WMN: t3_34f19m_t1_cqu4mwn

[TITLE]

CMV: Terms like "Rape Culture" and "White Privilege" are completely valid, and generally unhelpful

[badass_panda]

To clarify, I completely understand intersectionality and believe I'm fairly well acquainted with contemporary feminist academic theory; I think that terms like rape culture or white privilege can be applied in that sense, and proven to a certain extent. (For instance, I could easily show via statistical modeling that, controlling for other factors and each independently, differences in class, race, sex, education, etc confer an advantage or disadvantage). I choose these particular terms because they are often used outside of an academic setting, and for more than explaining the cause of variation; both are the center of extensive education campaigns, which are focused on helping the general population (particularly white males) understand the advantages they have due to their race or sex, and the small and subconscious ways that they and others disadvantage people based off of their race or sex. I don't feel that this is helpful, because the call to action is either very vague ("Don't do this stuff!"), intended to discourage dissent on the subject ("Check your privilege!") or simply not visible at all; I feel that time spent discussing these with folks who are unaware would be better spent advocating specific action (e.g., "African Americans typically get a worse education -- if you think that's wrong, call your senator and request more funding for inner city schools," etc). You will change my view if you can show: 1) A clear explanation / real world example of how education on white privilege disrupts racist activities or benefits minority communities without taking away from other efforts to do so 2) An clear explanation / real world example / empirical data set that shows that educating people on rape culture is the most effective (or even moderately effective) means of preventing rape. **EDIT ------------------------------------------------** **I want to thank everyone who posted here for their opinions and a really solid, thoughtful discussion. As a result of this discussion, I'm changing my stance on this issue. I think terms like "white privilege" and "rape culture" are very helpful in understanding the root causes and complexities of their respective issues, and that (for those who are predisposed to be thoughtful and listen), they are more likely to support the type of discussions that will result in educational and outreach programs that address the root cause of the issues.** **I do still believe there are contexts in which either term is not only not helpful, but harmful: if you are trying to convince someone to take action about an inequality, or to behave in a different way, trying to educate them on unconscious ways in which society as a whole is racist or sexist is likely to predispose them to disagree with you, because they will view this as an implication that they, in particular, are racist, sexist or overprivileged. Putting people on the defensive makes them too busy arguing with you to listen to what you are saying, unless they are exceptionally open minded people.** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[AutoModerator]

**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/feminism#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=Rape Culture&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *[I am a bot](/r/AutoModerator/comments/q11pu/what_is_automoderator/), and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[jfpbookworm]

They are not helpful for persuading privileged people of their truth, but they are extraordinarily helpful in naming the concepts so that they can be constructively discussed.

[devin27]

I think naming them in such a hostile manner counters their intended purpose and causes people to go on the defensive rather than openly listen to the arguments being presented.

[badass_panda]

[STA-CITE]> but they are extraordinarily helpful in naming the concepts so that they can be constructively discussed. [END-CITE]In academia and in those circles in which a constructive debate might lead to a conclusion as to general policy, it makes since. In a democratic forum, it leads to a debate over a conceptual rule that distracts from the debate surrounding concrete events and actions.

[jfpbookworm]

The problem is that the distinction between types of discussions is often eroded, especially (but not only) on the Internet. So what you often get is one group of folks trying to have an academic discussion of, e.g., rape culture or white privilege, only for another group of folks to sealion and derail the discussion, or to link to the discussion as evidence of those horrible SJW's hating on the white man.

[badass_panda]

That's a very valid point... I think as a result of these discussions I've clarified my position, and I'll reflect that in my topic.

[MahJongK]

Naming things, explaining social phenomenons is one thing, that's the academic setting. What's lacking after that is political action, involvement of society in its own future. So yes, these concepts are not always used in the most insightful and effective way, but that's a different issue. If we lived in a kind of technocratic regime, we'd have scholars appointed as political leaders and expect the academic world to provide politicial solutions. That's not the world we live in. Academics provide intellectual tools and concepts, political leaders, militants and ordinary citizens have to do something with them. So instead of proving one of the two points you provide at the end, I'd argue that the concepts you're talking about are fundamental to understand what is going on, but do not inherently provide solutions. That's what politics is about : how do we decide and what do we do with what we know?

[badass_panda]

That's more or less my argument; I don't think everyone needs to fully understand a situation to be part of the solution, and these terms seem to be geared more toward giving people a full understanding of the complexity of the situation (which is not a solution) than achieving any kind of a solution.

[MahJongK]

[STA-CITE]> I don't think everyone needs to fully understand a situation to be part of the solution [END-CITE]That's where I disagree. As someone else said here, once you explain the situation and people understand, there's not a lot to do as a lot of people will agree or change quite easily. It comes down to changing people without educating them, or rallying them without more education. [STA-CITE]> complexity of the situation (which is not a solution) than achieving any kind of a solution. [END-CITE]That explanation is the necessary basis for any solution IMO. That's why I'd say that contrary to what you said in your post, these concepts are extremely helpful.

