Yale Psych drama and current state of the program

[untapped]

Typical deflection and arguing in bad faith. The Congo might have black privilege if they had centuries of enslaving white people from western Europe, followed by segregation, then with the formation of a multi-ethnic society where the majority of wealth and power was held by black Congolese.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tombreaz]

Typical deflection and arguing in bad faith. The Congo might have black privilege if they had centuries of enslaving white people from western Europe, followed by segregation, then with the formation of a multi-ethnic society where the majority of wealth and power was held by black Congolese.

Asking a question isn't deflecting or making an argument lol. But good to hear your logic doesn't carry over the ocean. You think "white" people just sailed over and rounded up blacks with no knowledge of the area at all? You should do a bit of research into blacks that made a lot of money in selling their own.

Consistency from you would have yielded a simple yes to my question as of course a white person plopped into the Congo wouldn't have as much privilege as the blacks live there.

 

[tombreaz]

Typical deflection and arguing in bad faith. The Congo might have black privilege if they had centuries of enslaving white people from western Europe, followed by segregation, then with the formation of a multi-ethnic society where the majority of wealth and power was held by black Congolese.

What's worse. Slavery from over 100 years ago or slavery now?

 

[untapped]

Asking a question isn't deflecting or making an argument lol. But good to hear your logic doesn't carry over the ocean. You think "white" people just sailed over and rounded up blacks with no knowledge of the area at all? You should do a bit of research into blacks that made a lot of money in selling their own.

Consistency from you would have yielded a simple yes to my question as of course a white person plopped into the Congo wouldn't have as much privilege as the blacks live there.

I mean I just explained why it's not equivalent. White European colonialism has defined the last few centuries. It's not like Congo or China or any other non European country has colonized Europe and taken white european slaves en masse back to their continent, stripped them of their names and religion, and then tried to integrate their children into their society many generations later after they've lost their culture/education/wealth etc.

England and the United States did this and now many of us, myself included, are born and grow up in a multi-ethnic society where we are not the majority ethnic group. Does that mean I should be disadvantaged like a white person plopped into the Congo? Because that is what you are implying, that a non white person in the United States should have the same status as a non black person in the Congo.

 

[doctalaughs]

So you're comparing your 20 physician private practice to a residency program?
I think this is off for so many reasons. But okay.

We aren’t talking about just a residency program; this involves an academic department with someone who is supposed to lead it and make the final decisions, no different than a CEO or business owner. There are plenty of academic medical departments of 20 faculty even if Yale happens to be larger.

Of course there are some differences - but are you saying academic departments intrinsically should have leaders with less decision-making power compared with businesses? If so, why (aside from the liberal culture which has somehow pervaded these departments recently)?

If you were the business owner/partner in my scenario above, do you think it’s an abuse of power to fire an employee badmouthing the boss’ decisions in the news? Why? Genuinely curious.

 

[doctalaughs]

It's absurd to think that white men are not overrepresented in leadership and privileged positions whether in academia, business, politics, etc. It's like asking a fish if it's wet.

I don’t think anyone argued that white men are not overrepresented in these positions— just like no one argues that black men are overrepresented in the NBA and NFL. These are facts.

The question is whether you need to do anything about that, and if so, what to do (because reasonable people can disagree what/if there is a good solution that doesn’t do more harm than good). People can also argue WHY this overrepresentaion might exist today.

 

[untapped]

I don’t think anyone argued that white men are not overrepresented in these positions— just like no one argues that black men are overrepresented in the NBA and NFL. These are facts.

The question is whether you need to do anything about that, and if so, what to do (because reasonable people can disagree what/if there is a good solution that doesn’t do more harm than good). People can also argue WHY this overrepresentaion might exist today.

Sure, but it's ultimately mostly white men having that discussion whether they need to reduce their own privilege and power. It's like asking billionaires if they should pay more in taxes, or asking politicians if they should have their power curbed.

A move towards equality is by definition going to be painful to white men and loudly opposed because they actually have to give up something of value. As this thread is demonstrating.

 

[doctalaughs]

Sure, but it's ultimately mostly white men having that discussion whether they need to reduce their own privilege and power. It's like asking billionaires if they should pay more in taxes, or asking politicians if they should have their power curbed.

A move towards equality is by definition going to be painful to white men and loudly opposed because they actually have to give up something of value. As this thread is demonstrating.

You are assuming the vast majority of people (on this thread and elsewhere) who disagree with the current DEI practices are white men. Not so, including myself.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose this shift outside of giving up your own power.

I’m suspect more than 50% of the country disagrees with DEI and AA policies, as they are currently being implemented.

 

[WisNeuro]

You are assuming the vast majority of people (on this thread and elsewhere) who disagree with the current DEI practices are white men. Not so, including myself.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose this shift outside of giving up your own power.

I’m suspect more than 50% of the country disagrees with DEI and AA policies, as they are currently being implemented.

 

[hamstergang]

I don’t think anyone argued that white men are not overrepresented in these positions

It is suggested by this post:

Academia does not like white men and actively tries to recruit any other demographic if it has the choice. The less male, the less white, the less heterosexual, the better. Have you spoken to the average psychiatry resident lately? They speak incessantly about white supremacy, racism, transphobia and all other flavors of the most mainstream social justice rhetoric. They complain about how there aren’t enough minorities in the residency programs, despite the fact that demand far outweighs supply of minorities. This heavily influences program directors and selection committees to rank candidates highly based on these superficial diversity characteristics. My residency program was sponsored by one of the elite institutions, and this preoccupation with diversity, mostly skin color, sexual orientation, and transgenderism, was built into the foundation of the institution and reinforced from the top down.

 

[SmallBird]

Sure, but it's ultimately mostly white men having that discussion whether they need to reduce their own privilege and power. It's like asking billionaires if they should pay more in taxes, or asking politicians if they should have their power curbed.

A move towards equality is by definition going to be painful to white men and loudly opposed because they actually have to give up something of value. As this thread is demonstrating.

I completely agree with this but how does the current example make sense. Help me understand how DEI was advanced in this case. As far as I can tell they have just caused major damage to a program that will now negatively impact the training experience of a very diverse group of residents.

 

[untapped]

I completely agree with this but how does the current example make sense. Help me understand how DEI was advanced in this case. As far as I can tell they have just caused major damage to a program that will now negatively impact the training experience of a very diverse group of residents.

