Privilege comic...

[Ausmumof3]

http://www.vagabomb.com/This-Comic-Will-Forever-Change-the-Way-You-Look-at-Privilege/

 

Thought this was quite good...

[bettyandbob]

Perfect

[fdrinca]

For over a decade, I have wanted to make a video game (like The Sims, maybe, I've never played it), in which users are assigned at random to a condition at birth and are then left to make their limited life choices. I became frustrated with my college students' misplaced ire for *anyone* poor and struggling. I'd hoped that I could change their perspective a bit by showing how limiting initial conditions are, and how the American Dream mythology isn't a methodology for success.

[Junie]

For over a decade, I have wanted to make a video game (like The Sims, maybe, I've never played it), in which users are assigned at random to a condition at birth and are then left to make their limited life choices. I became frustrated with my college students' misplaced ire for *anyone* poor and struggling. I'd hoped that I could change their perspective a bit by showing how limiting initial conditions are, and how the American Dream mythology isn't a methodology for success.

 

Thank you for the idea!  I have no idea how to make a video game, but my kids have the Life board game.  It wouldn't be very hard to change it up a bit to incorporate your ideas.  I could make up extra cards that would be drawn randomly by each player.

 

For instance,

 

Mentally Handicapped -- not eligible to go to college, not eligible to own a home, not eligible for jobs x, y, z

 

Cards could also be made for women, African-Americans, non-English speakers.

 

It could be an interesting way to teach kids about privilege.

[Ausmumof3]

I absolutely love the game idea... I wonder what it would take to make it happen...

[Vida Winter]

Sorry, not buying it. The "privilege" game that is being played out is no-win and insulting to those who started off with nearly nothing and turned that into success. One only needs to look to the achievements of Asian and Jewish immigrants. In a different cartoon, Paula could have been portrayed as a quick-witted smart young woman who achieved success through hard work and Richard surely could have been less of an ass - but that would not have fit the narrative.

[Anne in CA]

There is a lot of truth in the comic, but of course there are exceptions and variables. One variable is likability. Someone who is a likable child will get help in school and later college that an ordinary economically disadvantaged child would not get and a wealthy unlikable kid is not likely to to too far after college. Although difficult people do become important quite often.

[fdrinca]

So there is no value to the long-term consequence of poor nutrition due to food insecurity,environmental toxins like lead paint and urban pollution, financial insecurity due to health care bills?

 

One could say that ignoring privilege is insulting to those who live without it. Sure, the author could have written Paula as a sharp kid. There are thousands of poor, sharp, hard workers who can't overcome huge obstacles in their lives.

 

It is not simply a matter of hard work. Luck, familial support, and hard work come together to construct this picture of "privilege."

[Tanaqui]

The "privilege" game that is being played out is no-win and insulting to those who started off with nearly nothing and turned that into success.

 

They're a minority. Like, a 1% minority. This is something only a few have been able to do. It's not a "game" to point out that there are few opportunities for advancement from poverty. And I don't see how it can possibly be construed as insulting either to anybody without an agenda.

 

One only needs to look to the achievements of Asian and Jewish immigrants.

 

Yes, because of course every single Asian or Jewish immigrant family has become successful in three generations! Why did I not see this before! It's not like many Asians and Jews are still struggling. Except, of course, it is exactly like that.

 

[bolt.]

I'm not trying to deminish the reality of privilidge, but there are some implications of the comic that I want to use my critical thinking skills on.

 

1. Why is Paula's house "damp" -- is this a particular kind of poverty housing, or a location, that is being implied? Is there information in there? I live in s very dry climate, so I don't think that I'm getting the implication. I don't think our local low income housing is damp.

 

2. Why is Paula "often sick" while she is little? And her dad: why is he sick later? Is there a documented connection between poverty and illness? If so, it something that is connected to for-cost healthcare systems (not getting medical attention if you can't pay) or is it widespread?

 

3. I understand that neighbourhoods can be poor or not, and so schools in poor locations would tend to have poor kids. This puts the school and teachers into a position of needing to offer some degree of social work: therefore overworking them and emotionally draining them... But... Why are they cast as being worse teachers on the whole?

 

4. Why is Paula's home "full of people" when she is young, but she is unsupervised as a school child? If her parents (and the other "people"?) are devoted to her wellbeing, where are the grans and uncles and big cousins in this story?

 

5. While family connections can get someone an interview or an enyry opportunity, I think very few people get real oyster-eating careers *directly* from an assisted launch like that. I'm sure uni helps him be competent and qualified, but I think casting him as an arrogant slouch trading on nepotism alone is a bit too far.

 

6. I don't know that Paula should be ashamed or angry to work in food service. We need all sorts of people, and the idea that good service (or similar jobs) are inherently humiliating is buying a myth. A solid living and a happy family is just fine: we don't all need to be oyster-eating-successful with big money. Making mine is not the definition of making something of yourself.

[catz]

I'm not trying to deminish the reality of privilidge, but there are some implications of the comic that I want to use my critical thinking skills on.

 

1. Why is Paula's house "damp" -- is this a particular kind of poverty housing, or a location, that is being implied? Is there information in there? I live in s very dry climate, so I don't think that I'm getting the implication. I don't think our local low income housing is damp.

 

2. Why is Paula "often sick" while she is little? And her dad: why is he sick later? Is there a documented connection between poverty and illness? If so, it something that is connected to for-cost healthcare systems (not getting medical attention if you can't pay) or is it widespread?

 

3. I understand that neighbourhoods can be poor or not, and so schools in poor locations would tend to have poor kids. This puts the school and teachers into a position of needing to offer some degree of social work: therefore overworking them and emotionally draining them... But... Why are they cast as being worse teachers on the whole?

