I hate the phrase "Check Your Privilege." It's right up there with "Negative Nancy" on my list of phrases that should be eradicated from the English language. I've felt this way since I first saw it, probably on some social justice warrior's tumblr. (Have I mentioned that I really dislike some parts of the tumblrverse?) I think that "Check Your Privilege" is dismissive, divisive, and derisive. It makes people feel bad about being fortunate. Rather than open a conversation about privilege and society, it puts people on the defensive.
You know what I hate more than the phrase "Check Your Privilege?" This guy's whiny little editorial about how he hates when people tell him to check his privilege. Tal Fortgang is a Princeton freshman from a wealthy family in New Rochelle, NY, but he doesn't think he's privileged. I didn't go to Princeton, so I don't know if Princetonians are tossing the phrase around as casually and rudely as Mr. Fortgang says. What I do know is that Tal Fortgang, from everything I can tell about him, is incredibly privileged and is either unaware or in denial of it.
Here's the thing. I don't like the phrase, and I don't like the tone that it conveys, but I understand what it means. I grew up a straight, white boy in one of the most affluent counties in the country. Now I'm a straight, white man in a profession dominated by straight white men. I can't help that I'm straight, white, and male, but I can recognize that it has given me advantages in life and will continue to. I can recognize that the vast majority of people in the world, and even in this country, don't get all the advantages that I do. I can recognize that there are some groups that have advantages I don't (very few), and I don't have to resent them for it.
Mr. Fortgang makes a lot of what his ancestors went through to afford him the privilege he doesn't want to recognize. We all have stories about the hardships our forebears went through. My maternal grandfather once told me about how his mother didn't always have money to buy bread during the Great Depression, but he considered their family fortunate because my great-grandfather never lost the car he needed to support his carpentry business. My maternal grandmother was chased across fields by warplanes during World War II. My paternal grandfather started his career in banking as a messenger boy and worked his way up to management. On both sides of my family, my parents were the first to earn bachelor's degrees. The fact that my ancestors went through hard times and worked hard to give me the opportunities I have doesn't discount my personal standing in society. Because or in spite of their struggles, I grew up in a comfortably middle class town with an excellent school system. I got into several well-regarded private and public colleges, partly on the merits of my hard work and intelligence, but partly because my privileged adolescence allowed me the freedom to pursue education and personal betterment without the encumbrance of a difficult family situation, poverty, hunger, or street violence. I have a secure, well-paying job with good hours that requires little physical labor and has great benefits, and I got it in part because of the social network that my expensive private education provided me.
Where Mr. Fortgang misses the point is that privilege isn't about history. History created the society we live in today, but it's that present reality that determines privilege. No one is denying that the Fortgang clan had to walk a rough path to get where they are, but Tal Fortgang isn't walking that path. Tal Fortgang is living in a society that allows him (and me) to walk the streets at any time of night unharassed by law enforcement. If he experiments with illegal drugs, as many Ivy league college students do, he can expect probation at worst, rather than imprisonment. He is living in a society that allowed both of us to live comfortably through our early 20s without having to find employment (whether he chose to exploit that privilege or not, he wasn't going to starve to death). He is living in a society where he is unlikely to be sexually harassed walking down the street or sexually assaulted at a party. He is living in a society where he is statistically likely to be paid about 30% more than his female colleagues and won't be expected to sacrifice his career if he wants to raise a family. He will probably never have to learn or work in an environment that makes him feel unwelcome simply because he is the only white person, the only male, the only straight person in the room. He is living in a society where he has a louder political voice and better business opportunities than the average person simply because of the connections he is making at Princeton.
I'm not saying that Mr. Fortgang didn't work hard to get into Princeton, or for any other achievement he has earned in his life. He and I aren't so different. I've worked hard for the things I've achieved in life too, and I think that my objection to "Check Your Privilege" comes from the same feelings that inspired him to write his little screed. What he needs to understand is that his privilege, my privilege, is that hard work is enough for us. As hard as he worked to get where he is, it would have done him no good without the opportunities he already had. As hard as he will continue to work to achieve in life, he will always go further than someone less fortunate who works just as hard. There are women in my field (engineering) who will be held back by the boys' clubs in my industry. Some of them work as hard as I do; some of them work harder. There are a lot of people who work twice the hours I do for less money than I make because they can't get the job I have. A lot of them are intelligent, but couldn't go to college because they put family obligations above their own needs. A lot of them are intelligent, but didn't have a mother like mine to guide them through the process of applying to and choosing a college. These are hard workers who, with the same opportunities that Mr. Fortgang and I had, could be freshmen at Princeton or researchers with graduate degrees. For some people, hard work and intelligence aren't enough.
