Latter-Day Anarchy

Better known as the Mormon Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is one of the fastest-growing religious institutions in the world.  They are best known for the young men and women who walk in pairs, door-to-door, sharing their “message of the gospel;” or perhaps for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (esteemed as “America’s Choir”). As far as religion goes, it’s not the worst you can do.  The membership is largely intelligent and successful.  LDS members exceed their demographic counterparts in income and education.  There are aspects of this church that are particularly interesting in sociopolitical discourse; specifically, the welfare program, and abstractly, the overall organization and methodology.

Why, you may ask, would an atheist take the time to praise the virtues of a religious institution?  The answer is that it serves a higher ambition than my scruples with superstition: the cause of anarchy.  Of course, I have my problems with the doctrine and culture of the church, but I will save those for another time.  The virtue of the institution lies mainly in their practices regarding charity, frugality, and efficiency.  The success of the church’s private welfare program, and overall organization, is clear evidence that charity not only takes the place of government welfare in the absence of a state, but far exceeds it in achieving the stated goals of eliminating poverty, or to “promote the general welfare.”

Murray Rothbard offers a keen perspective on the matter.  On page 149 of his book, For a New Liberty, he writes, “A highly successful private welfare program in the present-day is the one conducted by the three-million-member [now much greater] Mormon Church. This remarkable people, hounded by poverty and persecution, emigrated to Utah and nearby states in the nineteenth century, and by thrift and hard work raised themselves to a general level of prosperity and affluence. Very few Mormons are on welfare; Mormons are taught to be independent, self-reliant, and to shun the public dole.  Mormons are devout believers and have therefore successfully internalized these admirable values. Furthermore, the Mormon Church operates an extensive private welfare plan for its members—based, again, on the principle of helping their members toward independence as rapidly as possible.”

Rothbard conducts a much more thorough economic analysis of government versus private welfare than I am going to provide here, and I can’t recommend his work more highly in this regard (and any other, for that matter).  This essay will act as more of an individual perspective, rather than an in-depth analysis.  Reading just this brief quote, however, it is easy to see how government welfare is different from private charity, and why the latter is almost always successful in reducing poverty, and why the former inevitably fails.  It comes down to a matter of economic incentive.

The congregation and leadership of the church, for instance, benefit greatly from lifting an individual out of poverty and placing them on the path of independent prosperity.  Such success grants credibility to the institution, and those thus improved are more likely to remain members of the church, and provide a higher tithe (since the church requires a 10% tithe on the income of all members whom can afford it, in order to receive the full “blessings of the gospel”).  Beyond the income tithe, the church requires a “fast offering” in order for a member to be considered in good standing.  A fast offering is collected from members once per month, and is meant to reflect the savings made by the household in foregoing two full meals on a given Sunday.  The LDS Church receives a substantial income from tithes and offerings, and it is worth emphasizing the voluntary nature of these transactions.

Furthermore, the members recognize the overall benefit to the economy that comes from self-sufficiency, as they are taught to appreciate such, and are therefore eager to help their neighbors achieve this status.  They also receive emotional gratification by securing their place in “god’s presence,” by fulfilling what they see as two of the most important commandments: love thy neighbor, and rejoice in charity.  Moreover, these values are promoted socially on a frequent basis.  Church members are discouraged from receiving benefits unnecessarily, and there is shame in taking undue advantage of the program.  The church members are thus incentivized to promote, and the leaders are incentivized to provide, efficient, effective welfare.  There is no benefit to the community or the institution in maintaining a downtrodden underclass with which to procure political support, as we find with government welfare.

Government welfare, by its very nature, creates and supports all sorts of perverse economic incentives; that is, incentives that tend to hinder the individual, their family, and their community both economically and morally.  The prime incentive created by government welfare is the incentive for the recipient to continue receiving welfare benefits beyond their need, for lack of social or legal consequence. In fact, welfare recipients are largely encouraged to take full advantage of the available benefits, to the furthest possible extent of the letter (if not the spirit) of the law.  Because government welfare holds such a low standard for refusal, and requires little to nothing in the way of accountability, it is easy to continue collecting it whilst avoiding the social and legal repercussions of freeloading and fraud.