I agree with you that I’m not sure it was in this case. I know about one of these Yale residents through a colleague who went to med school with them. They are “woke” as their brand to advance their social media and academic profile, while being a lazy and manipulative person. It’s unfortunate because I agree with DEI on principle, but it needs to be advanced honestly and without “cancelling” opposing views.

 

[SmallBird]

I agree with you that I’m not sure it was in this case. I know about one of these Yale residents through a colleague who went to med school with them. They are “woke” as their brand to advance their social media and academic profile, while being a lazy and manipulative person. It’s unfortunate because I agree with DEI on principle, but it needs to be advanced honestly and without “cancelling” opposing views.

Thank you for acknowledging that. I think its really important that we can both accept the premise that 1) DEI is critical, and 2) it requires a strategy to be effectively advanced. And then recognize that there are people active in this space who may have agendas.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

You are assuming the vast majority of people (on this thread and elsewhere) who disagree with the current DEI practices are white men. Not so, including myself.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose this shift outside of giving up your own power.

I’m suspect more than 50% of the country disagrees with DEI and AA policies, as they are currently being implemented.

The ideological presupposition appears to be that all people 'in power' (say, in a position with authority) have obtained their position due to unfair arbitrary favoritism ('privilege') due to skin color rather than having actually earned it through qualifications, hard work, and merit. If you are a white male and have a position of authority/power/accomplishment, you didn't earn it, you were unfairly granted it due to 'systemic racism.'

Unfortunately, whenever anyone asserts that maybe some (most?) white men in certain positions of authority or power actually did the work, had the qualifications, and earned their position, they get personally attacked ad nauseum.

The world is seen through the lens of a one variable (skin color) explanation for everything.

 

[doctalaughs]

Thank you for acknowledging that. I think its really important that we can both accept the premise that 1) DEI is critical, and 2) it requires a strategy to be effectively advanced. And then recognize that there are people active in this space who may have agendas.

I think most people agree that diversity is important in a school or workplace.

Most people do NOT agree that it should be a factor in hiring or admissions, over merit. Rather I would advocate diversity though early childhood resources/education, support of poverty and cultural/hiring outreach programs.

When it comes time for actual admissions or hiring decisions , merit and ability to do the job should be the ONLY criteria considered.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think most people agree that diversity is important in a school or workplace.

Most people do NOT agree that it should be a factor in hiring or admissions, over merit. Rather I would advocate diversity though early childhood resources/education, support of poverty and cultural/hiring outreach programs.

When it comes time for actual admissions or hiring decisions , merit and ability to do the job should be the ONLY criteria considered.

I also find that diversity of thought is almost entirely absent at institutions that claim to be bastions of intellectual pursuit. Diversity of thought would seem to be critical to academia but it is sorely lacking.

 

[tombreaz]

Sure, but it's ultimately mostly white men having that discussion whether they need to reduce their own privilege and power. It's like asking billionaires if they should pay more in taxes, or asking politicians if they should have their power curbed.

A move towards equality is by definition going to be painful to white men and loudly opposed because they actually have to give up something of value. As this thread is demonstrating.

Your comments read like a satirical liberal account ran by conservatives. You make sure to use every politically correct buzzword. This video is long but might be worth a watch. I mainly recommend it because JP discusses how he knows everything the interviewer is already going to say before she even says it.



*and I was expecting a response to the slavery question but if you want to move on from that it's understandable.

 

[untapped]

This has taken an interesting turn and I do want to wind down as I don't think it's productive. I would be surprised if the majority of psychiatrists agreed with your take over mine. I don't know how you can take care of psychiatric patients and not see the disparity in resources and life circumstances between most white and black patients.

You asked "What's worse. Slavery from over 100 years ago or slavery now?". They're both bad. Not sure what your point is. Whether Congo has slaves now or in the past has no bearing on whether there's white privilege in the US. You also say my logic doesn't carry overseas, which I explained was because history has unfolded in such a way that European colonialism has created the multi-ethnic country we live in now. Again, Congo didn't take slaves from western Europe and create a racial underclass in Congo. Of course there are other countries with racial or religious caste systems which is also bad. But we're focusing on the US.

I'm not going to watch a Jordan Peterson video. He's a grifter who tells people to clean their room first while he's a perpetually angry benzo addict who seems more miserable than anyone I know. Maybe he should have cleaned his own room before writing a self help book. There's a whole network of these right wing grifters who are getting rich off making people angry on the youtube algorithm.

 

[tombreaz]

This has taken an interesting turn and I do want to wind down as I don't think it's productive. I would be surprised if the majority of psychiatrists agreed with your take over mine. I don't know how you can take care of psychiatric patients and not see the disparity in resources and life circumstances between most white and black patients.

You asked "What's worse. Slavery from over 100 years ago or slavery now?". They're both bad. Not sure what your point is. Whether Congo has slaves now or in the past has no bearing on whether there's white privilege in the US. You also say my logic doesn't carry overseas, which I explained was because history has unfolded in such a way that European colonialism has created the multi-ethnic country we live in now. Again, Congo didn't take slaves from western Europe and create a racial underclass in Congo. Of course there are other countries with racial or religious caste systems which is also bad. But we're focusing on the US.

I'm not going to watch a Jordan Peterson video. He's a grifter who tells people to clean their room first while he's a perpetually angry benzo addict who seems more miserable than anyone I know. Maybe he should have cleaned his own room before writing a self help book. There's a whole network of these right wing grifters who are getting rich off making people angry on the youtube algorithm.

I appreciated your tone at the beginning of this but you veered off at the end. Your accusations against JP are (again) the all to common far left criticisms that have been answered in context in multiple locations. Odd that a doc would so harshly criticize a person who had a real addiction and struggled to the point of death and family ruin to get over it.

With slavery, yes, both are bad but one is happening right this second and the other isn't. One of those situations is obviously preferable...

Yet you sit here and talk about white privilege-while actual slavery exists. Talk about first world problems...

Many privilege's exist in a gigantic web of factors. You think a white guy living in a trailer home in Missouri has the same privilege as LeBron James? Your left wing reductionism of "white privilege" to this nebulous thing white people should be ashamed of and guilty of having (though they participated in no racial hatred whatsoever) is simply sophomoric.

