Fourth Wave Feminism

[FortyTwo]

It's really not offensive. It's just not. I know poor people, I know drug addiction, I know shortened life-spans due to poverty. I'm familiar with disadvantages faced due to circumstances to people not part of groups that have been systematically discriminated against. They are at different disadvantages, and no one here is probably going up to my homeless, chronically depressed, drug-addled brother and telling him how easy he has it. But here on the internet to recognize that while that ****ing sucks for him but if he was black he'd probably have spent a lot more time in jail than he has is not offensive. For example.

Thank you for putting that more elegantly than I could have in a million years.

By recognizing privilege, we are not belittling the struggles of people who do have it. We are raising up the struggles of the people who don't.

By denying privilege, however, and instead opting for generalized, idealistic rhetoric, people who suffer from struggles specific to the marginalized group they belong to are forgotten in favor of continuously shining light on the same people who have been in the spotlight for literally centuries.

 

[das_nut]

It's really not offensive. It's just not. I know poor people, I know drug addiction, I know shortened life-spans due to poverty. I'm familiar with disadvantages faced due to circumstances to people not part of groups that have been systematically discriminated against. They are at different disadvantages, and no one here is probably going up to my homeless, chronically depressed, drug-addled brother and telling him how easy he has it. But here on the internet to recognize that while that ****ing sucks for him but if he was black he'd probably have spent a lot more time in jail than he has is not offensive. For example.

I'm sorry to hear about your brother, and I really hope he at least has a shelter to sleep at.

And I hope I'm misreading what you are saying and you aren't claiming that the poor haven't been systematically discriminated against.

But I'd find it offensive to say something like "Americans are so privileged to be living in a country with a (mostly) democratic, relatively noncorrupt government with a strong economy!" to a homeless person. Because they don't need to be told how lucky they are. They need a path to shelter, to a stable situation, to a reliable income, to proper medical care.

 

[Mischief]

It's really not offensive. It's just not. I know poor people, I know drug addiction, I know shortened life-spans due to poverty. I'm familiar with disadvantages faced due to circumstances to people not part of groups that have been systematically discriminated against. They are at different disadvantages, and no one here is probably going up to my homeless, chronically depressed, drug-addled brother and telling him how easy he has it. But here on the internet to recognize that while that ****ing sucks for him but if he was black he'd probably have spent a lot more time in jail than he has is not offensive. For example.

Beautifully expressed. Thank you.

 

[Mischief]

And I hope I'm misreading what you are saying and you aren't claiming that the poor haven't been systematically discriminated against.

It rather amazes me that you can assume that claim is being made.

But I'd find it offensive to say something like "Americans are so privileged to be living in a country with a (mostly) democratic, relatively noncorrupt government with a strong economy!" to a homeless person. Because they don't need to be told how lucky they are. They need a path to shelter, to a stable situation, to a reliable income, to proper medical care.

Again, how do you get the idea that anyone is saying that to a homeless person?

 

[das_nut]

It rather amazes me that you can assume that claim is being made.

Maybe that "stubbed toe" comment by another poster has lead to me looking at all posts in this thread more cynically. If I did misinterpret that, I apologize.

Again, how do you get the idea that anyone is saying that to a homeless person?

We're talking about privilege due to biology, identity, preferences, etc. Some homeless people will fall into these "privileged" groups.

Which is why I used the homeless as an example, since another poster in this thread was comparing "privileged" problems to a stubbed toe and claiming that just due to their race or sex, the folks with this "privilege" have the means to fix what is wrong with their lives.

I get the impression that a lot of people here had rather affluent backgrounds, to some degree. That they assume that other people who share an attribute with them also share similar backgrounds. Thus it's easy for them to assume that a specific identity they share has given all of them easy lives, and they really don't know how bad some people have it and how little a specific "privilege" accounts for.

For the advantages in life are intersectional. In the US, it's better off to be rich, to be straight, to be cis, to be neurotypical, to be white, to belong to a mainstream religion, to have the right accent, the right background, the right connections, free from a criminal record, live in the right area, have mainstream political ideologies, etc. But if you take just one of those in isolation, it doesn't give as much "privilege" as you'd imagine.