Government welfare also creates the perverse incentive of vote-bribery.  Politicians that propose fewer barriers to receiving benefits are more likely to get the votes of those who are seeking or receiving welfare benefits.  Politicians who do not support welfare programs are at a severe disadvantage, considering the high percentage of individuals that receive benefits.  Mitt Romney was demonized in the 2012 presidential election for stating this simple economic fact, leading from the unpopular truth that people are largely driven by economic incentives.  This simply reflects the pervasive inconsistency regarding economic incentive and political affiliation.  Though the principle of fundamental economic incentive is accepted in the vast majority of social interactions, when it pertains to political affiliation, the correlation is vehemently rejected by advocates of welfare programs, with feigned moral apprehension, and an air of righteous indignation.

But wait!  There’s more!  Government welfare also incentivizes employers to pay their workers less.  The employers know the laws, and they know at what income level their employees are eligible for various benefits.  They are actually at an advantage paying their workers a little less on the lowest part of the income spectrum, because then their employees are eligible for more benefits, and are thus more likely to be satisfied with their income.  Wal-Mart has perfectly demonstrated the riding of this line.  Many people criticize Wal-Mart for providing such little compensation, but the ones actually receiving it are generally not among them--and those that are may only be interested in working fewer hours while maintaining their place just below the poverty line.  This is because those part-time employees around minimum wage can keep their income below the poverty line intentionally, in order to be eligible for an average of $40,000 in benefits annually.  This number is a federal average, and does not take into consideration those who may also be receiving benefits from state-funded programs.  So the result is employers and low-wage employees relying on welfare as a part of income.  Considering a Wal-Mart manager usually makes $36,000 to $69,000 annually, it makes sense that a part-time employee making around $12,000 per year, and receiving $40,000 in benefits would shirk the increased work-load that a manager takes on.  This is speculation, of course, as I could not possibly know for certain the ambitions and intentions of the employees of which I speak.  I only claim to draw rational conclusions from the inevitable market incentives of the current welfare system.

On the other hand, the LDS Church has had great success with their system, which facilitates lofty ambitions and strongly discourages exploitation.  The church welfare program almost always finds work for an individual seeking it, whether it be through one of their many businesses, such as the Deseret Industries thrift stores or food storage companies, or provided by a member who owns a business that is in need of entry-level labor.  If an individual is willing to work hard, they rise quickly through this system.  If they seek only to collect benefits, they are not necessarily shunned; rather, they are limited to a level of benefits that allows for subsistence living, which works as an economic incentive by itself.

The LDS Church has not only had monumental success with their employment services, but has also made a substantial impact with their humanitarian aid programs overseas-- much more so than the government.  Take, for example, government aid to Africa, which has been not only ineffective, but proactively disastrous.  Haiti is another good example of how detrimental foreign aid by government has become.  I could provide myriad examples of how government foreign aid has crippled impoverished nations, but there are already volumes on the subject, some of the most notable of which can be found in the links above, so I won’t dwell too much on that failure.  Instead, I will present the successes that private institutions have had.

Part of the success the LDS Church experiences is due to the ease with which they can summon volunteers in times of crisis.  With missionaries stationed all over the world, they can respond immediately to emergencies.  In fact, aid from church members often arrives at disaster sites before the Salvation Army or the Red Cross.  They also take care to stock emergency provisions at strategic locations, and have predetermined logistical strategies in place for emergency response, including allocation of food, water, shelter, transportation, and medical supplies.  In short, the fact that much of the congregation and leadership is made up of Boy Scouts is apparent in their approach to disaster relief.

Even outside The Church as an organization, the individual members are taught to be charitable, and tend to live up to this expectation in their private lives.  Many members volunteer for, or donate to, nonprofit organizations.  Some go so far as to create their own private charities.  I personally know of Mormons that have started nonprofit organizations promoting reform in education for children of low-income families, providing education, jobs, food, and housing for African orphans, as well as funding cancer research, arthritis research, and multiple sclerosis research.  

