What is social disenfranchisement?

Question

I know disenfranchisement is the revocation of a person's right to vote, or efforts to null or damped the effectiveness of his vote but I don't know what social disenfranchisement means, is it just the revocation of a persons right to vote, via the social zeitgeist? For example when black people weren't allowed to vote, in that period of time they were socially outcast.

But does it always refer to a persons right to vote (or lack of), or can it be used to refer to people outcast in society? Or is it more general than that, say; a minority?

Answer 1

Social disenfranchisement is made-up liberal speak for people who make less money but feel they are entitled to the exact same things as people who went to school, work hard and earn more.

Answer 2

Social disenfranchisement is not a "speak" of any kind, but something very real and often, very painful and damaging. I, for example have been socially disenfranchised for a number of various reasons. This phenomenon (also often known as marginalization) occurs when a person (or group of people) are not easily defined by society's customary terms and are subsequently pushed outwards, sometimes deliberately, and other times more inadvertently. Disenfranchisement is not always the result of "lazy" or "entitled" people, and for someone to so sweepingly define it as such is just plain insensitive and ignorant. I do not resent others for working hard and earning a living, everyone deserves that right. However, a person from a poor family with very few social connections due to deaths and separations will have to work twice as hard as the person from a larger, well-connected, affluent upper or upper-middle class family. It simply is a fact, do the math. That being said, I am working hard to change my situation for the better. But even so, because of a number of factors my resources are FAR more limited than some.

Let me tell you what I DID do right;

1. Obtained by BA from one of the three largest Universities in the US (I don't feel comfortable disclosing the name of the University)

2. I was consistently an Honors Student

3. I served in leadership roles within several large college organizations

4. I've completed several internships with large companies

5. I've worked consistently since I was 15 years old



Some of the reasons that I am marginalized;

*I come from a poor family

*I come from a VERY small family

*I live in an economically depressed region of my state with little opportunity (I cannot currently afford to move, I can barely afford rent as is)

*I have been unemployed twice within the past year for reasons beyond my control (i.e. laid-off).

*I am gay (and don't identify with most gay men)

*I am in a great deal of debt due to a very long period of underemployment

*Upward mobility is non-existant in my life at this point because of my lack of socio-professional connections

In summation; because I am not connected to many well-off people, because I can't identify with many of the people within my "subculture," because of financial hardship, and because of the particular place I live in, I continue to be quietly nudged to the margins.

However, that being said, once again, I am currently taking drastic steps to better my station in life (yes, it's hard work). I'm not here to decry the success of deserving people that worked hard. I am simply here to inform you that honest, hard-working, intelligent people are sometimes overlooked because of a combination of unfortunate factors.

Answer 3

As I read your question it seems you are all over the place. In one case you talk about the right to abortion. Then you come right back and talk about the sanctity of life. I would assume from your point of view that its OK to have a new newborn baby die due to with holding medical care because the child is not wanted. But when speaking of a felon who has committed murder that we should save that life, although another life was taken. Which is it? Who makes the choice of who lives and who dies? You? The Government? I certainly hope we never go in that direction. One of the primary reasons I disagree with much of what you question is I don't see anything in your comment that an individual is ( even remotely) responsibility for the choices they make in life to help them self have a satisfying and productive life. Once again, it appears what we have is a person sending a message that we know there are qualified people who just can't make it on their own so we need the government to take care of them. The flaw in your logic is we have millions of examples of determined people who took the approach in life, I succeeding regardless of the obstacles they might need to overcome. I would think a person such as your self who supports the concept of "Being a Victim" in life would definitely be looking for a presence greater than your self in which hope is possible for all. Now to think of it, I guess you do, it comes in the form of a welfare type political government. Of course I was thinking along the lines of a power greater than that, my God. However, my God is a merciful God but not one that says, "I know you can't succeed, so let me do all the work". You talk about hating radicalism and on that fact, I agree. However, then you go and support a candidater that sat for 20 yrs accepting the teachings of a racist, radical. You just seem to contradict yourself so much. How can anyone take your point of view seriously.