What you are misunderstanding (possibly intentionally), is that each axis of power dynamics has more- and less-privileged positions: race, class, sex, gender, sexual orientation, physical dis/ability, mental dis/ability, etc. A fully able-bodied and mentally healthy rich, white, straight, cis man is obviously going to be more privileged than a paraplegic, poor, black, gay, trans woman with learning disabilities (but note that even this does not automatically translate into more happiness, better self-esteem, etc.). But if you try to compare the privilege of an upper-middle class, native-American, gay, cis woman born with only one hand vs. a poor, white, straight, cis, teenage boy with ADHD, it’s much thornier, and ultimately not an important comparison to make.
When people speak of white privilege, they are saying that a white person lives generally unencumbered by their race and how others perceive them because of it. They are, in aggregate, less likely to be pulled over or stopped by police. They are more likely to get job interviews, and to be seen as a good potential hire by those interviewing them.
For male privilege, it means being more likely to be seen as leadership material, less likelihood of being sexually assaulted, a probability of higher lifetime earnings, and less chance of having one’s ailments dismissed by doctors, or of being passed over for a promotion because you might someday get pregnant and need maternity leave.
Every axis of privilege is different, they are not particularly cross-comparable, and they are all just probabilities - none are deterministic. Some types of privilege are fairly inherent (class, health/ability), while others are based on how our society treats people differently based on group affiliation (race, sex, gender, sexuality). The point of identifying these is not to shame those who have privilege, but rather to recognize the various difficulties faced by those who are less privileged, so that we might mitigate those challenges. In a just world, everyone would be treated as though they were a member of the privileged group(s) along every axis, and judged only by their own actions.
Your reading comprehension is lacking, or you just didn’t bother to read my whole comment. I specifically said that all people should be treated the way we currently only treat the people belonging to the most privileged groups, which would be to judge them by their individual actions and not by their race, ethnicity, class, sex, gender, orientation, etc.
Right, it’s not that you theory is faulty, it’s that I’m stupid.
How do we treat the most privledge groups? hmmm well we worship them and aspire to be like them… so we are all supposed to worship and aspire to be like each other? How exactly… does that make any sense in the real world?
You yourself are loaded with your own biases, and yet your standard is ‘nobody should have any biases and we should all treat each other as if were were white male billionaires’?
So if I’m a white male billionaire, and you are too, which of us should be giving giving massive tax subsidies to each other? I would wager a guess, that you don’t think that’s how we should treat each other, and it’s more like you are the white male billionaire and i should be giving you my money…
Your theory immediately breaks down when you apply it to real world scenarios. All pie in the sky idealism does, because we don’t live in a the Kingdom of God where resources are infinite. Everyone is finite and everyone is biased and everyone is a white male billionaire in their own head.
What you are misunderstanding (possibly intentionally), is that each axis of power dynamics has more- and less-privileged positions: race, class, sex, gender, sexual orientation, physical dis/ability, mental dis/ability, etc. A fully able-bodied and mentally healthy rich, white, straight, cis man is obviously going to be more privileged than a paraplegic, poor, black, gay, trans woman with learning disabilities (but note that even this does not automatically translate into more happiness, better self-esteem, etc.). But if you try to compare the privilege of an upper-middle class, native-American, gay, cis woman born with only one hand vs. a poor, white, straight, cis, teenage boy with ADHD, it’s much thornier, and ultimately not an important comparison to make.
When people speak of white privilege, they are saying that a white person lives generally unencumbered by their race and how others perceive them because of it. They are, in aggregate, less likely to be pulled over or stopped by police. They are more likely to get job interviews, and to be seen as a good potential hire by those interviewing them.
For male privilege, it means being more likely to be seen as leadership material, less likelihood of being sexually assaulted, a probability of higher lifetime earnings, and less chance of having one’s ailments dismissed by doctors, or of being passed over for a promotion because you might someday get pregnant and need maternity leave.
Every axis of privilege is different, they are not particularly cross-comparable, and they are all just probabilities - none are deterministic. Some types of privilege are fairly inherent (class, health/ability), while others are based on how our society treats people differently based on group affiliation (race, sex, gender, sexuality). The point of identifying these is not to shame those who have privilege, but rather to recognize the various difficulties faced by those who are less privileged, so that we might mitigate those challenges. In a just world, everyone would be treated as though they were a member of the privileged group(s) along every axis, and judged only by their own actions.
so wait, none of it is deterministic… but we should use those to figure out how determine how we treat other people?
You are re-inventing racism, but making it more complex and stupid.
Your reading comprehension is lacking, or you just didn’t bother to read my whole comment. I specifically said that all people should be treated the way we currently only treat the people belonging to the most privileged groups, which would be to judge them by their individual actions and not by their race, ethnicity, class, sex, gender, orientation, etc.
Right, it’s not that you theory is faulty, it’s that I’m stupid.
How do we treat the most privledge groups? hmmm well we worship them and aspire to be like them… so we are all supposed to worship and aspire to be like each other? How exactly… does that make any sense in the real world?
You yourself are loaded with your own biases, and yet your standard is ‘nobody should have any biases and we should all treat each other as if were were white male billionaires’?
So if I’m a white male billionaire, and you are too, which of us should be giving giving massive tax subsidies to each other? I would wager a guess, that you don’t think that’s how we should treat each other, and it’s more like you are the white male billionaire and i should be giving you my money…
Your theory immediately breaks down when you apply it to real world scenarios. All pie in the sky idealism does, because we don’t live in a the Kingdom of God where resources are infinite. Everyone is finite and everyone is biased and everyone is a white male billionaire in their own head.