Wal-Mart effectively displayed the ability of private non-religious organizations to provide disaster relief most acutely in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.  While FEMA was struggling to secure funding, resources, transportation, and approval, Wal-Mart delivered relief to the storm-struck area with few logistical barriers.  Not only did they provide truckloads of free merchandise, over 100,000 free meals, and job offers for any and all facing reallocation; they provided it without costing taxpayers a dime, and began deliveries days before the federal government.  Not only was the government ineffective; they were actually counterproductive the relief efforts by refusing to allow aid shipments into the affected area!  The attitude of each entity can be summed up in the following dialogues:

Wal-Mart’s response:

“When a district manager calls from the field to tell the operations manager in the center that he needs 10 trucks of water, the operations manager can turn to the person manning the replenishment systems.

The replenishment manager then checks his supplies. "He says, ’I can get you eight [trucks] today and two tomorrow,’" says Jackson. "He then tells the logistics guy. This all takes place in a matter of seconds."”  (source)

The LDS response:

“When Hurricane Andrew struck [in Miami-Dade County] in 2002, the stories went around that the Mormon relief trucks were on the way to Florida before the hurricane had even made landfall. In the Hurricane Katrina of 2005 we know that once again the trucks were there before the National Guard was even allowing relief through. So the response is incredibly fast, incredibly efficient.”  (source)

FEMA’s response:

“The only FEMA official on the scene in the early stages, Marty Bahamonde, has testified to Congress that he begged FEMA director Michael Brown for water, food, toilet paper and oxygen, saying that "many will die within hours." Brown's press secretary, Sharon Worthy, responded that the FEMA director needed more time to eat dinner at a Baton Rouge restaurant that evening. "He needs much more that [sic] 20 or 30 minutes," Worthy wrote. "Restaurants are getting busy," she said. "We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise [sic], followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc."”  (source)

Faced with this overwhelming contrast, is there any question about the effectiveness of government initiatives?  Is there any question about the efficiency of the private sector?  Is there any evidence to fill the vacuous assertions of the nobility and necessity of government welfare programs?  I have found none, though I welcome any and all criticism on the subject.  If I am wrong, please help me overcome my bias.  If I am right, the next step is to dedicate time, money, and/or effort to the cause of private welfare programs.  If you still like the idea of government welfare,  it is up to you to provide a path of action that will reverse the contrary incentives and improve its dismal results; I can’t think of one.  If you don’t support government welfare programs, then invest heavily in alternatives with more productive results, in an effort to wean those dependent on it from public to private welfare.  As it stands, private welfare will not overtake the public dole in my lifetime, but it is up to us to take the first few steps; show what is possible, and discourage the perversion of charity by the state.  I admire the LDS Church in this regard, and hope they manage to continue to compete with the leviathan of government welfare.  I can’t say what charity would look like in a free society, but I imagine it would be very close to the practices implemented by this institution.

Feminism, Part 1: The Gender Pay Gap

In philosophy, there is an element of triage in addressing social problems.  Like a medic on the battlefield, a philosopher must assess which maladies are most urgent, and among those, which are within his ability to improve.  Most of the issues put forward as problems by modern feminists fail the test of urgency, and also the test of improvability.  In this essay series, I will present some common complaints by modern feminists.  I will show how they explicitly fail the test of triage. I will show that it is difficult to argue that some of these issues are problems at all, either for lack of evidence or lack of definition.  Finally, I will compare these issues to other social problems, to demonstrate the fact that there are things more worthy of consideration; solutions to which may indeed remedy the very maladies that are initially put forth.

The type of feminist to which I refer is defined by the arguments I put forth.  I recognize that not everyone that thinks of themselves as a feminist supports the positions I will present (myself included), but it would be tedious for both you and I to wade through the numerous caveats necessary to produce a pertinent definition of “feminism” in this context.

One of the most important distinctions I will discuss is between arguments of victimhood, and arguments of empowerment.  This is crucial to the improvability element of triage.  It is often important to point out victimhood, but be wary when this is not followed by a strategy of personal empowerment; thus is laid the snare of rhetorical treachery.

Part 1: The Gender Pay Gap

One of the most common complaints is the income disparity between genders.  This disparity is presented as proof that there is a general bias against women in the workforce; that there is a patriarchal conspiracy granting men higher pay for the same work.  Barack Obama said it like this: "Women (are) paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men" (It is interesting to note that the White House itself demonstrates a significant gender pay gap).  I explored this 77% claim briefly in another essay, Sexting and the Sexes, but will now go to a greater depth to reveal its fraudulence.

