Marshall University hosts training on heterosexual privilege

[Chessmistress]

...without actually knowing the difference between gender, sex and sexuality!

One such privilege, she explained, is that cisgender people can, without fear, use the bathroom associated with their identified gender.

WRONG.
This is unrelated with heterosexuality and heterosexual privilege.
Example:
A lesbian cisgender can, without fear, use the bathroom associated with her identified gender.
Still, she's lesbian and she don't have heterosexual privilege...

Source: https://heatst.com/culture-wars/marshal ... privilege/

Personally I think that morons like Morgan Conley, who are totally clueless about what they're trying to teach, should be fired.
Universities should have a competent staff, not people just making a mess.

What do you think, NSGs?

[Threlizdun]

You're certain it was exclusively discussing heterosexuality and framing cisc privilege as identical to heterosexual privilege? If it's exclusively that, it would be rather confusing that that was the only privilege they felt pertinent to discuss, but it would be even stranger if they marked ability to use your preferred bathroom without fear of chastisement or assault as exclusively a matter or heterosexuality rather than cissexism and the policing of gender expression. If it was about broader themes of privileges shared by cishet individuals that are not available to the LGBTQIA community as a whole, then discussions of bathroom access would make sense.

[Grinning Dragon]

Christ on a pogo stick. I'm sorry, I cannot take any of these so called workshops seriously. If I were employed by this University, I'd have to call in sick that day.

IMO, the name should be changed to "Perpetual Victim Privilege"

[Seperates]

What is it with colleges thinking that they can teach incredibly complex issues with vast layers of nuance in training seminars?

I just don't get it.

[Chessmistress]

You're certain it was exclusively discussing heterosexuality and framing cisc privilege as identical to heterosexual privilege?

I cannot, I did not even know such site before few minutes ago: I have see it for the very first time in the thread about cultural appropriation, and perhaps you may be right, since it's also full of anti-feminist bullshit.
I'll check.

However, I hope that you'll agree that if it would really be just only about heterosexual privilege then the bathrooms controversy should have no place in such course.

[Chessmistress]

Checked
http://marshallparthenon.com/13096/news ... lty-staff/

Marshall University is hosting a safe space training Tuesday, Feb. 21 for faculty and staff to learn about LGBTQ vocabulary and heterosexual privilege, among other topics.

Here it seems it's more broad...

“We want people to have a better understanding of our students, no matter how they identify,” Associate Dean of Student Affairs Carla Lapelle said. “We have such a huge variety (of students) and if we don’t recognize the differences in people, then we make language mistakes that make them uncomfortable.”

The training will take place in Drinko 349 at 2 p.m. Participants will learn through lecture and several hands-on activities.

“We are presenting, but the beginning part of it is an interactive quiz where they have clickers to answer anonymously, but it will show you how many people answer the questions about vocabulary and things like that,” mental health specialist Morgan Conley said.

One of the main topics will be heterosexual privilege, which Lapelle said includes opportunities that heterosexual persons sometimes take for granted that the LGBTQ community might not receive.

“Heterosexual privilege is a group discussion activity where we break up into groups,” Conley said. “They have a list of privileges that most heterosexuals have in a relationship. You have to pick so many privileges, but you can’t have them all.”

But such part make me a little suspectful, because those are the very same words of the other article, and by so it's very likely that Conley was really framing the bathrooms controversy as something pertaining heterosexual privilege...

[Threlizdun]

You're certain it was exclusively discussing heterosexuality and framing cisc privilege as identical to heterosexual privilege?

I cannot, I did not even know such site before few minutes ago: I have see it for the very first time in the thread about cultural appropriation, and perhaps you may be right, since it's also full of anti-feminist bullshit.
I'll check.

However, I hope that you'll agree that if it would really be just only about heterosexual privilege then the bathrooms controversy should have no place in such course.

If it was exclusively on heterosexual privilege, yes. However, I don't honestly see how or why someone would ever discuss heterosexism without cissexism and patriarchy. They're all connected and reinforce one another. Heterosexual privilege is one of many results of the belief that there is one and only one correct way to be a member of and perform the roles of your socially assigned gender.

