Definition of privilege

[LDAHL]

Off the top of my head I think religious privilege should be taken away. Hobby lobby shouldn't be allowed to ignore health care requirements for the women working for them. They are conducting business in the US. Benefiting from everything doing business in the US brings. They are not a church. No religious privilege for them. Same for pharmacist. They shouldn't be allowed to refuse to fill a birth control script just because they don't believe in it. Or the Kim Davis types. She should have been fired for refusing to do her job.
And any hospital receiving any public money shouldn't be allowed to refuse to properly treat based on their beliefs. Again, women who need a D&C or abortion to save their life.
*Do any of you notice how most religious privilege centers around subjugating and discriminating against women. It's always about controlling women and their bodies and behavior.

Another example of privilege (as defined by "As go I so goes the world" ) are the people who think that because there may be plenty of jobs/opportunity in their little corner of the world, this is true everywhere. This type of person, when told that certain jobs are hard to come by, glibbly replies, "Well, there are lots of these jobs here", or 'why don't they simply retrain/go back to college/move/whatever'. This same type often says the person in the not so great job should simply 'get a better job'.

Privilege says there is NO problem with states closing polling places/license offices/early voting/draconian voter ID in certain places. These people, OF COURSE, can simply drive to the polling place, get the required ID, or take off work to vote. And the college students can SIMPLY return to their home state to vote.

These are just a couple of examples i can think of right now. there are many many more out there. But of course 'Privilege' will deny them all because, well, privilege.

You've provided a list of people you dislike, but how would you proceed to extirpate their "privilege" in practical terms?

[Zoe Girl]

I think one thing that has attracted a lot more attention recently is the voting laws and new restrictions. I am happy to see that many judges are starting to say that the restrictions that are designed to combat 'voter fraud' are trying to solve a non-existent problem and therefore are striking them down. For example asking for certain documentation from Native Americans can exclude them from voting when they may not have the birth certificate or the reservation does not have the kind of address that meets the standards. Also saying that it is 'easy' to get an ID has been shown untrue for some groups. The locations to get an ID are not in every neighborhood accessible by bus. It is like a food desert, it is considered a food desert if you cannot get to a full grocery store with produce in under a mile or one bus ride. I think that is reasonable standard to be able to get an ID or vote as well.

The word 'just' is an indicator for me. When people say 'just' do something that tells me it is easy for them, they do not have a significant barrier. However they may not be aware of a barrier for another person. We can't know all the ways that something can be a barrier so I look for the times I am frustrated and want to say 'just do X' as a time I need to possibly learn more. I had staff this summer that I had to learn more about what their barriers may be. Meanwhile with my oldest daughter I get very frustrated because all the barriers she is erecting for herself are not ones she needs to have with the family support system around her. Meanwhile I know how maddening it was to hear 'just do X' from people who felt my life situation was excuses and not reasons.

[peggy]

You've provided a list of people you dislike, but how would you proceed to extirpate their "privilege" in practical terms?

Really? LOL How so? You asked for examples of 'privilege' and how they should be fixed. I told you. How about we just keep it real simple. No religious privilege. Tax the churches and don't allow businesses to enjoy special privilege in interpreting their responsibility to US workers in the US. Or, as in the case of that gov employee, decide which of her duties she would perform. In fact, don't let any business redefine US laws according to their personal beliefs. I may believe pot should be legal but that doesn't mean my employees can light a joint at work. I can also believe green eyed men shouldn't be paid anything over a dollar an hour, but I can't go to court to force that. And I'm guessing the courts wouldn't allow Jehovah Witness bosses to deny blood transfusions to their workers.

Hey, while we are on the subject of privilege, how about that 'rich oil company privilege' we seem to be granting that company who wishes to seize Native lands for their pipeline? Or the Koch Bros. privilege for their pipeline?

Want to see privilege in action? Just follow the golden rule. (He who has the gold, rules)

The golden rule kind of applies in these red states who are desperate to rig the election by draconian voter rules and gerrymandering. In these states, the privilege goes to the republicans.

[Alan]

Really? LOL How so? You asked for examples of 'privilege' and how they should be fixed. I told you. How about we just keep it real simple. No religious privilege. Tax the churches and don't allow businesses to enjoy special privilege in interpreting their responsibility to US workers in the US. Or, as in the case of that gov employee, decide which of her duties she would perform. In fact, don't let any business redefine US laws according to their personal beliefs. I may believe pot should be legal but that doesn't mean my employees can light a joint at work. I can also believe green eyed men shouldn't be paid anything over a dollar an hour, but I can't go to court to force that. And I'm guessing the courts wouldn't allow Jehovah Witness bosses to deny blood transfusions to their workers.

Hey, while we are on the subject of privilege, how about that 'rich oil company privilege' we seem to be granting that company who wishes to seize Native lands for their pipeline? Or the Koch Bros. privilege for their pipeline?

Want to see privilege in action? Just follow the golden rule. (He who has the gold, rules)

The golden rule kind of applies in these red states who are desperate to rig the election by draconian voter rules and gerrymandering. In these states, the privilege goes to the republicans.

Damned Republicans!