First, a look at the hard data.  The 77% claim originated in a report from 2010 by the U.S. Census Bureau.  On page 5, it says, “In 2010, the female-to-male earnings ratio was .77…”  Contrary to the common claim, this figure does not take into account what kind of work is being performed, and only takes into account those working full time.  Pew Research has published several reports on the gender pay gap that offer an infinitely vaster perspective on the issue than the single cherry-picked figure of “.77.”  In one report from 2012, they claim .84 to be a more appropriate figure.  They explain how their method of measuring income disparity is different from the government’s, and why the difference may render more accurate results.  Still, there is disparity, you may say; but is there inequality?  Is there discrimination? Do women earn less just because they are women?  To find out, we need to look deeper.

To gain insight, let us look at a few statistics that contradict this trend.  When do men earn less than women?  Young women working in big cities can earn over 120% (about +8% average) of what the males in their peer group make.  The same Pew report linked above states, “women working part-time earn 104% as much as men working part-time; and, at the extreme, women who worked five to nine hours in a week earned 119% as much as men who worked the same number of hours.”  This helps explain why the gap was narrowed by including part-time workers in the analysis.  Beyond those outside instances, men do earn more, but what about the “working the same job” part?  If you consider what men and women working in the same field earn, the gap closes considerably, from 23% to 1-4%.

So what is the explanation for the lingering disparity?  Motherhood seems to have a lot to do with it.  Mothers earn 7-14% less than their female peers without children.  I couldn’t find a statistic or analysis comparing childless men and childless women with similar experience, but it’s probably close to the data we get from observing men and women fresh out of college; which tends to be about equal.  Many sources claim the contrary, and there is something to this claim, as it is crucial to weigh the differences in career selection (fig. 3).  Men tend to go into higher-paying careers, such as engineering and information sciences, whereas women more often major in things such as education, social sciences, and the humanities.  When this tendency is compensated for, the income disparity is substantially less significant.  Still, it exists, however.  The reason?  For now, I’ll just say my theory considers, “potential future losses” and leave it at that, but I will explore this more toward the end of this essay.

“But wait!”  you may say, “men earn more after they have children, but after women have children, they earn less!  This is clear proof of the patriarchal conspiracy!  This is proof of sexism!  All other things being equal, men benefit from the patriarchal construct of breadwinning!”  To see why this is the case, we need not analyze social trends and constructs; rather, it is simply a question of biology and economics.  As we evaluate the issue in the most simple, straightforward manner, the answer becomes painfully obvious.

Studies suggest that the children of mothers who take less than 12 weeks maternity leave are more likely to have behavioral problems, and score lower on cognitive tests.  Moreover, they are less likely to be breastfed for the recommended time, and less likely to have the recommended checkups and immunizations.  One study indicates that the optimal maternity leave may be 40 weeks.  So, if a women has a child, she is most likely going to be out of the work force for 12-40 weeks, or at least take a substantially less demanding role.  Even when mothers do return to the work force in full, they tend to take significantly more time off to attend to family matters.  They are also more likely to quit their job or turn down a promotion due to family matters.

Of course, these facts take their toll.  A CEO looking to grow a business needs employees that are heavily invested in the long-term prospects of their careers.  When a woman takes on the burden of children, she is generally less invested in her career (and rightly so!), while the opposite is true of a man.  The opposite is true because a man, knowing the mother of his children will be indisposed for at least 3 months, unable to provide an income, and is requiring more resources as well, recognizes that it is his responsibility to provide.  Employers recognize this responsibility, and perhaps desperation, as well, and so they compensate for the man’s increased investment in his career.  These disparate trajectories of ambition have further consequences down the road, and in the way a company plans, as each parent settles into their respective role.