[Luminesa]

I cannot, I did not even know such site before few minutes ago: I have see it for the very first time in the thread about cultural appropriation, and perhaps you may be right, since it's also full of anti-feminist bullshit.
I'll check.

However, I hope that you'll agree that if it would really be just only about heterosexual privilege then the bathrooms controversy should have no place in such course.

If it was exclusively on heterosexual privilege, yes. However, I don't honestly see how or why someone would ever discuss heterosexism without cissexism and patriarchy. They're all connected and reinforce one another. Heterosexual privilege is one of many results of the belief that there is one and only one correct way to be a member of and perform the roles of your socially assigned gender.

Sexuality and sex are two different things. I could be a lesbian who is into very traditionally "female" things. I could be a straight girl and be into things that are not traditionally considered "female". "Privilege", in the meantime, is in itself a social construct. To say that an entire group of people is institutionally superior, based on their sex, ignores the humanity of the other side, creates conflict rather than building bridges, and creates a complex in which no true progress can be made. In relation to "the patriarchy", it exists merely to box a group of people (namely the "patriarchy") as "the enemy", "the people who have to be defeated", as though men are the bosses in a video game. It is a negative idealization with very little basis on reality, a hyperbole that equally hyper-masculates men and makes women seem weaker than they actually are. As long as the concepts of "the patriarchy" and "male privilege" exist, then, nobody will benefit, and bigger rifts between the sexes will form. That is the true connection of these concepts.

[Philjia]

What is it with colleges thinking that they can teach incredibly complex issues with vast layers of nuance in training seminars?

I just don't get it.

Because if they printed a leaflet that simply read "Rule 1: Don't be a dick. Rule 2: If somebody else is being a dick, do something about it." they would get shouted at for negligence.

[San Marlindo]

I'm too lazy to understand the seriousness or scope of these issues, and find places where they are discussed to be prone to jargon and gobbledegook. If I had a choice I would not go to one of these workshops or seminars about contemporary sexism, but if it were compulsory I wouldn't feel strongly enough to not go and learn something.

[Engleberg]

Anything dealing with "[insert topic] privilege" is bullshit within itself.

Plus, there is no other genders and sexes other than male and female; and this university should spend their time/money/resources for more productive things and not this.

[Costa Fierro]

Sexuality and sex are two different things. I could be a lesbian who is into very traditionally "female" things. I could be a straight girl and be into things that are not traditionally considered "female". "Privilege", in the meantime, is in itself a social construct. To say that an entire group of people is institutionally superior, based on their sex, ignores the humanity of the other side, creates conflict rather than building bridges, and creates a complex in which no true progress can be made.

Pretty much this.

If people want to start having discussions about equality then we should not be suggesting that people are inherently inferior because of which set of genitalia they were born with or what genitalia they want to have sexual intercourse with. This whole "privilege" thing does nothing but create more barriers and resentment against people that don't need this kind of crap. Everybody is different. Everyone faces their own unique set of challenges and things so automatically prescribing someone with a series of privileges does absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

And discussions on privilege almost always end in ways to "end privilege", that somehow people have to be as "inferior" as they are. That is a fairly terrible mindset to have.

In relation to "the patriarchy", it exists merely to box a group of people (namely the "patriarchy") as "the enemy", "the people who have to be defeated", as though men are the bosses in a video game. It is a negative idealization with very little basis on reality, a hyperbole that equally hyper-masculates men and makes women seem weaker than they actually are. As long as the concepts of "the patriarchy" and "male privilege" exist, then, nobody will benefit, and bigger rifts between the sexes will form. That is the true connection of these concepts.

Well how else are feminists supposed to be relevant these days? In the United States at least, where are the feminists fighting to protect abortion rights? Where are the feminists marching on Washington to demand paid parental leave? Where are the feminists demanding that women shouldn't be charged tens of thousands of dollars just to have a baby?

