Clearly you're not even approaching this with a mind towards reality or what the term actually means. Privilege isn't intended to be taken personally, but it remains a fact. It doesn't mean your opinion is invalid. Have you ever read this?
A lot of what is mentioned in that article is outdated but I will grant that non-whites still have some disadvantages in American and other Western societies. The thing is most people have disadvantages of one sort or another. For example, I am learning disabled which caused me great difficulties as a child; as an adult, I have mostly learned to compensate for it but there are times when I face difficulties most people wouldn't. But "privilege" in the "Social Justice" sense creates a false dichotomy between "privileged" and "oppressed" where the "oppressed" are allowed to be as annoying and obnoxious, and as whiny about demanding accommodations as they want, while the "privileged" are just supposed to shut up and listen. Note accommodations are not always wrong or unreasonable, but they can be, and even when they are not the rights of those who make the accommodations should still be considered. This is especially true since, most of the so-called "privileged oppressors" are disadvantaged in their own way, or in leftspeak, "oppressed along a different axis." I know this is supposedly covered by "intersectionality" but in practice all that usually amounts to is Oppression Olympics. Is a straight, black man in a wheelchair oppressed enough to tell a white lesbian to stop whining and playing P.C. police or vice-verse? What is more along sexual lines the privileged vs. oppressed concept becomes especially muddled since, while there is a case to be made for male privilege, there is a similar case that can be made for female privilege: http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/2011/05/female-privilege-... Of course, there's the now-cliched reply "That's not female privilege that's benevolent sexism." This is based on the idea that men make the rules and give women special protection because they are seen as weak. This ignores the fact that "men" as a whole do not make the rules. Many of them have evolved over time as norms that both sexes accepted and the ones that were intentional were made by elites. Elites are mostly men, but most men are not members of the elite. And there are some women among the elite (and have been in many times and places throughout history, even if not all). These can often include wives and lovers of powerful men who share in many of the benefits of such men while often enjoying few of the risks. Aside from that whether it is "privilege" or "benevolent sexism" the results for most men and most women are the same. TL/DR We all face obstacles. I'm willing to help you overcome yours, if you're willing to help me with mine, but I don't have time for people who whine about how I'm "oppressing" them with my "privilege".
For what it's worth ,the article I linked is basically Ground 0 for all privlege arguments. It is impossible to talk about privilege without indirectly talking about this article and what this article established. It is a great starting point if you want to learn about what people actually mean when they are being sane and talking about privilege. I hope you find something in it that gives you a better understanding of what the term actually attempts to define.
That's the hard part for me, distinguishing between people with a valid point and radicals, they use a lot of the same vocabulary. And I've read the article, and it's going to take me a while to appropriately digest it. One point that I still haven't had addressed in any substantial way is the topic of Individual Agency. It seems to me like in the effort to not offend anyone and 'include' everyone, and speaking in generalities, statistics and history, we ignore the idea of self-determination. If a person WANTS to make a CHOICE, even if you don't think their choice is progressive or even healthy, don't you have to let them self-determinate? To use the most stereotypical example I can think of at the moment, why is one allowed to tell the girl who wants to design clothing that she is wrong for wanting that because it enforces THE PATRIARCHY and she should force herself into STEM fields because it's the 'progressive' thing to do, when what she wants to do is design clothes? Is it possible that instead of 'breaking down' things, we can, as a society encourage growth in areas where we desire it instead? To put an adage to it, "The grass is greenest where you water it most."being sane and talking about privilege
being sane
the radicals are the ones with the valid points.
Answer: one isn't. This is as anti-feminist as not allowing girls into STEM fields. Unfortuntately, some splinter groups of "feminism" say these things. However, feminism and other equal rights movements are about giving girls the choice to do whatever it is they want, not "anything that advances women in various fields."why is one allowed to tell the girl who wants to design clothing that she is wrong for wanting that because it enforces THE PATRIARCHY and she should force herself into STEM fields because it's the 'progressive' thing to do, when what she wants to do is design clothes?
Gotcha. So, moving forward then, how do we address issues of gender inequality (and by extension general minority) in professional settings in a mature manner that doesn't disregard history, but also doesn't use it as an excuse to bully, exact revenge, or create new artificial 'majority' positions? Edit* to include a more on topic question. Since we agree no one person is 'at fault' for the current lack of women involved in BTC, whose responsibility is it to promote more even representation? Where are these women to come from who would be interested and invested in such a thing?