So do I think everyone should be confined to the construct of the traditional family?  Not at all!  What I think doesn’t have anything to do with it, anyway; this is just the way it tends to happen.  If a mother decides that she’d like to return to work after 2 weeks, leave the father at home, and devise a prodigious breast-pumping strategy, of course the woman should not be penalized for this.  I imagine her dedication would be proven with such action, prompting more investment from her employer.  An employer with any brains at all would say to themselves, “she’s back at work two weeks later, she convinced her husband to stay home, she’s put a lot of thought into how to properly nurse her child, and she’s fighting her maternal instincts every step of the way… What do I need to pay to keep such an invested employee?”

 

Even if we were to take gender out of the equation, we can reason that whatever parent is spending more time with the child is spending less time at work!  There being only 24 hours in the day, this is a zero-sum game.  Furthermore, if I were a CEO, and a parent of any gender said to me, “well, my child will be fine with the formula and the daycare.  Don’t worry boss, work is my first priority!” I would seriously question this person’s character, and would probably not feel comfortable employing them at the expense of their child.

So why the gender pay gap?  The short answer is, “because gender.”  As long as there is physiological disparity, men will run faster and lift more weight in The Olympics, and probably earn more at work.  Until the day we can raise a fetus in a test-tube, and nurture a child in a lab, we will experience income disparity between the genders.  What I said earlier about “potential future losses” refers to the fact that, in the eyes of an employer, every woman is a potential mother.  Even if a woman insists that she has no plans to be a mother, many women experience a change of heart in this regard; and employers are keenly aware of this “baby rabies” anomaly.  Employers, by the nature of their station, need to consider long-term prospects, and potential obstacles.  Unfortunately, it is simply a biological fact that there exist more potential obstacles for women; and biology isn’t sexist.  To prove that it is an issue of biology and economics, and not an issue of sexism, let us consider the following example:

A man sits down for an interview with an employer.  After the usual round of questioning experience, education, and the rest, the employer is rather satisfied with the answers he receives.  Then, he asks, “and do you plan to take any time off of work in the near future?”

The man replies, “I don’t plan on it, no.  But, some time over the next ten years there is a chance I will take 3 to 9 months off, and when I come back, my availability will be dramatically reduced.  My productivity may suffer as well.  After that, there is a 27% chance I will quit altogether in order to pursue other interests.  I will also cost the company more in the way of health care benefits, and you can be sure I will use all of my sick leave and paid vacation.”

Is the employer unethical if they consider this information in their decision?  After all, this is exactly what is implied by the interviewee if she is female.  Is an employee that prompts these considerations worthy of the same investment as an employee that says, for instance,

“I desperately need a job to provide for my family.  There is nothing more important to me than receiving a stable income, and I am willing to work 80 hours a week if that’s what it takes to secure my position.  I won’t take time off, I’ll work from home if I’m sick, and I’ll be with the company as long as you provide me with a competitive income.”

Of course not.  Anyone who would say otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous.  The claim of income disparity between the sexes fails the test of triage on many levels: it’s hard to argue that it’s a problem, for lack of evidence, and it’s harder to argue that it can be improved upon, for lack of a reasonable solution.  As long as there is economic incentive and physiological disparity, there will be income inequality between the genders; just as strength disparity determines who the athletes are, and cognitive disparity determines who the intellectuals are.

The gender gap is simply not a problem.  As a matter of fact, it’s good that employers consider potential or actual motherhood in their hiring strategies.  It’s good that women are willing to take the economic hit to breastfeed, and otherwise nurture their children.  It’s good that people are willing to sacrifice material wealth in order to reproduce!  The gender gap may indeed indicate we are somewhat healthy as a species.

Rather than fight for solutions to problems that may not even be, well, problems, why not focus on things that we can change in our personal lives?  If you know someone that is a misogynist, let the world know!  Reveal their misogyny; confront it, or at least disassociate from it.  If you know a woman who is struggling as a mother, help her!  Give her money, cook her dinner, do her laundry!  But stop, for gods’ sake, STOP trying to pass laws that make employers afraid to do their job.  Stop trying to enact strategies that make it more difficult for women to be mothers.  In short, stop asserting false victimhood and start empowering yourself and society with your actions: that’s what a real feminist would do.

