Stop asking me to "check my privilege"

If you spend much time on the internet, you may have noticed the quip “check your privilege” and its recent use ad nauseum. In fact, when I type “check your” into google, the top response is indeed “privilege”, above both “internet speed” and “credit rating”, which is probably saying something.

For those who don’t know, “check your privilege” is a retort used by young people in an illogical attempt to undermine an argument. It’s the latest version of “first world problems”, in which people try to claim that you are wrong about whatever you are discussing, simply because you live in the first world.

I joke (or do I?). The phrase originates from a desire to remind people that their complaints and judgments come from the perspective of their “privilege” in the world.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s always important to remember that depending on your wealth, gender, race, sexuality and religion, you may experience privilege or be unprivileged. But I am so sick and tired of hearing that phrase as a be-all-end-all to a discussion. The fact that you requested that I “check my privilege” does not, ipso facto, make you right. In fact, the fact that you’re resorting to such an empty request probably suggests you have nothing left to put forward in this argument.

I recently had a very strange experience in a restaurant with friends and acquaintances, where a man yelled (yes, yelled) at me when I mentioned that I was a vegetarian. I thought I had experienced every kind of argument and alienation there was to experience in this lifestyle, but boy was I wrong. This guy wouldn’t let me get a word in, but rather insisted that I was “naïve, stupid and privileged” and the fact that I “knew nothing about poverty” meant my judgments on food choices were plain wrong. He even went so far as to say that I was “deeply offending” people in poverty by being vegetarian because of my privilege.

I wish I were joking about this.

His abusive ad hominem and complete disregard for giving others the chance to speak prompted me and a few other people to walk out of the restaurant, and as I walked home, I realised that we had made the right choice. Some people are beyond reason, especially those who resort to personal attacks, completely disregard polite responses, and those who seem to think that your logic is unfounded due to your “privilege”.

So, in the spirit of things, I decided to compile a list of why I believe you shouldn’t use the gibe “check your privilege”:

1.    It doesn’t make you right

This point needs very little explanation. When that aforementioned arsehole told me that my views on meat eating were wrong because I was privileged, he argued a logical fallacy. Whether or not the consumption of meat contributes to climate change and global poverty or not is a question wholly unconcerned with my personal privilege. When somebody queries whether or not animal suffering is a bad thing to be avoided does not relate to the asker at all. 

Of course, having the privilege to decide whether or not to eat meat is another question. There are many people in the world who, due to their financial circumstances, have no opportunity to make such choices; rather, they eat what they can.

However, to suggest that wealthy people should have the same mindset of poor people would be akin to suggesting that wealthy nations should not care about climate change because poorer nations cannot afford to care. It is not only illogical, it is insulting to the impoverished, who are more likely to be affected by global warming (and similarly, meat consumption).

Pointing out someone’s privilege does nothing to forward your own points, so don’t do it.

2.    It’s a “personal insult posing as social critique”

Phoebe Bovy argued in her article in The Atlantic that “to call someone “privileged” is to say that his or her successes are undeserved. It’s a personal insult posing as social critique”.

I believe she has a good point. She points out that recently, Barack Obama’s upbringing was described as “privileged” in an attempt to undermine his hard work and dedication, and that Lena Dunham (the writer and main star of the TV show “Girls”) has been intensely criticised for being privileged.

If you would like to make a point about Obama’s policies, make a point about his policies. If you don’t like Lena Dunham, that’s fine by me. But to claim that the work of those people is somehow less good because of the individuals’ privilege is an insult to their work masquerading as an intelligent idea.

Which brings me to my next point…

3.    You are doing more harm than good

When you scream that Lena Dunham is “privileged”, you undermine the power and importance of her TV show. When you use “privilege” as a get-out-of-jail-free pass on your shitty arguments, you are detracting from the real and important questions at hand.

But, more importantly, when you overuse the “privilege” conversation, you are holding back real discussion about privilege. By “checking your privilege”, or being self-depreciating about your own privilege, you are doing nothing to actually change the problems associated with privilege. Instead, you may become even more conceited because you now appear grateful and self-aware.

Be aware of your blessings, yes, and use those blessings to assist others who are not so fortunate. But don’t pretend to be holier-than-thou when you insist that someone else is privileged, because what have you actually done? Nothing.

4.    It makes you look stupid

When you attempt to win an argument by using this phrase, you are fooling nobody but fools. Unless it’s a debate titled “is this person privileged?”, pointing out that someone is privileged will do nothing.

