Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

Baseline vs. Privilege

This essay neatly pinpoints something that has always bothered me: "white privilege" isn't about privilege.  It's about a baseline.  Being white means that most of the time, people treat you decently and don't go out of their way to ruin your life.  That isn't an extra-special perk; it's the way everyone should be treated.  The fact that many people are discriminated against doesn't change that, it just means society unreasonably lowers its standards of treatment for some people. 

Conversely, consider all the allegations that queer people want "special privileges."  No, they don't.  They just want access to the baseline: ordinary things like getting married, adopting a child, being able to visit someone in the hospital, filing a joint tax return.  Now if they said, "Queer people should get first choice of  children available for adoption, THAT would be a privilege.

A healthy society has a pretty smooth functionality most of the time.  Its members are able to carry out ordinary activities without interference.  Following the rules will lead to success for most people, and it's an option open to everyone.  Failing out of a healthy society requires a lot of dedicated screwing up and refusing the helpful options available; you can still do it, but not many people do.  And because most people's needs are pretty well met, there is a lot less incentive to stomp down other people in attempt to prop yourself up.

America doesn't have a healthy society.  Our baseline is ... fishnet.  If you're a straight white educated employed Christian man, you can generally get through life without people trying to screw you over because they find some aspect of your life displeasing.  If you're queer, a person of color, don't have a college degree, can't get a job, follow some other (or no) religion, are other than male, are very young or old, are unconventional in some way -- then society frequently considers it okay to deprive you of basic courtesies, interfere with your happiness and/or survival, infringe on your rights, ruin your life, and then blame you for the mess that results.  That's stupid and destructive and it needs to stop.  It's not just about this group or that group.  It's not about privileges or special snowflakes.

It is about treating every human being with respect and providing everyone a chance to make meaningful contributions in exchange for getting their basic needs (and preferably some of their desires) met.  That's the baseline.  Be decent to each other.  Get the job done.   
Tags: community, discussion, ethnic studies
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 32 comments
houseboatonstyx

houseboatonstyx

July 28 2010, 06:47:15 UTC 10 years ago

Good point about the word 'priviledge'. Some things really are zero-sum, limited supply -- such as money, Ivy League education, etc. So it makes sense to say that someone who has them is 'priviledged', perhaps with an implication that the wealth should be shared more equally.

But it's weird to see something like, "I can walk hand in hand with my sweetie, and marry him, because as hets we're priviledged." Marriages aren't in limited supply: everybody can have as many as they like. ;-)

Marriage, and freedom of association, and other freedoms, aren't priviledges -- they are RIGHTS.

liminalia

liminalia

July 28 2010, 10:01:26 UTC 10 years ago

Alas, no, everyone *can't* have as many as they would like. (see icon)
ysabetwordsmith

Well...

ysabetwordsmith

July 28 2010, 15:59:46 UTC 10 years ago

Just add "monogamous" to the list of favored traits. I was particularly annoyed that America violated its Constitution early on to forbid Mormons from practicing polygamy. They still do it, and it works for them, but it's not legal. That means one of the husband/wife relationships is usually legal and the others are only within the church, which creates a lot of unnecessary stress.
cissa

Re: Well...

cissa

July 31 2010, 00:49:57 UTC 10 years ago

My concern with this is the way some offshoots force "marriages" upon underaged girls- and trash teenaged boys.

But, I do think that if plural marriage- entered into legally and with rights enforced- were OK, then we could get the slimeballs on more pertinent charges than "bigamy", like child sexual abuse. And it would look less like something that was arguably "religious freedom"- I mean, if you can marry however many ADULT women/men you want, then arguing that you need to be "free" to marry kids looks extra-sleazy.

I will grant that handling partial divorce in a plural marriage could be a legal nightmare.
ysabetwordsmith

Re: Well...

ysabetwordsmith

July 31 2010, 01:16:23 UTC 10 years ago

>>My concern with this is the way some offshoots force "marriages" upon underaged girls- and trash teenaged boys.<<

I don't approve of marriage below the age of consent. However, in the current situation, people of that culture are used to in-church weddings that are different from legal weddings. Make polyfidelity legal, and that will make attempts at underage marriage stand out more.

>>I will grant that handling partial divorce in a plural marriage could be a legal nightmare.<<

It's a legal nightmare now. There ARE poly marriages in America, they're just not recognized. The damage is greater because some members are privileged above others: junior wives can be dumped on the street with nothing to show for it. That's not doing anybody any good.
cissa

Re: Well...

cissa

July 31 2010, 01:35:39 UTC 10 years ago

Excellent points, both of them.

If it were legal to have plural marriages, then hopefully no one would get skunked if the thing breaks up (or, at least, not worse than current spouses can be...).

I think we do need a better way of figuring what the contribution to the relationship/other people is, to make a break-up fair. For example, if someone had spousal support and thus was able to spend ALL their energies and most of their time on their career.. well, the person/people providing that level of support are owed something of the benefits of that career, in my opinion. And this is true whether the marriage is monogamous or poly.

I do agree that allowing poly marriage would enable the state to crack down on abuses; that was one point I tried to make.
houseboatonstyx

houseboatonstyx

July 29 2010, 19:49:15 UTC 10 years ago

Sorry if I was unclear. I'm basically agreeing with y'all.

Istr that in some cities there are a limited number of taxi licenses. But no one has tried to limit marriage licenses (or marriage certificates) in that ... numerical sort of way.
ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

July 28 2010, 16:56:35 UTC 10 years ago

>>Some things really are zero-sum, limited supply -- such as money, Ivy League education, etc. So it makes sense to say that someone who has them is 'priviledged', perhaps with an implication that the wealth should be shared more equally.<<

Some things are limited, period, like the amount of oil in the Earth -- it doesn't refresh fast enough compared to our use, so is finite. Other things are elastic. We can make more money, or distribute it differently. A given school can only hold so many students at a time, but a type of schooling could be replicated as far as we choose; Ivy League is deliberately limited (actually for the sake of privilege).

>>Marriages aren't in limited supply: everybody can have as many as they like.<<

Though not at the same time, which is another division: monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) is favored over polyamory or other orientations.

>>Marriage, and freedom of association, and other freedoms, aren't priviledges -- they are RIGHTS.<<

Agreed.

Courtesies are also not limited; you aren't going to run out of "Have a nice day, sir" just because you've said it to a lot of people.
houseboatonstyx

Re: Hmm...

houseboatonstyx

July 29 2010, 19:41:11 UTC 10 years ago

Yes, I was over-simplifying to make the distinction. Talking about things that are in limited supply RIGHT NOW (eg billets in Ivy League schools), not about whether the supply might be increased in future.