[badass_panda]

[STA-CITE]>That explanation is the necessary basis for any solution IMO. That's why I'd say that contrary to what you said in your post, these concepts are extremely helpful. [END-CITE]I think an example is the simplest way to illustrate why I disagree with you; the gay rights movement has been very good appealing to people's emotions instead of trying to get them to intellectually agree. Trying to get people to change their stance on gay marriage is hard; trying to educate them on how difficult it is to be gay, or the legal disadvantages of being barred from marriage, is hard. But introducing them to someone who is gay and their partner, and asking, "Shouldn't Tom and Joe be able to get married?" *works exceptionally well*. They'll gain an understanding of the issue on their own time, but people's decisions are made with their emotions -- and trying to make people feel guilty and 'part of the problem', which is the real world effect of applying terms like 'white privilege' and 'rape culture' makes them reject the concepts you're trying to prove. In the same way, telling someone they are homophobic for disagreeing with gay marriage makes them want to prove how they're not being homophobic, not examine why gay marriage might be ok.

[MahJongK]

[STA-CITE]> works exceptionally well. [END-CITE]Yes true. [STA-CITE]> but people's decisions are made with their emotions ... and trying to make people feel guilty and 'part of the problem' makes them reject the concepts. [END-CITE]True for a lot of issues. [STA-CITE]> telling someone they are homophobic for disagreeing with gay marriage makes them want to prove how they're not being homophobic, not examine why gay marriage might be ok. [END-CITE]The example of gay marriage works well only partially. Sure the way to convince people is spot on: let them see it's great for the gay couples. On the other hand, a lot of issues are harder than that. Gay marriage is only about a small fraction of society. So I'd say you can skip the education part. Marriage as an institution is one thing, discrimination is wider. Yes giving the right is a first step, like desegregating everything, but after that the struggle goes on. Blacks as an underclass didn't end with the civil war and racism didn't end with segregation. That's where the education problem really arises.

[badass_panda]

[STA-CITE]>Blacks as an underclass didn't end with the civil war and racism didn't end with segregation. That's where the education problem really arises. [END-CITE]I'd posit that the lesson of *how* to educate still applies -- introducing our hypothetical person to the gay couple *was* a type of education, but it was more of an emotional education ("These people exist, and they're people too,") than a logical one. I think it's helpful to show people how black people are disadvantaged, particularly in a specific area, with specific examples -- but I don't think it's helpful to compare it to how that person lives, since "You have it easy," is a harder pill to swallow than, "He has it hard," ... even though they actually mean the same thing. Concrete example: I think U.S. drug laws are enforced in a way that massively negatively affects blacks, and I'll have an easier time telling a conservative old lady that nobody deserves to spend their life in prison because of a silly mistake, regardless of their race, than by telling her that she is privileged because no one will suspect a white lady of doing drugs; she's never smoked marijuana in her life, and making it about her race rather than about the unfairness of the penalty is not constructive.

[MahJongK]

[STA-CITE]> "You have it easy," is a harder pill to swallow than, "He has it hard," [END-CITE]**tl/dr: giving rights is easy, sharing the cake more fairly requires teaching the privileged about their situation.** That's why giving rights is easy, it always comes first. Citizenship for slaves, right to vote to women etc. Then we see that the game is still unfair, so we must do something about. Like raising taxes to help the poor and minorities with better infrastructure around them + education etc, and understand it's not charity but an investment in our common future (as poverty currently costs to everyone). How do you do that without educating the middle and upper class? That's harder but necessary to go further. Wihtout that the change are not meaningful, just symbolic gestures. [STA-CITE]> conservative old lady ... she is privileged because no one will suspect a white lady [END-CITE]More like suspect her grandson, so her family's privileges has to be addressed.

[badass_panda]

[STA-CITE]> Then we see that the game is still unfair, so we must do something about. Like raising taxes to help the poor and minorities with better infrastructure around them + education etc, and understand it's not charity but an investment in our common future (as poverty currently costs to everyone). How do you do that without educating the middle and upper class? [END-CITE]Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we don't educate the middle and upper classes, simply saying that trying to get them to understand themselves as exceptionally privileged as opposed to others as disadvantaged is not as effective as another strategy -- say, educating them on how "it's not charity but an investment in our common future."

[MahJongK]

[STA-CITE]> to understand themselves as exceptionally privileged as opposed to others as disadvantaged [END-CITE]It's not like understanding gravity that comes from nowhere. I agree that having fingers pointed at us is not comfortable, but it is necessary to do it, maybe in a nice way, to make these people budge.

[badass_panda]

[STA-CITE]> but it is necessary to do it, maybe in a nice way, to make these people bulge. [END-CITE]What I'm disagreeing with is that piece A leads to piece B (that pointing fingers leads to making people budge). That's what I'm looking for -- some proof that that is a more effective way to educate people and get them to budge than something else.