 

4. Why is Paula's home "full of people" when she is young, but she is unsupervised as a school child? If her parents (and the other "people"?) are devoted to her wellbeing, where are the grans and uncles and big cousins in this story?

 

5. While family connections can get someone an interview or an enyry opportunity, I think very few people get real oyster-eating careers *directly* from an assisted launch like that. I'm sure uni helps him be competent and qualified, but I think casting him as an arrogant slouch trading on nepotism alone is a bit too far.

 

6. I don't know that Paula should be ashamed or angry to work in food service. We need all sorts of people, and the idea that good service (or similar jobs) are inherently humiliating is buying a myth. A solid living and a happy family is just fine: we don't all need to be oyster-eating-successful with big money. Making mine is not the definition of making something of yourself.

I really don't want to defend this comic.  I do think it's an interesting discussion point, but the comic is not a perfect example of course.  I agree with some of your points.  Working in food service is not anything to be ashamed of, though I wish blue collar work was earning more of a living wage.  And I could see how work like that could be frustrating to someone with a college education. 

 

I think the moisture in the house is just an example.  A kid exposed to mold might be more likely to have asthma.  Moist houses are an issue in the upper mid-west.  Another low income house might have rodents, roaches, etc.  And some low income housing might be perfectly fine.  And some kids might just be more likely to have asthma living in high pollution areas. 

 

There is most definitely a longevity gap

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/business/income-gap-meet-the-longevity-gap.html?_r=0

 

And I think there is LOTS of job referrals that are received due to knowing someone.  I saw it ALL the time when I was working professionally.  My husband still sees it all the time.  The majority of summer interns at his company are the kids of employees.  Even just attending the same college program of an employer can be an in.  I actually don't blame employers a whole lot for this.  If you're hiring a co-worker's college age kid, you can be pretty sure that kid is going to show up and you probably have more information about their background.  I just think this happens in subtle and not so subtle ways ALL the time in corporate America.  My last job I would not have gotten had I not had ties within the company.  Same for my DH.  Now my DH is a VP with a 6 figure salary in the same company along with a bunch of people he's known for years and years. 

 

My dad used to own his own business.  He hired word of mouth all.the.time.  I just see this daily in our highly educated/highly privileged area.  I've always thought working on networking and people skills should be more emphasized in school and college.

 

[maize]

Individual experience, opportunity, capability, effort, etc. are real variables that can change the outcome for any one individual--it is easy to point to people who started out disadvantaged and achieved great successes in life, equally easy to point to people who started out with every privilege and crashed and burned. Behind the anecdotes, however, are statistics that show that the vast majority of people starting out in poverty stay there. When other factors are controlled for and you compare only individuals with similar IQ, similar family structure, etc., the ones who start out underprivileged still mostly stay underprivileged, the ones who do well economically, socially, educationally, are those who come from families with economic, social, and educational privilege.

 

This does not mean any single individual is doomed. But it means that there are definite systemic issues at play and that the idea that most success is due to individual effort, and most failure is due to lack of effort, is not supportable.

[Harriet Vane]

I will do my best to answer off the top of my head. I lived in a poverty-stricken, minority, high-crime neighborhood for many years, so I speak from my observation.

 

I'm not trying to deminish the reality of privilidge, but there are some implications of the comic that I want to use my critical thinking skills on.

1. Why is Paula's house "damp" -- is this a particular kind of poverty housing, or a location, that is being implied? Is there information in there? I live in s very dry climate, so I don't think that I'm getting the implication. I don't think our local low income housing is damp.

Of course this depends on what region you live in. Dampness can be a real issue in almost any of the northern states, especially the Midwest or Pacific Northwest or northern east coast. It's just an example of sub-par housing for the poor. In my urban neighborhood, not only was dampness and mold an issue, so was asbestos exposure and other carcinogens in crumbling, old structures.

2. Why is Paula "often sick" while she is little? And her dad: why is he sick later? Is there a documented connection between poverty and illness? If so, it something that is connected to for-cost healthcare systems (not getting medical attention if you can't pay) or is it widespread?

Yes, there is definitely a link between poverty and illness, attributable to multiple causes. Poor housing conditions, inadequate protection against weather conditions, sub-par nutrition, the expense and difficulties of accessing appropriate medical care. Also, poor neighborhoods tend to have much higher risks for carcinogen exposures due to pollution, presence of factories, illegal dumping, etc.

3. I understand that neighbourhoods can be poor or not, and so schools in poor locations would tend to have poor kids. This puts the school and teachers into a position of needing to offer some degree of social work: therefore overworking them and emotionally draining them... But... Why are they cast as being worse teachers on the whole?

Because they are. That's not to say that each individual teacher is worse. On the contrary, there are often heroic, wonderful teachers fighting it out for the kids they love. They are, by and large, driven by a sense of purpose and they have chosen that environment. Those heroes are NOT the norm, however. Inner city schools are filled with teachers who cannot get a job in a better district. Competence is a real issue, and there is also the fact that many just give up when faced with the overwhelming needs of the population.

4. Why is Paula's home "full of people" when she is young, but she is unsupervised as a school child? If her parents (and the other "people"?) are devoted to her wellbeing, where are the grans and uncles and big cousins in this story?

Often those extended family connections are working. It's questionable whether or not those people are available for babysitting either due to work or because they do not want to babysit for free. I grew up quite poor, but my grandma and my aunt were the mainstay of my childhood. Even so, they had to work, so as of junior high and the high school years, I was often on my own.

5. While family connections can get someone an interview or an enyry opportunity, I think very few people get real oyster-eating careers *directly* from an assisted launch like that. I'm sure uni helps him be competent and qualified, but I think casting him as an arrogant slouch trading on nepotism alone is a bit too far.

