• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Minority Rights vs Human Rights or something

286
Posts
10
Years
So I've noticed a trend in the debate forum...


In response to some of the other people who have replied, I still find it difficult to understand why we choose to tackle the issue of human rights as separate groups of individuals. Instead of us all coming together to fight against injustice, we split into groups that focus mainly on elevating the rights of that group, falsely believing that by doing so everyone's rights will somehow be elevated in the process. Maybe there's something I'm missing here, but to me, I'd be much more likely to fight for a cause that was intent on working with all human beings, not specific divisions of human beings.

That stance does put me vehemently against LGBT advocates, feminists etc. who only care about their own interests.

Why do we need to split up the rights of our citizens based on our gender?

I think you're misconstruing things. (I think) what he's saying (and also what I outlined earlier) is that fighting for equality using the disadvantaged (aka the oppressed) as a vector is fallacious. While it may seem to be the right thing to do at a glance, it's better to advocate for both the oppressors and the oppressed – in reality that is true equality. Think about it with an analogy: If you have an unbalanced table, wouldn't stabilizing both sides be more logical than simply pushing up on the side that's down?

... and I thought I'd make a thread about this. The basic questions, as far as I can tell, is Do you think it's better to fight specifically for the rights of minorities (think lgbt people or poc) or to fight for general, all encompassing "human rights"?


To be perfectly honest, I don't know where you guys are coming from and I'm not sure if that's because I'm misunderstanding you or because this is just ♥♥♥♥ing dumb. My post in the mra thread pretty much sums up my thoughts and hopefully it (and the other quoted posts) will get the ball rolling:

Because fighting for "equality" brushes aside the issues faced by queer people/poc/women, ignores the differences between these issues and lumps them all into one happy-go-lucky equality movement that overly simplifies oppression (and inevitably ends up as very white-washed and cis/heteronormative). Oppression isn't just someone getting their feelings hurt on the playground and we're not going to make it go away by preaching some "be nice to people" bs. We need to recognise the problems lgbt+/poc/women face if we're going to destroy the sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia in society and some blanket equality movement isn't going to cut it.



Are you against activists who only care about their own interests or activists, who all only care about their own interests (I mean I know the answer, but)? Because while excluding poc and trans people is a big problem in mainstream activism, fighting for your rights does not make you self-centered. Like wow... an lgbt+ person who wants to campaign against homophobia... what an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥...
 

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
It is very short-sighted to think that a one-sided approach to equality isn't anything more than a vector for more inequality. As it stands now, both sides of a group have major social advantages and disadvantages, whereas in the distant past one had everything. While the current state of affairs isn't as lopsided as it was then, it's still far from fair for any side of a party. The solution to getting rid of this inequality problem is to remove from the equation things that separate us to begin with, ergo labels and social divides (think of TV sitcoms and chivalry, if that gives you enough of an idea).

Because fighting for "equality" brushes aside the issues faced by queer people/poc/women, ignores the differences between these issues and lumps them all into one happy-go-lucky equality movement that overly simplifies oppression (and inevitably ends up as very white-washed and cis/heteronormative). Oppression isn't just someone getting their feelings hurt on the playground and we're not going to make it go away by preaching some "be nice to people" bs. We need to recognise the problems lgbt+/poc/women face if we're going to destroy the sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia in society and some blanket equality movement isn't going to cut it.
This is a very extremist way to look at such a thing.
 
68
Posts
9
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Nov 2, 2014
To be perfectly honest, I don't know where you guys are coming from and I'm not sure if that's because I'm misunderstanding you or because this is just ♥♥♥♥ing dumb. My post in the mra thread pretty much sums up my thoughts and hopefully it (and the other quoted posts) will get the ball rolling:

Yes. This. This is perfect.

Alex: This is not extremist at all. I agree with you that the ultimate goal of all of these movements is equality with no one distinguishing between races, genders, sexual orientations, etc. But the reality is that we are extremely far from achieving this. Before we can remove these barriers between people, there needs to be equality. And the fact of the matter is the white men have way more rights and privileges than the rest of us. Fighting only generally for "human rights" ignores the specific issues faced by specific oppressed groups. This is true even within specific movements. For example, the original feminist movement was focused very intently on middle-class, white women. And eventually people realized that "feminism" was too general - people needed to fight specifically for the rights of Black women, and Hispanic women, and lesbians, etc., etc., etc., because the issues faced by these specific groups are varied and nuanced and cannot be solved with one general, blanket solution.