 

[FortyTwo]

Maybe that "stubbed toe" comment by another poster has lead to me looking at all posts in this thread more cynically. If I did misinterpret that, I apologize.

Perhaps that was insensitive, or at least left wide open to be interpreted that way. For that I am sorry. I promise you I'm not trying to belittle anyone here.

We're talking about privilege due to biology, identity, preferences, etc. Some homeless people will fall into these "privileged" groups.

Which is why I used the homeless as an example, since another poster in this thread was comparing "privileged" problems to a stubbed toe and claiming that just due to their race or sex, the folks with this "privilege" have the means to fix what is wrong with their lives.

You can name me, I won't get pissy. And anyways, I wasn't claiming any of that. Some people aren't going to be able to fix their lives. They just have a better chance of being able to succeed in society than someone who isn't privileged. Some privileged people will still end up in bad situations; that's not what privilege is here to classify.

I get the impression that a lot of people here had rather affluent backgrounds, to some degree. That they assume that other people who share an attribute with them also share similar backgrounds. Thus it's easy for them to assume that a specific identity they share has given all of them easy lives, and they really don't know how bad some people have it and how little a specific "privilege" accounts for.

I daresay it might be the other way around. It's very easy to ignore the effects of privilege if you have it yourself. Someone who has been kicked out from their home because they are trans*, wandering the streets homeless, unable to get a job simply because they are trans*, might think differently.

You see, you or I could end up homeless like that person. But we wouldn't be homeless because we're white or because we're cis. That's what would make our situation different from said person. It doesn't make us any less homeless or in any better of a situation - we're all equally homeless. But we're not homeless because of who we are, because we have privilege.

Does that clear things up at all?

For the advantages in life are intersectional. In the US, it's better off to be rich, to be straight, to be cis, to be neurotypical, to be white, to belong to a mainstream religion, to have the right accent, the right background, the right connections, free from a criminal record, live in the right area, have mainstream political ideologies, etc. But if you take just one of those in isolation, it doesn't give as much "privilege" as you'd imagine.

I'd agree with that to an extent, but understand that privilege only matters in comparison to another individual, or another group of individuals.

Understand that I am not trying to belittle anyone's experiences. I know you aren't, but you're seeming to not grasp the concept of privilege and instead you keep continually assuming that it's just an attack on people with privilege, because they're privileged. It's not. I'm simply trying to point out that privilege does exist, and it does affect the hardships people go through, which, judging by this last quote block, you seem to understand to some extent, although not entirely given the fact that you keep debating it like it's up for discussion.

Recap: Privilege exists, it gives certain people an advantage. That does not mean certain advantaged people won't end up in bad situations, but they won't end up in those situations because of those characteristics that give them privilege. That doesn't make their situation any less horrific, but whether or not their situation is horrific has nothing to do with the privilege they do/don't have. You can't discount privilege on the principle that some privileged people end up in bad situations, and if you try to equate the general qualifier of "bad situation" with the qualifier of "bad situation due to being discriminated against by society" you are missing the point. All bad situations are bad but not all are a result of societal discrimination, and focusing on privilege and trying to abolish it as a hallmark of our society doesn't mean ignoring issues like homelessness - it just means focusing on privilege.

 

[Clueless Git]

Someone be kind and answer a question for me?

If being white or being cis-gender or being male or any combination of the three defines 'privilege'; How can the abolition of privilege ever be achieved other than by the abolition of all whites, all cis-gender people and all males?

I'm thinking, amongst other things, that, numericaly, that's one hell of a suicidal fight to pick.

 

[FortyTwo]

Someone be kind and answer a question for me?

If being white or being cisgender or being male or any combination of the three defines 'privelege'; How can the abolition of privilege ever be achieved other than by the abolition of all whites, all cisgender people and all males?

Privilege doesn't exist outside of society. By raising awareness of the struggles faced by people who society shits all over, those struggles could potentially be abolished, taking the concept of privilege with them.

At least, that's the idea. I personally don't think we'll ever really get there, or at least we'll extinct ourselves before we do. But I think we can come close.

 

[Clueless Git]

Christmas amnesty ...

I personally don't think we'll ever really get there, or at least we'll extinct ourselves before we do. But I think we can come close.

Now it has been clarified that self extinction is anticipated ahead of success the whole agenda makes much more sense.