6. I don't know that Paula should be ashamed or angry to work in food service. We need all sorts of people, and the idea that good service (or similar jobs) are inherently humiliating is buying a myth. A solid living and a happy family is just fine: we don't all need to be oyster-eating-successful with big money. Making mine is not the definition of making something of yourself.

I put myself in Paula's shoes, and I know how much despair I would feel at being in a food service job. It's not that the work isn't honorable. For me, there would be three factors. One is that it pays so little, with long hours. Another is the fact that, with a connective tissue disorder, a physical job like that would be sooooo painful over time. And finally, I am someone who adores reading and writing and researching. I was born to be an English teacher or editor. Working in food service would drain the very soul from me. When you have an intelligent mind and white-collar talents, a blue-collar job can feel like death. It works the other way around, too. A friend of mine worked in a high-powered office job for almost two decades, hating it, before finally quitting. His wife was tired of living with his stress and depression and was totally supportive of his quitting. He worked day labor for several months while he tried to figure out what to do with himself. He ended up working in a factory at half his former salary. He's not on the factory line doing repetitive work. He designs parts for some specific something-or-other. I don't understand it, but he keeps these thingies he makes at the factory in a display case in his home. He's much, much happier in a blue collar job. I give the example just to provide balance to Paula's story. The bottom line is that poor people do not have the same array of choices, and this can lead to chronic under-employment (which then sucks the life and soul away).

 

[hornblower]

 

2. Why is Paula "often sick" while she is little? And her dad: why is he sick later? Is there a documented connection between poverty and illness? If so, it something that is connected to for-cost healthcare systems (not getting medical attention if you can't pay) or is it widespread?

 

I believe there is a fair bit of research on this. Poverty is associated with greater rates of chronic illnesses as well as nutritional deficiencies &/or obesity.

 

Definitely life expectancy rates are affected by  wealth.

 

This is a Cdn document about hospitalization rates vs income & gender  https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/disparities_in_hospitalization_by_sex2010_e.pdf

[Tanaqui]

 

2. Why is Paula "often sick" while she is little? And her dad: why is he sick later? Is there a documented connection between poverty and illness? If so, it something that is connected to for-cost healthcare systems (not getting medical attention if you can't pay) or is it widespread?

 

Yes, there is.

 

Or, rather:

 

There's a documented correlation between poverty and poor living conditions (that either you can't afford to repair or that the landlord won't bother to repair and you can't afford to take them to court over - of course, sometimes the landlord can't afford to make the repairs either), and a documented correlation between poor living conditions (mold, lead dust, roaches or other vermin, inconsistent heating/cooling, unreliable food storage) and illness.

 

In urban areas especially, impoverished neighborhoods have more pollution, both from traffic and industry. There is a correlation between pollution and illness.

 

Also in urban areas, people in impoverished neighborhoods are more likely to live densely, allowing germs to spread.

 

There's a correlation between poverty and stress, even in children, and another one between stress and a weakened immune system.

 

There's a correlation between poverty and food insecurity and malnourishment (and yes, you can be malnourished or suffer bouts of hunger and also overweight) and, likewise, there's a correlation between food insecurity and/or malnourishment and illness.

 

Impoverished individuals, as you pointed out, are less likely to have reliable medical care (much less dental and optometrist coverage) and more likely to rely on the ER for urgent medical needs.

[fdrinca]

The negative impact of stress in childhood cannot be overstated. 

 

http://developingchild.harvard.edu/key_concepts/toxic_stress_response/

 

A recent, popular string of research is the effect of stress on the development of executive function skills in children, with the argument that EF skills are as, if not more, important than intelligence. The Harvard site is conservative in its definition of "toxic stress;" in other places I've seen the threshold set much lower, well within the range of the average experience of a child in poverty. 

[Anne in CA]

I'm not trying to deminish the reality of privilidge, but there are some implications of the comic that I want to use my critical thinking skills on.

Some of these things were issues for my oldest. I will try to give you some ideas, but I can't speak for everyone in Paula's situation.

1. Why is Paula's house "damp" -- is this a particular kind of poverty housing, or a location, that is being implied? Is there information in there? I live in s very dry climate, so I don't think that I'm getting the implication. I don't think our local low income housing is damp.

 

If Paula lives in Hud Housing it is built to energy efficient standards and is probably VERY hot in the summer and damp in the winter unless she lives in the desert. I lived in one of these houses once. I would never do it again. If Paula lives in a cheap rental it is probably poorly insulated and unsafe in other ways.

2. Why is Paula "often sick" while she is little? And her dad: why is he sick later? Is there a documented connection between poverty and illness? If so, it something that is connected to for-cost healthcare systems (not getting medical attention if you can't pay) or is it widespread?

With two working parents Paula probably eats a lot of prepackaged food and has a weakened immune system, also she probably plays with other unsupervised kids and they share germs through improper hygiene. IME there is a huge connection between poverty and illness. Cheap daycare is often not clean, and kids sit in front of the TV constantly, not developing good robust health.

 

3. I understand that neighbourhoods can be poor or not, and so schools in poor locations would tend to have poor kids. This puts the school and teachers into a position of needing to offer some degree of social work: therefore overworking them and emotionally draining them... But... Why are they cast as being worse teachers on the whole?

They are being cast as tired an overworked. My cousin worked in one of these schools for years. She never married or had her own kids because she felt a huge obligation to these kids. Sometime the worst teachers teach in these schools because they are desperate, and sometimes even the good/ great teachers only have so much energy to go around. Even with no family of her own my cousin couldn't help everyone she wanted to. She took two motherless students into her own home and raised them, but that was not enough for real societal change.

 

4. Why is Paula's home "full of people" when she is young, but she is unsupervised as a school child? If her parents (and the other "people"?) are devoted to her wellbeing, where are the grans and uncles and big cousins in this story?

The people around Paula's house were not great mentors to begin with and they don't see why they should help parent someone that age. Some of those people are hanging around Paula because they are predators. 

