Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[s_pepys]

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.


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 that the privileged group doesn't face systemic problems. After all, patriarchy hurts men too.

What it does mean is that society is set up in such a way to privilege some groups over others. Many aspects of privilege are simply a lack of systemic oppression, and none of them confer any individual guilt or fault. For example, as a man, I don't have to worry about someone choosing to not hire me because they think I'm likely to start a family because of my age. That's an aspect of male privilege.

is there a such thing as female priveledge then? ie im less likely to be beat up in the street or become homeless, thats an aspect of female priveledge?

 

[adamwho]

Atheism+ vocabulary lesson:

Biotruth
1. A term usually used in leftist circles to derisively refer to someone who uses their misunderstood notions of human biology and/or evolutionary psychology to justify their heinous, ignorant, and/or bigoted views.

2. A phrased used by SJW to dismiss biological facts


We saw use of the term in the A+ thread 'human dimorphism is a social construct'. I have never seem definition #1 actually used in the A+ circles although I am sure that they believe they are using.

 

[Diogenes]

...For example, as a man, I don't have to worry about someone choosing to not hire me because they think I'm likely to start a family because of my age. That's an aspect of male privilege.

Is there a study out there supporting the existence of this bias against hiring women?

I know it exists in the US Naval Nuclear Power Program but only because eggs can become damaged over time by repeated occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. There are women in the program but the Navy (and I think that's originally a NRC directive, but I could be wrong) doesn't want to be identified as causing sterility in women that decide to have children at some point.

Is that a real bias or is that just recognition of biological differences?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Is there a study out there supporting the existence of this bias against hiring women?

I know it exists in the US Naval Nuclear Power Program but only because eggs can become damaged over time by repeated occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. There are women in the program but the Navy (and I think that's originally a NRC directive, but I could be wrong) doesn't want to be identified as causing sterility in women that decide to have children at some point.

Is that a real bias or is that just recognition of biological differences?

http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/docs/BiasBrochure_2ndEd.pdf

http://www.esa.org/esablog/research/better-a-john-than-a-jennifer/

 

[Diogenes]

http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

Anything done more recently than 1999?...the data is likely 1998 or earlier based on when they actually submitted their manuscript.

(That's been a few years, things may have changed.)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Anything done more recently than 1999?...the data is likely 1998 or earlier based on when they actually submitted their manuscript.

(That's been a few years, things may have changed.)

I added a couple of links after you quoted me. It was the last one I had in mind when I went searching, as it is very recent and i remember it in the news.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So, normal then?

I'd say that that's a rather loaded way of putting it. Intentionally or not it implies that people of different gender identities are abnormal, which has negative implications.

 

[kmortis]

I'd say that that's a rather loaded way of putting it. Intentionally or not it implies that people of different gender identities are abnormal, which has negative implications.

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.

Using language to obfuscate is not helpful. Especially true when it's used as a cudgel.

 

[chillzero]

What it does mean is that society is set up in such a way to privilege some groups over others.

My issue with this is that 'society' is not universal. The A+ forum could have members from all over the globe, and yet treats all of them - indeed, it discusses all people - as if they come from the exact same societal base, where bias and privilege go in the same direction dependant on your skin colour, gender, sexuality, etc. That's not always true.

 

[luchog]

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.

Then why not simply ask someone to examine their assumptions, and then explain what you believe their assumptions to be; instead of using such an emotionally loaded and imprecise, and easily misconstrued term?

Anyone interested in honest debate would be far more inclined to the former approach than the latter, for the simple fact that it aids in clarity of communication, by helping to eliminate subjective and idiosyncratic assumptions and providing a common frame of reference.

It's clear that many SJWs are not interested in clear and unambiguous communication, as evidenced by their excessive use of jargon; and their denigration of anyone who attempts to translate their jargon into plain language.

The first step of any rational debate is to clarify the terms, to ensure that everyone understands what is meant, and eliminate ambiguity and misunderstanding. But the SJW crowd tends to resist this, instead casting such attempts at clarification as ivory-tower elitism, or worse. Their own reaction to requests for clarification is, at best, to simply throw a pile of links to articles and blog posts at the questioner, and dismissively demand the questioner "do xer homework", followed by self-congratulatory preening and trumpeting about how advanced and knowledgeable they are.

We've seen numerous examples on A+ of people being attacked outright for trying to clarify their own language, or obtain clarification of someone else's. They've even coined a derogatory term for this, "'splaining". Their vocabulary is constantly morphing, with a Humpty-Dumpty/Newspeak tendency to make words mean what they want them to mean at a particular moment, regardless of the commonly accepted definitions, or their own previous usage. Attempts to try and understand the terminology is immediately shouted down as "dictionary'splaining" and oppressive use of language; echoing the anti-intellectual post-modernist trend of seeing any insistence on relying on established definitions for words as "prescriptivist" elitism.

Such actions make it crystal clear that they're interested only in preaching their worldview and browbeating those who are insufficiently ideologically pure, not in rational discussion of issues.

 

[kbonn]

I forget who mentioned the A+ ban list, but I can assure it hasn't been updated since like September. I was banned over 2 months ago and my nick still isn't on the list. I think they finally realized it was an embarrassment.

If true then more evidence of a lack of transparency.

This is not true, they have updated it, but they don't add certain people to the list ever. Such as myself, I imagine they don't have an actual example of anything I said that was ban-worthy, they just don't want me there anymore.

 

[qwints]

What percentage of people are not this "cisgendered" thing? If it is not a majority, then they are abnormal.

So are human males abnormal?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Using language to obfuscate is not helpful. Especially true when it's used as a cudgel.

