I see that a lot with privilege discourse, but I just wanted to get it out there right quick. I wanna take a look at this article tho.

>"Black Boys Have an Easier Time Fitting In at Suburban Schools >Than Black Girls"
>
>https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/black-boys-have-an-easier-time-fitting-in-at-suburban-schools-than-black-girls/280657/


Before I share my own thoughts, here's a really good counter-article:
http://atlantablackstar.com/2017/07/03/black-boys-fast-tracked-prison-pipeline-classroom-remains-blocked-black-male-teachers/

As for my thoughts on the one you posted...

We recieve social rewards for being considered "ghetto and loud" and were "constrained to enatcing race and gender in narrow ways." What we're talking about here is social control of both Black boys and girls. Neither of these are positives. I find this particularly interesting, because many feminists say that Black men internalize white patriarchal notions as if we are mindless drones, and this article is literally outlining how Black boys are socialized to do so before they even develop into adults. That is being considered a privilege. Absurd.

I think we need to seriously examine the notion that being socialized to be the plantation buck is a privilege. The problem with politics of attention is that the white establishment has always rewarded detrimental behavior among Black people from telling on rebellious slaves to becoming an informant. White society at large has never praised Black people for challenging oppression but will definitely praise us for those things running counter to real collective Black progress or liberation. This is documented fact at this point.

"It was only in the context of the suburban school that their blackness conferred social power. In order to maintain that social dominance, the boys engaged in racial performance, getting into show fights with each other to appear tough and using rough, street language around their friends."

If intersectional feminists are honest, they have to admit that this sort of thing is detrimental and feeds into white patriarchy... white patriarchy that Black boys are literally being socialized to "perform" and internalize BY the white establishment (emphasis on "by the white establishment," because they like to blame Black men for how they are socialized as boys).
The above quote is akin to men saying women are privileged because they get the attention of street harassment in that, sure, it's attention, but it's not a positive. Even if you argue that the boys want the attention, they are CHILDREN, so are we blaming children for their own abuse now?

We have to keep in mind that white patriarchy does focus on Black men TO EXTERMINATE THEM. That's why it kills us so much, infiltrated the Panthers, etc. People tend to conflate this kind of attention with privilege and that's just morally deplorable. The focus on Black men is there to keep us in check, not to benefit us. This is a very important reason I say racism/white supremacy is SOCIAL. This article outlines how Black boys are socialized by their white peers to perform certain roles. The rewards program for being what they want you to be is already in effect. This is how people learn to interact with the world... but why brings positive results and emotions forth from others. Very few of us humans resist that, especially when it begins so early.



>Again, not saying there is a hard and fast rule saying a black
>woman versus a black man has it easier in a corporate setting
>or vice versa. I am just saying that I can recognozie in
>certain situations, being a black male has had it's advantages
>for me, and I have witnessed it certain situations, being a
>black woman has had it's advantages for women like my wife.
>


See, when it's a toss-up as to who will be "privileged" in a certain scenario, I have to wonder what the purpose of the discourse even is. Does that make sense? Not asking to be facetious, I just don't think anyone's really addressing that in light of the fact that pop culture privilege discourse came about as a deflection from white supremacy. Meaning, ok, so we've recognized that certain genders may benefit in certain ways, depending on whether or not a white male boss is a sports freak or a horny creep... but what does this mean? What is the course of action? What is the usefulness of the conversation? In essence, we're dealing with white male privilege by accusing his subordinates of having privilege based on his whims. Unless we're having this discussion to figure out our respective positions in a planned uprising, there seems to be no point. The discussion have simply become glorified in-fighting masquerading as academia.