 

5. While family connections can get someone an interview or an enyry opportunity, I think very few people get real oyster-eating careers *directly* from an assisted launch like that. I'm sure uni helps him be competent and qualified, but I think casting him as an arrogant slouch trading on nepotism alone is a bit too far.

I know too many people who got a big help from their family who believe they did it all on their own. However, you can't built a whole career on nepotism, but you can get a good job that you keep for longer than you should that way.

6. I don't know that Paula should be ashamed or angry to work in food service. We need all sorts of people, and the idea that good service (or similar jobs) are inherently humiliating is buying a myth. A solid living and a happy family is just fine: we don't all need to be oyster-eating-successful with big money. Making mine is not the definition of making something of yourself.

 

I agree food service gets a very bad rap that is not fair. It is harder for someone who is poor to get ahead in food service and many people in food service stay minimum wage for a long time because they do not have the social polish or internal organization needed for management.  I could write a long post on my experience with that last sentence alone. So a lot of people see food service as dead end, when it is not dead end for some people, but for some people it is.

 

[MistyMountain]

Poor home conditions like mold are very common in low income housing. It is common for there to be lots of house issues in low income housing. It is also common to share houses with family but they are not home a lot because they all work several low income jobs or for the adults who are home to not really watch over children that are not their own. Kids are left alone at younger ages. There is a lot more stress in low income schools. Most parents do not have time to volunteer or work with their children. The class sizes are bigger. I toured lots of schools in my neighborhood and in the low income schools the curriculum was the bare minimum of the standards. The end of the year things the kids were working on in these classrooms when I was touring looked very different then the end at the charter schools or the schools in better neighborhoods. There can be a difference in teacher quality and classroom size plus the needs of the kids. Food quality is also less due to money and time. Also kids from poorer families do not have access to the activities that kids with more money have. Poor families sometimes do not have access to a vehicle so going to the library is too hard. Not to mention they have a small house and they are busy so the books become lost easily. Poor Immigrants tend do better then other groups in poverty. It is not common to move several income brackets. There are cases where it was done but it is not very common. The obstacles are there in our society that make it much harder depending on the circumstances you are born into. It most certainly exists,

[Corraleno]

I think the actual point of this cartoon has gone right over the heads of some people.  :confused1:

 

It is not saying that no poor person can possibly ever get ahead, or that everyone who is successful must have had a boatload of unfair advantages. It is not saying that Paula = every poor person ever born and Richard = every middle class or wealthy person.

 

What it is saying is that sometimes successful people discount a lot of the advantages they had that contributed to their success, and instead attribute it entirely to their own "hard work" while looking down on less successful people who had none of those advantages.

 

That's what the concept of "privilege" refers to — the advantages that some people have which are invisible to them because they take those advantages (like stable living conditions, access to good health care and good schools, parental support, financial help with college, familial connections, etc.) for granted.

 

That is a fact, which is in no way refuted by pointing out that "some poor people succeed."  Of course some poor people manage to succeed in spite of everything, and some rich people manage to fail in spite of their advantages. That doesn't mean they didn't start out with vastly different odds, or change the fact that many people take their own advantages for granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[goldberry]

The "privilege" game that is being played out is no-win and insulting to those who started off with nearly nothing and turned that into success. .

 

Your comment is insulting to those who start out with nothing, work hard, and still can't get anywhere.

 

We are talking about the majority and about trends, not about the isolated case.  And, I doubt Richard really felt like he was being an ass.  I have heard that comment over and over and over again from people who were successful.  They think they are telling the truth, not being an ass.  

[Frances]

I think the actual point of this cartoon has gone right over the heads of some people.  :confused1:

 

It is not saying that no poor person can possibly ever get ahead, or that everyone who is successful must have had a boatload of unfair advantages. It is not saying that Paula = every poor person ever born and Richard = every middle class or wealthy person.

 

What it is saying is that sometimes successful people discount a lot of the advantages they had that contributed to their success, and instead attribute it entirely to their own "hard work" while looking down on less successful people who had none of those advantages.

 

That's what the concept of "privilege" refers to — the advantages that some people have which are invisible to them because they take those advantages (like stable living conditions, access to good health care and good schools, parental support, financial help with college, familial connections, etc.) for granted.

 

That is a fact, which is in no way refuted by pointing out that "some poor people succeed."  Of course some poor people manage to succeed in spite of everything, and some rich people manage to fail in spite of their advantages. That doesn't mean they didn't start out with vastly different odds, or change the fact that many people take their own advantages for granted.

 

My son and I were discussing this just last night. He has the top scholarship at his college, and he's commented several times that every single other student he's ever met with the same scholarship is from a family of well-educated professionals in the upper middle class. While he understands what the college is trying to do with merit aid, he still thinks it doesn't seem fair. His roommate was brought here from another country as a toddler and works incredibly hard at school and is doing very well, but didn't remotely have the test scores to get a scholarship. Neither of his parents are fluent in English and the grandparents who watched him while his parents worked barely speak English. He was and still is the translator for his family. While he does get some financial aid, he will also graduate with considerable debt.

 

My son definitely recognizes at least some of the privileges he enjoys.

[6packofun]

I'm pretty sure the privileged guy was read to by his parents, too!  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417997/professor-if-you-read-your-kids-youre-unfairly-disadvantaging-others-katherine-timpf

 

 

[shinyhappypeople]

Ugh - saw that comic on facebook a day or two ago.  Hate.it.  

 

My creds:  born poor (food stamps, evictions, some winters with no coat), raised by a working mom who was not able to be mentally present due in large part to her chronic, undiagnosed depression, and a dad who was just a narcisstic jack-hat who was almost never there and was abusive (emotionally, physically, sexually) when he was.  So, I was even less "privileged" than Paula.  Poor, poor, pitiful me (she says sarcastically).

