ASPartOfMe wrote:
The expansion of the definition of privilege that says you are automatically privileged because you are "born this way" was a mistake.
Being born white or a man or cisgender decreases your odds of being stereotyped and discriminated against, it does not guarantee this won't happen to you or will happen less. This definition looks at the problem ass-backward. It is not a privilege to be not discriminated against, that is how it is supposed to be. The problem is discrimination is more likely against minorities
True.
But it's about the society we live in at the moment. How we navigate it. Probably hard for some autistic people to understand because it's about social roles.
We need to get to a point where it doesn't matter who's privileged or not.
I think I only have white privilege when I'm in parts of England (my own experience living various places). But 50 years ago I wouldn't have had it there. So things can improve. My dad's family got treated bad and esp bad in the 70s and 80s so it can get worse as well as better. (you know that thing where Arabs are assumed to be terrorists? That hasn't always been Arabs treated that way in the UK)
I hate how global it is spoken about because of the internet. How automatic it is spoken about. That's not true, people live in specific societies around the world. Pale skin doesn't create white privilege, a society which preferences everyone with pale skin does. A society where 'what school did you go to' is a controversial question or where they judge you for your surname starting with 'o' or ending with 'stein' doesn't have universal white privilege. There is also colourism in the black community.
It was 30 years ago yesterday Rangers signed their very first Catholic player since the 1920s, they got away with that because it was common practice not to hire Catholics in the mid 20th century because they were assumed to be of Irish or Italian or Polish descent.
_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him