Check Your Privilege

[Gary Childress]

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.

But strictly speaking doesn't religion also have whatever level of ties to the mechanisms of capitalism as well? For example, Marx made the famous quip about "opium of the masses". Doesn't that suggest that religion can also be as much of a part of the dynamics of oppression as LGBT can?

EDIT: Thanks for the detailed answer BTW.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Cheezy, I think there is plenty of grounds to point out religious oppression, even in countries where the law has been pushed well beyond allowing it. Polls show that if you want to be president in the US you better go to church. The societal pressures aren't reserved for that single office either. I wouldn't want to guess how many "Christians" are far more concerned about being scandalously caught in a sin by their fellow church members than they are about being noted by their all seeing God, but I'm sure it is a lot.

 

[sophie]

Not to mention familial ostracism

Yes it's less than some other minorities face, but there's a reason atheist support groups are A Thing

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not to mention familial ostracism

Yes it's less than some other minorities face, but there's a reason atheist support groups are A Thing

Personally, I think the atheists need to check their privilege. I've made a lifetime out of spiritual exploration. I've studied with Buddhists, Yogis, every Christian sect the average person can name plus a few, Muslims, and Jews, as well as an assortment of "new age" practitioners, some of whom have bordered on cults. I would say on the "top one hundred most insistent that you must accept their beliefs in place of your own" list in my personal experience easily eighty of them were of the atheist persuasion.

The atheists that need a support group choose alienation far more than it is forced on them. Their whole schtick of "I am too smart to believe in what I have deemed superstitious nonsense" is the very definition of superstitious nonsense, and they are generally too arrogant to have that conversation...but it is all they want to talk about.

 

[Ryika]

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.

Ideological nonsense. Women as a 'class' are not oppressed and men as a 'class' are not oppressing women.

And even if they were, gender is only one of many factors that make up how "privileged" your life will be. Money, race, where you're born, the functionality of the family you're born into, your own genetics, the people you run into, your religion, luck or bad luck and millions of other factors all have influence on what you become. We see women in all layers of society, we see men in all layers of society. It's baseless hogwash.

Their whole schtick of "I am too smart to believe in what I have deemed superstitious nonsense" is the very definition of superstitious nonsense, and they are generally too arrogant to have that conversation...but it is all they want to talk about.

"Not believing in something that has no evidence is the very definition of superstitious nonsense!" - nice

you're playing there.

 

[trader/warrior]

I think a much better way to do this would be a "check our privilege" session at the start debates of the social justice kind where all participants basically shares their life story as related to privilege, wealth, location, family, education, upbringing, class, ethnicity, race, culture, disabilites, or any other general issues related to privilege. Thing I always see in these debates are people making lots of presumptions about each other and I think this would ease it up a bit, make people see each others as human rather than as a list of various crude groupings they can assign people visually and define what their life must have been like based on that.

"Check your privilege" seems to me a very condescending, generalizing buzzphrase that is very often used to waste away opportunities to make an actual good in depth argument. I mean what's even the goal of it? "Ok I checked it and am convinced now."?

It also points in a weird direction for me with the accusatory tone, that is the kind of argument that will only steel your opponent, rather it should be check their privilege or lack thereof, consider the plight of the unprivileged. Argument from compassion rather than argument from accusing people of having privilege like thats a bad thing when thats what we want more of for basically everybody.

 

[Kyriakos]

Funny how the SJWs are always rich people with loads of time on their hands, from the patriarchal EU/colonies

Stuff do not change by shaming. Ever. No person will be shamed to change and at the same time be honest and set to keep said forced change.

 

[useless]

Ideological nonsense. Women as a 'class' are not oppressed and men as a 'class' are not oppressing women.

And even if they were, gender is only one of many factors that make up how "privileged" your life will be. Money, race, where you're born, the functionality of the family you're born into, your own genetics, the people you run into, your religion, luck or bad luck and millions of other factors all have influence on what you become. We see women in all layers of society, we see men in all layers of society. It's baseless hogwash.

Well, be sure to tell all those women who are the victims of institutional misogyny, who are paid less than their male counterparts, who are denied bodily autonomy, etc.

Funny how the SJWs are always rich people with loads of time on their hands, from the patriarchal EU/colonies

Stuff do not change by shaming. Ever. No person will be shamed to change and at the same time be honest and set to keep said forced change.

See attitudes towards overt:

Anti-semetism
Racism
Homophobia etc.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Those don't change by shaming either. You can make one scared enough to hide something, by shaming, but not actually change it.

Only logic/discussion, in an environment offering hope to all parties, can foster change of that kind (to the degree that anything will).

 

[Ryika]

Well, be sure to tell all those women who are the victims of institutional misogyny

I do usually not speak with imaginary people.

who are paid less than their male counterparts,

The wage gap has been debunked over and over again, and I know people have told you at least in one other threads, ergo I assume you're just being dishonest by repeating this, so I'll make it short: A lot of factors lead to women ending up earning less money on average, such as working less hours, working part-time, working in less dangerous or exhausting jobs, working in fields that provide a service instead of producing stuff, etc.

When you actually compare people who are very similar (same job, same education, same amount of hours worked) the wage gap shrinks to 3-7%, depending on the study. These 3-7% can be attributed to factors that are hard to measure (like for example being less assertive when asking for a better wage), or they could be due to discrimination. Either way, the difference is not big and in cases where clear discrimination happens women can sue their companies, so another non-argument.

