Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Diogenes]

"Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?"

That's for already having children not for the potential children...or are you changing your claim?

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Originally Posted by qwints
After all, patriarchy hurts men too.

Careful. You know if you try to make any specific arguments to support that on APlus you are likely to get called an MRA.

 

[qwints]

That's for already having children not for the potential children...or are you changing your claim?

I can't find good empirical evidence of the claim, although it is something I've repeatedly heard anecdotally from people doing hiring. The basic point of male privilege remains the same from the study I cited.

Careful. You know if you try to make any specific arguments to support that on APlus you are likely to get called an MRA.

Only if you repeatedly use them to derail other threads.

 

[Diogenes]

...it is something I've repeatedly heard anecdotally from people doing hiring.

Ok, I see where you're coming from now. You're coming from the land of "I heard it and I believe it because that narrative fits into my schema well." rather than evidence-based discovery.

The basic point of male privilege remains the same from the study I cited.

For your aforementioned schema. Accuracy is neither requisite nor desired in support of this, apparently?

(If I'm going over-the-top here it is only because I have a bias against any claims or assertions used without actual support being presented as "well-known" facts. I hate it in politics, in anti-climate change rhetoric, in "prolife" crap, in the NRA, in anti-GMO, in PETA.....whatever the agenda...making a claim that is unsupported in order to further a cause or a perspective is very very wrong.)

So...we don't need to identify specific variables and address those as we go? I ask that because I think there's a sociobiological threshold beyond which we, as human animal creatures, will not be able to pass. I expect there will always be degrees of bias but if are going to try to dial it back we have to identify the most egregious sources of said bias. For example, since motherhood is a biasing condition (rather than having evidence for potential motherhood being a biasing condition) maybe we can work in the United States to improve the availability and reduce the expense of daycare. Make it a state-supported program that is even free for single working parents.

Over time I would guess that the conditioned bias response in "employers" would fade. Hopefully?

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Only if you repeatedly use them to derail other threads.

yeah, sure....otherwise they're welcomed.....

 

[kbonn]

To tell someone to check their privilege is to do so in ignorance and with presumption.

There's no point to it other than a rhetorical device.

So, are you simply arguing that the phrase "check your privilege" is something that shouldn't be used? I think I'm confused because you seem to be making a broader claim about the usefulness of privilege that simply attacking a single rhetorical device. Check your privilege, used to say shut up because you're privileged, isn't helpful. Check your privilege, used to say examine your assumptions about a situation, can be.

The issue is that people use the phrase "check your privilege" all the time, in internet discussions, where the person using it, doesn't know ANYTHING about the person they are saying it to. Often it is based only on a few posts. Like say someone posts a few comments in a discussion about Trans* issues. Let's say they are rather ignorant to Trans issues. I've seen it happen that the "Check your privilege" that gets issued to the person are CIS, White, Male, When only the first would be relevant, but everything else is projected by the responder.

 

[Wildy]

So, normal then?

Check your privilege you cissexist douchebag. /SJW mode

So, are you simply arguing that the phrase "check your privilege" is something that shouldn't be used? I think I'm confused because you seem to be making a broader claim about the usefulness of privilege that simply attacking a single rhetorical device. Check your privilege, used to say shut up because you're privileged, isn't helpful. Check your privilege, used to say examine your assumptions about a situation, can be.

The reality is that to someone with a basic understanding of the concept the concept of "privilege" as it seems to be defined by groups like A+ has a different meaning to the "privilege" used in the phrase "check your privilege".

Really people should then say something along the lines of "why don't you examine your assumptions about the situation", because "check your privilege" is an ambiguous phrase. The thing is that you seem to understand the ambiguity of the phrase but still seem to defend it.

Having privilege on one axis doesn't mean your life is great. It doesn't mean you haven't overcome challenges. It doesn't mean that you haven't worked harder than some people who lack privilege. It doesn't even mean that the privileged group doesn't face systemic problems. After all, patriarchy hurts men too.

But when someone says "check your privilege" it whitewashes the experiences of the person being told to shut up "check their privilege".

 

[RandFan]

So, are you simply arguing that the phrase "check your privilege" is something that shouldn't be used? I think I'm confused because you seem to be making a broader claim about the usefulness of privilege that simply attacking a single rhetorical device. Check your privilege, used to say shut up because you're privileged, isn't helpful. Check your privilege, used to say examine your assumptions about a situation, can be.