[deusset]

[STA-CITE]> An clear explanation / real world example / empirical data set that shows that educating people on rape culture is the most effective (or even moderately effective) means of preventing rape. [END-CITE]in 2010, city of Edmonton began several campaigns specifically targeting rape culture. Vancouver picked up the campaign and in 2011, the [incidence of rape dropped by 10%](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/dont-be-that-guy-ad-campaign-cuts-vancouver-sex-assaults-by-10-per-cent-in-2011/article1359241/) -- a reversal in the trend over previous years. There is correlation involved here but there will always be in cases like this, but the evidence is at least somewhat compelling. [Here is more information on the campaign itself](http://www.theviolencestopshere.ca/dbtg.php) [and an article with some more reading](http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/01/08/rape-prevention-aimed-at-rapists-does-work/) I wasn't able to find any studies on the crime data, but hopefully there are some out there.

[badass_panda]

First off, great article and very solid info; I'd quibble that this campaign isn't about explaining rape culture or helping people understand it, but attempting to address the root causes of it. That said, it's the right kind of data point to show that this type of education could be constructive. ∆ However, by itself it isn't very compelling: British Columbia as a whole saw a 5.4% drop in sexual assault and Vancouver, with only 10% of the population and only a 10% drop, can't explain that shift -- it may be that there was a larger, unrelated trend at work (or it may be that similar campaigns were being mounted elsewhere in BC).

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/deusset. [^deusset's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/deusset) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[textrovert]

I'll address the second point about rape culture. [There is good evidence that including a discussion of gender and power in sex education leads to significantly better sexual health.](http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/when-sex-ed-teaches-gender-inequality-sex-gets-safer/391460/?utm_source=SFFB) These programs are teaching a key component of the feminist concept of rape culture: that when it comes to sex, traditional gender roles are designed to undermine full and enthusiastic consent. One of the things about rape culture is that it the concept is not meant just to stop *rape,* but to stop the normalizing of iffy or incomplete or coerced consent, which leads to people thinking there's not too much of a difference between "normal" sex (i.e. a man "conquering" a woman by convincing her to reluctantly have sex with him) and rape, as well as to unsafe sexual practices.

[badass_panda]

That's a great article, and the accompanying study was really interesting; I think it really strongly supports the idea that educating young people about gender roles and power inequalities makes for safer sex and better outcomes. I think crafting sex ed around these concepts could be effective, and reduce rape culture -- but I will note, in my reading of the study it seems unlikely that any of the programs whose outcomes they evaluated actually used the term 'rape culture' or attempted to explain that concept. "Acknowledging one’s power to effect change in one’s own life, relationship or community" seems to be the common theme, along with emphasizing "a young women’s power, strength, self-respect and agency", and how "differences in the ways males and females express their sexuality are the result of gender stereotypes." This really supports my argument -- finding the roots of rape culture and countering the specific behaviors is less important than trying to get the public to understand the term, or agree to its existence.

[textrovert]

But who would argue that the terms themselves are the point? People who care about concepts like privilege and rape culture care about them *as concepts,* not just as words, and people who most object to them object to them as concepts. Those programs are *clearly* informed by academic feminist concepts of rape culture. But you seem to be saying that it's good to talk about the concept, but giving it a name is bad, and I don't see how that makes sense.

[badass_panda]

No -- you're not talking to the students about the concept at all, you're talking to other academics about the concept, and recommending policies that fix it. The policy is *what* you are telling to the students. So you **don't** sit down with the class, look at the students, and say, "You all contribute to a rape culture that condones the victimization and sexualization of young women, and makes them more likely to be raped or abused and less likely to report it." You say, "Girls, you can say 'no' to sex without a condom; you're a person, not an object. Guys, did your friends tell you that only pussies let their woman make them wear a condom? Treat yourself better, respect yourself, and *you* ask for a condom."

[textrovert]

But that's a caricature of what rape culture is or what teaching it looks like. Teaching rape culture looks exactly like these programs: getting students to talk about their own experiences with gender roles and power, and then saying "hey, academics have a concept that explains how and why what you're observing functions to undermine consent and what effects that has on ideas and realities about sex, and here's what that is."

[badass_panda]

What I'm not clear on is why that last step (explaining the academic concept) needs to be taken, or that it generally *is* taken in successful educational programs; certainly in the case of the 10 successful studies described in the article you linked, it does not appear to have been.

[textrovert]

Well, because it gives students a framework within which to understand their experiences, and through that framework it becomes easier to identify behaviors from themselves and their peers they should be more critical of. People who are critical of "rape culture" are critical either because the concept has not been explained to them well and they think they are just being attacked, or because they genuinely are critical of teaching full enthusiastic consent, either because they do think sex is shameful or because they think "boys are the gas and girls are the brakes" and that's natural and right. These programs are an example of appropriately explaining the concept to avoid the former; the latter is the more substantial objection to the concept of rape culture and these programs are a good counter to that.

