For you people who claim privilege isn't real

[Lee-Lee]

I've been there, done that, seen it in person.

People often have a hard time guessing my racial background, and I kind of like that. But I have seen people turn on a dime when they went from "Is she black/ is she black and ??" To acting a whole lot different when I said I was Native and Filipino.

As a child, I was ok to play with the white kids and be invited to their parties. As I got older I was ok to date the white boys and their parents would even make it a point to say "she's Indian" to all their friends so that it was clear their son wasn't dating an unacceptable race. That opened doors to all kinds of things that otherwise would have been closed just because I was able to meet the right people because I was allowed in the right circles.

I have seen the expressions change when interviewing for jobs when they read my race I put down.

I've lived a life where people often assume I am Of African descent at least partially, then if it comes up find out otherwise- and seen the attitudes change on a dime.

And I haven't even been treated as white, just a "more acceptable" minority.

[merrily]

1. I agree privilege is real. However, why do you put your race down when job-hunting?

[Lee-Lee]

3. If it's on the form, I fill it in

And I have had jobs that wanted a drivers license copy as well, so it is on there.

Honestly I put it because I have learned that, as I described above, it helps me. I could take a principled stand and leave it blank, but I'll take any advantage I can find when I am needing a job.

[merrily]

4. I have never seen it on a job application; and it's not on my driver's license.

But, if you feel it helps you, go for it. Affirmative action is supposed to help (a little) level the playing field. There is nothing unprincipled about a somewhat more level playing field.

I never give my race, even to a survey. I don't trust the question or the motives of anyone who asks it, but that's just me.

[Lee-Lee]

7. The claim is they get it for "statistical purposes"

So they can show they hire in proportion to the number of minorities that apply.

Maybe in large corporations that is true and HR doesn't pass that on to decision makers, but at smaller places the same paper goes right to the interview.

[merrily]

10. You should have heard me trying to get out of giving my race during a phone survey.

"What race are you?"

"I have no idea." (Actually that's party true. Long story though.)

"Well, what race do other people identify you as?"

"I have no idea."

We must have gone on that way for quite a while.

Thing is, when I do mention what I am, people think I'm lying, another reason I don't mention it.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. All types are quite real.

My partner, though white, has been passed over for promotion because he "doesn't have a family to support," as if I am chopped liver. He once was promised a position, then didn't get it. A few years later, we found out why: because he is gay. But, it worked out because he found a stable job and that company went belly up.

[merrily]

5. Women of all orientations were given that excuse forever, even when they were single moms or

the sole support of other relatives.

I knew a woman who was supporting her divorced (or widowed--I've forgotten which) sister and her sister's child. She was given the excuse that she did not have a family to support. She responded by citing her sister and nephew, but it didn't matter. The real reason was that she wasn't a male. For that matter, single men got more money than she did.

It wasn't as though they asked anyone how many people they were supporting before they figured raises. They just gave the men more, period.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Lily Tomlin in "9 to 5"

The point is gays face the specter of heterosexual privilege.

[merrily]

8. I agree. As you said, though, there are all kinds of privilege.

Working women of all orientations faced male privilege and probably still do, though it's more underground now that it's illegal.

As an aside, my opinion is that bias against women and bias against male gays are closely connected.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. "though it's more underground now "

I think that is true of many things, including racism, which is why some here are having such a difficult time wrapping their minds around it. It is also more underground not just because of legality, but social pressure. The problem is being 'underground' it makes those in the affected community look "whiny" or "paranoid" when we point out the disparities.

I too think there is some commonality in bias against women and gay men, but not always. Though, most days, I don't think it much matters because the effects are still the same.

[merrily]

11. No, not always--and not in the same ways.

The original privileged group, once Europeans began settling, was hetero WASP males.

No one moved out of the neighborhood when women moved in. No one preached from the pulpit that women were an abomination to God. Yet, women certainly suffered a lot, both in the workplace and out of the workplace.

Not exactly like African Americans or First Americans or other racial minorities suffered. Not exactly like religious minorities suffered. Not exactly like gays suffered. But, each group that was not in heterosexual WASP male group suffered in its way and many still do.

One commonality that I see between bias against male gays and bias against women is that both are mocked and/or discriminated against for supposedly being feminine. Then again, lesbians are mocked and/or discriminated against for being too masculine. So, maybe the only bottom line is that none of the above are hetero WASP males.

I also think poverty and lack of education are issues, even among hetero WASP males. I guess there's just a lot of bigotry out there.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Yes, there is quite a bit of bigotry out there.

Sometimes it seems as if groups are competing with one another, when all that does is tear both (all) groups down and makes it easier for the dominant groups to keep us down.

[merrily]

15. Agree. I am totally out of patience with the competition.

And "divide and conquer" is the best strategy for dominant groups.

It's amazing to me that people don't get that.

[merrily]

12. P.S. I don't believe that anyone who has ever been discriminated against for any reason that

he or she cannot change really has a hard time wrapping his or her mind around the privilege issue.

I think it may simply be more convenient for some to deny it exists.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Well, denial can be a strong thing in some.

I have seen some who have been discriminated against in other areas who just can't seem to think that certain privileges exist or that other groups suffered they way they do/did. I would think it would be easy to understand the complexities of character and identity, as most of us have multiple identities and aren't simply "one thing or another."

[merrily]

16. As stated, not everyone suffered historically in the same way or to the same degree.

But, once you've stated that, how useful is it to keep picking at those scabs? The goal is to stop the suffering for everyone.

That's why I don't even like to say "equal marriage rights." Because, in 2014, that makes it seem like it's about gays. Equal rights for everyone, period. Every inequality diminishes all of us.

ETA: By the same token, allowing your own suffering to blind you to the suffering of others is probably not good--or politically expedient.