 

My thoughts (aka "Why I hated that comic")

 

I reject villifying the rich.  I reject the stereotype of rich people who don't give a crap about the poor.  Yes, those people exist.  But, on the other hand, what about the people who donate enormous amounts of money and influence to help those in need? 

 

The fact that someone else is well off doesn't cause another person's poverty.  I never needed to bring anyone else DOWN in order to pull myself UP.  

 

By all means, improve education, provide better access to mental health and addiction services, and so on... in other words, address the causes of poverty in meaningful ways.  (Most of that will be funded by the Evil Rich)  But STOP wasting time villifying the rich (or, if you're well-off, wallowing in Rich-Privilege-Guilt).  It accomplishes nothing.

 

[Mergath]

Ugh - saw that comic on facebook a day or two ago. Hate.it.

 

My creds: born poor (food stamps, evictions, some winters with no coat), raised by a working mom who was not able to be mentally present due in large part to her chronic, undiagnosed depression, and a dad who was just a narcisstic jack-hat who was almost never there and was abusive (emotionally, physically, sexually) when he was. So, I was even less "privileged" than Paula. Poor, poor, pitiful me (she says sarcastically).

 

My thoughts (aka "Why I hated that comic")

 

I reject villifying the rich. I reject the stereotype of rich people who don't give a crap about the poor. Yes, those people exist. But, on the other hand, what about the people who donate enormous amounts of money and influence to help those in need?

 

The fact that someone else is well off doesn't cause another person's poverty. I never needed to bring anyone else DOWN in order to pull myself UP.

 

By all means, improve education, provide better access to mental health and addiction services, and so on... in other words, address the causes of poverty in meaningful ways. (Most of that will be funded by the Evil Rich) But STOP wasting time villifying the rich (or, if you're well-off, wallowing in Rich-Privilege-Guilt). It accomplishes nothing.

I'll quit villifying the rich when they quit buying legislation that makes themselves richer and everyone else poorer.

[Corraleno]

Ugh - saw that comic on facebook a day or two ago.  Hate.it.  

 

My creds:  born poor (food stamps, evictions, some winters with no coat), raised by a working mom who was not able to be mentally present due in large part to her chronic, undiagnosed depression, and a dad who was just a narcisstic jack-hat who was almost never there and was abusive (emotionally, physically, sexually) when he was.  So, I was even less "privileged" than Paula.  Poor, poor, pitiful me (she says sarcastically).

 

My thoughts (aka "Why I hated that comic")

 

I reject villifying the rich.  I reject the stereotype of rich people who don't give a crap about the poor.  Yes, those people exist.  But, on the other hand, what about the people who donate enormous amounts of money and influence to help those in need? 

 

The fact that someone else is well off doesn't cause another person's poverty.  I never needed to bring anyone else DOWN in order to pull myself UP.  

 

By all means, improve education, provide better access to mental health and addiction services, and so on... in other words, address the causes of poverty in meaningful ways.  (Most of that will be funded by the Evil Rich)  But STOP wasting time villifying the rich (or, if you're well-off, wallowing in Rich-Privilege-Guilt).  It accomplishes nothing.

 

But you are ranting against things that the author never said or even implied, so I'm not sure why this serves as an explanation for why you "hated that comic." 

 

Acknowledging the existence — and very real effects — of the concept of privilege does not = assuming that all rich people are evil bastards and all poor people are helpless victims. Does anyone really believe that??? Is there really no way for some people to think about this issue except in absolute, either-or, black-&-white terms?

 

I'm having a hard time figuring out if people are purposely creating straw men here, or if somehow this concept is just too subtle or nuanced or something for some people to wrap their heads around.  :confused1:

[shinyhappypeople]

But you are ranting against things that the author never said or even implied, so I'm not sure why this serves as an explanation for why you "hated that comic." 

 

Acknowledging the existence — and very real effects — of the concept of privilege does not = assuming that all rich people are evil bastards and all poor people are helpless victims. Does anyone really believe that??? Is there really no way for some people to think about this issue except in absolute, either-or, black-&-white terms?

 

I'm having a hard time figuring out if people are purposely creating straw men here, or if somehow this concept is just too subtle or nuanced or something for some people to wrap their heads around.  :confused1:

 

The comic DID portray the rich as out of touch, selfish, and uncaring (see the last frame), and as if Richard didn't deserve anything he got (education, job, etc) or otherwise benefit from his father's money or connections.  I say: Why not benefit from it?  Good for him.  I guess I'm just not all that concerned about the idea of privilege.  Lots of people have more privileges than I do.  I have more privileges than others.  And...?  So what?  

[shinyhappypeople]

Doesn't it?

 

No. 

[Reefgazer]

I was also wondering how this "privilege" concept applied to me - the daughter of a Polish immigrant farmer who grew up worse than poor but managed somehow to make it into the middle class.  Then I got thinking of all those immigrants who came here with absolutely no one and nothing and also managed a modicum of success.  I guess I must be "exceptional".  *eye roll*

Sorry, not buying it. The "privilege" game that is being played out is no-win and insulting to those who started off with nearly nothing and turned that into success. One only needs to look to the achievements of Asian and Jewish immigrants. In a different cartoon, Paula could have been portrayed as a quick-witted smart young woman who achieved success through hard work and Richard surely could have been less of an ass - but that would not have fit the narrative.

 

[idnib]

i cannot fault the boy's parents for hiring a tutor- he is too wealthy to qualify for an in school tutor and boys arent known for getting their info from reading. 

 

:confused1:  They aren't?

[Corraleno]

The comic DID portray the rich as out of touch, selfish, and uncaring (see the last frame), and as if Richard didn't deserve anything he got (education, job, etc) or otherwise benefit from his father's money or connections.  I say: Why not benefit from it?  Good for him.  I guess I'm just not all that concerned about the idea of privilege.  Lots of people have more privileges than I do.  I have more privileges than others.  And...?  So what?  

