Yield the floor to those with less structural support when speaking. Encourage people who are ordinarily excluded. NOTICE AND CALL OUT. Use your privileged position to help where you can, and step out of the way when you can't.
It's pretty powerful when a room full of dudebros is silenced by the one guy who says "Uh ... that 'Aunt Tillie' you're designing for is actually damn smart, just hasn't used a computer yet" or "Uh, guys, you're forgetting HALF THE POPULATION". Or "That was sexist, jackass. Don't ever do that again." Or "Maybe we should acknowledge that having people who have families and would like to see them might like to participate here."
Some of these are actual statements of differing values. They are sharp instruments on wall of the bubble of the echo chamber. They're powerful.
And then, when you've women on your team, listen to them. Remember that status isn't conferred as readily on us. "She's just a junior dev" ... well, yeah, and might have been passed for a couple promotions. When you go out for an expensive meal with folks from a funding firm or industry cohorts, remember who might have had to check their bank balance before coming and may have passed. Try to include those voices. Call 'em up. Offer to pay for a meal -- or if you're in a position of company power, fix it structurally by making it not an individual problem.
And look for sources of bias and privilege. Don't just focus on women. Look for all the myriad ways that you can explain how someone ended up in the social heirarchy how they did, and think long and hard about what's fair. It won't feel nice if you came out on top by accident and you'll try to explain it away. Don't.
Even more telling is when you fail: What are the repercussions of failure for you? What might the repercussions for a woman on your team be? Are they different? That's an especially telling place to look, and it explains a lot of why women are paid less: their risks are bigger for the same gains.
Do spend your life checking it. Don't spend your entire life keeping your experiences to yourself: just be aware that your experiences aren't universal nor even prototypical. Don't be the default voice. Just a voice.
The problem is being blind to it and not understanding how it operates in your life and the lives of others. The solution to that problem is being committed to developing a deep sense of empathy.
2) To build empathy. Recognizing privilege allows me to more readily understand those who are not identical to myself and relate to them. In addition to making me (I feel) a better person, this enables me to more easily befriend a diverse set of people.
3) By consciously thinking about privilege as a concept, real toxic social and political structures which can be actively deconstructed become even more evident.
I see people complaining frequently about the use of the word "privilege" as though it's some kind of pejorative being used against them; in general, it's not. Rather, privilege is a way of thinking about the effects of one's background on their social and economic position by identifying taken-for-granted advantages that society has granted them.
Frankly when I first started learning about the concept of privilege it seemed obvious to me: of course those with different backgrounds have different sets of advantages. But thinking about the concepts consciously and with the ability to label them has really helped me to both identify inequalities and combat them where I am able.
If the people using this term didn't want it to be taken as a pejorative, perhaps they could have chosen a less loaded term, that didn't already have a legacy usage with negative connotation.
"Asymmetrically advantage", "special powers" etc. all would be fine. But when you tell someone they're "privileged", it's very hard for the average speaker of English who doesn't have 100+ hrs of reading feminist literature to not be somewhat offended. The vernacular implication of the term is that someone who is privileged "had it easy", or the effort they've put into achieving their position and status is somewhat invalidated because they had "natural advantages".
My observation is that one of the core dysfunctions of discussions about diversity in tech is that people don't properly respect how impossible it is to go from talking about ensembles and populations, to talking about the behaviors of individuals. Those are two entirely different regimes of theory. We might come up with all manner of fancy terms and bodies of theory to talk about systemic cycles of oppression, vicious cycles of privilege, etc. etc. But to use any of that theoretical framework to talk about the motivations or actions of a single individual is certainly fraught with error and presumption.
Physicists recognize that you can't go from a thermodynamical description of an ensemble of atoms to individual particle trajectories without explicitly having a statistical model of the distribution of particles. But people are so quick to jump down each others' throats with accusations and assumptions about "you're blind to X!" and "you're assuming Y!". It's really just kind of sad. Just as "heat" is a bulk property of a body of particles and is pretty much meaningless when talking about a single particle, I think that a concept like "privilege" is meaningful when talking about a particular demographic versus another demographic. But to say that any given individual "is privileged" because of the color of their skin or their parents' tax bracket is assuming too much, and informs nothing. Individual variance within the distribution is just too high. The Asian immigrant kid with the perfect SAT and lawyers for parents might have taken up coding to escape his parents yelling and fighting every night. Is that more or less privilege than the black girl in a middle class suburb with a huge supportive extended family? What does "privilege" even mean when regarded in such individualized context? What are the broad patterns of systemic inequality that is affecting each of these individuals, and how can you possibly demonstrate that they are the dominant (or even significant) factors in the trajectories of these two lives?
Louis CK has lots of good material on this. Here's one about being white: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY Here's another about women: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LkrQCyIz8 Here's a bit he did on Leno that's good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=derzWWYf3-w
Here are a few things worth reading:
http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/305643.html
http://nymbp.org/reference/WhitePrivilege.pdf
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
I don't know whether you consider these things "feminist literature," but regardless it's less than 1 or 2 hours of reading total. My challenge to you is to read and watch all that, digest it, and then come back to comment. If you find yourself compiling a list of objections as you read, I'd also challenge you to pause and really try to understand what the author was trying to say before jumping to conclusions (as you say).If you think the way people ("feminists" as you say) talk about privilege is counterproductive, I encourage you to read the above if you haven't and come up with a better way of explaining it! I'd love to read it, myself.
Everyone is privileged in certain ways that make them blind to other types of privilege. Feminists use the word "intersectionality" to describe this state of affairs.
Anyhow, the point (IMO) is to learn how to navigate in the world without unknowingly exercising your privilege to the detriment of others, like an oafish tourist who walks right through the middle of someone's rock garden because they didn't know any better and when they're informed respond with, "It was just a bunch of stupid rocks! What's the big deal?"
If you grok the concept of privilege, great! My experience is that on HN virtually nobody does. tptacek's comment above is the clearest I've ever seen on the subject here.
A week or so ago one of our former Dutch politicians wrote a column about 'the elite' in Holland. This resulted in a highly entertaining but tragic borderline-flamewar between said politician and some well-known Dutch people. Entertaining because it was fascinating to see such 'impactful' people commenting on an internet forum, and tragic because the discussion became about the term 'elite' and the perceived insult by the 'accused' individuals, rather than about the point of the article: pointing out the reality of there being an 'elite' and asking some relatively open questions on what this realization means.