Long before "Check Your Privilege," we used another phrase to remind people how fortunate they are. Once upon a time, if someone was feeling put-upon or down-trodden or oppressed, you told them to count their blessings. Let's bring that back. Counting your blessings is a positive activity. It doesn't make anyone feel bad about being privileged, but it reminds them how lucky they are. If we all stop and count our blessings, maybe we'll do better at sympathizing with those less blessed, and maybe we'll do more to spread our blessings to everyone else. I'm a straight white male living in the United States at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Sometimes my life is hard, but I'm going to count my blessings.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Saturday, January 4, 2014
David Brooks Tells You How to Use Marijuana
With marijuana legalized in Colorado a few days ago, David Brooks felt the need to weigh in on the proper way to use it, or not to, or something. If you're unfamiliar with his work, Brooks is the New York Times' lone conservative(ish) columnist. He used to be tolerable, then he went on leave to write a book this year and came back sounding more like a conservative Thomas Friedman.
Before I dive into Brooks' utter mess of a column, I should weigh in myself. First of all, I am in the minority of Americans[1] who have never tried pot. Personally, I don't see the point. I like reality as it is, and I don't see the need to alter my perception of it. I also don't drink alcohol for the same reason. I currently live in a state and country where marijuana possession is a crime and hold a job where marijuana use is grounds to fire me. I guess you could say I don't gain much from legalization of marijuana. I don't use it; I don't want to use it.
Even though I don't personally use pot, I've known a lot of people who have used it, in various quantities and with various frequency. I've known some high-functioning potheads, and I've known potheads who threw their lives away. I've known people who were using it more than they should have been, and I've known people who were arrested for possession. From what I've seen, it's no worse than alcohol. Like alcohol, you can abuse it, but casual use doesn't necessarily constitute abuse. Unlike alcohol, the lethal dose is so far away from the effective dose that it's essentially impossible to overdose on it.
I think there are better and worse ways to use marijuana. If you live somewhere it's illegal, you probably shouldn't use it, but if you do, you shouldn't use it in high risk ways. Don't get high in a school zone; don't carry it (or paraphernalia) around unnecessarily in your car or your purse. Like smoking tobacco, I think there's some etiquette to smoking weed. It's rude to subject others to your second-hand smoke, so find somewhere out of the way or private. Like alcohol, marijuana is an intoxicant. Don't get high and operate heavy machinery. Don't get high before school or work. You know, use some common sense. If you get high in your basement on Friday night and eat a bunch of Cheetos, I don't think you're hurting anyone. If you get high at a party and spend the night being lovably goofy, that's fine (as long as you aren't forcing it on anyone else).
The tl;dr here is that I don't use marijuana, but I support its legalization and I'm ok with people who use it responsibly, politely, and safely. I also don't think it's worth it to break the law to use it.
Brooks essentially takes the polar opposite view. He and his high school friends used pot, and did it pretty stupidly by some indications (Brooks admits to getting high at lunch and stumbling through a presentation in English class). One of his friends turned into a full-time pothead, and the rest grew out of it. Brooks sees nothing wrong with his or his friends' casual use, despite the fact that it was illegal and (in Brooks' own case) detrimental to their school performance. I disagree with him, but so far he's in line with a good chunk of America. Most of his friends went on to live productive lives, and he went on to become a successful author and columnist.
Brooks also seems to think that his and his friends' use was more acceptable because they were young. In other words, the proper way to smoke weed is to use it in high school, then grow up and stop. Never mind that this goes against the (admittedly limited) research that suggests it may be more dangerous for developing minds. Never mind that this goes against the prevailing wisdom on drugs in general, which is that they shouldn't be available to minors. Never mind that most high school students can't responsibly use video games, never mind drugs. The correct way to smoke pot is during high school. So says David Brooks. Adult users are degenerates or delinquents or immature and they should grow up.
But wait. It's about to get weird.
David Brooks, the former pot user, goes on to argue that pot use should be discouraged. Ok, I'm still with him here. I don't have a problem with using marijuana, but like so many things, it's dangerous in excess. I don't mean that you can overdose from it, but that it's hard to do something meaningful with yourself if you're always getting high. It's expensive, it's distracting, and in our current legal and cultural climate, it can make you unemployable or get you arrested. So marijuana use isn't something we should be encouraging. We also shouldn't be encouraging alcohol use, tobacco use, or cursing. It would seem to me that the logical conclusion from there is to legalize it and educate people on the dangers of abusing it. I'm a paternalistic, liberal, big-government socialist, so if I'm not in favor of banning something, I imagine nobody is. Enter David Brooks, the conservative columnist.
