1. Yes and no. The very first mark of priviledge is never having to think about it at all. Once one is immersed in communities that raise the notion of priviledge as a common subject of discussion, one can learn to notice it in other contexts. Declaring that one's own minority is somehow more different and special and worse off than other varieties is the sort of narrow thinking common to many types of minorities.
2. Granted, that is not how they are intended. Which is why I will be outraged every time when it's how they are used.
3. No, that is simply not what I am saying, and I am not sure how to explain it, since there is nothing that you will not misinterpret. You are reading me wholly wrongly, and I don't believe there is anything I can do to correct your assumptions.
The common trap with talking about priviledge is once you do it enough, it's awfully easy to slip into an inability to think in any other terms, to see when it's _not_, in fact, the subject of conversation at hand.
You do have a point that I, too, mis-focussed, and I apologise for expressing my irritation at the group as a whole as opposed to its subset of the original poster and all the yay-sayers.
The common trap with talking about priviledge is once you do it enough, it's awfully easy to slip into an inability to think in any other terms, to see when it's _not_, in fact, the subject of conversation at hand.
one of the common things to say about raising privilege is how people who do so see privilege under every rock. as a matter of fact is practically under nearly every rock. it's in the unmarked language of what is considered "normative" - once it's in language it's just about everywhere. it's also in social attitudes. it's in the culture. it's also in the physical artifacts.
this point is usually raised to look away from one's own privilege in situ.
* * *
You do have a point that I, too, mis-focussed, and I apologise for expressing my irritation at the group as a whole as opposed to its subset of the original poster and all the yay-sayers.
you still misfocus. you're still blaming the oppressed for pointing out the oppression.
No, I'm blaming some of the oppressed for seeing oppression everywhere, including places where it's not, and for not acknowledging that such places might possibly exist.
Re: blame the oppressed
2. Granted, that is not how they are intended. Which is why I will be outraged every time when it's how they are used.
3. No, that is simply not what I am saying, and I am not sure how to explain it, since there is nothing that you will not misinterpret. You are reading me wholly wrongly, and I don't believe there is anything I can do to correct your assumptions.
The common trap with talking about priviledge is once you do it enough, it's awfully easy to slip into an inability to think in any other terms, to see when it's _not_, in fact, the subject of conversation at hand.
You do have a point that I, too, mis-focussed, and I apologise for expressing my irritation at the group as a whole as opposed to its subset of the original poster and all the yay-sayers.
"under every rock"
this point is usually raised to look away from one's own privilege in situ.
* * *you still misfocus. you're still blaming the oppressed for pointing out the oppression.
Re: "under every rock"
Re: "under every rock"
ps are you still arguing about requiring hedge language?
Re: "under every rock"
No, I think at this stage I'm no longer arguing about anything.