And yes, people are more likely to fight for the rights of groups that they belong to. That's just human nature. I think it's important that people are conscious of and aware of movements that don't directly impact them, but it's much easier to fight for something you yourself have experienced. And to some extent, this might be best. I'm White. I have no idea what it's like to be an ethnic minority and I never will. So, while I can support these rights movements, I will never really be an expert on exactly what changes are needed the way someone who belongs to the community will. So I agree, if I was a man, I wouldn't be as convicted a feminist as I am (note please that I'm using feminism to mean a movement towards EQUALITY - I do not in any way believe that women are better than men, and part of feminism to me is also making sure that men are treated equally - for example, if we accept women in high-paying positions, perhaps this will contribute to reducing the bias against men raising children alone). And sometimes this bothers me. I try very hard to remember that there are so many other movements that I need to support. But, when you're a part of something, it's easier to understand, and sometimes you feel like that's where you're the most useful. I'm a woman, so I'm an expert on being a woman, so I feel like I can really be influential as a feminist.

In the end, yes, it is important that we fight for general human rights. But in addition to that, we need to realize that the issues faced by different groups are incredibly diverse, and all of these problems need to be addressed specifically. And if you still don't agree with this, and you are a white man, you're just going to have to trust me. You are part of a very privileged group, and you can be sympathetic, and helpful, and I am not saying that you aren't fighting for the rights of others, because from what I've heard from most of the people here, you are, but there will always be a little part of being part of a historically oppressed group that you can never understand. So please, at least consider this perspective. You don't have to accept it, but please think about it.

As you can probably tell, I'm very passionate about this, haha. I am always happy to talk more with people about it, so long as we can keep it civil.
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
People will naturally associate with others who care about the same things they do, this is just a basic fact of the world. There are people advocating for every conceivable idea of equality and then some and then there are special interest groups advocating for every possible special interest there is that might possibly be covered under the realm of equality or fairness or whatever.

As for what I think people should do? I think the natural process above is fine as is. Specifically, I think people should focus on the issues they care about most and research those and bring them up for discussion. Obviously you shouldn't close your mind to other discussions, that would just narrow your viewpoint and give you a very nuanced view of the world, but let other people deal with the ins and outs of those and just chime in where you think you've got a good point. But take the one or two or maybe three issues you really, really care about and work to understand them as best you can, and then talk to other people about them, why you think they're important, and what needs to be done to help.

I posted the MRA thread because men's rights issues matter to me a lot more than any of the other political issues commonly discussed because they affect people I know and many people don't take them seriously or deny they exist outright. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do understand some of the important talking points considerably more than your average person does (if the average person even knows anything about men's issues).

I think the idea that everyone should just band together and fight for "equality" or whatever is naive. I think most people would be willing to pay lip service to the idea that people should be treated fairly, but that's not the same as advocacy. It's just basic human nature, people will usually only dig deep about the things they really care about. I think that's fine, though; specialization isn't a bad thing. Moreover, the general concept of fairness is too broad to cover all the nuanced issues that different people face, so there would be some issues that would never be discussed at the expense of "more important" ones, which I think is a huge waste of human resources. I don't think having more people talk about the most "dire" issues would really change much, since those issues are already pretty heavily discussed. All that would happen would be that fewer people hear about the more nuanced issues.
 

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
And the fact of the matter is the white men have way more rights and privileges than the rest of us.
Where? When? What is this, 1850? We don't live in colonial times, the Queen isn't in charge, Japan isn't an empire, the Soviet Union is gone, Europe is out of Africa, so where is this "white male oppressor" notion stemming from? The past is in the past, and it's far more logical to worry about what's going on among us living folks than what mischief our great great granddaddies were up to a century ago.

Fighting only generally for "human rights" ignores the specific issues faced by specific oppressed groups.
Fighting only generally for "human rights" encompasses everyone, and it's very purpose is to consider and account for the issues of everyone.

This is true even within specific movements. For example, the original feminist movement was focused very intently on middle-class, white women. And eventually people realized that "feminism" was too general - people needed to fight specifically for the rights of Black women, and Hispanic women, and lesbians, etc., etc., etc., because the issues faced by these specific groups are varied and nuanced and cannot be solved with one general, blanket solution.
The movement is still even today confined to a special interest group. And isn't focusing solely on white females the opposite of a "blanket solution"?

In the end, yes, it is important that we fight for general human rights.