 

[FortyTwo]

Now it has been clarified that self extinction is anticipated ahead of success the whole agenda makes much more sense.

Nah, that's just me being cynical.

(Also what is it with you and agendas? I just want people to treat each other better, if that's an agenda then so be it)

 

[das_nut]

You can name me, I won't get pissy. And anyways, I wasn't claiming any of that. Some people aren't going to be able to fix their lives. They just have a better chance of being able to succeed in society than someone who isn't privileged. Some privileged people will still end up in bad situations; that's not what privilege is here to classify.

I'm beginning to conclude that I'm probably aware of different groups of people than you are.

I daresay it might be the other way around. It's very easy to ignore the effects of privilege if you have it yourself. Someone who has been kicked out from their home because they are trans*, wandering the streets homeless, unable to get a job simply because they are trans*, might think differently.

You see, you or I could end up homeless like that person. But we wouldn't be homeless because we're white or because we're cis. That's what would make our situation different from said person. It doesn't make us any less homeless or in any better of a situation - we're all equally homeless. But we're not homeless because of who we are, because we have privilege.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure if you see the offense. Last night, I thought of a good example.

In 2011, Rebecca Watson (founder of Skepchick) was at a conference. She was in an elevator, with a man who followed her in there, and the man asked her if she'd want to go back to his room.

Now obviously this is inappropriate behavior.

Richard Dawkins (yes, that Richard Dawkins) chimed in and pointed out Rebecca's privilege as a western woman. And Richard Dawkins was right that freedoms enjoyed by Western women aren't shared around the world.

But it was considered offensive by many. Rightly so, IMO, since it was not a supportive statement for behavior that was inappropriate.

Would you consider it offensive? Because when you start talking about how groups of people enjoy privilege, perhaps you should keep in mind that many individuals in these groups either have gone through bad experiences, and/or are going through hard times, and such a loaded word like "privilege" is going to seem offensive.

Recap: Privilege exists, it gives certain people an advantage. That does not mean certain advantaged people won't end up in bad situations, but they won't end up in those situations because of those characteristics that give them privilege. That doesn't make their situation any less horrific, but whether or not their situation is horrific has nothing to do with the privilege they do/don't have. You can't discount privilege on the principle that some privileged people end up in bad situations, and if you try to equate the general qualifier of "bad situation" with the qualifier of "bad situation due to being discriminated against by society" you are missing the point. All bad situations are bad but not all are a result of societal discrimination, and focusing on privilege and trying to abolish it as a hallmark of our society doesn't mean ignoring issues like homelessness - it just means focusing on privilege.

So focus on privilege, not homelessness? Er...

I'm not against the idea of privilege, although I'm against the term in a lot of cases. Because "privilege" frequently means being not being treated as a non-equal due to a specific attribute. Which seems to equate privilege with "basic human rights", which isn't privilege at all, it should be the norm. And it neglects that people are more than a specific gender, a specific race, a specific ethnicity, etc. I can't think of any one attribute that would outweigh all drawbacks in life. So in practice, "privilege" tends to be not so clear cut. It's an oversimplification of the world.

 

[kazyeeqen]

I'm sorry to hear about your brother, and I really hope he at least has a shelter to sleep at.

And I hope I'm misreading what you are saying and you aren't claiming that the poor haven't been systematically discriminated against.

But I'd find it offensive to say something like "Americans are so privileged to be living in a country with a (mostly) democratic, relatively noncorrupt government with a strong economy!" to a homeless person. Because they don't need to be told how lucky they are. They need a path to shelter, to a stable situation, to a reliable income, to proper medical care.

He's alright for now. He's got a job and is staying with a family, and we're all thrilled about it. Progress isn't continuous though, so he could very well relapse into a dark place and run away, like he has so many times before.

Of course you are misreading that. Of course the poor have been systematically discriminated against. Many times the groups impacted by racism are suffering because of the poverty often inherent in their situations just as much, or more, than because of their race, but their poverty might be a direct result of their race. Thus the disadvantages of, say, native americans, are two-fold, since the discrimination towards their people put the whole group into poverty that lasts generations. Where I come from is poor as a result of something other than deliberate discrimination. People still suffer due to that poverty, no denying it, but the thing that put them there was a consequence of the situation; the mines closed and the jobs ran out and the people that were left turned to drugs and alcohol and sadness. So if they get out of that (like me, for example) they are not taking the cause of their poverty with them wherever they go in the form of their race or religion or whatever.