 

No, I'm afraid you've misread the comic and completely missed the point.

 

"Richard" is not meant to represent all rich people, nor is anyone saying that he doesn't "deserve" to have had a good education, a good job, or to have benefitted from his father's connections. The problem with Richard isn't that he's rich or successful or that he had all these advantages — the problem with Richard is that he refuses to acknowledge the role that these advantages played in his success. 

 

That's the punchline of the cartoon: "I'm sick of people asking for handouts. No one ever handed me anything on a platter." What makes him a jerk isn't his job or his education or his income, it's his insistence that anyone who is not as successful as he is just didn't work hard enough. 

[Tsuga]

For over a decade, I have wanted to make a video game (like The Sims, maybe, I've never played it), in which users are assigned at random to a condition at birth and are then left to make their limited life choices. I became frustrated with my college students' misplaced ire for *anyone* poor and struggling. I'd hoped that I could change their perspective a bit by showing how limiting initial conditions are, and how the American Dream mythology isn't a methodology for success.

 

There is a game like that, about how to survive as a poor person.

 

http://playspent.org

[Daria]

I'm not trying to deminish the reality of privilidge, but there are some implications of the comic that I want to use my critical thinking skills on.

 

1. Why is Paula's house "damp" -- is this a particular kind of poverty housing, or a location, that is being implied? Is there information in there? I live in s very dry climate, so I don't think that I'm getting the implication. I don't think our local low income housing is damp.

 

In the part of the country where I live, the climate is very moist.  Families who don't have air conditioning live in homes with higher humidity, which leads to higher levels of mold and dust mites, which is a major factor in the reason why asthma rates are so much higher for low income kids.  Cockroaches from poorly maintained apartment complexes is another factor. 

 

2. Why is Paula "often sick" while she is little? And her dad: why is he sick later? Is there a documented connection between poverty and illness? If so, it something that is connected to for-cost healthcare systems (not getting medical attention if you can't pay) or is it widespread?

 

In addition to the reasons above, preventative care for low income kids is poor in my area.  When my son was 9 months old, he was hospitalized on the respiratory ward.  He had a string of roommates while there, each of whom was admitted for asthma.  Each of the parents had stories of being sent to the E.R. multiple times for asthma, and yet none of the kids had seen a pulmonologist.  As a result, their treatment was far from ideal.  Even in the hospital, the treatment was different.  My kid was seen by a pulmonologist every day, while the other kids were visited by a pediatrician, when I asked why that was I was told that you were admitted by the specialty that referred you, so if you weren't seeing a specialist before admissions, you didn't get to see one in the hospital either. 

3. I understand that neighbourhoods can be poor or not, and so schools in poor locations would tend to have poor kids. This puts the school and teachers into a position of needing to offer some degree of social work: therefore overworking them and emotionally draining them... But... Why are they cast as being worse teachers on the whole?

 

I didn't see that in that.  As a teacher who has taught in both high income and low income schools, I'm pretty sensitive to criticisms of teachers, but I also know that my ability to be a good teacher is dependent on finite resources, including my energy and time, and that when I teach in a school with better ratios and less of the stress are associated with poverty, I do a better job.  I may not be a "better" teacher, but my kids sure benefit in the same way they would if I was.

 

4. Why is Paula's home "full of people" when she is young, but she is unsupervised as a school child? If her parents (and the other "people"?) are devoted to her wellbeing, where are the grans and uncles and big cousins in this story?

 

Perhaps because those other people aren't adults who are in a position to help.  They may be other children, or people who are elderly or have disabilities and also need care themselves, or they may be people who are working multiple jobs and are unavailable for child care. 

 

5. While family connections can get someone an interview or an enyry opportunity, I think very few people get real oyster-eating careers *directly* from an assisted launch like that. I'm sure uni helps him be competent and qualified, but I think casting him as an arrogant slouch trading on nepotism alone is a bit too far.

 

I think you are quite naive.

 

6. I don't know that Paula should be ashamed or angry to work in food service. We need all sorts of people, and the idea that good service (or similar jobs) are inherently humiliating is buying a myth. A solid living and a happy family is just fine: we don't all need to be oyster-eating-successful with big money. Making mine is not the definition of making something of yourself.

 

Well then, feel free to take a low paid food service job.  The point isn't that a certain job is better than another, it's that people with resources end up with more choices.  There's a difference between working in food service because you love it so much that you don't mind hours on your feet, back breaking labor, and not having enough money to provide high quality childcare and other high quality things for your kids, and working in food service because you were denied other opportunities.  

 

[Vida Winter]

No, I'm afraid you've misread the comic and completely missed the point.

 

"Richard" is not meant to represent all rich people, nor is anyone saying that he doesn't "deserve" to have had a good education, a good job, or to have benefitted from his father's connections. The problem with Richard isn't that he's rich or successful or that he had all these advantages — the problem with Richard is that he refuses to acknowledge the role that these advantages played in his success. 

 

That's the punchline of the cartoon: "I'm sick of people asking for handouts. No one ever handed me anything on a platter." What makes him a jerk isn't his job or his education or his income, it's his insistence that anyone who is not as successful as he is just didn't work hard enough. 

 

Isn't he meant to represent all rich people? And how is rich defined, exactly? That has always been a squishy definition - could mean elite, upper-middle-lower middle class, anywhere in between. Richard could have been shown to be a benevolent job-creator, but he wasn't - again, it didn't fit the narrative - white-male-must-be-bad-easy-target. Switch Paula and Richard in the cartoon and it doesn't quite have the same bite.