But in addition to that, we need to realize that the issues faced by different groups are incredibly diverse
Thus why we're addressing them as such, instead of focusing on those on the bottom. My table analogy serves well here.

and you are a white man,
Okay, see, this is the very problem that needs to disappear. Differentiation is the very thing that got our species into this mess in the first place; how can it's continuance ever lead to its absolvance?

You are part of a very privileged group,
No, I'm not. I don't get to sit around on the couch at my leisure with some woman taking care of things for me, and I'm not the sole income provider of my house, and I also am far from being in charge of anything above the opposite gender. Talk to my grandfather - he had it like that. Instead I get to flip on the telly to see some fat self-esteemless moron with a crazy nutjob of a wife whom he's lucky to have treat him like ♥♥♥♥, and I'm supposed to laugh. "Haha, he's so stupid! Look at him, is he serious?" Just flip the gender roles on that for five seconds and you'll see how obscene that would be with a woman. If we're to be equal—truly equal—nonsense like this has to go on both ends of the field.

but there will always be a little part of being part of a historically oppressed group that you can never understand.
So you're judging me because of the actions of my ancestors? Well…
 
286
Posts
10
Years
It is very short-sighted to think that a one-sided approach to equality isn't anything more than a vector for more inequality. As it stands now, both sides of a group have major social advantages and disadvantages, whereas in the distant past one had everything. While the current state of affairs isn't as lopsided as it was then, it's still far from fair for any side of a party.
Uh, sorry? "Both sides have advantages and disadvantages"? I'll give you men because there are certain problems there (thaaaaaat mostly have to do with gender roles created by men, but w/e), but please explain what disadvantages being straight, white and/or cis brings.


The solution to getting rid of this inequality problem is to remove from the equation things that separate us to begin with, ergo labels and social divides (think of TV sitcoms and chivalry, if that gives you enough of an idea).
Sorry, but this is stupid and naive. There are trans people being murdered all the time and you really think the solution is some vague equality movement that erases people's identities and practically ignores the difficulties of marginalised groups? The end goal isn't to get everyone to love each other, it's to destroy power imbalances and the societal issues that lead to the oppression of minorities. Racism/homophobia etc. are too deeply ingrained into society to make disappear by telling everybody to play nice.

Also, I'm not sure how acknowledging that everyone is different and comes from a different background divides us? Like, I can kind of see where you're coming from but recognising that marginalised groups are in fact marginalised and face different experiences to each other and to straight/white/cis people isn't what's causing inequality.


This is a very extremist way to look at such a thing.
How....


No, I'm not [privileged]
You are a white cis male, no? Then yes, you are privileged. It doesn't mean that you can't have any problems or that you're actively oppressing people, but it does mean that you have certain advantages in society because of your skin colour/sexuality/gender identity. I'm not sure why you (and most straight/white/cis/male people) take such offense to this but w/e.


So you're judging me because of the actions of my ancestors? Well…
God I rolled my eyes so hard at this. Stop trying to make everything about you.

You also missed their point that it's difficult to understand oppression unless you actually face it. As a white person, I will never understand what racism is like the same way a straight person will never understand what homophobia is like.
 
Last edited:
68
Posts
9
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Nov 2, 2014
I think Grey Wind's response pretty much sums up everything I'd want to say anyway, so I'll keep this short.

As a man, YOU ARE PRIVILEGED. This doesn't mean you have an easy life. Your life may be very difficult. Being a man and having male privilege is only a very small part of what determines how much struggle you face. But it is significant. Certainly sexism is less blatant than in 1850, but to deny that it exists or that you are privileged is ignorant and disrespectful. I am a woman working in a scientific field. Do you know how many times I've had male classmates dismiss my ideas right off the bat? Do you know how hard it is to walk that fine line between "too nice" and "♥♥♥♥♥" when trying to convince someone that your idea is valid? Have you ever had to fear that someone will look at your name on an application and automatically be biased against you? Has anyone ever told you that you are naturally inferior in the field that you excel in simply because of your sex? No? That's privilege. It doesn't mean your life is a cakewalk, it just means that you get some very important advantages in life that I don't get, simply because of your sex.

(Okay, I lied, that wasn't short.)
 

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
There are trans people being murdered all the time
Just like there are whites murdered all the time; same for blacks, Hispanics, men, women, you name it. All because they were just that. Your point?

Then yes, you are privileged.
As a man, YOU ARE PRIVILEGED.
Why do you refute my point with baseless rejection?