I'd encourage you to at least familiarize yourself a bit more with entertaining arguments from outside your bubble. Immediately jumping to negative conclusions about two intellectual greats such as Tom Sowell and JP don't bode well for being known as an intellectually honest person. And Tom Sowell might have been a different thread with a different person lol so my apologies if that's so.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I appreciated your tone at the beginning of this but you veered off at the end. Your accusations against JP are (again) the all to common far left criticisms that have been answered in context in multiple locations. Odd that a doc would so harshly criticize a person who had a real addiction and struggled to the point of death and family ruin to get over it.

With slavery, yes, both are bad but one is happening right this second and the other isn't. One of those situations is obviously preferable...

Yet you sit here and talk about white privilege-while actual slavery exists. Talk about first world problems...

Many privilege's exist in a gigantic web of factors. You think a white guy living in a trailer home in Missouri has the same privilege as LeBron James? Your left wing reductionism of "white privilege" to this nebulous thing white people should be ashamed of and guilty of having (though they participated in no racial hatred whatsoever) is simply sophomoric.

I'd encourage you to at least familiarize yourself a bit more with entertaining arguments from outside your bubble. Immediately jumping to negative conclusions about two intellectual greats such as Tom Sowell and JP don't bode well for being known as an intellectually honest person. And Tom Sowell might have been a different thread with a different person lol so my apologies if that's so.

Chris Rock had a bit about that.

 

[tombreaz]

This has taken an interesting turn and I do want to wind down as I don't think it's productive. I would be surprised if the majority of psychiatrists agreed with your take over mine. I don't know how you can take care of psychiatric patients and not see the disparity in resources and life circumstances between most white and black patients.

You asked "What's worse. Slavery from over 100 years ago or slavery now?". They're both bad. Not sure what your point is. Whether Congo has slaves now or in the past has no bearing on whether there's white privilege in the US. You also say my logic doesn't carry overseas, which I explained was because history has unfolded in such a way that European colonialism has created the multi-ethnic country we live in now. Again, Congo didn't take slaves from western Europe and create a racial underclass in Congo. Of course there are other countries with racial or religious caste systems which is also bad. But we're focusing on the US.

I'm not going to watch a Jordan Peterson video. He's a grifter who tells people to clean their room first while he's a perpetually angry benzo addict who seems more miserable than anyone I know. Maybe he should have cleaned his own room before writing a self help book. There's a whole network of these right wing grifters who are getting rich off making people angry on the youtube algorithm.

I found a good privilege web. Do you line up with this one or does it need edits?

 

[tombreaz]

Chris Rock had a bit about that.

I need a chuckle-got a link?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I found a good privilege web. Do you line up with this one or does it need edits?
View attachment 362779

I had no idea there was an....

Intersectional Circumplex

I'd imagine that it's quite a handy tool to foment polarization along any chosen dimension

does 'Narcissism' go above or below the 'Domination Meridian?'

 

[tombreaz]

I had no idea there was an....

Intersectional Circumplex

I'd imagine that it's quite a handy tool to foment polarization along any chosen dimension

does 'Narcissism' go above or below the 'Domination Meridian?'

Competing in the oppression Olympics floats too many peoples boats...

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Competing in the oppression Olympics floats too many peoples boats...

"DAMMIT, Jim! I'm a DOCTOR, not a cartographer!

 

[WisNeuro]

I had no idea there was an....

Intersectional Circumplex

I'd imagine that it's quite a handy tool to foment polarization along any chosen dimension

does 'Narcissism' go above or below the 'Domination Meridian?'

Especially when one gets to define the dimensions a priori.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Especially when one gets to define the dimensions a priori.

Yup. Indeed.

And especially when there exists an INFINITE number of possible dimensions one could make up or focus upon. Essentially, the entire universe of dimensions along which human beings differ. What would be an interesting study would be to see which dimensions, say, in a chat conversation along which individuals readily identify/reveal to the group of participants vs. which ones they fail to reveal or emphasize. May be interesting to examine variance associated with social desirability (Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale [back in the day, anyways]).

It would be really interesting to study what people preferentially reveal say on dating sites vs. job/school applications.

The hypotheses would kind of write themselves.

In one context, people are trying to maximize their appearance of 'oppression' or lack of 'privilege'/resources.

In the other, just the opposite.

And, just to be clear, when it comes to the application/acceptance process for surgical residencies, I am definitely in favor of preferential hiring along the dimension of 'ableism' and you are too unless you're woke to a suicidal degree.

And don't forget to preferentially 'swipe right' on and date those who are in the lower quartile of attractiveness, for 'equity's sake.'

If you want to get a sense of someone's real values vs. their stated values you have to pay attention to their actual behavior and not just their verbal behavior. Psychology used to understand that and even study it empirically.

 

[Orgone]

If you want to get a sense of someone's real values vs. their stated values you have to pay attention to their actual behavior and not just their verbal behavior. Psychology used to understand that and even study it empirically.

"Racism is evil and literally the worst crime a person can commit. Hey look, it's a White person, they must act like A and think B and have experienced C. Oh wow, now they're angry. Let's call it White Rage! They must watch Fox News"

 

[futureapppsy2]

"Privilege" doesn't mean you get the world handed to you on a silver platter, just that there are some things that you don't have to think about on account of a certain status. For example, a person who uses a wheelchair has to consider whether or not the store they wan to go to or the apartment they want to rent is wheelchar accessible--non-disabled people just never have to think about that and thus have more options in that regard. People who are the majority religion where they live rarely have to worry about getting their high holidays off because it's built into that society whereas people in minority religions do. (Cisgender) men don't have to worry about the fact that they are having a kid in two months being visible during a residency or job interview; cisgender women do. The structures and systems we've built as a society benefit the people of the same groups that built them (in the West, that's largely been White, wealthy, straight, non-disabled men) and thus tend to, on average, make life for people in those categories than for people who the systems weren't built for. Are there people who are so rich, lucky, unusually talented, etc., that they still have an easier go of it overall despite being disadvantaged in some categories? Sure, of course, but the exceptions kind of prove the rule (and even those exceptions sometimes still feel the some of the brunt of it--for example, Taylor Swift, who is the definition of "rich, privileged White girl," still gets some sexist stuff from the music industry--"men are strategic; women are two-faced," "men react; women over-react," "women are sluts; men are playboys living the dream," etc).