[The Serbian Empire]

:rofl: Christ on a pogo stick. I'm sorry, I cannot take any of these so called workshops seriously. If I were employed by this University, I'd have to call in sick that day.

IMO, the name should be changed to "Perpetual Victim Privilege"

The workshop also failed to communicate effectively that there's more than just heterosexual privilege. When one can't even communicate it properly, the training's limited good becomes utterly worthless.

[The Serbian Empire]

Sexuality and sex are two different things. I could be a lesbian who is into very traditionally "female" things. I could be a straight girl and be into things that are not traditionally considered "female". "Privilege", in the meantime, is in itself a social construct. To say that an entire group of people is institutionally superior, based on their sex, ignores the humanity of the other side, creates conflict rather than building bridges, and creates a complex in which no true progress can be made.

Pretty much this.

If people want to start having discussions about equality then we should not be suggesting that people are inherently inferior because of which set of genitalia they were born with or what genitalia they want to have sexual intercourse with. This whole "privilege" thing does nothing but create more barriers and resentment against people that don't need this kind of crap. Everybody is different. Everyone faces their own unique set of challenges and things so automatically prescribing someone with a series of privileges does absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

And discussions on privilege almost always end in ways to "end privilege", that somehow people have to be as "inferior" as they are. That is a fairly terrible mindset to have.

In relation to "the patriarchy", it exists merely to box a group of people (namely the "patriarchy") as "the enemy", "the people who have to be defeated", as though men are the bosses in a video game. It is a negative idealization with very little basis on reality, a hyperbole that equally hyper-masculates men and makes women seem weaker than they actually are. As long as the concepts of "the patriarchy" and "male privilege" exist, then, nobody will benefit, and bigger rifts between the sexes will form. That is the true connection of these concepts.

Well how else are feminists supposed to be relevant these days? In the United States at least, where are the feminists fighting to protect abortion rights? Where are the feminists marching on Washington to demand paid parental leave? Where are the feminists demanding that women shouldn't be charged tens of thousands of dollars just to have a baby?

They were in Washington D.C. about three weeks ago by the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

[Saiwania]

My experience with community college was that you pay tuition separately for every course. So the solution is obviously to not pay for any useless classes. Only take what is required for the degree (which is hopefully not worthless but has market appeal).

Remember that you're usually going to college as an investment in learning useful skills and building a network of contacts to advance your career. You're not going to college just for the sake of learning unless you're already rich and have money to blow or you have a scholarship and have most of everything already paid for. My advice to today's youth is to not take out a student loan. There are so many better paths to a better job than trying too hard for a degree that might not pay off. Do your research and due diligence, just as you would with buying stocks.

The Jewish community for example, is rich on average because they almost force their children into career paths which almost always pay well and command higher respect, such as doctor, banker, lawyer, or dentist.

[The Serbian Empire]

I cannot, I did not even know such site before few minutes ago: I have see it for the very first time in the thread about cultural appropriation, and perhaps you may be right, since it's also full of anti-feminist bullshit.
I'll check.

However, I hope that you'll agree that if it would really be just only about heterosexual privilege then the bathrooms controversy should have no place in such course.

If it was exclusively on heterosexual privilege, yes. However, I don't honestly see how or why someone would ever discuss heterosexism without cissexism and patriarchy. They're all connected and reinforce one another. Heterosexual privilege is one of many results of the belief that there is one and only one correct way to be a member of and perform the roles of your socially assigned gender.

I don't think one needs to get into the patriarchy. To destroy that would require the destruction of agriculture and society as a whole otherwise the physical disparity between men and women would have less use in a hunter-gatherer type of setting than with farm labor in between 100 and 12,000 years ago where male physical strength was vastly preferred.

[San Marlindo]

Pretty much this.