Stop trying to make everything about you.
You know, I'll share a secret about debating with you. A really clever way of combating someone in an argument is to use your flaws and weaknesses as ammunition; you're attacking them while covering your ass at the same time, since they look like idiots if they try to throw those insults back at you. Isn't that clever?
 
68
Posts
9
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Nov 2, 2014
Why do you refute my point with baseless rejection?

Um, it wasn't baseless? We both gave valid reasons for disagreeing with you?

If you're a man, your privileged. If you're white, you're privileged. If you're straight, you're privileged. End of story.

And I'll add that I'm white and straight, and therefore very privileged in a lot of ways. That doesn't mean that, because I was born white and straight, I'm responsible for the issues faced by minorities and gay people. It just means I get unfair, special treatment for NOT being a minority or gay. For example, my name is Sarah. When I right that name on a job application or an e-mail or on a housing contract, I don't have to worry that someone is going to read my name and automatically assume that I am unintelligent, or dangerous, or that I was only admitted to a school because of the color of my skin and not because of my intelligence and qualifications. I'm telling you this because I want you to understand that I am not insulting you by calling you privileged. I'm calling myself privileged, too, because that's just how it is.

And yes, white people are murdered every day, just like trans people. Difference is, white people aren't generally murdered simply because they're white.
 

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
If you're a man, your privileged. If you're white, you're privileged. If you're straight, you're privileged. End of story.
This is really stupid. You two want to advocate against oppression by oppressing the oppressors. Um, weren't we fighting oppression, or did I miss something?

because that's just how it is.
And this helps, doesn't it?

And yes, white people are murdered every day, just like trans people. Difference is, white people aren't generally murdered simply because they're white.
Not true. Take a visit to LA or New York or Detroit or any other big city and at some point or another you're likely to run into a minority gang that'd be happy to pop a cap in a white person's ass just for being white, and feel entirely justified in doing so. That statistic far outweighs murders of transgendered people, but alas I digress. Why are we differentiating again? Isn't the separation the thing we're trying to fight?
 

Neil Peart

Learn to swim
753
Posts
14
Years
If you're a man, your privileged. If you're white, you're privileged. If you're straight, you're privileged. End of story.


Oh damn it all, this "privilege" nonsense is enough to make me vomit. We're not "privileged" based on something that happened to us by accident of birth. If you're telling me I'm privileged because I'm statistically less likely to be beaten by a cop, you're out of your mind. A privilege is something that can be taken away, and last I checked, my skin color and gender ain't changing. Stop trying to make people feel bad based on things they didn't choose.
 
68
Posts
9
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Nov 2, 2014
No one's trying to "oppress the oppressors." We're trying to give rights to the oppressed. And if you ignore the differentiation between different groups, you ignore the unique experiences of different groups.

Anyway, I feel I've really said all that I can say on this topic. At this point, it's not a matter of opinions or debate. It's just you refusing to accept reality, and it looks like nothing I say is going to change that. Go out, see the world, talk to people from different walks of life and really consider their viewpoints. Then come back and tell me that life as a white, straight, man isn't inherently easier than life as a woman/minority/gay person.

Undertaker: Male privilege is real. It's not nonsense, and it's insulting for you to say so. And as I see it, being less likely to be beaten up by a cop is a significant privilege. Wouldn't life be more difficult if you were more likely to be beat up by cops? Again, I don't think there's anything I can say to convince you, but male privilege is real and significant and infuriating. But I think the only way I could prove that to you would be to actually turn you into a woman and let you live as one for a while, which, as you pointed out, isn't going to happen.
 
Last edited:

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
No one's trying to "oppress the oppressors." We're trying to give rights to the oppressed. And if you ignore the differentiation between different groups, you ignore the unique experiences of different groups.
I'll repeat myself again. If you have an unbalanced table that needs to be balanced, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to systematically stabilize both sides of it with both hands as opposed to simply pushing up on the downward side?

Male privilege is real. It's not nonsense, and it's insulting for you to say so. And as I see it, being less likely to be beaten up by a cop is a significant privilege. Wouldn't life be more difficult if you were more likely to be beat up by cops? Again, I don't think there's anything I can say to convince you, but male privilege is real and significant and infuriating. But I think the only way I could prove that to you would be to actually turn you into a woman and let you live as one for a while, which, as you pointed out, isn't going to happen.
Gee, did you even bother reading that accident of birth wasn't, isn't, and never will be considered a privilege by it's nature? Nobody gets to choose, and unless you're a transgendered person or are Michael Jackson those things are likely to stay static.
 