I'm at a loss as to how you could fail to grasp my point.

There are a number of things I don't say to my wife. One of them is "You wouldn't understand because you are a woman".

Note how condescending and presumptuous that sounds. If you can figure out why a man telling a woman "she wouldn't understand because she is a woman" is likely to inhibit communication then perhaps you can grasp how telling another to "check their privilege" is also presumptuous and condescending.

It's simply not necessary for communication and it is likely to interfere with communication and not foster it. Can you at least understand that argument? Even if you don't think that "check your privilege" could possibly come off as arrogant and condescending, can you understand the argument given the proposition, even if you accept the proposition for argument sake only?

 

[qwints]

Ok, I see where you're coming from now. You're coming from the land of "I heard it and I believe it because that narrative fits into my schema well." rather than evidence-based discovery.

I've specifically heard one person say that they tried to avoid hiring young women who haven't had their babies yet. I've also heard people at my law school advise the women in my class to not wear wedding or engagement rings to interviews, and to avoid talking about relationship status. I freely admit that I can't find empirical studies to support a broader conclusion.

Professor Yaffle and I did, however, cite studies showing gender bias in employment both in general, and specifically in the context of parenthood. These are aspects of male privilege.

 

[Stout]

Speaking of check your privilege, I'd like to feature this real winner of a post from Kassaine as an example of just how the Aplussers like to use it.

Put your *********** privilege away.

You do not get to play this game, no sir. (things I can reasonably assume from this: your race & your sex. good job).

Now I don't know about you, but all I had to do is click on the Youtube link in the poster who's under attack's sig line to see for myself that he's a white guy.

On their donglegate thread, page 2.

So the reasonable assumption based on a few posts.

Nah, not buying it.

Remember....On the internet, nobody knows your a dog, unless you make a big deal about it.

 

[qwints]

I'm at a loss as to how you could fail to grasp my point.

Of course, using a condescending and presumptuous phrase that inhibits communication is a bad idea. I get that.

I disagree that the phrase "check your privilege" is necessarily such a phrase, even though I agree it can be misused in that way.

I don't understand whether you're making a broader claim regarding talking about privilege in the context of individual experience. I've argued that talking about privilege like some sort of cumulative asset that relates to a person's moral worth is an unhelpful analysis of privilege, and different from how privilege is used on atheismplus.

 

[Diogenes]

I've specifically heard one person say...also heard people at my law school advise the women in my class...

Well, that's obviously representative of the population, I can see why don't find it necessarily to find other evidence nor see how that would matter.

Professor Yaffle and I did, however, cite studies showing gender bias in employment both in general, and specifically in the context of parenthood. These are aspects of male privilege.

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing here. Are you going with "other types of bias related to gender exist therefore my assumption that one type does is completely reasonable despite the lack of evidence and that I based it on what a few people said"? I never asserted bias doesn't exist. I'm not going to use your SJ jargon because it already has far too many different connotations already.

 

[qwints]

Again:

I freely admit that I can't find empirical studies to support a broader conclusion.

 

[adamwho]

"Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?"

If women want to stay at home to raise the kids they are praised. If women want to go to work they are praised. But you cannot choose to stay at home AND get the promotions and money.

Can you guess the experience of a man who chooses to stay home with the kids? (and don't start with the patriarchy hurts men too nonsense)

 

[recursive prophet]

Saying check your privilege is, ideally, a way of reminding people that people have different experiences based on some of their attributes, and that your statement ignored those different experiences.

In other words it is not only acceptable to repeatedly state the bloody obvious, but necessary? Does any statement encompass everyone's experience?

 

[RandFan]

Of course, using a condescending and presumptuous phrase that inhibits communication is a bad idea. I get that.

I disagree that the phrase "check your privilege" is necessarily such a phrase, even though I agree it can be misused in that way.

You don't get to decide how something comes off. "check your privilege" is rhetorical. It's not a proposition. It's not part of an argument. It's easily misused and abused and even when it is not misused or abused it is easily misunderstood. Most importantly, it violates the principle of charity. If you tell someone to check their privilege you most certainly are not framing that persons argument in its best possible light. In fact you are doing the opposite and assuming there is a problem (or potential problem) simply due to the fact of a person's skin color, gender, identity, etc., etc..

