Not exactly, though I can certainly see how what I wrote can be read that way. My intent here was closer to a combination of, "I'm sorry that reminding you how people similar to you make my life miserable alienated a personal friend who I know isn't part of my problem and attempts to contribute to the solution," and, "Pissing off allies and would-be allies sucks, and I wonder whether I can call allies on the times they screw up tactfully enough not to drive them away, while avoiding hitting the people who don't deserve that criticism in the spillover fire."
You're reacting on principle, and you have the principles right. I'm thinking strategy and tactics (including how to speak gently yet effectively to would-be allies-of-the-community as well as personal friends), trying to find the most effective ways to communicate without compromising those principles. (Not that I expect to get either half of that correct 100% of the time, but that's what my goal is.)
And in this particular case, I'm still working on it.
in more depth, there is a trend across all oppressions, where at some point where the oppressed person ends up holding the hand of some privileged who has become upset at having their privilege pointed out. "there. there. it's ok that you're upset that you've seen how you hurt me." there's something really messed up about that. and it happens all the time. and it's necessary for progress i suppose, but it's assbackwards.
"Pissing off allies and would-be allies sucks, and I wonder whether I can call allies on the times they screw up tactfully enough not to drive them away, while avoiding hitting the people who don't deserve that criticism in the spillover fire."
allies that get pissed of for having their privilege pointed out, are relatively useless. i do mean that. the allies doing serious meaningful work tend to be at the point they understand they have privilege, and that having their (or someone else's) privilege pointed out is not a blanket condemnation, and that it's not the end of the world.
people similar to you
male privilege is something all males have. white privilege is something all whites have (white is not a skin color or genetic). heteronormative privilege is something all heterosexuals have. etc. part of these privileges are claimed, others are granted, and other cannot be avoided. the idea that member of a privileged group is not privileged is a pernicious idea when it comes to dealing with the problems of privilege. that is to say each person in a privileged group does actually have responsibility to the effects of privilege - collectively and individually.
I get most of that (I think), though either there's a link I'm missing or a slight difference in situation here, in that the cisgender-bingo card suggests acts and utterances -- 'sins', if you will -- rather than (for the most part) examples of privilege. (Or maybe I don't get it as well as I think ...) Unless the argument is that the very act of saying any of these things aloud and not expecting the pushback is the privilege we're talking about?
(Note that I am backing up a step to leiacat's original objection, rather than addressing in this particular comment the privilege that speaking her complaint the way she did implies -- or are these fundamentally inseperable (in which case, what happens when somebody with privilege has a legitimate complaint?)?)
Is there a distinction between having privilege and acting as though you think you deserve that privilege?
Unless the argument is that the very act of saying any of these things aloud and not expecting the pushback is the privilege we're talking about?
the argument is that the very act of thinking these things - and more specifically the framework of how one views the world - is a big part of privilege. privilege is viewing the world of "normal" in terms of the privileges one has.
Is there a distinction between having privilege and acting as though you think you deserve that privilege?
one of the really sneaky things about privilege is that having it always leads to acting from privilege. sometimes the issue is acting as if you deserve the privilege, some people will argue this. but the biggest problem is that people who act from privilege don't think about it - what they/we/i do is just automatic, unthinking, unconscious, acquiescence to "how things are (supposed) to be".
one of the really sneaky things about privilege is that having it always leads to acting from privilege. sometimes the issue is acting as if you deserve the privilege, some people will argue this. but the biggest problem is that people who act from privilege don't think about it - what they/we/i do is just automatic, unthinking, unconscious, acquiescence to "how things are (supposed) to be".
Yes and no. People tend to think that the situation that they grew up in is normal or at least expected. If they are in a family where one parent beats the snot out of the other parent but still loves them. That is normal to that person and they view everything with that belief, possibly even looking for an abusive relationship (as giver or receiver) based on their world view. Just as a child who is raised in a loving home with clear and reasonable boundaries will expect that behavior to be normal. The first child may think the parents of the second are unreasonably soft/easy and the 2nd child may think that the parents of the first are cruel and heartless. BOTH are basing it on their experience whether they are privileged (the 2nd child) or not (the first child).
If a child is raised by people in an open marriage, said open marriage will be normal to the child even if they later end up in a monogamous relationship. The same is true of almost any other family unit for a child to be raised in (single parent, unmarried pair of parents, married pair of parents, grandparents, commune, etc.).
The baby that Thomas and Nancy Beatie are expecting may end up being cisgendered or may not; however I suspect that the child will end up being more understanding of gender issues than a lot of people because of the family situation. So even if the baby ends up being privileged by your definition the thoughts aren't based on being privileged but the formative environment.
So, growing up in a privilege class in an environment that takes that class for granted is likely to give the privilege class viewpoint. Just as growing up in as a non privilege class is likely to give that viewpoint (and most people are going to belong to more than one class some will be mostly or all privilege (e.g. male, white, heterosexual) and some will be mostly or all non-privilege (e.g. transgendered female, bi-racial, bi-sexual). In the case of a child of abuse, some learn through friends/experience that what their 'world view' is may not be the healthiest and fairest view overall.
All of that said, if you state that 'if you have privilege you will always act from that privilege and acting from privilege means not thinking about it and making an unconscious acquiescence to "how things are (supposed) to be"' then it sounds to me that you are saying that if I am [privilege class] that I am unable to think outside of that privilege class and thus cannot have any valid contributions/opinions on [subject related to said privilege class]. By that logic Peter, Paul & Mary have no reason to think about their experiences in the March on Washington since they can't understand what the Civil Rights Movement of the Sixties was since they are white.