 

I have such a problem with "privilege" - does it do any good to shame Richard into being grateful (or is the point to make him feel ashamed of his success?). Everything is relative. I have been poor, and yet lived like a queen compared to people in other nations. Should I have been ashamed to have had more than them?

 

And while I'm on a rant, how about this - the "check your privilege" meme started in our upper-class campuses. It is a way to control people and shut them up.

[Tanaqui]

I want everybody here to write this sentence out 1000 times: Privilege has nothing to do with shame or guilt.

 

We've had this conversation before on this forum within the past month, and every time the same parties pull out the same tired lines about "making people feel bad" or "should I be ashamed" or whatever. It's getting old. Heck, it's been old for quite a while now. That point has been refuted not once, not twice, but literally dozens of times, frequently by me, so I know.

 

Find a new line of argument already. Relying on that one is arguing in bad faith. Worse than that, it's boring. We're all of us better than this.

 

[Tsuga]

It is a way to control people and shut them up.

 

Only if you can only find one way to think about a situation, would a challenge to check yourself shut you up.

 

Check your assumptions is frequently said and it's not meant to imply someone should shut up.

 

I was poor. My kids are growing up privileged, not as privileged as some but in terms of everyday life, as well off as almost anyone in the country.

 

I tell them to check their privilege. It's not to shut them up. It's to make them aware so that they will not view themselves as better than others, or treat others worse, simply because they have advantages.

[fdrinca]

 

By all means, improve education, provide better access to mental health and addiction services, and so on... in other words, address the causes of poverty in meaningful ways.  (Most of that will be funded by the Evil Rich)  But STOP wasting time villifying the rich (or, if you're well-off, wallowing in Rich-Privilege-Guilt).  It accomplishes nothing.

 

As long as significant pluralities of the voting public believe that a significant reason poverty exists is because people "don't work hard," then reminding us of what we have accomplished by standing on the shoulders of our parents (and grandparents, and great-grandparents) absolutely has a place. 

 

Being wealthy isn't evil. 

 

Failing to understand the manifest ways in which your wealth is generated isn't evil.

 

Continuing to close one's eyes to the nature of persistent, profound, and entrenched inequalities in our society - I won't say evil. But it's certainly not nice.

[Corraleno]

Isn't he meant to represent all rich people? And how is rich defined, exactly? That has always been a squishy definition - could mean elite, upper-middle-lower middle class, anywhere in between. Richard could have been shown to be a benevolent job-creator, but he wasn't - again, it didn't fit the narrative - white-male-must-be-bad-easy-target. Switch Paula and Richard in the cartoon and it doesn't quite have the same bite.

 

No, he's not meant to represent all rich people or middle class people. He's not represented as a benevolent job creator because the comic is not about rich people in general, or philanthropists, or people who create lots of jobs. It's specifically about people who take their privilege for granted while damning those who didn't have any of the same advantages. So to illustrate that point, they drew a guy who... takes his privilege for granted while damning those who didn't have the same advantages. And the reason they didn't switch Paula and Richard is because male privilege is part of that.

 

Privilege has nothing to do with shame or guilt. Having privilege is not a bad thing — it's a great thing if you're the one who has it. What's bad is pretending that it doesn't exist and that a wealthy white guy who had a private prep school education followed by an Ivy degree had exactly the same chance of success in life as the poor, black, single mother who attended a inner city HS with a 40% graduation rate and couldn't afford college, and if her life sucks it's because she didn't try hard enough. 

[EmilyGF]

I'm going to dip my toe in here.

 

People consider others (those earning more than themselves) to be rich. In the same way, no matter what level of society you are from, you know people with more privilege than you (it may be the lady down the street who has a grandma who provides free housing on one level, or the guy around the corner whose father is a VP it Cisco on another level). You also know people who are lazier than you. So, comparing yourself to your immediate peers, you may feel you deserve it.

 

(Or you might be like my husband and wonder why on earth people think you are as great as they think you are... but he's 1 in a million.)

 

Secondly, to badly paraphrase Emma Wodehouse, people with less privilege deserve our compassion, not ridicule. Not compassion like looking-down-on-them because you are superior and know much more, but feeling along side and caring enough to help build up social capital where the walls are broken down.

 

Emily

[Corraleno]

 

I tell them to check their privilege. It's not to shut them up. It's to make them aware so that they will not view themselves as better than others, or treat others worse, simply because they have advantages.

 

Exactly. 

[Lisbeth]

I want everybody here to write this sentence out 1000 times: Privilege has nothing to do with shame or guilt.

 

We've had this conversation before on this forum within the past month, and every time the same parties pull out the same tired lines about "making people feel bad" or "should I be ashamed" or whatever. It's getting old. Heck, it's been old for quite a while now. That point has been refuted not once, not twice, but literally dozens of times, frequently by me, so I know.

 

Find a new line of argument already. Relying on that one is arguing in bad faith. Worse than that, it's boring. We're all of us better than this.

I assure you, the feeling is mutual. Just because others don't agree with a particular point of view or definition, doesn't mean they should figuratively or otherwise have it "educated" into them 2,000 times until they change their minds.

[Reefgazer]

The point is not just to shame Richard and shut him up, but to shame him to the point where he feels the fruits of his labor should not really belong to him, thus justifying higher taxes to redistribute the money to people who feel entitled to a portion of Richard's labor.  It is intended to imply that rich people don't work as hard for their money as the poor.  I'm not buying it, either.

Isn't he meant to represent all rich people? And how is rich defined, exactly? That has always been a squishy definition - could mean elite, upper-middle-lower middle class, anywhere in between. Richard could have been shown to be a benevolent job-creator, but he wasn't - again, it didn't fit the narrative - white-male-must-be-bad-easy-target. Switch Paula and Richard in the cartoon and it doesn't quite have the same bite.