I don't understand whether you're making a broader claim regarding talking about privilege in the context of individual experience. I've argued that talking about privilege like some sort of cumulative asset that relates to a person's moral worth is an unhelpful analysis of privilege, and different from how privilege is used on atheismplus.

I'm making multiple claims (see above for the first one). Also, when you tell a person to check his or her privilege, you are speaking to and about an individual. You are presumptively applying a concept about groups to a person.

qwints, have you read the book The Righteous Mind by Haidt? In the book Haidt provides excellent advice as to how to get people to listen and perhaps accept your arguments. I assure you that "check your privilege" is anathema to Haidt and it would be anathema to any diplomat or Dale Carnegie also. Haidt and Carnegie (as well as diplomats) understand the problems inherent with terms that seek rhetorical advantage ("yes Bob but bear in mind you are a Christian and therefore your arguments are suspect").

Even if the imperative had some validity for purely objective participants in a discussion and or debate (and I honestly don't think it has any validity whatsoever) it would fail spectacularly because, as I've said over and over, we are humans. We are not purely objective participants (see the Spock Fallacy).

Let it go.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Really people should then say something along the lines of "why don't you examine your assumptions about the situation", because "check your privilege" is an ambiguous phrase. The thing is that you seem to understand the ambiguity of the phrase but still seem to defend it.

What I learned in assertiveness training (taught by a very sharp woman, BTW) was to notice that "check your privilege" is in the imperative form. You're ordering someone to do something. It is impolite and shows the intent is more about power than about elucidation.

It is ironic that, on a forum where feelings are put on such a high pedestal, impoliteness and is rampant. They seem quite clueless of basic principles of healthy assertive behavior.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What percentage of people are not this "cisgendered" thing? If it is not a majority, then they are abnormal. While I do understand that some see that as a negative thing, personally I see it as yet another piece of evidence that there is variation in biology.

The description as "abnormal", however, is loaded with implications.

While I agree that people like A+ take language policing far too far and, indeed, that nobody has the right not to be offended, I also believe that it's simply good manners to avoid phrasing things in ways which you know could cause offence. It's not unreasonable, in my opinion, to take offence at being called abnormal, as one of the common definitions of "abnormal" is "dysfunctional".

It's little different from calling a homosexual a "deviant". Sure, you can point out that one of the definitions of "deviant" is "not typical" and that gay people are in a minority, so technically you're not being insulting. But the fact remains that the word also has negative connotations and it's not unreasonable to be offended by being called it.

I will defend anyone's right to call transsexuals "abnormal" and homosexuals "deviant", but I reserve my right to think that by doing so they're being an arse.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't really concern myself with another's sexual orientation, unless they start hitting on me. I don't really concern myself with what another sees their gender role to be. It really doesn't matter all that much to my day-to-day existence. That's why I don't get the need to created new words that only seems to serve to confuse the subject.

I don't either. I don't see the world in terms of gender roles, and I can't imagine what feeling like any particular gender (or anywhere on the spectrum of gender) would feel like, because I don't know what it feels like to be anything other than me.

But I also recognise that not everybody in the world is the same as me, and that other people's thoughts and opinions can be important. It's no hardship on my part to be mindful of that fact when communicating.

 

[luchog]

Because the atheismplus forum is explicitly a place for certain kinds of discussions and not for others. Thus, people use jargon to facilitate some kinds of conversations. It's also explicitly not a place for debate.

I understand that A+ is intended as an echo chamber, not a discussion forum. But the phenomenon is hardly restricted to A+; it's common to the SJ community in general. The problem isn't that they create jargon to facilitate communication; because it typically doesn't. The SJ jargon-mongering is most often done to stymie debate and silence critics, relying on emotionally loaded phrasing; and create an in-group/out-group US-vs.-Them dynamic. This is a practice that is common to religion and other highly dogma-focused worldviews.

I've explained that allowing unfettered debate on, for example, human equality can exclude or silence people.

You've claimed that, but have not really demonstrated that such is the case. Truly unfettered debate cannot "silence" anyone, as it is open to anyone capable of defending their viewpoints with evidence. Only restriction of debate, whether through direct censorship, idiosyncratic language, or summary dismissal of contrary beliefs or opinions is capable of "silencing" or excluding.