If people want to start having discussions about equality then we should not be suggesting that people are inherently inferior because of which set of genitalia they were born with or what genitalia they want to have sexual intercourse with. This whole "privilege" thing does nothing but create more barriers and resentment against people that don't need this kind of crap. Everybody is different. Everyone faces their own unique set of challenges and things so automatically prescribing someone with a series of privileges does absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

And discussions on privilege almost always end in ways to "end privilege", that somehow people have to be as "inferior" as they are. That is a fairly terrible mindset to have.



Well how else are feminists supposed to be relevant these days? In the United States at least, where are the feminists fighting to protect abortion rights? Where are the feminists marching on Washington to demand paid parental leave? Where are the feminists demanding that women shouldn't be charged tens of thousands of dollars just to have a baby?

They were in Washington D.C. about three weeks ago by the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

I wonder what percentage of the Washington marchers voted in the most recent US presidential elections.

[Donut section]

That's one way to make you university extremely undesirable to attend.

[The Serbian Empire]

That's one way to make you university extremely undesirable to attend.

As if being located in the poor city of Huntington, West Virginia wasn't bad enough.

[The Serbian Empire]

They were in Washington D.C. about three weeks ago by the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

I wonder what percentage of the Washington marchers voted in the most recent US presidential elections.

Political protesters vote at a rate of roughly around 70%, this is 8-10% higher than the least likely to protest. Give the data, the protesters at worst are likely voters if not highly likely to vote. If one has the fervor to protest, they often have a sense of civic obligation.

[Liriena]

Yeah, the wording is kind of... off. If they'd called it "cishet privilege" it'd be a bit more on point with what it's trying to address.

The talk about firing a professor over poor wording of what looks to be a perfecly harmless (and maybe even helpful) course seems a bit exaggerated.

Anything dealing with "[insert topic] privilege" is bullshit within itself.

Plus, there is no other genders and sexes other than male and female; and this university should spend their time/money/resources for more productive things and not this.

Wrong and wrong.

[Donut section]

Yeah, the wording is kind of... off. If they'd called it "cishet privilege" it'd be a bit more on point with what it's trying to address.

The talk about firing a professor over poor wording of what looks to be a perfecly harmless (and maybe even helpful) course seems a bit exaggerated.

Anything dealing with "[insert topic] privilege" is bullshit within itself.

Plus, there is no other genders and sexes other than male and female; and this university should spend their time/money/resources for more productive things and not this.

Wrong and wrong.

Nono that's on the money right there.

Variation on an existing gender does not a new gender make.

[Great Minarchistan]

This whole privilege talk as well as other factors such as the banalization of differing opinions (Safe Spaces and derivatives) is the reason of why American superior education is ruined. Yet the tuition fees keep being high and growing.

[Giovenith]

Seems like a very minor goof on their part. Sexuality and gender identity are often tied together in the same discussions (hence the T in LGBT), so I really don't see a need to flip out and guffaw all, "HEY, HEY, YOU SAID THIS WOULD BE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE BUT YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT TRANS PEOPLE AND THOSE AREN'T THE SAME THING, AHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT A SOCIAL FAUX PA!" They certainly don't need to be called morons over it or fired.



And since I know it will be a huge part of this thread, here's my opinion on "privilege":

I don't actually think it's that bad of a concept on a basic level. It is good to take into account that your personal experiences are not identical to everyone else's and things that you may see as easy or not a big deal may effect someone else profoundly worse, or that just because you have not personally experienced something yourself doesn't mean that it doesn't happen to anyone else and unless you've been in that situation, you can't really say with much accuracy how you would feel or react.

However:

In my own experience, this isn't how the concept of privilege is used. Instead of being used to merely bring attention to the fact that personal experiences differ and that this should be a factor to consider when discussing, privilege or a lack thereof is often whipped out as THE deciding factor of who is right and who is wrong. If you're a woman, you automatically know better than a man. If you're a black person, you automatically know better than a white person. If you're gay, you automatically know better than someone who is straight. "Check your privilege" is used as a kneejerk counter to end conversations, a way of saying "You're wrong" without ever having to explain how they are wrong. Just because you are a member of marginalized group and may face genuine disadvantages doesn't mean you have been endowed with a flawless outlook on the mechanisms of those disadvantages and what sorts of responses are most appropriate for them.