Ebola

Currently, one of the most prevalent topics in the media is the Ebola virus. In the spirit of never wanting to waste a good crisis, several political groups are grappling for maximum leverage over the contagion.  Various pundits and politicians have played the Ebola card to make the federal politicians look incompetent and paralyzed, and state politicians look paranoid and reactionary.  It’s been used to make state politicians look proactive and forward-thinking, and make the federal politicians look noble and level-headed.  It’s been employed both to shame and to praise foreign governments. Most politicians have applied this leverage to contrast their platform with their opponents’, in light of the upcoming election.

I don’t think it’s purely coincidence that this crisis has found prominence as we approach All Hallows’ Eve.  Just as many seek a thrill with a haunted house or horror flick, I think most people seek a thrill of fear renewed.

I theorize that the reason people watch horror movies is because it is a safe way to feel fear.   Feeling fear that you know to be irrational is satisfying.  The process of feeling like you’re in danger, and then being safe, triggers the risk/reward processors in your brain.  Why do I call it a “safe” fear? Deep down, you know the chances of being murdered by inbred hillbillies in the desert is quite low, compared to, say, the chances of dying from cancer.  Yet, we become empathetic with the characters, feel their fear, and allow it to overtake us, whether it be of Hannibal Lector or Dracula.  Watching a horror movie is a kind of masturbation, and in this metaphor horror movies would be porn.  You work your way up with anticipation and anxiety, and then experience the orgasmic euphoria of ending the movie and understanding you have nothing to fear.  Also like porn, you have no control over the actions of the characters, so it is safe to simply observe.  Action is not an option, which helps make it such a pleasant experience (for some) to watch a horror movie.  So in all, we learn to crave the fear, as we know it will be followed by an increased sense of security.

The recent Ebola news is much the same as a horror story.  I suspect people are enraptured by it because they get to observe a struggle that they have no control over, and, at the end of the day, they can forget.  They are temporarily distracted from the inescapable, personal fears in their life: the fear of confrontation, the fear of failure, the fear of rejection, etc.  By claiming that Ebola is the real threat to their safety, they are able to couch the other, more tangible, more looming threats in their life, and take comfort in the “safe” fear.  And, in accordance with this simile, the general populace has almost no control over the spread of the contagion, beyond regular hand-washing.

I recommend we focus on the more prominent threats to our happiness, such as family trauma, social ostracism, and economic hardship.  These threats, however, you will not see represented in the mass media.  The alternative is far too lucrative.

White Privilege

A friend pointed me to an article recently in a discussion about white privilege.  I found it rather dissatisfying.  The article was entitled, “Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White Person.”  The fundamental problem with the article is, primarily, that the implied ethical principles cannot be universalized.  Moreover, I am at a loss as to how I would act upon them, or how they are useful in any way in improving human behavior.

The first “privileges” the author lists as being afforded by white people are as follows:

-"I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented."

-"When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is."

-"If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race."

-"I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time."

These are borrowed from a previous essay by Peggy McIntosh entitled, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.”**  To the author’s credit, they do point out some overlap in McIntosh’s list of “privileges” in the categories of race and income.  That is, perhaps some of the “privileges” listed are not afforded to a person because they are white, but rather because they are of a higher class, or higher socioeconomic group (a distinction I will define in a later essay).

You may be wondering why I’m placing quotes around the word “privilege” in this context.  So let us explore the definition of privilege.  The OED defines privilege as:

A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people

So for these things to be defined as “privileges” they need to be available only to a particular person or group of people.  By “white privilege,” we understand that these opportunities are supposedly available only to white people.  This simply is not true.  Furthermore, it would be difficult to argue that anything on the list is a ‘right, advantage, or immunity.”  Is it an advantage to see people of your own race represented in media?  If it is, does this not depend upon geographic location?  If I am a white in Sub-Saharan Africa, am I at a disadvantage because I do not see people of my race represented in the media?  Are my rights being violated? Aren’t these same voices claiming the prevalence of white privilege also promoting the benefits of ethnic diversity?  You can’t have it both ways; if diversity is a virtue, it should be a good thing that a race other than your own is represented.

The second one is just ridiculous.  When taught about the heritage of the human race, I learn that the origin of humanity is most likely Africa.  Does that give Africans a privilege?  Is there some right, advantage, or immunity inherent in this knowledge?  Of course not.  It is simply an accident of geography, and grants nobody any privilege.  There is no advantage, right, or immunity involved.