What you are saying is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said. No one here is denying that people in trouble need help regardless of what race or gender or whatever they are. But it's still important to recognize the issues that come from being of the race or gender or whatever that isn't the dominant, ruling race or gender or whatever. It is completely unrelated to anyone's individual struggle, and no one is denying that people of any description can struggle.

 

[das_nut]

He's alright for now. He's got a job and is staying with a family, and we're all thrilled about it. Progress isn't continuous though, so he could very well relapse into a dark place and run away, like he has so many times before.

Relapses are dangerous, potentially fatal, especially with opiates, as the US doesn't really teach a lot of harm reduction and a dose an addict may tolerate before quitting can be a fatal dose if they resume. I hope he knows that.

Of course you are misreading that. Of course the poor have been systematically discriminated against. Many times the groups impacted by racism are suffering because of the poverty often inherent in their situations just as much, or more, than because of their race, but their poverty might be a direct result of their race. Thus the disadvantages of, say, native americans, are two-fold, since the discrimination towards their people put the whole group into poverty that lasts generations.

I'd say, with Indians, it's locational. A res tends to have pretty bad property, where off the res (as a general rule) opportunities increase, with some exceptions (urban concentrations of native American descent can still see pretty bad poverty). It doesn't help that reservations can be relatively isolated regions. And then the crime and substance abuse problems kick in.

Where I come from is poor as a result of something other than deliberate discrimination. People still suffer due to that poverty, no denying it, but the thing that put them there was a consequence of the situation; the mines closed and the jobs ran out and the people that were left turned to drugs and alcohol and sadness. So if they get out of that (like me, for example) they are not taking the cause of their poverty with them wherever they go in the form of their race or religion or whatever.

Similar to my home area, it sounds like, but with less systematic discrimination. We I grew up, it was on an edge of a mining area which saw some disempowering actions against the minors (basically working to prevent unions), but nothing like the violence of, say, Appalachia union busting.

What you are saying is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said. No one here is denying that people in trouble need help regardless of what race or gender or whatever they are. But it's still important to recognize the issues that come from being of the race or gender or whatever that isn't the dominant, ruling race or gender or whatever. It is completely unrelated to anyone's individual struggle, and no one is denying that people of any description can struggle.

There isn't a dominant, ruling race, gender, or whatnot. There is a ruling class, and they may share some attributes as a general rule, but that doesn't mean that those who share the attributes are part of that ruling class. It's the fallacy of assuming that since cats have four legs, everything with four legs must be a cat. To ignore class divisions is to error greatly. (Yes, I tend towards a bit of Marxist philosophy in this regards, but it does fit the situation).

 

[kazyeeqen]

It doesn't really matter what my brother knows, he'll do what he does.

You're not really responding to what I'm saying. Whether the res is poor because of isolation or some other reason, it's poor because of the systems put in place, many years ago, as part of a systematic policy of discrimination against native americans. The place I'm from might also be poor because of isolation, but it was incidental instead of deliberate, just because of the geography and resources, instead of part of the systematic policy of discrimination. Results in the same drug abuse and poverty, but it's still an important distinction to make, as people in my area can leave and not take that poverty with them, necessarily, where native americans are going to be indians wherever they go.

How do you know there was less systematic discrimination in the form of union busting in my hometown? There was plenty of disempowering actions, but I don't know how that compares to Appalachia or your area, and I don't know how you know how mine and yours compare...

Dude, I know. Stop acting like we're all idiots. I'm not a ******* idiot. You must think I am if you are assuming I mean that every white cis man on the planet is part of the 'council of rulers' or whatever you're saying right here with the inane comparison between four-legged cats and the rulers of the world. How clear do I have to make it that I'm not ******* ignoring class divisions. But to be part of a lower economic class in addition to being part of a discriminated-against group is just compounding disadvantages, making a body even more disadvantaged, even if some, or a lot, of people of the more 'advantaged' group might be really really ******* badly off.

 

[FortyTwo]

I'm beginning to conclude that I'm probably aware of different groups of people than you are.

