is.. Commonwealth of Independent States gender.. or.. what..

let me guess, straight white lactose tolerant Christian male

So all straight white lactose tolerant Christian males are douchebags? Is that the implication and the way the term is used?

 

[sophie]

and cisgender is.. Commonwealth of Independent States gender.. or.. what..

let me guess, straight white lactose tolerant Christian male

cisgender = the gender you identify with matches the one society imposes on you. Society calls you a man (because you have a penis) and you identify with the same label.

As opposed to transgender, which is when your gender identity does not match the one society imposes on you.

And there's also genderqueer which is, broadly speaking, when you subscribe to an identity which doesn't grok with the established gender binary.

These terms are merely ones of gender identification (or non-identification). They have nothing to do with sexual identity, sexual organs (it's possible to have a penis, identify as a woman, and be sexually attracted to other women), skin color, religion, or...food allergies?

So all straight white lactose tolerant Christian males are douchebags? Is that the implication and the way the term is used?

And I already answered this question:

The video was intended as an amusing analogy; not an incorporation of the phrase or label. In the same way that Schmidt's friends inform him when he is being a douchebag without realizing it, "check your privilege" is a way of informing an individual that, due to their advantaged status, they may not be considering other experiences.

 

[Ryika]

I wonder how that whose cisgender-nonsense will play out in Germany.
Gender and sex are both "Geschlecht" and 100% synonymous here.

 

[warpus]

In the same way that Schmidt's friends inform him when he is being a douchebag without realizing it, "check your privilege" is a way of informing an individual that, due to their advantaged status, they may not be considering other experiences.

Yeah, that does make sense, I think it got lost in the noise when I first read it.

 

[sophie]

I wonder how that whose cisgender-nonsense will play out in Germany.
Gender and sex are both "Geschlecht" and 100% synonymous here.

Well that took 3 seconds:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

It should also be noted that "sex" and "gender" were used more or less interchangeably for the majority of their history in English as well. Gender was first academically defined as something distinct from sex only in 1963.

 

[Ryika]

Well that took 3 seconds:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

That article just states that the word has recently been adopted from the English language, it's not being used by the general public.

It should also be noted that "sex" and "gender" were used more or less interchangeably for the majority of their history in English as well. Gender was first academically defined as something distinct from sex only in 1963.

I see. So given that Germany is pretty much mimicking that I can expect Gender to become a widely used word during my lifetime. Sounds like I'll have a lot of fun arguing with teenagers. Maybe the next generation of people who push that are more interesting to argue against than the current teenage-feminists here.

 

[Daw]

[...](it's possible to have a penis, identify as a woman, and be sexually attracted to other women)[...]

Bingo! I need to show that to a friend who argued that biologically male lesbians are technically impossible. Ha! I knew I was right!

 

[Gary Childress]

This is a horrible definition of privilege-checking.

The purpose of privilege-checking is, in interpersonal relations, to abrograte or otherwise correct for power relations in the conversation. If a man and woman are talking, then power relations are in favor of the man; cis and trans, straight and LGB, abled and not...there is a tendency for people in positions of power to try and dominate people who aren't, and the social structures that those relations create cause this behavior to play out even on a sub-conscious level. The purpose of privilege-checking is to recognize these relations and correct for them so that the conversation is more equal.

Religion or lack thereof is not an axis of oppression, so the person who said this is full of it.

He's a follower of Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett and seems to believe he's an "activist" for atheism. Apparently if everyone in the world were atheist things would be so much better.

EDIT: But I do have a question for you Cheezy. If things like LGBT can be an "axis of oppression", why wouldn't religious affiliation (or lack there of) be one as well?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I hope you meant "in the West" there. Still not true across the board even if so but less glaringly wrong, seeing as there are plenty of places in the world where one can be literally executed for the wrong religious beliefs.

Sure. And that is a legal issue, not a material basis for class antagonism.

I would have understood that if you had said "If a man and a woman are wrestling...", but when they're "talking"? If I were a woman, I'd certainly be insulted by this.

In fact, even as a man I feel insulted by how you think of women as the inferior gender.

I don't care what you think. Men use their superior place in society to dominate all interactions with women. Hell, they use them to dominate other men, too. But men aren't oppressed as men, so there's no privilege to be checked in interactions between them.

and cisgender is...

cis and trans are Latin prefixes. Cis means "on this side" and Trans means "on the opposite side." Cisapline Gaul was on the side of the Alps closer to Rome, and Transapline Gaul was on the far side of the Alps. Cis-Jordan was the older name for what is today Israel and Palestine, and Trans-Jordan the older name for what is today Jordan (both being described in relation to the River Jordan and Europe). Likewise, cisgender is someone "on the same side" as the gender they were assigned at birth, and transgender is someone "on the opposite side" as the gender they were assigned at birth; so to speak.

cisgender = the gender you identify with matches the one society imposes on you. Society calls you a man (because you have a penis) and you identify with the same label.

As opposed to transgender, which is when your gender identity does not match the one society imposes on you.

A much more eloquent way of putting it!

And there's also genderqueer which is, broadly speaking, when you subscribe to an identity which doesn't grok with the established gender binary.

To be clear to other readers, us genderqueer people are pretty generally covered under the trans umbrella. No one was assigned non-binary genders at birth.

He's a follower of Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett and seems to believe he's an "activist" for atheism. Apparently if everyone in the world were atheist things would be so much better.

Whether or not that's true, New Atheists aren't going to be the ones who make it happen.

EDIT: But I do have a question for you Cheezy. If things like LGBT can be an "axis of oppression", why wouldn't religious affiliation (or lack there of) be one as well?

LGBT oppression ultimately ties back to the material-based oppression of women under capitalism. Capitalism demands a certain amount of control over the reproduction of labor value, both in the immediate sense (rest, sleep, eating, household keeping, all the stuff that enables a worker to return to work again) and the generational sense (ensuring that enough children are being born to guarantee a reliable supply of workers in the future, both to man the machines and also to sustain the pool of unemployed labor), and these together constitute the material basis for the oppression of women under capitalism. But what this also means is a fairly stable identity for men and women, and how they relate to one another in terms of the ability to renew labor-value. The most reliable way is the atomic family: have women be primarily responsible for it, and have men labor. Women are the ones who get pregnant (transmen notwithstanding) and this by itself is a risk for any employer who will lose labor from his workers not working either during pregnancy or after. Also, this tradition already existed in European society (as did the gender binary), and so it was easy and natural for this relationship to morph into one capitalism could use effectively to sustain itself.

LGBT people's existence upsets this cozy arrangement. Homosexual couples generally don't have kids; if it's two men, then they both work, or inevitably one or both have to be responsible for reproducing labor value at home anyway, which is lost productivity. If it's two women, then where is the man to dominate their household? Plus all the other problems with gay couples exist: either one works and one doesn't (lost productivity), both work less (lost productivity), or both work and that's too empowering of an example for other women, to whom they will appear as rebels against patriarchy. Bisexuals fit to this same mold. And transgender people screw around with the generational level of labor-value reproduction: transmen probably don't want to have kids, transwomen can't have kids, etc. And then where do non-binary people fit in this male-female atomic family? Layered on top of this is a very heavy ideological apparatus that guarantees that people stick to their gender binary and their heterosexual relationships, so that the system continues to run smoothly. As with other superstructures, most of the cultural battles happen here, but the material base is the origin of all superstructural cathexes.