[LDAHL]

Really? LOL How so? You asked for examples of 'privilege' and how they should be fixed. I told you. How about we just keep it real simple. No religious privilege. Tax the churches and don't allow businesses to enjoy special privilege in interpreting their responsibility to US workers in the US. Or, as in the case of that gov employee, decide which of her duties she would perform. In fact, don't let any business redefine US laws according to their personal beliefs. I may believe pot should be legal but that doesn't mean my employees can light a joint at work. I can also believe green eyed men shouldn't be paid anything over a dollar an hour, but I can't go to court to force that. And I'm guessing the courts wouldn't allow Jehovah Witness bosses to deny blood transfusions to their workers.

Hey, while we are on the subject of privilege, how about that 'rich oil company privilege' we seem to be granting that company who wishes to seize Native lands for their pipeline? Or the Koch Bros. privilege for their pipeline?

Want to see privilege in action? Just follow the golden rule. (He who has the gold, rules)

The golden rule kind of applies in these red states who are desperate to rig the election by draconian voter rules and gerrymandering. In these states, the privilege goes to the republicans.

I agree with you that someone who takes a job as a municipal clerk should either administer the law as written or resign.

It's less clear to me that a Catholic institution, for instance, should be compelled to participate in practices it finds morally abhorrent at the whim of the political class. As government intrudes into more areas that were formally the preserve of private choice, we will see more conflicts like this. I don't see a Henry VIII style Act of Supremacy working well in the long run. You can try using the IRS to save America from the scourge of private charity and try to characterize the exercise of personal conscience a "privilege" (which I suppose, to an extent, it is). I think the result would be a sort of vapid statist monoculture.

[peggy]

I agree with you that someone who takes a job as a municipal clerk should either administer the law as written or resign.

It's less clear to me that a Catholic institution, for instance, should be compelled to participate in practices it finds morally abhorrent at the whim of the political class. As government intrudes into more areas that were formally the preserve of private choice, we will see more conflicts like this. I don't see a Henry VIII style Act of Supremacy working well in the long run. You can try using the IRS to save America from the scourge of private charity and try to characterize the exercise of personal conscience a "privilege" (which I suppose, to an extent, it is). I think the result would be a sort of vapid statist monoculture.

See here's where a lot of people have a problem. When you call it 'private choice' and 'personal conscience', it makes it sound so clean and wholesomely American. Who could possibly disagree with that? But what if my 'private choice' is to tell all black people to sit in the back of the bus, or my 'personal conscience' tells me to not serve Hispanics in my diner, or rent to them? My personal conscience says pregnant women shouldn't drink coffee so I'm not serving coffee to any pregnant people who come into that diner. And forget serving women who wear a hijab cause of my personal beliefs about that.
'Private choice' and 'personal conscience' are really just code words for being a d*ck, which is how most of those who enjoy, and/or expect special privilege appear to the rest of us. There will always be those who enjoy and expect special privilege (the Kim Davis types, or that woman who interviewed for the job bare headed then expected her employer to bend the dress code for her head scarf). I think they are just suddenly surprised that we are recognizing it and calling them out on it.

Now I don't have a single problem with charities. They have to file forms to be tax exempt, along with making their books 'open' so to speak. Churches do not. Churches are NOT the same as charities. I believe we should tax churches. (Gee, that money could go to, you know, feeding the poor and helping the indigent. Kind of what churches say they want to do, after all) But, individual churches could file for non profit status if in fact they do all that good doing. I don't mean the headquarters covering everyone, but individual churches. Then that small country church which really is helping their community would be covered.

[peggy]

Damned Republicans!

You're right about that Alan! Cause, you know, it isn't democrats/liberals who are trying to make it harder and harder to vote. We want everyone to vote. Everyone, even republicans. See, we are even angered by the republicans making it harder for older people to vote, and they vote overwhelmingly republican! (it must be the dementia)

[Zoe Girl]

'Private choice' and 'personal conscience' are really just code words for being a d*ck, which is how most of those who enjoy, and/or expect special privilege appear to the rest of us. There will always be those who enjoy and expect special privilege (the Kim Davis types, or that woman who interviewed for the job bare headed then expected her employer to bend the dress code for her head scarf). I think they are just suddenly surprised that we are recognizing it and calling them out on it.

Thank you, a lot of PC language is just not being an a**. I am tired of putting that disclaimer that some people appear to go too far, the vast majority are just trying to be nice!

[LDAHL]

Well, this conversation has certainly descended below the belt.

[Gardenarian]

I'm rather admiring the French who are saying NO to burkinis, and insisting that if you want to be French, you have to adapt to French culture.

In may sound oppressive to Americans, but it may help prevent the ghetto-ization of immigrants and, in the long run, create more equality for everyone.

No accommodation for race or religion (including Christianity - no crosses or other religious objects allowed in school.)

I don't think we could have that kind of homogeneity in the U.S., and it would probably be pretty ugly if we did (as well as unconstitutional.) But France does have a unique culture and language, and they want to keep it that way.

(I'm aware of the prejudice against Algerians there, and I'm not saying it's utopia - just a different way of dealing with "otherness.")