People tend to think that the situation that they grew up in is normal or at least expected.
expected is different than "normal". and "normal" isn't just based on personal experience, but knowledge of how most other people view the situation. people who are minorities grow up with their minority status, but they know what society views as "normative". "normal" is primarily constructed in terms of society for the most part, and much of the concept of "normal/normative/norm" is internalized - even by minorities even as they know from personal experience that "normal" is not the only way the world work, or the way they expect the world to work.
All of that said, if you state that 'if you have privilege you will always act from that privilege and acting from privilege means not thinking about it and making an unconscious acquiescence to "how things are (supposed) to be"' then it sounds to me that you are saying that if I am [privilege class] that I am unable to think outside of that privilege class and thus cannot have any valid contributions/opinions on [subject related to said privilege class].
that's a very fine parsing of what i wrote.
do you really think i intend to say that people are not capable of thinking outside of privilege? or cannot make a valid contribution? if so, why would i even bother opening my mouth - no possible good could come of it.
when you have privilege you will eventually act from it. you are not limited to it, but there is no one i know of who has escaped from their various privileges. this doesn't mean you can't improve the situation wrt privilege.
the line of argument that says follows along, "don't condemn me because of my privilege" is wrong on two fronts. first, pointing out privilege isn't condemnation. second, functionally it turns into a kind of "i don't have privilege/i'm not a bad person".
(no subject)
You're reacting on principle, and you have the principles right. I'm thinking strategy and tactics (including how to speak gently yet effectively to would-be allies-of-the-community as well as personal friends), trying to find the most effective ways to communicate without compromising those principles. (Not that I expect to get either half of that correct 100% of the time, but that's what my goal is.)
And in this particular case, I'm still working on it.
(no subject)
in more depth, there is a trend across all oppressions, where at some point where the oppressed person ends up holding the hand of some privileged who has become upset at having their privilege pointed out. "there. there. it's ok that you're upset that you've seen how you hurt me." there's something really messed up about that. and it happens all the time. and it's necessary for progress i suppose, but it's assbackwards.allies that get pissed of for having their privilege pointed out, are relatively useless. i do mean that. the allies doing serious meaningful work tend to be at the point they understand they have privilege, and that having their (or someone else's) privilege pointed out is not a blanket condemnation, and that it's not the end of the world.male privilege is something all males have. white privilege is something all whites have (white is not a skin color or genetic). heteronormative privilege is something all heterosexuals have. etc. part of these privileges are claimed, others are granted, and other cannot be avoided. the idea that member of a privileged group is not privileged is a pernicious idea when it comes to dealing with the problems of privilege. that is to say each person in a privileged group does actually have responsibility to the effects of privilege - collectively and individually.
(no subject)
(Note that I am backing up a step to
Is there a distinction between having privilege and acting as though you think you deserve that privilege?
(no subject)
(no subject)
Yes and no. People tend to think that the situation that they grew up in is normal or at least expected. If they are in a family where one parent beats the snot out of the other parent but still loves them. That is normal to that person and they view everything with that belief, possibly even looking for an abusive relationship (as giver or receiver) based on their world view. Just as a child who is raised in a loving home with clear and reasonable boundaries will expect that behavior to be normal. The first child may think the parents of the second are unreasonably soft/easy and the 2nd child may think that the parents of the first are cruel and heartless. BOTH are basing it on their experience whether they are privileged (the 2nd child) or not (the first child).
If a child is raised by people in an open marriage, said open marriage will be normal to the child even if they later end up in a monogamous relationship. The same is true of almost any other family unit for a child to be raised in (single parent, unmarried pair of parents, married pair of parents, grandparents, commune, etc.).
The baby that Thomas and Nancy Beatie are expecting may end up being cisgendered or may not; however I suspect that the child will end up being more understanding of gender issues than a lot of people because of the family situation. So even if the baby ends up being privileged by your definition the thoughts aren't based on being privileged but the formative environment.
So, growing up in a privilege class in an environment that takes that class for granted is likely to give the privilege class viewpoint. Just as growing up in as a non privilege class is likely to give that viewpoint (and most people are going to belong to more than one class some will be mostly or all privilege (e.g. male, white, heterosexual) and some will be mostly or all non-privilege (e.g. transgendered female, bi-racial, bi-sexual). In the case of a child of abuse, some learn through friends/experience that what their 'world view' is may not be the healthiest and fairest view overall.
All of that said, if you state that 'if you have privilege you will always act from that privilege and acting from privilege means not thinking about it and making an unconscious acquiescence to "how things are (supposed) to be"' then it sounds to me that you are saying that if I am [privilege class] that I am unable to think outside of that privilege class and thus cannot have any valid contributions/opinions on [subject related to said privilege class]. By that logic Peter, Paul & Mary have no reason to think about their experiences in the March on Washington since they can't understand what the Civil Rights Movement of the Sixties was since they are white.
(no subject)
do you really think i intend to say that people are not capable of thinking outside of privilege? or cannot make a valid contribution? if so, why would i even bother opening my mouth - no possible good could come of it.
when you have privilege you will eventually act from it. you are not limited to it, but there is no one i know of who has escaped from their various privileges. this doesn't mean you can't improve the situation wrt privilege.
the line of argument that says follows along, "don't condemn me because of my privilege" is wrong on two fronts. first, pointing out privilege isn't condemnation. second, functionally it turns into a kind of "i don't have privilege/i'm not a bad person".