[POSVT]

I'm critical of the concept of rape culture, for several reasons. It's disingenuous to claim that the only way that someone could be critical is either a lack of understanding, or in an effort to advocate for their belief that "sex is shameful/Boys=gas, girls=brakes". When rape culture is applied outside of a directly academic setting (in the context of OPs view), is *is* almost always used (in my experience) as an attack, such as the "teach men not to rape" nonsense, or used in support/justification of things like the various campaigns for restructuring sexual misconduct handling at colleges. It's also a part of contemporary feminist dogma, such that being openly critical of the narrative gets you labeled as a rape apologist, or worse. That's especially irritating to me, considering that the origin of the term comes from societies acceptance of rape in prison, as contrasted with the non-acceptance of rape outside of prison. Discussions about rape culture are also usually applied in a sexist way that paints sexual assault as a gendered issue. Or, using misleading/outright false data. Or, as hyperbole. Do I believe that stupid things happen in in our society with regard to sexual assault and rape? Absolutely. Statements like, "What were you wearing" are ridiculous and have no place in any kind of reasonable discussion. However, to take that point and assume that then *any*discussion of risk management or prevention is beyond the pale, is just as ridiculous. Do I think that educating people about consent has merit? Sure. At the same time, proposals advocating "enthusiastic" or "affirmative" consent are often patently ridiculous and unworkable. Things like our backlog of untested rape kits, or officers being dismissive/hostile to alleged victims are problematic. At the same time, eroding standards of evidence/due process, and the "listen and believe" camp are also extremely problematic. I understand that sexual assault is a topic that is extremely personal and often inflammatory, or involved with other strong emotions.However, given the hostility in how it is typically used, and the holes/flaws in the claims and underlying assumptions, yes, I am extremely critical of the concept, and especially the application/usage of rape culture.

[MahJongK]

It's great to underline the shortcomings fo these various concepts and the way they're used. The thing is that you're taking the time to make your opinions clear (Statements like, "What were you wearing" are ridiculous). [STA-CITE]> When rape culture is applied outside of a directly academic setting (in the context of OPs view), is is almost always used (in my experience) as an attack, such as the "teach men not to rape" nonsense, or used in support/justification of things like the various campaigns for restructuring sexual misconduct handling at colleges. [END-CITE]The same problem arises when people like OP challenge the use of the concepts of "white privilege" or "rape culture" in that reactionary way. It is almost always an expression of a disagreement about the premises or logic of these concepts, or of a state of ignorance about the fact that they can be quite insightful. From time to time you can stumble on someone who's not doing that (more like searching other concepts to deal with the issues at hand instead of dismissing the struggle itself), a bit like you, but as far as I can see on reddit challenging these concepts is always a defense mechanism coming from white males who feel attacked + are oblivious about these problems and more importantly who just don't believe or understand how systemic and widespread they are. Don't you think they unfortunately just spoil these arguments for you? IMO the proof is that you have to take so many precautions and state you're fighting the good fight.

[POSVT]

[STA-CITE]>The same problem arises when people like OP challenge the use of the concepts of "white privilege" or "rape culture" in that reactionary way. It is almost always an expression of a disagreement about the premises or logic of these concepts, or of a state of ignorance about the fact that they can be quite insightful. [END-CITE]I don't see how the same problem arises. When someone uses those phrases in a hostile/attacking manner, and someone else dismisses them, the second person is in the right, IMO. A good example would be on campus or online, when someone comes out with the "teach men not to rape" slogan, it's acceptable to point out how ridiculous their position is. Now, if someone is interjecting into one of the academic areas where these terms are more relevant, then that's different (and yes, would be comparable to the "teach men not to rape" hypothetical person above). But we're not really discussing this in terms of academics. Specifically, on reddit, I would point out that the people who are dismissive or challenging likely have been frequently attacked by these terms. particularly, when they don't really apply to the person in question, and they're tired of being labelled (mis-labelled) and attacked by racist/sexist arguments. There are also people who have contradictory, often incorrect (ie, racism is dead) beliefs. It's difficult to separate the two outside of meat-space. The problem is two-fold. First, that these concepts are used to attack/silence people. Second, that being critical of the concept is usually grounds for further attack. There are placed where the opposite is true, where espousing these concepts is enough to call down an angry mob, and that's a problem too. I don't really think they spoil the arguments, no. In fact, I'd say they support my position. The reason I went to such lengths to make it clear that I'm "fighting the good fight" is because as I stated earlier, concepts like rape culture *are* often used as an attack, and if you come across as critical of them you are setting yourself up to be further attacked (rape apologist, ect.). My experiences in conversations about these things have led me to understand that unless you make a painstaking effort to state your precise position, you'll end up straw manned and attacked. I don't feel that the concept of rape culture stands on it own, but if I just said that and left it at that, I'm practically begging to get a slew of nasty PMs. This is CMV, and so I don't actually think that'd happen, and people here are almost always willing to civilly discuss things, but the world is bigger than that.

[GnosticGnome]

What do you think of its use in Occupy meetings to determine the order in which people speak (the progressive stack)? If people are simply permitted to speak in the order in which they raise their hand, the result in meetings will be to hear more voices of the already privileged. We are, after all, the ones most accustomed to speaking up. If marginalized people are moved closer to the front of the stack, a more diverse set of voices will be heard. Is that an appropriate use?