 

[WisNeuro]

"Privilege" doesn't mean you get the world handed to you on a silver platter, just that there are some things that you don't have to think about on account of a certain status. For example, a person who uses a wheelchair has to consider whether or not the store they wan to go to or the apartment they want to rent is wheelchar accessible--non-disabled people just never have to think about that and thus have more options in that regard. People who are the majority religion where they live rarely have to worry about getting their high holidays off because it's built into that society whereas people in minority religions do. (Cisgender) men don't have to worry about the fact that they are having a kid in two months being visible during a residency or job interview; cisgender women do. The structures and systems we've built as a society benefit the people of the same groups that built them (in the West, that's largely been White, wealthy, straight, non-disabled men) and thus tend to, on average, make life for people in those categories than for people who the systems weren't built for. Are there people who are so rich, lucky, unusually talented, etc., that they still have an easier go of it overall despite being disadvantaged in some categories? Sure, of course, but the exceptions kind of prove the rule (and even those exceptions sometimes still feel the some of the brunt of it--for example, Taylor Swift, who is the definition of "rich, privileged White girl," still gets some sexist stuff from the music industry--"men are strategic; women are two-faced," "men react; women over-react," "women are sluts; men are playboys living the dream," etc).

I don't think most people deny that certain advantages exist, rather that priveilege is seen as a binary concept and is overgeneralized in practice. That because you are in a higher paying job, are highly educated, and are white, that the only reason that you are there is because you grew up rich and had things handed to you. It's simply a series of stereotypes and generalizations, which is highly hypocritical. I agree with many of the theoretical concepts around privilege and DEI, I just think how psychology/psychiatry implement those things strays far away from those theoretical underpinnings and betrays any sense of empiricism and practicality, undermining both the actual goals of those DEI initiatives, and also the fields of psychology/psychiatry themselves.

 

[SmallBird]

"Privilege" doesn't mean you get the world handed to you on a silver platter, just that there are some things that you don't have to think about on account of a certain status. For example, a person who uses a wheelchair has to consider whether or not the store they wan to go to or the apartment they want to rent is wheelchar accessible--non-disabled people just never have to think about that and thus have more options in that regard. People who are the majority religion where they live rarely have to worry about getting their high holidays off because it's built into that society whereas people in minority religions do. (Cisgender) men don't have to worry about the fact that they are having a kid in two months being visible during a residency or job interview; cisgender women do. The structures and systems we've built as a society benefit the people of the same groups that built them (in the West, that's largely been White, wealthy, straight, non-disabled men) and thus tend to, on average, make life for people in those categories than for people who the systems weren't built for. Are there people who are so rich, lucky, unusually talented, etc., that they still have an easier go of it overall despite being disadvantaged in some categories? Sure, of course, but the exceptions kind of prove the rule (and even those exceptions sometimes still feel the some of the brunt of it--for example, Taylor Swift, who is the definition of "rich, privileged White girl," still gets some sexist stuff from the music industry--"men are strategic; women are two-faced," "men react; women over-react," "women are sluts; men are playboys living the dream," etc).

A problem that is at best addressed by recreating the structures that reinforce these advantages, at second best using work around such as creating positions and opportunities for those who are disadvantaged by the structure, and at worst, placing the weight of decades of injustice within a department on the shoulders of a talented young person who had no role in creating the structures and is now experiencing more discrimination then anybody else.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I don't think most people deny that certain advantages exist, rather that priveilege is seen as a binary concept and is overgeneralized in practice. That because you are in a higher paying job, are highly educated, and are white, that the only reason that you are there is because you grew up rich and had things handed to you. It's simply a series of stereotypes and generalizations, which is highly hypocritical. I agree with many of the theoretical concepts around privilege and DEI, I just think how psychology/psychiatry implement those things strays far away from thos etheoretical underpinnings and betrays any sense of empiricism and practicality, undermining both the actuial goals of those DEI initiatives, and also the fields of psychology/psychiatry themselves.

But saying these advantages exist for people like you (the generic you) but that of course you specifically (again, the generic you) didn't benefit from them is kind of stupid. Yes, we all like to think we achieve things on our awesome merit alone, because that makes us feel good, but starting from a better position in a system that's built with people like you in mind is only going to benefit someone and make it that much easier for their merit to shine. Like, is Taylor Swift a talented, hard working singer/songwriter? Sure. Did she benefit considerably from having a rich stockbrocker dad who could buy part of record company for her? Yes, of course.

 

[WisNeuro]

But saying these advantages exist for people like you (the generic you) but that of course you specifically (again, the generic you) didn't benefit from them is kind of stupid. Yes, we all like to think we achieve things on our awesome merit alone, because that makes us feel good, but starting from a better position in a system that's built with people like you in mind is only going to benefit someone and make it that much easier for their merit to shine. Like, is Taylor Swift a talented, hard working singer/songwriter? Sure. Did she benefit considerably from having a rich stockbrocker dad who could buy part of record company for her? Yes, of course.

Assuming that this benefit is a yes or no switch is the stupid part. Did the rich kid from La Jolla benefit the same amount as the poor kid from Appalachia? But that's exactly what happens.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Assuming that this benefit is a yes or no switch is the stupid part. Did the rich kid from La Jolla benefit the same amount as the poor kid from Appalachia? But that's exactly what happens.

That's exactly why the concept of intersectionality exists, because it's not an on and off switch--that's the intersection of race and class, for example.

 

[WisNeuro]

That's exactly why the concept of intersectionality exists, because it's not an on and off switch--that's the intersection of race and class, for example.

I agree, and if only intersectionality for the nonvisible portions actually came into play for some people, that'd be awesome.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I agree, and if only intersectionality for the nonvisible portions actually came into play for some people, that'd be awesome.

IMO, one of the worst mistakes DEI-oriented folk make when talking about privilege is leaving class privilege out of the conversation.

 

[WisNeuro]

IMO, one of the worst mistakes DEI-oriented folk make when talking about privilege is leaving class privilege out of the conversation.

I think it's in the conversation, but the consideration of it is not applied evenly if you fit certain demographic characteristics.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think it's in the conversation, but the consideration of it is not applied evenly if you fit certain demographic characteristics.