Brooks argues that because marijuana use should be discouraged, marijuana should be illegal. He does this in the same column that he says that he doesn't "have any problem with somebody who gets high from time to time." Here's the problem: if he thinks marijuana should be illegal, he thinks he and his high school friends, as well as everyone else who uses weed, deserves to be arrested. That's how laws work. That's how the social contract works. If something is illegal, then everyone who does it is a criminal. David Brooks is no less a criminal because he wasn't caught. The only way for marijuana users not to be criminals is for marijuana to be legal. In a country where more than half of us are guilty of marijuana use, it's just hypocritical to go on like this. Either we all need to stop doing pot and commit to condemning it, or we need to legalize it.
Before I dive into Brooks' utter mess of a column, I should weigh in myself. First of all, I am in the minority of Americans[1] who have never tried pot. Personally, I don't see the point. I like reality as it is, and I don't see the need to alter my perception of it. I also don't drink alcohol for the same reason. I currently live in a state and country where marijuana possession is a crime and hold a job where marijuana use is grounds to fire me. I guess you could say I don't gain much from legalization of marijuana. I don't use it; I don't want to use it.
Even though I don't personally use pot, I've known a lot of people who have used it, in various quantities and with various frequency. I've known some high-functioning potheads, and I've known potheads who threw their lives away. I've known people who were using it more than they should have been, and I've known people who were arrested for possession. From what I've seen, it's no worse than alcohol. Like alcohol, you can abuse it, but casual use doesn't necessarily constitute abuse. Unlike alcohol, the lethal dose is so far away from the effective dose that it's essentially impossible to overdose on it.
I think there are better and worse ways to use marijuana. If you live somewhere it's illegal, you probably shouldn't use it, but if you do, you shouldn't use it in high risk ways. Don't get high in a school zone; don't carry it (or paraphernalia) around unnecessarily in your car or your purse. Like smoking tobacco, I think there's some etiquette to smoking weed. It's rude to subject others to your second-hand smoke, so find somewhere out of the way or private. Like alcohol, marijuana is an intoxicant. Don't get high and operate heavy machinery. Don't get high before school or work. You know, use some common sense. If you get high in your basement on Friday night and eat a bunch of Cheetos, I don't think you're hurting anyone. If you get high at a party and spend the night being lovably goofy, that's fine (as long as you aren't forcing it on anyone else).
The tl;dr here is that I don't use marijuana, but I support its legalization and I'm ok with people who use it responsibly, politely, and safely. I also don't think it's worth it to break the law to use it.
Brooks essentially takes the polar opposite view. He and his high school friends used pot, and did it pretty stupidly by some indications (Brooks admits to getting high at lunch and stumbling through a presentation in English class). One of his friends turned into a full-time pothead, and the rest grew out of it. Brooks sees nothing wrong with his or his friends' casual use, despite the fact that it was illegal and (in Brooks' own case) detrimental to their school performance. I disagree with him, but so far he's in line with a good chunk of America. Most of his friends went on to live productive lives, and he went on to become a successful author and columnist.
Brooks also seems to think that his and his friends' use was more acceptable because they were young. In other words, the proper way to smoke weed is to use it in high school, then grow up and stop. Never mind that this goes against the (admittedly limited) research that suggests it may be more dangerous for developing minds. Never mind that this goes against the prevailing wisdom on drugs in general, which is that they shouldn't be available to minors. Never mind that most high school students can't responsibly use video games, never mind drugs. The correct way to smoke pot is during high school. So says David Brooks. Adult users are degenerates or delinquents or immature and they should grow up.
But wait. It's about to get weird.
David Brooks, the former pot user, goes on to argue that pot use should be discouraged. Ok, I'm still with him here. I don't have a problem with using marijuana, but like so many things, it's dangerous in excess. I don't mean that you can overdose from it, but that it's hard to do something meaningful with yourself if you're always getting high. It's expensive, it's distracting, and in our current legal and cultural climate, it can make you unemployable or get you arrested. So marijuana use isn't something we should be encouraging. We also shouldn't be encouraging alcohol use, tobacco use, or cursing. It would seem to me that the logical conclusion from there is to legalize it and educate people on the dangers of abusing it. I'm a paternalistic, liberal, big-government socialist, so if I'm not in favor of banning something, I imagine nobody is. Enter David Brooks, the conservative columnist.
Brooks argues that because marijuana use should be discouraged, marijuana should be illegal. He does this in the same column that he says that he doesn't "have any problem with somebody who gets high from time to time." Here's the problem: if he thinks marijuana should be illegal, he thinks he and his high school friends, as well as everyone else who uses weed, deserves to be arrested. That's how laws work. That's how the social contract works. If something is illegal, then everyone who does it is a criminal. David Brooks is no less a criminal because he wasn't caught. The only way for marijuana users not to be criminals is for marijuana to be legal. In a country where more than half of us are guilty of marijuana use, it's just hypocritical to go on like this. Either we all need to stop doing pot and commit to condemning it, or we need to legalize it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)