[TBFProgrammer]

[STA-CITE]> If marginalized people are moved closer to the front of the stack, a more diverse set of voices will be heard. [END-CITE]This assumes that diversity of voice/opinion is a direct result of diversity in outwards characteristics. Whilst there is some overlap, this is not strictly the case. Further, the implementation of the priority system is rather flawed. In any substantially sized group whatever subgroup gets the highest priority can entirely dominate the discussion if time is in any way limited. If we could assume that the differing outwards characteristics did properly group different views, it would still be best to give all groups the same priority and simply allow only a single voice from each group per round. The progressive stack is not complete folly, but it remains folly. Besides, the order of influence in a discussion follows an ends-first approach, with the first speakers setting the topic and the last speakers having the most influence over how individuals view the topic going forward. In a smaller group, you're actually still giving a great deal of influence to the groups you see as privileged.

[badass_panda]

I think it's silly, frankly. You can't make a reliable inference about a single data point simply because you know the curve, so until that person speaks, you have no idea what disadvantages counter their 'white privilege' advantage, because people are more than just men or women, white people or minorities. That white man might be a gay transgender that grew up on food stamps who has never raised his hand in his life before, and the woman raising her hand might have grown up in the Hamptons who has never failed to. Fundamentally, I think if you want the opinions of a specifically marginalized group (in any setting), you should ask for that group directly -- otherwise, let any voice be heard.

[dangerzone133]

Just for clarification you do see the purpose of using these terms in academia, but not outside of it?

[badass_panda]

Absolutely -- in understanding and predicting behavior at the macro level, both terms are appropriate and functional. It's their usefulness in influencing individual behavior and policy changes that I question.

[dangerzone133]

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from then. So how do you think the best way to introduce people to these topics would be? Or do you think that they shouldn't be discussed at all? I find it relatively easy to convince people that rape culture and white privilege exists once I explain what it actually is. I think that most reasonable people see for example, that there are things that most people of color have to deal with on a regular basis that white people don't even have to think about and once you explain that's what white privilege means they are more receptive to it. It's not a big institutional change or anything, but after people are more aware I think they are more likely to educate others and the cycle continues.

[jacob_ninja_potato3]

Just curious, what exactly do you mean by rape culture? I'm pretty sure that culturally rape is not acceptable, at least not in America where I assume this is being used

[dangerzone133]

I'm too lazy to retype everything so I'm just going to link this: http://www.onyxtruth.com/2014/04/11/rapecultureiswhen/ The tl;dr version is that American culture has a particular cultural narrative about rape, a mythos so to speak, and that mythos is not consistant with the reality of what rape is like both in general and for victims. So ideas like men can't be raped, what a victim was wearing makes a difference, rape is committed by strangers - all of those things are false, yet they are part of our cultural narrative. And when people buy into those myths it ends up doing real damage to victims by people who don't believe them, who harass them, etc etc. So yes we as a culture aren't particularly accepting of rape, but we also aren't particularly clear on what rape is, how victims behave, who victims are, who rapists are, etc.

[badass_panda]

What I question is the utility of educating others at all; fairly few people will argue with you that a black guy in a 1995 Honda on his way to school is more likely to get pulled over than a white guy in a 2015 Audi on his way to sell cocaine. Do they have to understand that this is the intersection of white privilege and class privilege to understand that this is wrong? Not really, it isn't fair, and that's obvious. The concrete is easier to sell than the theoretical, and more likely to create action.

[dangerzone133]

Yeah, but how do you think it's possible to create action without having the foundation? I'm not saying that an activists job is done after they teach someone something, but in order to create real change you have to get people on the same page.

[devin27]

Best way to get people on the same page is to not call them a bigot/racist/privileged person (who wants to be any of those things?) but to tell them how certain policies or behaviours affect them as a member of the group. Don't tell someone they are racist, tell them how when they say/do ____ it makes you feel ____. There is literally no counterargument.

[dangerzone133]

Agree completely. That's why when I bring up privilege I reinforce that it's not about individual people and it's not about trying to say that individual white people don't deserve the things they have earned in life - being white tends to help with that, as people don't usually accuse me of being prejudiced against myself. Also when someone says something obviously racist or sexist I prefer the approach of asking why they said that until they realize for themselves how inappropriate their comment really was. Or just stare at them until they start blabbering.

[devin27]

Sounds like we're on the same page - but I feel privilege is kind of too negative of a term. We tend to look down on "privileged children" who haven't earned what they have in life. Maybe the technical definition of the word suits, but in common usage it tends to have a negative connotation. I can't think of a better "buzz phrase" but perhaps something like "invisible advantages" or something of that nature would lead to a healthier discussion.

[badass_panda]

[STA-CITE]>you have to get people on the same page. [END-CITE]Absolutely, but you can get people on the same page in an issue without trying to give them an academic understanding of the source of it, and you avoid an argument you don't need to have. Let's say I'm trying to get an older rich white guy to donate to a black student's college fund. I don't need to have him understand white privilege, or try and convince him that what he views as "pulling himself up by his bootstraps" was made drastically easier because he was a white guy without an accent. I can say, "An African American kid who gets good grades and works hard in school deserves to go to college, but he's [x]% less likely to, because his parents are poor, he doesn't have the money, etc. Help me help him." The unfairness speaks for itself.