I think this comes back to intersectionality but also the fact that everyone, universally, is much more aware of the privilege they lack than the privilege they have. If a White person comes from a low SES background, they are likely to be very acutely aware of class privilege but not White privilege, because they have acutely felt the disadvantages of being low SES but not the disadvantages of being non-White. Likewise if someone is, say, Black from a high SES background, they are likely to be very acutely aware of White privilege but less so of class privilege because they have acutely felt the disadvantages of being non-White but not of being low SES. As a result, people often end up feeling invalidated by conversions about privilege that don't reflect the areas and intersections where they lack privilege, because those lived experiences of disadvantage are so often visceral to them. So, if a conversasion around privilege focuses on class privilege alone, a lot of the people from low SES backgrounds are going to feel validated and heard, because it reflects their lived experience, whereas high SES people who are not privileged in other areas are going be thinking "what the hell--I'm not privileged--I've dealt with so much [racism, sexism, ableism, etc]." Flip the conversation and focus on White privilege alone, and a lot of non-White people are going to feel very heard and validated because it addresses common experiences of racism, etc., whereas White people who are disadvantaged in other areas are going to be thinking "what the hell--I'm not privileged--I've dealt with so much [SES disadvantage/classism, ableism, sexism, etc]."

A lot of DEI stuff tends to focus, often almost exclusively, on racism, because America has such a visible, enduring history with that, and that can leave White people from other marginalized axises feeling ignored, invalidated, and even attacked, because here are people telling you that "of course, you had it so easy" when you didn't, even if you didn't have to deal with racism specifically. A lot of how we talk about privilege is ineffective and even harmful because we do it in this way and it tends turn into "you're privileged so you had it so easy, you're not privileged so you had it much more difficult" when it's not nearly that simple. But despite that, the concept of privilege and its concrete effects are very real but also very intersectionally complex and because of that, "privilege" is honestly a bad term for the construct.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think this comes back to intersectionality but also the fact that everyone, universally, is much more aware of the privilege they lack than the privilege they have. If a White person comes from a low SES background, they are likely to be very acutely aware of class privilege but not White privilege, because they have acutely felt the disadvantages of being low SES but not the disadvantages of being non-White. Likewise if someone is, say, Black from a high SES background, they are likely to be very acutely aware of White privilege but less so of class privilege because they have acutely felt the disadvantages of being non-White but not of being low SES. As a result, people often end up feeling invalidated by conversions about privilege that don't reflect the areas and intersections where they lack privilege, because those lived experiences of disadvantage are so often visceral to them. So, if a conversasion around privilege focuses on class privilege alone, a lot of the people from low SES backgrounds are going to feel validated and heard, because it reflects their lived experience, whereas high SES people who are not privileged in other areas are going be thinking "what the hell--I'm not privileged--I've dealt with so much [racism, sexism, ableism, etc]." Flip the conversation and focus on White privilege alone, and a lot of non-White people are going to feel very heard and validated because it addresses common experiences of racism, etc., whereas White people who are disadvantaged in other areas are going to be thinking "what the hell--I'm not privileged--I've dealt with so much [SES disadvantage/classism, ableism, sexism, etc]."

A lot of DEI stuff tends to focus, often almost exclusively, on racism, because America has such a visible, enduring history with that, and that can leave White people from other marginalized axises feeling ignored, invalidated, and even attacked, because here are people telling you that "of course, you had it so easy" when you didn't, even if you didn't have to deal with racism specifically. A lot of how we talk about privilege is ineffective and even harmful because we do it in this way and it tends turn into "you're privileged so you had it so easy, you're not privileged so you had it much more difficult" when it's not nearly that simple. But despite that, the concept of privilege and its concrete effects are very real but also very intersectionally complex and because of that, "privilege" is honestly a bad term for the construct.

We definitely agree here.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think this comes back to intersectionality but also the fact that everyone, universally, is much more aware of the privilege they lack than the privilege they have. If a White person comes from a low SES background, they are likely to be very acutely aware of class privilege but not White privilege, because they have acutely felt the disadvantages of being low SES but not the disadvantages of being non-White. Likewise if someone is, say, Black from a high SES background, they are likely to be very acutely aware of White privilege but less so of class privilege because they have acutely felt the disadvantages of being non-White but not of being low SES. As a result, people often end up feeling invalidated by conversions about privilege that don't reflect the areas and intersections where they lack privilege, because those lived experiences of disadvantage are so often visceral to them. So, if a conversasion around privilege focuses on class privilege alone, a lot of the people from low SES backgrounds are going to feel validated and heard, because it reflects their lived experience, whereas high SES people who are not privileged in other areas are going be thinking "what the hell--I'm not privileged--I've dealt with so much [racism, sexism, ableism, etc]." Flip the conversation and focus on White privilege alone, and a lot of non-White people are going to feel very heard and validated because it addresses common experiences of racism, etc., whereas White people who are disadvantaged in other areas are going to be thinking "what the hell--I'm not privileged--I've dealt with so much [SES disadvantage/classism, ableism, sexism, etc]."

A lot of DEI stuff tends to focus, often almost exclusively, on racism, because America has such a visible, enduring history with that, and that can leave White people from other marginalized axises feeling ignored, invalidated, and even attacked, because here are people telling you that "of course, you had it so easy" when you didn't, even if you didn't have to deal with racism specifically. A lot of how we talk about privilege is ineffective and even harmful because we do it in this way and it tends turn into "you're privileged so you had it so easy, you're not privileged so you had it much more difficult" when it's not nearly that simple. But despite that, the concept of privilege and its concrete effects are very real but also very intersectionally complex and because of that, "privilege" is honestly a bad term for the construct.

"privilege" is honestly a bad term for the construct.

Thank you for this observation. It is such a loaded term and immediately serves as a form of personal accusation against those to whom it is applied. To say nothing of the jaw-dropping degree of arrogance it takes for a person who barely knows another person (and their personal life history) to level it against that other person. The number and degree of assumptions that it entails and the ridiculous notion that mental health professionals pretend to be totally ignorant of the ridiculous procession of cognitive errors (jumping to conclusions, overgeneralization, minimization/exaggeration, etc., etc., basically the entire catalogue of problematic patterns of thinking) that flow from it is...just not even credible. It is liberally applied to individuals about whose actual lived history the person deploying the term often knows absolutely nothing about and is often used solely based on the actual (or presumed) level of melanin in that person's skin which is a biological/genetic variable that that person (a) never chose and (b) can do absolutely nothing to 'correct' (even assuming it is some sort of sociopolitical 'defect' that they should be seeking to 'correct').