Let's talk about Godwin's law: For those of you who are somehow unaware, Godwin's law is the unofficial internet law that states that if any argument goes on long enough some sort of comparison to Hitler or the Nazis will be made, and generally, that the person who does so has demonstrated an ineptitude for arguing. The reasoning for this later half of the law is to point out that it isn't enough to merely compare someone's views to Hitler's; the things Hitler did weren't evil because Hitler did them, Hitler was evil because he did those things. So while it might be true that the person you're arguing with holds views akin to those of Hitler's, you should be able to explain why those views are wrong on their own, regardless of the fact that Hitler held them. Genocide would still be wrong if Hitler never existed. Animal welfare laws are also not wrong just because Hitler believed in them. If all you have to say is, "But Hitler did that!" and nothing else, then you've offered nothing.

This is a similar position we find "privilege" in. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were two black men who grew up in the same eras dealing with the same forms of discrimination and yet came to have very different beliefs and approaches regarding the disadvantages they had faced; they couldn't both be right, so obviously there comes a point where your status as a marginalized person stops being insightful, i.e., there comes a point is when we leave the realm of personal experience and enter the realm of objectivity, where something either works or doesn't, is correct or incorrect, regardless of who is saying or propositioning it. Like Godwin's law teaches, something does not become wrong/right because Person A said so/did it, it just either is right or wrong all by itself. It may very well be that a person's "privilege" is blinding them to the reality of the situation, but if it is in fact an immovable reality, you should be able to demonstrate it all by itself completely outside of suggestions of privilege. Again, saying, "You just can't see it because you're privileged!" is just akin to saying, "You're wrong!" without explaining how someone is wrong. Furthermore, that also means that just because you're "non-privileged" doesn't mean that what you're speaking the truth or your interpretation of a situation is accurate. "Oppression" doesn't grant omniscience, otherwise MLK and Malcolm X would have been in perfect agreement about everything. When reality falls outside of your status as a person, that means there very well is a chance that a "privileged person" is right instead of a marginalized person, and that includes on matters of the function of marginalization.

Further-further-more (whew!), people are not statistics. Group A may be more likely to face hardships than Group B, but "likely" is the imperative word there. "Likely" is non-universal, it inherently carries the connotations that there will be exceptions. An average person on the street is not qualified to review another human being's entire life on the spot and make a determination as to whether or not they are capable of understanding a certain subject. You don't know what they've been through or what kind of person they are. You do not get to make conclusions about them based on a statistical likelihood. Statistically, a white person is less likely to know about economic hardship than a black person? Sure, but statistically, a black person is more likely to be involved in crimes. We all know it would be terrible to use that statistic to just go around assuming that random black people are criminals, so why is it any better to go around assuming that any random white person you meet must be incapable of understanding hardship (at least the way a non-white person does)? Again, you don't know what they've been through or what kind of person they are. Looking at a single factor about a person and going, "But you have privilege and I don't!" makes very unfair assumptions about that person and is tantamount to stereotype profiling.

So bringing it back to what I said in the beginning, possible privilege should be a factor to consider in discussions, but not THE deciding factor. It shouldn't be a retort of, "But you have privilege!" it should be a suggestion of, "You might be in a more privileged position," with "might" being imperative and allowing for the possibility that your suggestion is wrong and privilege has nothing to do with your differing outlooks. It should not be a crutch for your lack of reasoning, you must have something else to say besides "but privilege." It should be a gateway to discussion and hearing different perspectives, not an excuse to shut them down.

[Liriena]

Yeah, the wording is kind of... off. If they'd called it "cishet privilege" it'd be a bit more on point with what it's trying to address.

The talk about firing a professor over poor wording of what looks to be a perfecly harmless (and maybe even helpful) course seems a bit exaggerated.


Wrong and wrong.

Nono that's on the money right there.

Variation on an existing gender does not a new gender make.

Indeed. But non-binary genders do exist.