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

No one engages in activism all the time. Giving people a course of action is great if you can also put people in a position where activism is easy. Say "call your representative by pushing this button" works when we're, say, talking about a law that is about to pass. On the other hand, changing attitudes is best done on an individual level, because it creates informed people who can make their own smart decisions. And it creates people who can intelligently disagree with you. Instead of trying to convince the representative you have, you can talk about who you think is the best new representative to elect who will serve your interests without you needing to call every time there's a major event. Take the Baltimore situation. What's a better way to frame it? As an isolated issue with a clear cut solution (talk to this person and everything will be fine as long as we get outcome x)? Or as a symptom of a larger issue that needs to be addressed on both an individual and systematic level?s Talking to people doesn't take away from time spent in activism, it turns time that would be spent doing nothing into time spent on activism, and it changes minds. It makes people less racist and less sexist, and gives an immediate return.

[nerak33]

OP's argument wasn't about talking to people vs other forms of activism. It was that the usual SJW discourse isn't helping the cause. Talking to people might be done more efficiently by, for example, gathering support for blacks rather than accusing whites.

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

But that doesn't help. The whole point of the idea of institutional racism is that every white person is complicit whether they want to be or not. That's what white privilege is. That's asking people to support black people while explicitly refusing to talk about why they need support.

[nerak33]

"You need to help because your fellow men need help" works better than "You need to help because you are a bigot". Because teaching people new things starting from the values you have in common with them is more intelligent than trying to reconstruct their self-image from a hostile perspective.

[MahJongK]

That's not the choice at hand here IMO. OP is arguing that there is no point teaching people and that the intellectual stuff is not important in activism or political actions and debates. I think they are and that knowledge is the fundamental basis for any further debate. Regarding the course of action, sure your first option is better, but an even better one is: "here is what racism/sexism/privilege really is". Then let people judge where they stand and what they do next.

[nerak33]

I think that what OP meant is that the concepts are understood so differently outside of academia, where people are more prepared to interpret words instead of taking everything by face value, that they actually have their meanings mixed up and lost. Thus, a different communication is needed to pass on the same information. [STA-CITE]>Regarding the course of action, sure your first option is better, but an even better one is: "here is what racism/sexism/privilege really is". Then let people judge where they stand and what they do next. [END-CITE]I do agree, as long as this is done with proper communication.

[MahJongK]

[STA-CITE]> I do agree, as long as this is done with proper communication. [END-CITE]It's just that OP was insisting that action and arguing was possible without educating about these concepts. He had in mind a simple call to empathy without taking on the premises.

[nerak33]

I partially agree with him, in that empathy is a better instrument to create solidarity than theory. Theory is needed to change society, though (just as empathy).

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

Teaching people new things starts wherever it's reasonable to start it. If starting out with the idea of privilege will turn them off to your idea, then you still need a very academic platform to fall back on. Due to how privilege dynamics work, it's going to be very difficult to bring someone around to the idea of privilege without either saying something you know isn't true, or giving out incomplete information that could lead them to do things that make the situation worse. Using Baltimore as an example, if you convince a white person that the protesters are justified by explaining police racism without also explaining privilege to them, they could easily end up jumping into a protest and being an asshole to the police, due to their privilege teaching them that they're safe around the police. End result: the protest quickly goes to hell and all the protesters look bad. And that's the best case scenario. People could go to jail or get hurt or both.

[TBFProgrammer]

[STA-CITE]> if you convince a white person that the protesters are justified by explaining police racism without also explaining privilege to them, they could easily end up jumping into a protest and being an asshole to the police, due to their privilege teaching them that they're safe around the police. [END-CITE]Except that in teaching them about police racism you will have shown them that everyone else is not as safe around police. As such, they will have reason enough to avoid egging on the police. All that privilege rhetoric does is add on this strange assertion that they shouldn't get to feel safe and that they are somehow evil for being able to.

[nerak33]

Still, "police treats black people worse than they do to white people. Even worse!" sounds very different from "you have privilege withthe police". And both convey the same message: shit's harder for minorities. You need to understand that *nowhere* outside of the academy the word "privilegy" has a neutral denotation as some more moderate SJW try to put it. It's a negative word that historically we've been aiming at plutocrats and exploiters. There is no way a white woman or a black man will accept their white or male privilege but with *shame*. Let's not even go into the ethics of shaming people. Frankly I believe guilt and shame are part of a healthy psyche. But people will do everything to *not feel ashamed of themselves*. They'll hate you if you try to twist their identities into something they learned to despise. TL DR, "privilege" discourse is mostly **not effective** and there are better ways to pass on the same concepts.

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

If the problem is the exact word, then we should just rebrand the concept. I don't think anyone needs to be guilty or ashamed. I think they need to use those privileges for a net benefit, until such time as they can undo the system that allows those privileges to exist. Not to mention, it's disingenuous. Get rid of privilege, and things are going to get worse for the formerly privileged person. Not just better for everyone else, explicitly worse for them. I think they deserve to know that.