So any minority is by definition abnormal?

Eta-Do you support things like "everyone is the same be they Black, Asian, Native American, or Normal?"

 

[qwints]

My issue with this is that 'society' is not universal. The A+ forum could have members from all over the globe, and yet treats all of them - indeed, it discusses all people - as if they come from the exact same societal base, where bias and privilege go in the same direction dependant on your skin colour, gender, sexuality, etc. That's not always true.

A very valid criticism. The atheismplus membership is heavily dominated by people in the US, Canada and the UK, and conversation can exclude or forget about people outside of those cultures. I try to limit statements by explicitly talking about where I live, but I forget sometimes.

Then why not simply ask someone to examine their assumptions, and then explain what you believe their assumptions to be; instead of using such an emotionally loaded and imprecise, and easily misconstrued term?

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 many, perhaps most, people here feel that having a space that excludes debate of an issue is making that issue an unquestionable dogma or that, while such a space is permissible, it is antithetical to skepticism. I've explained that allowing unfettered debate on, for example, human equality can exclude or silence people.

 

[kmortis]

So are human males abnormal?

I find it interesting that you cut off the rest of my comments here. Almost like you were intentionally trying to misconstrue what I was saying.

No, nor are they a minority in any useful sense of the word.

[begin semantic argument]

So any minority is by definition abnormal?

Eta-Do you support things like "everyone is the same be they Black, Asian, Native American, or Normal?"

In a given population, yes, a minority is abnormal. And to your ETA...I don't understand your question. How are races normal or abnormal other than in terms of localities? For example, if I were, as a while male, to wander around Harlem of the sixties, I would be an abnormality as the majority of the population was black. If, however, I was wandering around DuPage County, IL, I'd be normal.

To get at what I think you're asking, I do agree that everyone is pretty much the same. We have similar needs for food, shelter, companionship etc. 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.

 

[squealpiggy]

Right now the A+ sooper scribes are busy working on the Great Chain of Privilege^TM
They have been busy putting all people currently living and all those deceased into categories based on levels of privilege. Of course, being a heterosexual, white male aged around 50 - 60, puts you pretty low on the chain.

Although the details are yet to be sorted out fully, progress is certainly being made.

In fact it is rumoured that there is a black, Asian, cis-gendered woman from the slums of a Middle Eastern city, now living in the slums of an American city, who has little education and no job and is morbidly obese and suffers from a variety of physical and metal disabilities (such as psychosomatic Argyria) and who has been sexually abused and is missing a leg and a hand and an eye and an eardrum, who is allergic to air and sex and can't drink water........

I believe this person is commonly referred to by the A+ Scribes as God.

ETA: It is also rumoured that the Four Yorkshiremen are referred to as the Angelic Beings.

Luxury...

So, are you simply arguing that the phrase "check your privilege" is something that shouldn't be used?

I would argue that, yes. It's a summary dismissal of the value of a person's input based on who and what they are instead of what the content of the input is.

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.

Except it's exclusively used to say "shut up because you're privileged."

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.

You were doing well until the last sentence. A white male who grew up in poverty lacks the privilege of a white woman who grew up in a middle class household. This is not because of patriarchy, this is because of economics. Attempting to blame "the patriarchy" for all of society's ills makes it no different than the Illuminati. All other things being equal in most situations men have privilege over women. But that's only when all other things are equal. A white woman generally has privilege over a black man, a wealthy black man has privilege over a poor white man, a straight white man will generally have privilege over a gay white man and so on.

I'm prepared to believe that "the patriarchy" exists in some esoteric way and influences human interactions based on the axis of sex and gender. But claiming that it is also responsible for inequality along other axes, in particular on the basis of wealth, is hare-brained.

 

[adamwho]

Originally Posted by RandFan
cisgendered.

So, normal then?

To be called normal would be one of the greatest insults to could throw at the A+ crowd because it would rob them of all their special (anti-privileged) status.

You can see an example of this in how Matt Dillahunty was treated on the A+ forums when he was anonymous and after when discovered he was 'normal'. By using an anonymous account and not coming forward and stating his privileged (normal) status he was essentially stealing power and status

 

[Diogenes]

http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/docs/BiasBrochure_2ndEd.pdf

http://www.esa.org/esablog/research/better-a-john-than-a-jennifer/

I didn't start a meta analysis of the data from 1999 as compared to 2012 but the author of the PNAS study http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes are identifying the bias as subtle and I did not see a claim that said biasing was due to expectations for having a family...which was the claim I responded to and was asking for evidence.

The pamphlet, well, I'll be honest, I'm not running those citations unless there's a particular claim pertinent to bias against women based on a concern they're going to get pregnant.

We all have biases and there's a slew of fMRI and PET work out there supporting that these exist. I don't see how we're even going to be completely bias-less. At best we can work on minimization.

The claim that women are hired less often because they might decide to have babies is the claim that I'm not seeing specifically supported.

 

[qwints]

All other things being equal in most situations men have privilege over women. But that's only when all other things are equal. A white woman generally has privilege over a black man, a wealthy black man has privilege over a poor white man, a straight white man will generally have privilege over a gay white man and so on.

I refer again to the idea of intersectionality^WP - privilege isn't something you have more or less of than someone else. Saying "have privilege over" doesn't make sense. It's a way of talking about the differing experiences cause by some aspects of a person. Being white, being male, being straight, or being wealthy change the way society reacts to you in beneficial ways. That's all privilege means. 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.

 

[qwints]

The claim that women are hired less often because they might decide to have babies is the claim that I'm not seeing specifically supported.

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