The main problem that I have with a lot of the loaded terms (such as 'privilege') is that they serve the purpose of immediately creating division (where none should necessarily be) which leads to inherent conflict where there should be engagement around points of agreement with respect to historical and current issues between 'groups' of people who have to get along and live together in society. Just like in a marriage, say, and couple's therapy, you're never going to get anywhere when you just focus on points of conflict, or name-calling, or the never-ending attitude of moral superiority leveled at the other person in the marriage based on something they did 20 years ago (e.g., an affair) that you both agree that was wrong and behavior that should never be repeated. The obvious difference (with respect to 'groups'), however, is that the people living today weren't even alive to be the individuals who perpetrated the offense in the first place. The practical effect of many of the terms, presuppositions, and verbal argumentation tactics of most of the proponents of the DEI stuff places people on the receiving end of their 'charges' of x,y,z -isms or -ists (labels) in the position of having, basically, only three alternatives in terms of how to respond to the leveled 'charges' or accusations...they can either (a) cower and supplicate themselves to the DEI doctrine and plead 'guilty' to the charges (even if they aren't actually guilty); (b) try to be assertive and defend themselves against the attacks/labels with reason/logic and have a conversation/debate in which they attempt to participate as equals (which generally leads to an onslaught of either direct or indirect (passive-aggressive insinuations) attacks against their morality/ character/ intelligence; or (c) [what most people do] ignore the nonsense and try to get on with their lives (which is becoming increasingly difficult to manage). This has been my 'lived experience.'

I work with a lot of people on issues like anger management, dealing with interpersonal conflict, and assertive communication skills. The basic elements of assertive communication involve formulating and expressing--in a clear but respectful manner--one's own needs, opinions, and boundaries to the other person involved. It is also a cardinal rule that, in terms of any efforts at conflict resolution (where both parties get to be treated respectfully and keep their personal dignity), you have to have a willing partner--i.e., that the other party actually is trying to reduce the conflict and is approaching the back and forth communication process with an intent of trying to solve the problem/conflict in a manner that is ultimately acceptable to both parties---it can't just be one side railing against another and demanding that they accept their interpretation, framework, presuppositions, terms, etc. It isn't a win-lose dynamic...it has to be a win-win exercise. Too often, any conversation between DEI proponents and those whom they automagically presume to be 'their enemies' due to 'historical oppression' between people of significantly different skin colors in the past degenerates into the following dynamic: "people with skin color closer to yours before we were born treated people with skin color closer to mine horribly in the past...'your side won'...therefore, now and forever going forward, 'your side must lose' and bow and prostrate before me.' This is a ridiculous position to take if you are in the least interested in ending or resolving the conflict between the groups. The clear behavioral intent is to highlight, inflame, deepen, and perpetuate the conflict.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I don't think most people deny that certain advantages exist, rather that priveilege is seen as a binary concept and is overgeneralized in practice. That because you are in a higher paying job, are highly educated, and are white, that the only reason that you are there is because you grew up rich and had things handed to you. It's simply a series of stereotypes and generalizations, which is highly hypocritical. I agree with many of the theoretical concepts around privilege and DEI, I just think how psychology/psychiatry implement those things strays far away from those theoretical underpinnings and betrays any sense of empiricism and practicality, undermining both the actual goals of those DEI initiatives, and also the fields of psychology/psychiatry themselves.

I mean, let's just look at one of the so-called dimensions of 'privilege' of SES (money).

How many of us have seen in our patients or our personal lives the following contrast play out:

(a) person A was born into a very rich and 'privileged' family that spoiled him rotten, money was no object, he got everything he wanted, he didn't earn his position as vice-president (daddy gave it to him), he used the fraternity test-bank to cheat his way through college, he learned nothing, he wasn't challenged, he came out of all that 'privileged' background to be a physically/morally/intellectually weak adult infant and basically self-destructed on alcohol and cocaine and committed suicide at 29.

(b) person B was born to a poor family, watched the dysfunction around him and said, 'no man...not ME. I am gonna make something of myself. I'm gonna work hard, study hard, be resilient, earn my way in this world. I know life isn't fair but I'm going to throw my will against the world and become competent and powerful. Life isn't fair. Life has taught me that. But what I can do as an individual I will do.' Dude ends up becoming chief surgeon at a prestigious hospital.

My point is...sometimes 'privilege' isn't even 'privilege' if you take half a second to think about how things apply to people as individuals who live out the course of their lives. It's way to simplistic an analysis even if you're just looking at ONE variable of how financially rich or poor someone's childhood is.

We have to make distinctions between:

(a) how things are and
(b) how things ought to be

My problem with a lot of the DEI presuppositions and arguments is that they fail to take into account the real complexity of the world and almost presume a god-like level of presumption/narcissism that if only THEY were in control of the world and if THEY had enough political power, then THEY would make the world a better place by imposing THEIR WILL upon it. They would confiscate money from 'the rich' who don't deserve it. But...who gets to decide who doesn't 'deserve' the money that they earned? You? The guy down the hall? The guy's business competitor? It's basically people saying, 'the world is unfair...but I know how to make it fair...just give me the power and I'll do nothing but good.' I believe that anyone who looks deeply into history or even the personal history of their own lives and the lives of the people around them can see how untenable this position is on its face.

 

[hamstergang]

Too often, any conversation between DEI proponents and those whom they automagically presume to be 'their enemies' due to 'historical oppression' between people of significantly different skin colors in the past degenerates into the following dynamic: "people with skin color closer to yours before we were born treated people with skin color closer to mine horribly in the past...'your side won'...therefore, now and forever going forward, 'your side must lose' and bow and prostrate before me.'

Obviously, many people are not great people and are mean and will take any concept and use it as a reason to attack others. The question I doubt any of us can answer is, do these privilege conversations/DEI initiatives mostly go well (positive, helpful) or poorly (negative, harmful, divisive)? You say they're too often negative, but I don't personally see the same. We're all bringing our biases into this -- is there anyway to actually quantify and measure?

 

[WisNeuro]

Obviously, many people are not great people and are mean and will take any concept and use it as a reason to attack others. The question I doubt any of us can answer is, do these privilege conversations/DEI initiatives mostly go well (positive, helpful) or poorly (negative, harmful, divisive)? You say they're too often negative, but I don't personally see the same. We're all bringing our biases into this -- is there anyway to actually quantify and measure?