I'm not Mischief! Not that being mistaken for Mischief would be an insult, of course. Actually quite the compliment. But I doubt it was either in this case and just a technical error.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure if you see the offense. Last night, I thought of a good example.

In 2011, Rebecca Watson (founder of Skepchick) was at a conference. She was in an elevator, with a man who followed her in there, and the man asked her if she'd want to go back to his room.

Now obviously this is inappropriate behavior.

Richard Dawkins (yes, that Richard Dawkins) chimed in and pointed out Rebecca's privilege as a western woman. And Richard Dawkins was right that freedoms enjoyed by Western women aren't shared around the world.

But it was considered offensive by many. Rightly so, IMO, since it was not a supportive statement for behavior that was inappropriate.

Would you consider it offensive? Because when you start talking about how groups of people enjoy privilege, perhaps you should keep in mind that many individuals in these groups either have gone through bad experiences, and/or are going through hard times, and such a loaded word like "privilege" is going to seem offensive.

What did he say? I could tell you my opinion on this if you clarified. I agree with Richard Dawkins on a lot of things but I also think he's kind-of an ******* who pushes himself on everyone, if that provides any insight.

So focus on privilege, not homelessness? Er...

I'm not against the idea of privilege, although I'm against the term in a lot of cases. Because "privilege" frequently means being not being treated as a non-equal due to a specific attribute. Which seems to equate privilege with "basic human rights", which isn't privilege at all, it should be the norm. And it neglects that people are more than a specific gender, a specific race, a specific ethnicity, etc. I can't think of any one attribute that would outweigh all drawbacks in life. So in practice, "privilege" tends to be not so clear cut. It's an oversimplification of the world.

What might be a good thing to bring up is that privilege affects the poor and homeless as well... by definition, they are less privileged than the wealthy and secure, and as kazyeeqen says, they are systematically discriminated against as well. You just have to be aware of intersectionality.

(What I'm essentially saying here is that you can focus on both because they tend to be the same issue.)

 

[das_nut]

It doesn't really matter what my brother knows, he'll do what he does.

Well, the only reason I mention it is because a lot of addiction recovery programs and resources don't engage in harm reduction information. There's evidence that such harm reduction information can be beneficial. It may not stop people from doing drugs, but it can cut the risk of continued or relapsed drug use.

You're not really responding to what I'm saying. Whether the res is poor because of isolation or some other reason, it's poor because of the systems put in place, many years ago, as part of a systematic policy of discrimination against native americans. The place I'm from might also be poor because of isolation, but it was incidental instead of deliberate, just because of the geography and resources, instead of part of the systematic policy of discrimination.
Results in the same drug abuse and poverty, but it's still an important distinction to make, as people in my area can leave and not take that poverty with them, necessarily, where native americans are going to be indians wherever they go.

I'm not disagreeing with most of that, but what you're talking about is passing, and not all poor can pass. Bright ones can code switch, but the whole pulling yourself up by your bootstraps idea is not always successful in practice.

How do you know there was less systematic discrimination in the form of union busting in my hometown? There was plenty of disempowering actions, but I don't know how that compares to Appalachia or your area, and I don't know how you know how mine and yours compare...

You said there wasn't deliberate discrimination. So I assume there wasn't systematic discrimination in regards to disempowering the working class.

Dude, I know. Stop acting like we're all idiots. I'm not a ****ing idiot. You must think I am if you are assuming I mean that every white cis man on the planet is part of the 'council of rulers' or whatever you're saying right here with the inane comparison between four-legged cats and the rulers of the world. How clear do I have to make it that I'm not ****ing ignoring class divisions. But to be part of a lower economic class in addition to being part of a discriminated-against group is just compounding disadvantages, making a body even more disadvantaged, even if some, or a lot, of people of the more 'advantaged' group might be really really ****ing badly off.

I really think that some stuff is getting lost in the conversation. I'm not saying that there's no race-based discrimination that white people are largely immune to. I'm just saying that one other attribute can easily overpower advantages that come from being white.

 

[das_nut]

I'm not Mischief! Not that being mistaken for Mischief would be an insult, of course. Actually quite the compliment. But I doubt it was either in this case and just a technical error.

