So I was over at Jill’s I Blame the Patriarchy a couple of minutes ago and she made the point that even BDSM submissive men have privilege.
...whether he likes it or not, when Nigel hoists up his Dockers and saunters out of your dungeon into the public square, he’s enjoying the privileged status he has had the pleasure of internalizing all his life. You are not.
This is, of course, true in the same sense that her Nigel enjoys privileged status whether he’s sauntering out of a dungeon, sauntering down the aisle of a church, sauntering through the produce section at Whole Foods, or sauntering (or maybe wheeled on a stretcher) out of an alley where he was beaten and robbed.
Anyway, “privilege” is one of those words where I know it’s used in reference to imbalance of privilege — something you’ve got that I don’t, or I’ve got that you don’t. Or we’ve got that they don’t, and so on. And of course one of the fun things about the idea of kyriarchy is that depending on context privilege can be something almost anybody can have next to someone who doesn’t have it.
So what makes my question dumb is that I can’t figure out whether the idea, when the term “privilege” is used to indicate power imbalance, is to extend privilege to those who don’t have it, or take it away from those who do.
Incidentally just because it’s a dumb question doesn’t mean it’s a trivial one. Or a “just semantics” one. In theories of politics there are some pretty strong disagreements about privilege in the context of, say, rights vs. opportunities. For instance to turn an old cliché on its head, even when rich and poor alike have the right to sleep under railroad bridges — or give lap dances in Detroit — it’s generally considered a privilege not to have to do so.
Submitted by 3221 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-30 10:13.
it's one of those loaded words.
compared to a poor woman who was raised without education and a comfortable lifestyle i am enormously privileged. compared to my friend with the ferrari? (mid thirties, white, male, investment banker) i am incredibly underserved.
that said, i don't know any handsome men who have ever had a teacher say to their face in a class full of women where he was the only man "don't worry your pretty little head about it" and that has absolutely been said to me.
Submitted by 3221 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-30 11:08.
Both. If you look at an "unpacking my privilege" style list, you'll find things on it that everyone should have and things on it that no-one should have.
Submitted by 3221 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-30 11:46.
Yes, as Zeborah said, it refers to both. The difference is: which privileges are zero-sum, and which can be extended to others in a win-win scenario.
Probably the most widely used article on this is Peggy McIntosh's article on white privilege. It's almost ubiquitous in intro to women's studies classes, and it's a quick read.
Submitted by 3221 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-30 11:55.
The other key concept here is the "matrix of domination," an approach to theorizing intersectionality, which Patricia Hill Collins developed:
"Replacing additive models of oppression with interlocking ones creates possibilities for new paradigms. The significance of seeing race, class, and gender as interlocking systems of oppression is that such an approach fosters a paradigmatic shift of thinking inclusively about other oppressions, such as age, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity. Race, class, and gender represent the three systems of oppression that most heavily affect African-American women. But these systems and the economic, political, and ideological conditions that support them may not be the most fundamental oppressions, and they certainly affect many more groups than Black women. Other people of color, Jews, the poor white women, and gays and lesbians have all had similar ideological justifications offered for their subordination. All categories of humans labeled Others have been equated to one another, to animals, and to nature.
"Placing African-American women and other excluded groups in the center of analysis opens up possibilities for a both/and conceptual stance, one in which all groups possess varying amounts of penalty and privilege in one historically created system. In this system, for example, white women are penalized by their gender but privileged by their race. Depending on the context, an individual may be an oppressor, a member of an oppressed group, or simultaneously oppressor and oppressed."
(This is part of a much longer, dense, but very worthwhile piece, "Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination.")
Sorry about the double post; I didn't want to get caught in the spam filter.
[Oh no problem, Sungold! Thanks for the comprehensive answer. That's great! --fl]
Submitted by 3221 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-30 14:12.
At the risk of ending up in the semantic dungeon, I too have also had a problem with the "priviledge" model of looking at sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, and other prejudices.
Since the 90's I have always felt that labeling certain things or even attitudes that are a matter of choice as male/white/straight priviledge. Some of the items would be defined as rights by the UN. Others are attitudes one can choose. Others are things that aren't always guaranteed for able bodied, striaght, white, upper middle, WASP class men. Others didn't strike me as all that meaningful One example was "If I want, I choose to only associate with members of my own race." Well that may be true. But what if that "choice" means that I can't take certain job opportunities? Or end up sending a child to private school rather than saving for college? And if I wanted to move to an all white community, does that guarantee good relations with the neighboors?
Another example was "History books represent my heritage." (Well my history books basically said my European ancestors experienced a horrible Famine in the 1840's because they were stupid Catholics who had too many babies, and that they all turned into hard core racists in coming to America. Now I found out that picture is wrong on many counts.) Another item was "Politicians have the same skin color I do. Again not very meaningful to me. During the Bush era I heard this and though "Oh Yes! I really feel better about this administration because he has my skin color." Now with Obama, I'm happier with the administration than I ever expected to be in my life, and skin color has almost nothing to do with it.
Same with the "male priviledge" list. I don't have any truck with Warren Farrell or anti-feminists of that stripe. But at the same time, I felt that many of these priviledges are only "wonderful benefits" to guys who were pretty misogynistic to begin with. And for a man who doesn't think like that, I have to wonder how meaningful most of those items are.