 

I have such a problem with "privilege" - does it do any good to shame Richard into being grateful (or is the point to make him feel ashamed of his success?). Everything is relative. I have been poor, and yet lived like a queen compared to people in other nations. Should I have been ashamed to have had more than them?

 

And while I'm on a rant, how about this - the "check your privilege" meme started in our upper-class campuses. It is a way to control people and shut them up.

 

[Corraleno]

The point is not just to shame Richard and shut him up, but to shame him to the point where he feels the fruits of his labor should not really belong to him, thus justifying higher taxes to redistribute the money to people who feel entitled to a portion of Richard's labor.  It is intended to imply that rich people don't work as hard for their money as the poor.  I'm not buying it, either.

 

Exhibit A.   :001_rolleyes:

[Tsuga]

I assure you, the feeling is mutual. Just because others don't agree with a particular point of view or definition, doesn't mean they should figuratively or otherwise have it "educated" into them 2,000 times until they change their minds.

 

When unawareness of privilege affects how people vote and how they treat others and reinforces inequality, I'm going to go ahead and keep talking about it. Until they change their minds or I die.

 

Because it's not okay.

 

There is not a single rich person in this country who is not benefiting from the labor of other people because nobody ever extracted natural resources, built industrial materials, or even ran a service company without labor. You didn't build this, you ordered it built, and you either paid for the work (I worked for Starbucks, there is a company that pays its workers, or Costco, or Boeing) or YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR THE WORK SO YOU DIDN'T BUILD IT.

 

Every single penny of a fortune 500 company relies on the labor of the poor, the workers.

 

Pointing out that they, too, are working, and that their lack of access to capital (management positions) is not due to lack of work, but lack of connections, is not shaming the rich. It is about asking them not to shame the poor.

 

And people do shame the poor in so. many. ways.

 

I don't believe in public benefits for workers, either. I think people working full time should be PAID A LIVING WAGE FOR THEIR LIFE'S WORK.

 

But they're not. So Uncle Sam is going to ask the people who didn't pay the salaries of those workers to fork it over in other ways.

 

Tell me again why someone should work 60 hours a week and fall behind? Nobody ever explains this. Because it's not explainable.

 

All caps is not enough for this injustice.

 

So yeah, I'm going to educate people.

 

Oh, and "rich people didn't work as hard for their money" as the poor?

 

Nope, the question is whether they worked proportionately harder to account for their salaries. Did they? I know people who make a lot of money. I guarantee you, many of them grew up poor and none of them will tell you that they worked 10 or 20 times harder than the people doing piece rate work on farms in this country. They won't say it because it's not true. People who grew up in privilege, however, might think they did work harder, because they don't realize what it really means to be poor. They insult the poor to justify inequality. That's what people object to.

[Tanaqui]

 

I assure you, the feeling is mutual. Just because others don't agree with a particular point of view or definition, doesn't mean they should figuratively or otherwise have it "educated" into them 2,000 times until they change their minds.

 

You can't make up your own definitions and ask the rest of us to accept them, nor can you say "You're just trying to make me feel bad" when we're doing nothing of the sort. If I went onto a thread about Christianity and insisted on calling Communion cannibalism I'd get the same reaction I'm giving you - just because I think that's what it means, that doesn't mean that I should flaunt my ignorance.

[Tanaqui]

Oh, and also?  I don't want to hear about those nice rich people who donate all their money to the poor. They're a myth, like the kid who pulled himself up from his bootstraps after first learning how to make boots. Sure, there's the odd outlier, like that couple that's spending their fortune to rescue migrants in the Mediterranean, but they're the very rare exception.

 

On average, wealthy people donate 1.3% of their income to charity. Poor people donate 3.2% of their income, and they have far less disposable income than their 1% counterparts.  - and the wealthy cut their charitable spending during the recession while the poor increased it. That's from Forbes, not exactly a bastion of socialist thought. Private charity is no substitute for a decent social safety net either, especially when only about 1/3 of charitable giving goes to help the poor. If the rich won't pull their fair weight voluntarily, then yes, they should be required. We all have to pay up to make our society work.

[unsinkable]

You can't make up your own definitions and ask the rest of us to accept them, nor can you say "You're just trying to make me feel bad" when we're doing nothing of the sort. If I went onto a thread about Christianity and insisted on calling Communion cannibalism I'd get the same reaction I'm giving you - just because I think that's what it means, that doesn't mean that I should flaunt my ignorance.

Pshh! Cannibalism is no insult.

 

*Symbolic grape juice and crackers* now THAT'S an insult.

[Joanne]

This is a sadly predictable thread.

 

 

[Mergath]

The point is not just to shame Richard and shut him up, but to shame him to the point where he feels the fruits of his labor should not really belong to him, thus justifying higher taxes to redistribute the money to people who feel entitled to a portion of Richard's labor.  It is intended to imply that rich people don't work as hard for their money as the poor.  I'm not buying it, either.

 

Ayn Rand would be so proud.

[Carrie12345]

Individual experience, opportunity, capability, effort, etc. are real variables that can change the outcome for any one individual--it is easy to point to people who started out disadvantaged and achieved great successes in life, equally easy to point to people who started out with every privilege and crashed and burned. Behind the anecdotes, however, are statistics that show that the vast majority of people starting out in poverty stay there. When other factors are controlled for and you compare only individuals with similar IQ, similar family structure, etc., the ones who start out underprivileged still mostly stay underprivileged, the ones who do well economically, socially, educationally, are those who come from families with economic, social, and educational privilege.

 

This does not mean any single individual is doomed. But it means that there are definite systemic issues at play and that the idea that most success is due to individual effort, and most failure is due to lack of effort, is not supportable.

 

May I quote that on some of my friends' FB posts that are getting ripped apart?

[Runningmom80]

Typical.

 

Thanks for posting the comic OP.