286
Posts
10
Years
This is really stupid. You two want to advocate against oppression by oppressing the oppressors. Um, weren't we fighting oppression, or did I miss something?
No? You're overreacting. Acknowledging privilege is not "oppressing the oppressors" and recognising that it exists is not an attack on anybody.

"Privilege is the idea that in human society, some groups benefit from unearned, largely-unacknowledged advantages that increase their power relative to that of others, thereby perpetuating social inequality"

Straight people have a certain privilege that comes with being straight. Being straight is accepted in society; nobody gets beaten up for being straight, nobody discusses on tv whether or not straight people should have certain rights and nobody looks down on straight people for their sexuality. The same cannot be said for lgbt+ people. Therefore, straight people automatically have a certain amount of privilege.

It's slightly different in regards to men and women, because gender roles are complex and negatively affect them both, but there is still a certain amount of privilege that comes with being male (look at how women are treated in the scientific field, for example).

I hope you get the picture.


Why are we differentiating again? Isn't the separation the thing we're trying to fight?
Yeah, but not really in the same way as you're describing. The aim of social activism is to tear down the power imbalances between privileged and marginalised groups and to destroy the racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia that's been ingrained into society. Preaching some "we are all one race" thing ignores years of oppression and won't solve any of the problems that are implanted into the world.


Stop trying to make people feel bad based on things they didn't choose.
No one is doing this. You and Alex are the ones that are turning this into something negative (well, white/straight/cis/male privilege is negative, but recognising that it exists isn't).

Just like there are whites murdered all the time; same for blacks, Hispanics, men, women, you name it. All because they were just that. Your point?
I was using trans people as an example.....

My point is the rest of that paragraph:

Grey Wind said:
Sorry, but this is stupid and naive. There are trans people being murdered all the time and you really think the solution is some vague equality movement that erases people's identities and practically ignores the difficulties of marginalised groups? The end goal isn't to get everyone to love each other, it's to destroy power imbalances and the societal issues that lead to the oppression of minorities. Racism/homophobia etc. are too deeply ingrained into society to make disappear by telling everybody to play nice.

Also, I'm not sure how acknowledging that everyone is different and comes from a different background divides us? Like, I can kind of see where you're coming from but recognising that marginalised groups are in fact marginalised and face different experiences to each other and to straight/white/cis people isn't what's causing inequality.

(I would really appreciate an answer to the second paragraph in particular)
 

Neil Peart

Learn to swim
753
Posts
14
Years
"Privilege is the idea that in human society, some groups benefit from unearned, largely-unacknowledged advantages that increase their power relative to that of others, thereby perpetuating social inequality"

See, this is where it all breaks down into pure, grade A, all-natural Tumblr social justice warrior horse♥♥♥♥.

You want to know what perpetuates social inequality? People like you playing the "privilege" game. You're perpetuating the idea of something that doesn't exist and making the gap wider, the debates angrier, and the guilt bigger. This is how any ruling class works, by the way - divide the people based on their differences to prosper.

Let me ask you, how often do you check YOUR privileges? Your shelter privilege, your first world privilege, your three meals a day privilege, etc. You'd tell me "well I acknowledge that other people have it worse than me." Fantastic, so what are you doing about it? How are you making the situations of the less fortunate better? Acknowledging they exist? You're doing nothing, and that's why this movement is nothing more than a bowel movement.

I was on Tumblr yesterday and I saw someone say males are privileged because they don't have periods. I rest my case.
 

Star-Lord

withdrawl .
715
Posts
15
Years
You want to know what perpetuates social inequality?

People who refuse to help others or acknowledge the fact they might have things a little better?

People like you playing the "privilege" game.

Oh...

Let me ask you, how often do you check YOUR privileges? Your shelter privilege, your first world privilege, your three meals a day privilege, etc. You'd tell me "well I acknowledge that other people have it worse than me." Fantastic, so what are you doing about it? How are you making the situations of the less fortunate better? Acknowledging they exist? You're doing nothing, and that's why this movement is nothing more than a bowel movement.

I recognized the hardships women face and then actively made a stance and removed misogyny out of my lifestyle?

I was on Tumblr yesterday and I saw someone say males are privileged because they don't have periods. I rest my case.

You've clearly never seen someone have such debilitating period cramps that they've thrown up, have you?