Try logic instead, you might find it works better.

5.    You are treading on thin ice

When you ask someone to “check their privilege”, you have made a judgment that they are, in fact, privileged. Take a moment to ask yourself what are you basing that judgment on. Is it the brand of clothing they wear? Where they live? The color of their skin? Their sex, or gender?

In reality, you probably have little to no understanding of what kind of background most people have. Perhaps this person is struggling with their own gender or sexual identity, perhaps they come from a background of poverty, or sexual abuse, or perhaps they suffer a learning or other disability.

While it’s important to remain self-aware, avoid telling others to “check their privilege”, as you might find yourself deeply embarrassed.

If someone asks you to check your privilege, my advice would be to respond with a polite “okay, I will keep that in mind, thanks. Now back to the actual discussion…”

And on that note, I think I’ve written the word “privilege” enough to last a lifetime. Or have I? Privilege. Privilege. Privilege. Okay, that’s enough.

“Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes responsibility” – Peter Drucker

the reckless philosopher

Is the word “actress” sexist?

If you have spoken to any female actors recently, you may have noticed that many of them insist on being called “actors”, rather than “actresses”. This phenomenon is not limited to just those who act; indeed people from all walks of life have dropped - or seek to drop - the feminine versions of job titles.

Good examples are “comedienne” instead of “comedian”, or “poetess” instead of “poet”. Other job titles have moved - or are moving - towards gender-neutral titles; for example, “flight attendant” is now favoured over “steward” and “stewardess”.

It is important to realise the distinction between the two examples, because I believe that a gender-neutral title is ideal, whereas simply adopting the masculine version is arguably sexist in itself. Allow me to explain.

Why go gender-neutral?

The question really should be, why bother indicating gender at all? Gender is not binary. There are many people who consider themselves male, or female, and many who consider themselves neither, or both! When it comes to your job, your gender should (almost) never even be relevant, so why bother stipulating it in the title?

A doctor is simply a doctor, a nurse is simply a nurse, and unless there is a particular reason, it is both unnecessary and potentially troublesome to specify whether someone is a “lady doctor” or a “male nurse”. 

So what’s the problem?

However, problems arise where no gender-neutral title exists. In the past, we had “poets” who were men, and “poetesses” who were women. Over time, the phrase “poetess” fell out of favour, and now one who writes poetry would simply be called a poet.

Personally, I find this fact very troubling. The simple fact that the male version is taken preferentially over the female version represents the inherent patriarchal nature of our society. In essence, I find it offensive that it is offensive to be called a female!

But let’s look at this from a different perspective: perhaps the “male” version is not male at all. Perhaps “actor” IS in fact the neutral version: simply one who acts. Indeed, Wikipedia tells me that the suffix “–man” simply meant “person” in Old English. Whether this is true? Who knows!

However, you can’t argue that “man” holds the same neutrality today. So perhaps the “masculine” version of words is both masculine and neutral, because historically speaking it has become one and the same. Just as is the case with a poet, the male-version has slowly become the neutral version, as may eventually happen with “actor”.

Concluding thoughts

Overall, this is a complicated question. It seems clear that gender-neutral titles should always be preferred over the gendered titles. Get rid of words like “policeman” and “policewoman”, or “chairman”, and instead use “chairperson” and “police officer”.

However, where no gender-neutral title exists, perhaps we should adopt the male title, because the word might (as has been the case in the past) eventually become gender-neutral. In which case, let’s toss out words like “actress”.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, this is already happening. If you look at the screen actors’ guild awards (depressingly shortened to ‘SAG’ – does anyone else find this to be an unfortunate abbreviation?), they give out awards for “best male actor” and “best female actor”. But this raises another question: why bother separating genders at all? Why not just have “best actor”? And on that note, why do we bother separating genders in any way? Heck, why do we even have men’s and women’s clothing departments in shops? Why do we even have gender-separated public bathrooms?

But unfortunately, my dear friends, I don’t have the time to open up that little can of worms. That conversation will be saved for another day.

“My Mum’s always encouraged me and never made my gender an issue, I guess. She brought me up to believe in equality, as opposed to feminism or sexism – so it just meant that my gender was not relevant to what I was capable of achieving.” – Paloma Faith (ironically labeled as an “actress” on Wikipedia)

the reckless philosopher