The thing is, we don't know the difference between women and minorities who don't get involved in a certain field (using "field" loosely to include bitcoin) as opposed to those who have been discouraged from that field via societal pressures or even direct discrimination. It is mentioned elsewhere in this thread that it has been shown that job/class candidates with equal grades, degrees, and schools, but different genders, have different acceptance ratios. We are assuming that Bitcoin probably holds true to this standard as well. After all, there is no logical reason that women wouldn't be about as equally interested in Bitcoin. There is no such thing as a field that men are naturally drawn to vs. that women are naturally drawn to. I do not believe that women are naturally "nurterers" any more so than men, for instance; I do not believe that women are naturally drawn more to teaching or to teaching the youth, even though they tend to be overrepresented in lower education (but underrepresented in upper education, where, by the way, there is more associated prestige - hmmmmmm). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these women already exist in respect to Bitcoin, but for some reason or another have opted out of exploring their interest. So, whose responsibility is it to promose more even representation? Why, if it is society's fault, then it is society's responsiblity, which means in turn it is everyone's responsibility to promote more even representation. You do this by treating women and minorities as equals. Every day, every time you interact with them. You do this by respecting individuals of the LGBT spectrum; instead of asking men about their wife when you see a wedding band, ask about their "spouse." (That's just a very small example; it doesn't apply directly but I wanted to point out, it's not just women. It's not just the visible minorities. It's the LGBT crew too, and I mean every letter of that spectrum.) You do this by monitoring your thoughts as well as your actions and you do this realizing that you are not perfect and probably don't realize ways in which you may be discriminating (which the privilege article should help any reader realize) and looking for those and trying to stop those. You do it by speaking up when you hear other people discriminating in the workplace. Or when you see it. There are 2 women on my company's senior leadership panel or whatever they call themselves, and 6 men. All are white. I got an opportunity to talk one-on-one with one of the women and I told her I wanted to see more women. I told her I knew that this was as much a product of availability as anything else but I told her that as a woman, it would be more comforting to me to see a more equal distribution. And she told me she also wanted to see more diversity; more color, more LGBT people. I realize that in order for someone to get to senior leadership, they need to climb up the lower rungs first - I'm willing to do that. I know that it's nothing against the 6 men who got to those positions, that they may not be racist in any way at all, and she assured me that they were actually quite accepting of minorities and so on. I don't have a problem with all those old white men. I have a problem with the fact that the given standard for senior leadership is "old white man." I want to change that. I'm willing to do it myself. Blind interviews if you have to, if we're talking about jobs. Blind and non-vocal. Of course, that's not really possible. It should be a sad fact that it was no small comfort to me that when I got my first job, all my interviews were conducted over the phone, and not face-to-face. I repeatedly turned to this fact as reassurance that I had indeed earned my position, inasmuch as I could. I'm not a Person of Color (PoC) but I do know we judge people based on their appearance, especially women. I was glad to know it wasn't a factor with me.
Blind and non-vocal is exactly how it works with bitcoin. In the vast majority of cases bitcoins are bought, sold, or used to buy and sell products buy people who have no idea of each other's race, sex, or other superficial characteristics. Anyone claiming discrimination in the bitcoin world is just wallowing in their own sense of victimhood, or trying to promote the idea of victimhood for others in order to be a white knight, like the author of the blog originally linked to.Blind interviews if you have to, if we're talking about jobs. Blind and non-vocal
Oh, is that right ? Again, remember we're talking about people who show up in the Bitcoin culture - the original article is also about a Bitcoin meet-up/social gathering of some sort.
I did overgeneralize. I may have been overly blunt in the way I stated my case too. I'm sure there are cases, in face to face Bitcoin meetups of women and others who don't fit the typical "tech geek" mold being not treated properly. The post you linked to seems to be an example of that and she may have some legitimate complaints, but by her own admission she experienced some minor discomfort not life-shattering trauma. She has not let it keep her away from future Bitcoin meetups and urges other women not to let it keep them away either. My point was that it is possible to succeed in the Bitcoin world without ever going to a meetup, in fact hardly ever leaving your home (not that I'd recommend that). So the culture of the meet ups is really only slightly relevant, especially since any splinter group that wants to could organize their own.