But the larger issue is whether that is a good model of looking at equity/inequity. Do we have to assert that even a homeless white man is better off than Oprah Winfrey simply because Oprah has had tremendous experiences with racism an sexism, or as a prerequisite to considering racism and sexism real problems? Doesn't the "priviledge" model assume that life is always a zero-sum game in every way?
If one accepts that free speech is a right. That freedom of religion is a right. And increasingly that things like health care should be considered a right. Why should not being subjected to various prejudices be considered a "priviledge"? At best it seems a bit inconsistent.
Submitted by 3221 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-30 22:10.
She zapped your comment on that post (but not the follow-up you made to correct yourself, oopsie). It musta been pretty bad.
And I'd say that the idea is that "privilege" is a relative word in this context--you can't just be privileged, but you can be privileged over poor people or over recent immigrants or so on. So in that sense the idea is to remove privilege, not by making anyone's life worse, but by reducing the differentials.
Poor people can't get privilege extended to them--that would just make them rich people, which is a different story and not a sustainable one--but if they're not starved or silenced relative to rich people, they have a lot less rich-privilege hanging over their heads.
[I'm not sure she zapped it yet -- it was hanging in moderation a while ago so she might have just spaced out. We'll see. Anyway, it was mostly about how it probably wasn't a good idea to say *all* women tops are "dominatrixes." I quoted Bitchy Jones on exactly how patriarchy gets in the way of her getting what *she* wants. Like I say, we'll see. Thanks, Holly. --fl]
Submitted by 3221 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-10-01 10:51.
I still have other issues with that "privilege" model.
Why would we label items included in some of those lists as "privilege" when many of them are considered rights by the UN, and/or by the Constitutions of the US and most Democratic Countries?
Or if you look at something like police brutality. Yes, that falls disproportionately on "minorities", but plenty of "whites" have also been victims. So do we call that "white privilege" (freedom from police harassment) or a social problem made worse by racism? Personally, I'd go with the latter.
I've also seen it described as "male privilege" to be able to walk alone at night. But the thing is, how much of that assumption reflects actual risk and how much reflects social assumptions? (Women are less likely to be mugged and beat up than men, and most rapes are done by acquaintances.) By labeling "I can walk alone at night." as a "male privilege" does that not in fact reinforce common notions?
Gerda Lerner once said, "Patriarchy may make men unhappy but it degrades women." And I think this is a better model, than the concept of "male privilege" or the "men are equally oppressed" model. It says so much in one sentence.
Submitted by 3221 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-10-01 11:20.
The word "privilege" seems like an odd choice, implying as it does that the people don't deserve or have a right to the benefits it confers. And that's not actually true. If we think of privilege as stuff like "having people assume you are competent at your job, until it's proven otherwise" or "having your history treated as 'real' history" or "getting to walk around without worrying about rapists," then those are things every group should get without having to earn it.
I think the word privilege is meant to remind people that what's normal for you (member of the privileged class) would be a luxury for other groups. Privilege=ways the world accommodates itself to you without your even needing to notice. So the power imbalance would be rectified by extending the benefits of not being oppressed, etc., but also by members of the dominant class becoming more aware of their own identity.
For instance, right now "straight privilege" means every adolescent in the world is assumed to be straight unless they come out as gay. Getting rid of the privilege would mean that *everyone* would have to figure out their sexuality and "come out" as straight, gay, or whatever. Straights would lose the privilege of being the completely neutral, normal group, but they wouldn't lose any other rights or benefits.
Submitted by 3221 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-10-01 12:27.
Ok, I'd like to answer this by giving you a personal perspective on what Jill said.
When I have been the top (with a man the bottom) there is a definite sense that it really is consensual. That we are playing, and he is playing at being under my control.
But when I am a bottom, there is always that knowledge inside me that if he so chose, he could really control me, really do those things or make me do those things. I must have absolute trust in him to be able to do it because of that knowledge. Whereas, for the man, I don't think that same level of trust is needed (although of course it is generally desirable), because he knows that if push came to shove he could break free and overpower me if he needed to.
Knowing that,
knowing
deep in yourself that when you are a bottom you are playing a game,
that
is a privilege. I don't have that privilege.
Submitted by 3221 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-10-01 18:24.
I don't agree that straight kids are given the "privilege" of having their sexual orientation seen as a given.
There are many reason that young people are labeled as "gay" by their peers, and even if they say they are straight the peers will still insist that they are gay. Most of the reasons, frankly, boil down to a youngster who either can't or won't conform to expected norms for their gender.
Figure out their sexuality? I'd think for most people there is nothing to "figure out", it's just sort of the way they are.
Also the "become aware of their own identity" thing is problematic. Especially since many people who are considered "white" by society but don't really consider that their identity.
And the common phrase "you think are normal" can be a problem. What would it mean for a child who grew constantly fearing nuclear war, global famine, or facing what their parents may have survived (Holocaust, Famine, or whatever else)? It's like saying "OK if you are 'white'/male/straight we are going to assume this is how you see and experience the world."
And frankly, I don't consider it necessary in order point out that these prejudices exist.