As a white man who has been arrested on erroneous charges by a black man in the south, I can assure you personally that the third bullet is simply untrue.  I can’t be sure that my race was not a factor.  It’s no privilege to cut your hair short and look like a Neo-Nazi.  Moreover, it’s not a privilege to “not be sure [you] haven’t been singled out because of [your] race.”  There is no inherent right, advantage or immunity involved, so it has nothing to do with privilege.  If I ask a girl to dance in a club, and she turns me down, could I ever be sure that it wasn’t because of my race?  Or my accent?  Or my teeth?  Of any other of dozens of factors that will never be known to me?

As for the fourth bullet, how is it advantageous to be with people of your own race?  What right, advantage, or immunity is provided by this circumstance?  Is McIntosh really so racist that she gleans some undeniable value from being around people of her own race?  Why the racial centrism?  Or, more bluntly, why the racism?  I don’t care about the race of people around me.  I care that they are polite, smart, or at least honest, and interested in important ideas.  I care that they have good taste, and are willing to engage in conversation.  I care that we are able to have civil disagreements, and discuss their significance with a level head.  Race never enters my mind.

The implied ethical standard is this: we should all recognize our privileges, and measure them against the privileges of others for the purposes of seeking a balance in privileges.  This, however, cannot be universalized.  I am privileged as a man of medium build.  I will probably live longer than people that are taller than me, and I have a statistical advantage over shorter people with wooing the opposite sex.  Then again, tall people have an even greater advantage in the latter regard, so they should be prompted to recognize their ‘tall privilege.’  Moreover, short people usually live even longer than people of my height, and are generally more nimble, and can fit into smaller spaces more comfortably; surely these are advantages, so they need to be aware of their ‘short privilege.’  How could I possible act to balance these privileges?  What good does it do to raise awareness of these privileges?

What about black privilege?  I am at a severe disadvantage in seeking certain roles in movies or plays.  When I travel to Africa, I’m more likely to be the victim of a crime.  If I write an essay like this one, I’m more likely to be called a racist.  Are these not privileges that black people enjoy?  What is their responsibility to recognize their privilege?

I could talk about smart privilege, red-head privilege, twin privilege, catholic privilege, tribal privilege, or rabbit privilege, and it wouldn’t get me any closer to ending bigotry in the world.  Near the end, the author states:

“And listen, recognizing Privilege doesn't mean suffering guilt or shame for your lot in life. Nobody's saying that Straight White Middle Class Able-Bodied Males are all a bunch of assholes who don't work hard for what they have. Recognizing Privilege simply means being aware that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things you take for granted (if they ever can experience them at all.)

"I know now that I AM Privileged in many ways. I am Privileged as a natural born white citizen. I am privileged as a cis-gendered woman. I am privileged as an able-bodied person. I am privileged that my first language is also our national language, and that I was born with an intellect and ambition that pulled me out of the poverty I was otherwise destined for. I was privileged to be able to marry my way "up" by partnering with a Privileged middle-class educated male who fully expected me to earn a college degree.”

So this is basically a Thanksgiving prayer.  No matter what your station in life, be grateful for your privilege, or “Privilege.”  If you are born a rich Italian supermodel, recognize your privilege in being assured economic stability and reproductive success.  If you are born a homeless Somali orphan, recognize your privilege in being eligible for refugee status and government benefits in the U.S.

What’s frustrating to me about all this is, what am I to do with it?  I’m grateful I’m alive, and I recognize all the advantages, and disadvantages, I have in my life over many of my fellow humans.  I’m at a loss as to what the author is suggesting I do about it.  Closer to the end, the call to action seems to be to “raise awareness.”  Why would we want to do that?  Should we be telling young black children that they are at a statistical disadvantage because of their race or socioeconomic status?  Should we be telling young white children that the only reason they have certain opportunities is because of the color of their skin?  How would society benefit from such racial centrism?  Why not talk about behavior and consequence?  If we want the races viewed equally in society, why not eliminate race disparity from our dialogue altogether?  After all, it doesn’t have anything to do with… well, anything, beside the color of our skin, hair, and eyes, the shape of our nose, and the placement of our cheekbones.