How about you just call it "privilege" and leave it at that? This skin color labelling is pointless in the context of real privilege.
A "woman of color" who grew up with servants in her birth country, went to private schools, top colleges, etc has a better chance at the C-suite than a Eastern European "white guy" who grew up poor and went to state schools etc.
It's unfair to discuss gender and race without considering class. It is also unfair to claim disadvantage in one without acknowledging benefits from the other two.
This is also the biggest criticism against mainstream feminism. It doesn't address class issues as most of the popular causes are upper-middle class issues.
Or other issues. Is someone cis or trans. Or maybe even non-binary. Are they nuero typical. What about the types of parents they had; were the parents verbally abusive (or perhaps worse). How tall are they. How attractive are they (especially with regards to factors that one cannot control, at least without extreme cost of resources). Were they medicated as a child, especially using off label prescriptions of medications show long term effects are not well studied in young children. How much of an introvert/extrovert are they?
The thing that polarizes this discussion is that a very small number of the potential factors which result in privilege are discussed repeatedly, and so people who may have benefited from those select factors but who lost out with regards to the factors not discussed tend to become very agitated of the selective focus being given during discussions.
It really is a question of your family's values, not finances. I know a few affluent families who don't really value education, and there is enough money for the kids to live off of the family fortune (aka "trust fund kids").
Kids born into white trash families and black-ghetto families are equally fucked, not because they are poor (though it does not help), but because they don't have the values and successful role models to follow/ motivate them.
It is not an easy problem to solve - but that's a whole other discussion.
We already have isms that address class issues; they're called Marxism and socialism. Feminism isn't the mommy ideology that has to welcome all into its tent.
First wave and second wave of feminism were both coopted by upper middle class white women. Third wave, the current one, pays some attention to intersectionality, but mainstream feminism doesn't challenge the status quo enough. That's why there is backlash against Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In.
A quote from the wiki page: "Black feminism is a school of thought which argues that sexism, class oppression, gender identity and racism are inextricably bound together"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_feminism
However, people on HN bring up class to derail conversation about race and gender, but that's a different can of worms.
First and second wave feminism weren't coopted by upper middle class white women, they were founded by upper middle class white women. You can't get more white middle class than Anthony, Friedan, de Beauvoir et al.
Not that Wikipedia is a particularly good source, but your own link includes the sentence "Feminism at its core is a movement to abolish the inequalities women face" which is exactly what I said. A poor boy with troubles in Appalachia is tragic, to be sure, but is not any sort of feminist concern.
Intersectionality isn't a just way to garble up different justice concerns and call it "feminism." Intersectionality comes from the intersection of the axes of oppression on e.g. a black woman. The axes of oppression on a poor white man exist, but have little to do with feminism. This person lives in the privileged position under patriarchy, full stop.
Of course poor white men benefit from the racist patriarchy, but HN gets upset if you say that bluntly.
You seem to disagree that feminism needs to be intersectional? That's fine. A lot of people participate in white feminism, but many feminist leaders believe capitalism, racism, and sexism have to be tackled together.
https://www.quora.com/Does-Gloria-Steinem-think-that-capital...
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-feel-about-the-rise-of-inte...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Theory:_From_Margin_t...
I claim that is not a valid criticism because speaking for poor white men is not a concern of feminism except where it is obvious that patriarchy is the source of their problems.
Poor white men example was trying to connect to HNers who think privilege is a myth. Privileged tech workers are more likely to acknowledge class advantages. So I hope they could eventually make the leap to gender and race.
The criticism of mainstream feminism is that they don't do enough for working class women or women of color. Which is probably not a concept that HN is ready for.
> It's unfair to discuss gender and race without considering class.
Having a discussion about gender, race, class, etc. alone is challenging enough. Do you really want to say that we shouldn't discuss any of these issues unless we agree to simultaneously discuss all of them? What about all of the other factors that can also lead to inequality?
Does that seem realistic?
Class is an extremely pervasive factor, yes, but I don't believe that talking about other issues amounts to ignoring class divides, any more than discussing diabetes amounts to ignoring cancer.
If I don't concede on class issues then my comment would have been flagged and downvoted into oblivion. I hope at least it got a couple of people do think about gender and race.
Anyway, I upvoted every one of your comments. Thank you for fighting the good fight. I really don't have the energy to argue with ignorant people anymore.
White privilege refers to the privilege people have for the accident of being born white. Economic privilege refers to (in some instances) the privilege people have for the accident of being born rich.
Donald Trump is a mediocre businessman, but he's a billionaire pain in the ass because of the power and influence he gained by having a rich, white father.... but if you took his kid and Russell Simmons' kid and threw them both in a nice car and drove them down various roads, one of them is gonna get profiled by cops a lot more than the other, and it's not going to be Trump's.
However, please understand: whether it needs a new name or not (I suspect it does) the concept of "white privilege" does not mean "all white people automatically have it easier than all black people." No conflict there.