We apologise for the fault in the quoting. Those responsible have been sacked.

Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...

What did he say? I could tell you my opinion on this if you clarified. I agree with Richard Dawkins on a lot of things but I also think he's kind-of an ******* who pushes himself on everyone, if that provides any insight.

His comment in regards to the incident was:

Spoiler

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Just pointing out privilege, I guess. But it sounds offensive to me.

What might be a good thing to bring up is that privilege affects the poor and homeless as well... by definition, they are less privileged than the wealthy and secure, and as kazyeeqen says, they are systematically discriminated against as well. You just have to be aware of intersectionality.

(What I'm essentially saying here is that you can focus on both because they tend to be the same issue.)

I could agree and disagree with that. By eliminating stereotypes and discrimination, it would help a lot of people. But at the same time, I think for issues like homelessness, there needs to be a more targeted approach (some of which would overlap with poverty reduction and widespread mental healthcare efforts).

 

[FortyTwo]

We apologise for the fault in the quoting. Those responsible have been sacked.
Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...

This was the best part of the movie and nobody can convince me otherwise.

His comment in regards to the incident was:

Spoiler

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Just pointing out privilege, I guess. But it sounds offensive to me.

Yes, he's pointing out privilege, but he doesn't have the right to say it that way. I suppose if it was a woman who was actually affected by those things then she would have every right to be angry about someone complaining about what was, in relation to her everyday life, a minor struggle. But as it stands he is a privileged male and he doesn't get to belittle any woman's experiences, even one who has more privilege than another.

Lost all of my respect for him with that quote.

I could agree and disagree with that. By eliminating stereotypes and discrimination, it would help a lot of people. But at the same time, I think for issues like homelessness, there needs to be a more targeted approach (some of which would overlap with poverty reduction and widespread mental healthcare efforts).

If you eliminate discrimination against the poor, then not providing for the homeless becomes barbaric instead of something to be glanced over. If not providing for the homeless is barbaric, then the homeless are provided for.[/quote]

 

[ledboots]

~snip~
[quote="das_nut, post: 163108, member: 62"
There isn't a dominant, ruling race, gender, or whatnot. There is a ruling class, and they may share some attributes as a general rule, but that doesn't mean that those who share the attributes are part of that ruling class. It's the fallacy of assuming that since cats have four legs, everything with four legs must be a cat. To ignore class divisions is to error greatly. (Yes, I tend towards a bit of Marxist philosophy in this regards, but it does fit the situation).[/quote]
There really is kind of a ruling gender in most of rhe world. How many world leaders are female? What percent of congress? Percentage of CEO's? How many female presidents of the US have there been?

That doesn't mean ALL men in the US are in congress, just that the playing field is not level. It is EASIER when you re born a male, not an automatic pass to a magically perfect life.

ETA for Dawkins: the male propositioning her has privilege greater than she does, so don't be an *******. Someone is always worse off than the person with a complaint. It doesn't change that the incident occurred.

 

[das_nut]

There really is kind of a ruling gender in most of rhe world. How many world leaders are female? What percent of congress? Percentage of CEO's? How many female presidents of the US have there been?

That doesn't mean ALL men in the US are in congress, just that the playing field is not level. It is EASIER when you re born a male, not an automatic pass to a magically perfect life.

I agree that most leaders are male. But at the same time, you're talking about a different class of men. The poorest US president in the last 50 years was still a millionaire. To assume that the typical male is a millionaire is a very big mistake. Yes, it's far more possible to reach the top as a male, but most people, even males, will come nowhere near the top.

This was the best part of the movie and nobody can convince me otherwise.

Aye.

Yes, he's pointing out privilege, but he doesn't have the right to say it that way. I suppose if it was a woman who was actually affected by those things then she would have every right to be angry about someone complaining about what was, in relation to her everyday life, a minor struggle. But as it stands he is a privileged male and he doesn't get to belittle any woman's experiences, even one who has more privilege than another.

I think, regardless of the speaker, it's inappropriate. It may be easier to understand if it was someone who was affected by those things, but that doesn't mean it's condonable behavior. The speaker at the conference was politely pointing out what was unacceptable behavior. And assuming the man was a neurotypical individual (not always a safe bet at cons), the elevator proposition was foreseeable as being confrontational.