"waaah waah tumblr does something I don't like" seems to be the new tune of the internet these days
 

Neil Peart

Learn to swim
753
Posts
14
Years
You've clearly never seen someone have such debilitating period cramps that they've thrown up, have you?

"waaah waah tumblr does something I don't like" seems to be the new tune of the internet these days

Yeah, usually because it's full of sententious, self-righteous chodes who preach about changing the world while doing essentially nothing. Hipster buffoons who want us all to feel bad for being born a certain way while they conveniently ignore the "privileges" they possess. Ypu just don;t think they have a legitimate gripe because you're one of them. Also, what misogyny have you purged from your life? I'm curious.

Your forum signature couldn't be any more spot-on, chief.
 
286
Posts
10
Years
See, this is where it all breaks down into pure, grade A, all-natural Tumblr social justice warrior horse♥♥♥♥.
That's the dictionary definition of privilege.... :/

You want to know what perpetuates social inequality? People like you playing the "privilege" game. You're perpetuating the idea of something that doesn't exist and making the gap wider, the debates angrier, and the guilt bigger. This is how any ruling class works, by the way - divide the people based on their differences to prosper.
This honestly made me so angry. Like wow... maybe the sexist/racist/homophobic people in society are responsible for inequalities... maybe the years of oppression by straight white people have caused inequalities... and not the gay guy making the pompous white straight dude sad because he can't handle having his privilege pointed out...

You both need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that being privileged automatically makes you a bad guy who's been oppressing his whole life and I never said that I'm not privileged?? (like I literally mentioned that I won't understand racism fully because I'm white). I don't know why you have such knee jerk reactions to the mention of privilege but it's stupid, and you both need to suck it up and realise that yeah, maybe being straight DOES grant you certain advantages and being white DOES grant you certain advantages. I'm gonna quote myself here because you ignored most of my post:

No? You're overreacting. Acknowledging privilege is not "oppressing the oppressors" and recognising that it exists is not an attack on anybody.

"Privilege is the idea that in human society, some groups benefit from unearned, largely-unacknowledged advantages that increase their power relative to that of others, thereby perpetuating social inequality"

Straight people have a certain privilege that comes with being straight. Being straight is accepted in society; nobody gets beaten up for being straight, nobody discusses on tv whether or not straight people should have certain rights and nobody looks down on straight people for their sexuality. The same cannot be said for lgbt+ people. Therefore, straight people automatically have a certain amount of privilege.

It's slightly different in regards to men and women, because gender roles are complex and negatively affect them both, but there is still a certain amount of privilege that comes with being male (look at how women are treated in the scientific field, for example).

I hope you get the picture.


You need to stop blowing things out of proportion and maybe start debating a little? Because all the rebuttal I've heard here is "lol tumblr" and it's becoming pretty obvious that you have no concept of what oppression means.

Yeah, usually because it's full of sententious, self-righteous chodes who preach about changing the world while doing essentially nothing. Hipster buffoons who want us all to feel bad for being born a certain way while they conveniently ignore the "privileges" they possess. Ypu just don;t think they have a legitimate gripe because you're one of them. Also, what misogyny have you purged from your life? I'm curious.
This is so sad and bitter.
 

Nah

15,937
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen yesterday
I never said that being privileged automatically makes you a bad guy who's been oppressing his whole life.....I don't know why you have such knee jerk reactions to the mention of privilege but it's stupid
I just wanted to stop in and address this one little thing here.

The problem with the word "privileged" being used is that there's this underlying implication that the privileged person is the bad guy simply because of their race/gender/sexuality. It comes off as a personal attack. Saying: "Straight white men are privileged blah blah blah" basically translates to:

"Straight white guy reading this post, YOU are a monster because you are straight, white, and male, and you should feel guilty for the oppression of non-straight people, non-white people, and women"

Whether this is the intention of the speaker or not (and it's rarely ever meant that way by the person saying it).

No one wants to feel like the bad guy because of the way they were born, because of things they can't control (race/gender/sexuality, etc), especially when the majority of straight white men today are not racist/homophobic/sexist (or so I think). Certainly that's something the oppressed people can understand?

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, but for some reason I felt like explaining this.
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
It's sometimes the intention of someone saying "check your white privilege" to mean "you should feel guilty for being white." It doesn't happen all the time, but it's happened enough times that it's easy to misconstrue it as a personal attack.

And white people don't have compete privilege. If you're a white person, I guarantee if you went out and said "I'm proud of being white", people would look at you like you're a KKK member.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top