The first step is to define the variable you want to measure. The next step is determining if that variable has actually been quantified in a valid and reliable way.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Obviously, many people are not great people and are mean and will take any concept and use it as a reason to attack others. The question I doubt any of us can answer is, do these privilege conversations/DEI initiatives mostly go well (positive, helpful) or poorly (negative, harmful, divisive)? You say they're too often negative, but I don't personally see the same. We're all bringing our biases into this -- is there anyway to actually quantify and measure?

Honestly...for me I think it comes mainly down to the role that each individual is playing in the conversation in terms of dominance/submission (or equal footing). I'm simply not okay playing out a role of blanket submission (nor do I expect that from the other party participating in the conversation). Likewise, I don't want to adopt a dominant posture, either. But in order for us to participate in a debate/discussion that is meaningful as equals, we have to be okay with the other side saying, 'fine...I don't agree with you there (with respect to that specific point), but it's certainly okay for us to disagree. Maybe we agree to disagree at this point and leave it there.' We also both have to be okay with the other person marshaling logic and evidence to 'attack' our proposed position or hypotheses in the spirit of having a good debate or discussion that likely brings us closer to the truth (or reveals that we clearly disagree). It has been a near universal experience for me that when I have the temerity to disagree with most of the folks advocating the DEI perspective, the response is an immediate attack on my character (not just my arguments) along with a spirit of moral superiority and self-righteousness. I think that the DEI protagonists often display incredible difficulty differentiating between attacks on their position/argument vs. attacks on them as people or attacks directly on their character. I think it flows from certain of their apparent philosophical assumptions about how the world works, namely, that 'winning' an argument (or 'winning at life') is the result of opposing groups exercising (or failing to exercise) raw power rather than individuals (or groups) exercising competence, skill, merit, or logic to lead to increasingly closer approximations to the truth. They also appear to believe that the proper unit of analysis in society is the group and that--furthermore--these should be groups defined by certain dimensions (as are arrayed in that diagram earlier in this thread). Class struggle. There is no real competence for them, only arbitrary power struggles between groups. I simply disagree with those philosophical presuppositions being the ones that are likely to lead to actual progress, conflict resolution, or a better life going forward for all involved.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I mean, let's just look at one of the so-called dimensions of 'privilege' of SES (money).

How many of us have seen in our patients or our personal lives the following contrast play out:

(a) person A was born into a very rich and 'privileged' family that spoiled him rotten, money was no object, he got everything he wanted, he didn't earn his position as vice-president (daddy gave it to him), he used the fraternity test-bank to cheat his way through college, he learned nothing, he wasn't challenged, he came out of all that 'privileged' background to be a physically/morally/intellectually weak adult infant and basically self-destructed on alcohol and cocaine and committed suicide at 29.

(b) person B was born to a poor family, watched the dysfunction around him and said, 'no man...not ME. I am gonna make something of myself. I'm gonna work hard, study hard, be resilient, earn my way in this world. I know life isn't fair but I'm going to throw my will against the world and become competent and powerful. Life isn't fair. Life has taught me that. But what I can do as an individual I will do.' Dude ends up becoming chief surgeon at a prestigious hospital.

My point is...sometimes 'privilege' isn't even 'privilege' if you take half a second to think about how things apply to people as individuals who live out the course of their lives. It's way to simplistic an analysis even if you're just looking at ONE variable of how financially rich or poor someone's childhood is.

Privilege isn't saying that everyone from an advantaged position is going to succeed or that everyone from a disadvantaged position is going to fail (because this stuff is incredibly multifactorial), just that if you start from that better position (as intersectionally complex as that can be), you have a better of chance of succeeding, because you have access to systems that are built, intentionally or not, to work in your favor. It's not a guarantee, but it does help. And it's often not a matter of simply wanting or trying hard enough to overcome disadvantage, or not, because some things you can't change. As someone with a very visible physical and speech disability, I'm never going to be to "work hard enough" to make stairs turn into a ramp, for example, or to get the same automatic presumption of competence that I would get if I was able to not sound disabled.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Privilege isn't saying that everyone from an advantaged position is going to succeed or that everyone from a disadvantaged position is going to fail (because this stuff is incredibly multifactorial), just that if you start from that better position (as intersectionally complex as that can be), you have a better of chance of succeeding, because you have access to systems that are built, intentionally or not, to work in your favor. It's not a guarantee, but it does help. And it's often not a matter of simply wanting or trying hard enough to overcome disadvantage, or not, because some things you can't change. As someone with a very visible physical and speech disability, I'm never going to be to "work hard enough" to make stairs turn into a ramp, for example, or to get the same automatic presumption of competence that I would get if I was able to not sound disabled.

Thank you for the clarification (and the nuanced concept of the term).

Why not use the rather neutral term 'advantage' instead?

I think that substituting 'advantaged' for 'privileged' would be an improvement. Inherent in the concept of an 'advantage' is the idea that a trait may be an advantage in one context but a disadvantage in another (i.e., that advantages are relative). Being over six feet tall is an advantage in basketball but a disadvantage if one is a submariner.

'Privilege' also appears to carry the connotation that it is something that has been 'granted' to someone (say, from a higher authority). It is also argued that 'having a privilege' is often (always? depending on your gender/race?) 'unearned' and that, therefore, society has a moral duty to 'bring you down a notch.' The term/concept 'advantage' doesn't necessarily carry such connotations. One may be 'granted' an advantage by others but one may also be born with an advantage granted by chance, the Universe, or God. Also, advantages may be earned by effort or competence.

Someone saying that you have an 'advantage' due to certain traits is almost certainly less likely to be offensive and lead to conflict right off the bat than saying that you are 'privileged.' It's just a loaded term this day and age.