[nerak33]

I agree completely. Just a comment on the second paragraph, though, most people, believe it or not, would rather have the benefits of a fair world than the benefits of a privilege.

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

In a theoretical sense, that's true, but in a practical sense many people will resist attempts to move toward that. Pick any slur that we've tried to get people to stop saying, and notice just how many people fight aggressively against that idea.

[nerak33]

I don't think they resist because the slur make them powerful. They resist changes they deem as unnecessary, as anyone else.

[devin27]

Nailed it /u/nerak33. The best way to change someone's behaviour is by telling them how what they did/said affected you (or members of your group), not by ascribing negative intentions towards the person. If you say: "When you say this, it hurts me because ____" there is really no counterargument. When you say: "You are racist/privileged" the immediate response is: "No I'm not, I voted for Obama, have a gay friend, don't treat women like that, etc."

[badass_panda]

[STA-CITE]>It makes people less racist and less sexist [END-CITE]Does it, though? These terms work academically because everyone you're talking to is willing to listen. Terms like "rape culture" or "white privilege couch it as a widespread cultural issue, and make it easy for the individual to get off the hook -- they don't have the same ability to change views as specific situations. Think of it like this: talking about " white privilege " is like telling someone to "not be homophobic", as opposed to asking them their view on gay marriage. In the first instance they can say, "OK, I won't be," whereas in the second, they'll really have to think hard about why not letting Bob and Jim get married is fair or unfair.

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

I understand where you're coming from, and they should do both. When confronting a specific issue, I agree with you, saying "check your privilege" isn't very helpful unless the person understands. That's one phrase that definitely needs to stay in academia, just because it assumes a level of knowledge the person probably doesn't have. But privilege is still an important idea that needs to be explained. The point isn't to let people off the hook, it's to put them on the hook at all times. If you're white, you have white privilege, all the time, and you always need to be aware of how it may affect your opinions of certain situations. Telling someone they're being homophobic is a start, getting someone to realize they're being homophobic before they say anything, so they choose not to say that thing is an end.

[TBFProgrammer]

[STA-CITE]> The point isn't to let people off the hook, it's to put them on the hook at all times. [END-CITE]No one can effectively live on the hook at all times. This promotes anxiety and depression when accepted and outright hostility when opposed. You want these people to help others. If you destroy the base from which they operate through guilt tripping and shaming them in a way they cannot escape, they will be unable or unwilling to do so. The problem is the disadvantages that certain groups face. The problem is *not* that other groups don't face these disadvantages. Framing the discussion in the second sense, as any framing based on privilege does, focuses our efforts in the wrong direction. Equality achieved by bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator is well worth opposing.

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

Being on the hook all the time actually gives very little depression or anxiety, if any. In practical terms all it means is putting some extra thought into what you say and do. It's not about bringing people down to the lowest common denominator, but it is about acknowledging that the disadvantages one group faces and the advantages another group has are interrelated. You can't fix the disadvantages without reducing the advantages for some members of the group, if not all of them.

[TBFProgrammer]

[STA-CITE]> Being on the hook all the time actually gives very little depression or anxiety, if any. In practical terms all it means is putting some extra thought into what you say and do. [END-CITE]For those who choose of their own accord to hold themselves to a standard, this can be correct, though [not always](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2091#comment-326664). For those who did not affirmatively make this choice, but find themselves held to the standard through shaming mechanisms, the same anxiety and depression that appears with any other form of shaming will be apparent. [STA-CITE]> It's not about bringing people down to the lowest common denominator, but it is about acknowledging that the disadvantages one group faces and the advantages another group has are interrelated. [END-CITE]This is simply not how privilege rhetoric is employed. Grab pretty much any popular example and what you will find is that privilege is taken to mean the entirety of the disparity, that privilege for group A is equivalent to disadvantage for group B. The idea of a goal that includes a slight decrease to group A via competing on an even footing is not given. Even the potential zero-sum argument of meeting in the middle is not brought up. To focus on group A in this paradigm is to focus on taking away what group A has.

[devin27]

[STA-CITE]> Telling someone they're being homophobic is a start, getting someone to realize they're being homophobic before they say anything, so they choose not to say that thing is an end. [END-CITE]IMO this is the worst way to convince anyone they are being homophobic. If you say: "you are homophobic" the immediate response is "No I'm not, I'm pro-gay marriage and have a gay friend etc." The more effective way to educate someone is to tell them how their comment could be construed as homophobic. For instance someone around me once used the word gay around a mutual gay friend to describe something as "lame" or "bad" the gay friend calmly explained that he knew the other friend didn't mean anything by it, but it was kind of offensive because if you were to replace the word gay with something, it would be certainly a negative adjective. I had been guilty of using the term previously but from that moment forward stopped using it because it made perfect sense. If you go around telling people they're racist and homophobic they're going to think you're too sensitive because the reality is they probably didn't mean any offence. I understand it's difficult to keep composure, but telling someone they're **being** homophobic implies a state of being, whereas if you say what they said could be **construed** as homophobic, you aren't attacking the person's character just educating them.

