you are confusing being anti-sexist with being not sexist. being sexist and anti-sexist are not mutually exclusive. being racist and anti-racit are not mutually exclusive. you can actually be both at the same time.
OK, so interestingly, according to Peggy MacIntosh, then Jews would still *not* count as having white privilege. I find that quite interesting, since most people in communities of color see Jews as having that privilege. SO how does one reconcile that? IO think this is a relevant question, because again it forces us to examine what one means when one speaks about privilege. Who defines who has it? Is it the group that has the most oppression? Do we then have to get into a pissing match of who is the most oppressed?
some jews are transitioning into white. just as italians and the irish did. however, sephardic jews are not likely to become white.
"white" is not about skin color, genetics, ancestry. it's a social construct - and as a social construct when you get the "edges" it gets illogical.
Who defines who has it?
society/culture teaches people how to do so this, it's people who grant/implement privilege. who has privilege is empirically observable.
Is it the group that has the most oppression? Do we then have to get into a pissing match of who is the most oppressed?
there are many kinds of privilege/oppresions. trying to rank oppressions is a loser's game. you can compare and contrast them, but trying to point which oppression is worse is useless. it doesn't work.
"some jews are transitioning into white" not exactly I'd say more, some Jews are passing as white - mostly by heavily assimilating, just as many "black" people have, did and do. As you say these are not real categories and thus they *are* illogical. But that's essentially my point. In essence, your earlier response was an oppression ranking style of response. Instead of saying, look even most white people have intersecting identities some of which are oppressed, you essentially said that you were going to be blunt and nasty to them and hang the consequences, instead of thinking through how that kind of approach might reflect back into your community and how unhelpful it might be if the goal is to try to build allies.
(no subject)
men unthinkingly and automatically access privilege/sexism.
a long list of what accessing privilege is White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack and what is privilege?
* * *
you are confusing being anti-sexist with being not sexist. being sexist and anti-sexist are not mutually exclusive. being racist and anti-racit are not mutually exclusive. you can actually be both at the same time.
(no subject)
(no subject)
"white" is not about skin color, genetics, ancestry. it's a social construct - and as a social construct when you get the "edges" it gets illogical.society/culture teaches people how to do so this, it's people who grant/implement privilege. who has privilege is empirically observable.there are many kinds of privilege/oppresions. trying to rank oppressions is a loser's game. you can compare and contrast them, but trying to point which oppression is worse is useless. it doesn't work.
(no subject)
As you say these are not real categories and thus they *are* illogical. But that's essentially my point. In essence, your earlier response was an oppression ranking style of response. Instead of saying, look even most white people have intersecting identities some of which are oppressed, you essentially said that you were going to be blunt and nasty to them and hang the consequences, instead of thinking through how that kind of approach might reflect back into your community and how unhelpful it might be if the goal is to try to build allies.