Huh, wasn't as short as I had thought it would be.

who are denied bodily autonomy, etc.

I agree with this one when it comes to abortion and circumcision, but it's not men discriminating against women, that's just a made-up, stupid connection that doesn't exist. People - both, men and women - are against abortion for various reasons and circumcision of people who didn't make the decision themselves is, while on average certainly having worse consequences for women, a problem that BOTH genders have to deal with.

So there we go, another episode of useless arguments deconstructed in less than 3 minutes.

 

[useless]

You've debunked nothing and have only shown your ideological commitment against any and all women's issues.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, speaking about facts is of course ideological commitment, while repeating proven lies is telling the truth. Freaks me out that there are more people like you out there. Thankfully more and more people are waking up.

 

[NovaKart]

Well issues like abortion and the wage gap don't really support cheezys statement that men use their superior place in society to dominate all interactions with women which is a really extreme statement.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, be sure to tell all those women who are the victims of institutional misogyny, who are paid less than their male counterparts, who are denied bodily autonomy, etc.

Ignoring the wage gap stuff...

What bodily autonomy are women denied (assuming you mean in the west)?

 

[NovaKart]

I assume he means people trying to deny abortion access.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well that's all I can think of, but they're not actually being denied abortion access are they? The only place I'm aware of in "the west" where this is not an option is the Republic of Ireland, but even they have a pretty easy workaround I believe. I might be wrong though, hence why I'm asking.

(but even so, it's still very disingenuous to talk about it as if the sole purpose is to deny bodily autonomy to one individual and to completely ignore the fact that most arguments for it centre around the protection of ANOTHER individual. Just because you don't share the view that the unborn foetus is an individual doesn't mean that you can pretend that the opposition DON'T think that and are instead arguing on your terms only.)

 

[luiz]

You've debunked nothing and have only shown your ideological commitment against any and all women's issues.

Well just saying "you didn't debunk anything" doesn't mean he didn't.

Also, this is the accusing, inquisitorial tone I was talking about in some other thread. Just because he doesn't believe the gender wage gap is as big as is it purported to be - and he is right in this regard - doesn't mean he is "against any and all women's issues". In fact, what kind of person is against "any and all women's issues"? You're engaging in demonization and turning the guy you're arguing with in a caricature.

You're hardly alone in this sort of "debate technique". It can be very effective in winning arguments by interdicting debate in some environments, like college campuses. After all, we shouldn't even debate with someone who is "against any and all women's issues", now should we? No, we should just ostracize him and deny him platform (a very popular technique nowadays).

But I'd argue that this authoritarian, demonizing approach is in fact counter-productive in winning hearts and minds. Honestly, nobody that reads your posts would feel more tempted to support feminism. If anything, they will be turned off by your condescending and vindictive attitude.

It's the same with this whole "check your privilege" thing. What sort of obnoxious jackass would actually say that to someone else? Does anyone really think that's an effective way to induce reflection? If someone told me to "check my privilege" during an argument I would feel like punching his face, not "checking my privilege" (no, I would not actually punch this hypothetical person in the face, but you get my point).

 

[Farm Boy]

you're playing there.

I don't think he is. If I, as a Methodist, tell a Baptist or a Jew or a Hindu or any number of persons that their religion is stupid because my worldview is more enlightened then I am being a stupid superstitious bigot. Now, my worldview might actually be more enlightened, or less, but addressing the individual points and attitude is how you get there rather than attacking the religion(you can even have this conversation about the religions themselves, but it rarely stats from a position of 1 Truth and everything else=False). Religious persons within the same denominations have such wildly varied views despite attempting to walk a generally-the-same-sort-of-thing-path that you might as well just consider them, well, people. Right? I write off the religious bigots in my life that can't see past the "rightness" of their creed. They're not worthy of my limited lifespan. At least not on issues of creed, as they very well may be worth time on a different issue. And, frankly, neither are the atheists that are stuck as **** on their creed. The is/aught dichotomy isn't very hard, but it's still going to be rejected by those who insist their aught is.

 

[sophie]

Well that's all I can think of, but they're not actually being denied abortion access are they? The only place I'm aware of in "the west" where this is not an option is the Republic of Ireland, but even they have a pretty easy workaround I believe. I might be wrong though, hence why I'm asking.

(but even so, it's still very disingenuous to talk about it as if the sole purpose is to deny bodily autonomy to one individual and to completely ignore the fact that most arguments for it centre around the protection of ANOTHER individual. Just because you don't share the view that the unborn foetus is an individual doesn't mean that you can pretend that the opposition DON'T think that and are instead arguing on your terms only.)

The US.

 

[Daw]

I write off the religious bigots in my life that can't see past the "rightness" of their creed.

You do so as long as you have the luxury of being able to. Once you lack this luxury, you find yourself involved in a religious war, one of which human history is so rich in.

It's what I wrote in the very beginning about: you can't argue believers because belief is not grounded on reasons and reasoning is what argument is about. Once you can't argue, you are left to either comply or fight.

It actually may be not about any religion at all. Any idea will do. The American war of the North vs. the South, where one side believed the skin melanin amount makes some humans more/less humans than others, while the other side did not share that idea. And they showed little intent to sit down over some tea and argue that trough.

The WWII started largely because some people believed they were superior and others were only good for gas chambers. And they seemed reluctant to discuss this arguable position.