Moreover, with respect, I think we may differ substantially on the topic of how a 'society' (and its norms, customs, economy, business practices, etc.) comes into being. I'm reminded of a quote, 'do not confuse society with government.' I don't believe that a 'society' of any sort generally comes into being due to a specific blueprint laid out a priori by a privileged few as a specific plan to oppress a particular group of people just for the sake of being evil or oppressing them (don't people call that a 'conspiracy theory' nowadays?). I think that, by and large, individuals make decisions (economic, social, etc.) based on their own self interests and as a result of rewards/punishments (as well as personal philosophical assumptions about how one ought to behave, of course). Societal norms/rules develop organically out of the cumulative interactions of individuals (and the results of those interactions) over time and at some point basically stabilize into regularly recurring patterns. Now, of course, there are bad actors from time to time, cabals who abuse their power, etc. but the lives and interactions of most people involve freely-chosen mutually beneficial (at least to some degree) transactions. These are philosophical presumptions of a 'classical liberal' worldview that, nowadays, are almost diametrically opposed to what may be termed 'progressive' or 'leftist' philosophy of how people, businesses, government, and societies operate.

 

[splik]

Why not use the rather neutral term 'advantage' instead?

because the term for advantages that are afforded to one group over (or to the exclusion or detriment of others) is privilege.

because privilege is not predicated on the idea that certain people have advantages per se, but that certain groups are disadvantaged or inferior compared to those who hold the most power in society. Privilege is based on those attributes of your identity that you don't need to think about to thrive.

The concept of privilege is also imbued with the notion that its holders to do not wish to acknowledge the benefits that they enjoy from their position

privilege is about things you don't need to think about. It is invisible unless named. If you don't have to worry about how someone will react to you holding your partners hand in public, if you don't have to worry about being stop and frisked walking down the street, if you don't have to worry about your pregnancy impacting your ability to get a job, if you don't have to worry about being attacked walking down the street because someone realizes the way you dress is not congruent with your sex assigned at birth, if you don't have to worry about the assumptions someone will make about your intelligence or competency because of your accent, if you don't have to worry about accessing a therapist's office in a building without an elevator... then you have privilege.

Indeed, I think one of the reasons people get so angry about this concept is because they don't have to think about it until someone calls it out. Then people feel like they are being attacked themselves for something they didn't ask for and don't have much control over. I think we can all agree that some people are completely obnoxious when talking about checking your privilege, and some people sound like parodies of themselves when trying to have these serious and difficulty conversations. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The concept describes something very real, the challenge is how we address it (and I do not think we know how to but we do have some sense of what not to do).

I do think the term "privilege" is problematic, but not because it is not "neutral" whatever that means, but because it implies that what we are talking about are luxuries.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

because the term for advantages that are afforded to one group over (or to the exclusion or detriment of others) is privilege.

because privilege is not predicated on the idea that certain people have advantages per se, but that certain groups are disadvantaged or inferior compared to those who hold the most power in society. Privilege is based on those attributes of your identity that you don't need to think about to thrive.

The concept of privilege is also imbued with the notion that its holders to do not wish to acknowledge the benefits that they enjoy from their position

privilege is about things you don't need to think about. It is invisible unless named. If you don't have to worry about how someone will react to you holding your partners hand in public, if you don't have to worry about being stop and frisked walking down the street, if you don't have to worry about your pregnancy impacting your ability to get a job, if you don't have to worry about being attacked walking down the street because someone realizes the way you dress is not congruent with your sex assigned at birth, if you don't have to worry about the assumptions someone will make about your intelligence or competency because of your accent, if you don't have to worry about accessing a therapist's office in a building without an elevator... then you have privilege.

Indeed, I think one of the reasons people get so angry about this concept is because they don't have to think about it until someone calls it out. Then people feel like they are being attacked themselves for something they didn't ask for and don't have much control over. I think we can all agree that some people are completely obnoxious when talking about checking your privilege, and some people sound like parodies of themselves when trying to have these serious and difficulty conversations. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The concept describes something very real, the challenge is how we address it (and I do not think we know how to but we do have some sense of what not to do).

I do think the term "privilege" is problematic, but not because it is not "neutral" whatever that means, but because it implies that what we are talking about are luxuries.

I don't have to worry about being attacked while walking down the street? Excuse me? How on Earth do you claim to know that about me? LOL

What if I'm a white man walking down the streets of downtown Baltimore at 2am?

I think we can both agree wholeheartedly that anyone who has ill thoughts (and certainly physical aggression) toward two people who are holding hands walking down the street because they are gay is clearly despicable and in the wrong.

And, obviously, bigotry against gay people still exists in the USA. But, really, is there any society/time in human history compared to 2022 America where being gay is more accepted by mainstream society? We may still have a ways to go but c'mon.

 

[WisNeuro]

because the term for advantages that are afforded to one group over (or to the exclusion or detriment of others) is privilege.

because privilege is not predicated on the idea that certain people have advantages per se, but that certain groups are disadvantaged or inferior compared to those who hold the most power in society. Privilege is based on those attributes of your identity that you don't need to think about to thrive.

The concept of privilege is also imbued with the notion that its holders to do not wish to acknowledge the benefits that they enjoy from their position

privilege is about things you don't need to think about. It is invisible unless named. If you don't have to worry about how someone will react to you holding your partners hand in public, if you don't have to worry about being stop and frisked walking down the street, if you don't have to worry about your pregnancy impacting your ability to get a job, if you don't have to worry about being attacked walking down the street because someone realizes the way you dress is not congruent with your sex assigned at birth, if you don't have to worry about the assumptions someone will make about your intelligence or competency because of your accent, if you don't have to worry about accessing a therapist's office in a building without an elevator... then you have privilege.

Indeed, I think one of the reasons people get so angry about this concept is because they don't have to think about it until someone calls it out. Then people feel like they are being attacked themselves for something they didn't ask for and don't have much control over. I think we can all agree that some people are completely obnoxious when talking about checking your privilege, and some people sound like parodies of themselves when trying to have these serious and difficulty conversations. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The concept describes something very real, the challenge is how we address it (and I do not think we know how to but we do have some sense of what not to do).

I do think the term "privilege" is problematic, but not because it is not "neutral" whatever that means, but because it implies that what we are talking about are luxuries.

I generally agree with this, but again return to how privilege is used in DEI contexts. It is used in a binary way, rather than the continuum that it is for any given dimension, and it is generally used as a cudgel as opposed to a tool to garner understanding and connection.

 

[untapped]

And, obviously, bigotry against gay people still exists in the USA. But, really, is there any society/time in human history compared to 2022 America where being gay is more accepted by mainstream society? We may still have a ways to go but c'mon.

Do you think LGBTQ rights improved in America passively or because of progressive activism that made many people uncomfortable