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

In my experience that leads people to be less receptive to changing their minds, not more. You tell someone that what they said sounded homophobic and their immediate response will usually be "but I'm not homophobic, so obviously it wasn't, so there's no problem." At best you get a "sorry you got so offended" apology. There are semantic points and subtleties that have their place in this discussion, but I generally find it's better to debate things in good faith. Usually that doesn't involve accusing them of being homophobic right off the bat, but it also doesn't involve deliberately downplaying the problem.

[devin27]

Maybe saying "that sounded homophobic" isn't the BEST way, but it's been proven to effectively communicate during conflict you should focus on things you feel as opposed to ascribing negative intentions to others. There is tonnes of literature surrounding this in conflict resolution studies [source](http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effective-communication-during-conflict-821.html): >Focus On I-Statements. "I Statements" are one of the best communication techniques you could use in any conflict. You've probably caught yourself saying things like "I hate when you...", "You always...", "You never..." or "You're so...". These statements automatically puts coworkers on the defensive to your criticism and conflict escalates. Instead, try statements like "I feel unimportant when you're late for our meetings" or "I felt disappointed when the reports aren't finished following the guidelines." Take responsibility for your feelings and use questions to get back on track, such as, "So where do we go from here?"

[badass_panda]

[STA-CITE]> The point isn't to let people off the hook, it's to put them on the hook at all times. [END-CITE]The issue is that a blanket approach here really doesn't work; everyone has such a massive and complex matrix of intersections that they can easily let themselves *off* that hook, and deny that the hook even exists. Most commonly, if you're talking to a poor white person, they're going to counter that their class disadvantage far outweighed their race advantage -- and they may well be right. The important thing is that it isn't fair that white people in general get treated better than black people in particular -- there's no use arguing that someone should feel guilty, because either a) they feel guilty but don't take action, b) they don't want to feel guilty and reject the concept or c) they likely would have taken action anyway.

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

They're not right because that's not how it works. Privilege isn't a cumulative score. There getting a mix of advantages and disadvantages, and it's important that they understand that those coexist rather than canceling out. I never argued that anyone should feel guilty over their privilege. That's completely counterproductive. I don't want anyone to apologize for their privilege, or to try to get rid of it, I want them to acknowledge it and make it work for the benefit of everyone involved.

[badass_panda]

[STA-CITE]> I don't want anyone to apologize for their privilege, or to try to get rid of it, I want them to acknowledge it and make it work for the benefit of everyone involved. [END-CITE]What I question is the value or necessity of anyone recognizing *their privilege* at all; I think recognizing the dis-privilege of others is generally enough for action to be taken to remedy it.

[MahJongK]

[STA-CITE]> What I question is the value or necessity of anyone recognizing their privilege at all. [END-CITE]It is hard to accept our own privileges but it's necessary. You can't escape that for meaningful change to happen.

[badass_panda]

It's just as easy to accept the dis-privileges of others, and it's more effective. Logically it's the same, but it's an easier sell -- and that's why terms like 'white privilege' aren't helpful in affecting change as terms like 'racist' and 'unfair'.

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

As I said in another post, that's disingenuous. Imagine I'm standing on a box and you're standing on the ground. There's no room for you on my box, there's not enough material around to build another box. Maybe there's enough for part of a box. But we can never be at equal height unless I either break off part of my box and we both get most of a box, or we start having a serious discussion about whether we'd actually both be fine on the ground.

[badass_panda]

I guess I'm having a hard time applying this analogy to the real world -- could you restate it with a real world situation?

[MrCapitalismWildRide]

A few extremely lucky people aside, no one makes it from rags to riches. They need social safety nets and other support. And that means Joe Millionaire is gonna have to give up some of his money either in the form of taxes or direct charity. Or he's gonna have to help start a proletariat uprising and hope it doesn't get violent. Either way he's losing money.

[MahJongK]

The privileged will have to give up something in the future.

[badass_panda]

In theory, sure; in practice ... no, not particularly. Let's take the first five examples in the famous "Invisible backpack" essay: [STA-CITE]> 1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time. > 2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live. > 3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me. < 4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed. > 5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented. [END-CITE]1 is simply demographic; if you are a small enough minority, this can't be changed or adjusted for by anyone. 5 is the same, to a lesser degree; media can represent everyone according to their percent of the population and any sizeable minority group will no longer have this complaint. 2, 3 and 4 are excellent examples of my point; just because it becomes reasonable to expect your neighbors will be nice to black people also, that loss prevention won't treat them as criminals, or that landlords will rent them apartments doesn't mean any of these things will no longer be true for white people. White people lose nothing. **Except** for the fact that they are not disadvantaged the same way as black people -- you lose the 'inferior class' and end up in a place of equality. While that's theoretically a loss, I doubt you'll find that many people who will say, "Yes, I like to know that there are a group of people who will be treated worse than me, and I don't want to lose that."