White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

Peggy McIntosh

(Basic text published in 1988 which briefly and anecdotally explores white privilege… what it is, how it works, and how it connects to other types of privilege. In my eyes, this is not only an accessible starting point but also a necessity for those interested in any issue of social justice, including feminism. read more)

The big problem with this and much of the work based on it is two things.  First, privilege as a concept is not some kind of “rule” that can be applied, especially not one-dimensionally.  It makes a lot of assumptions, many of which are suspect.  Most importantly (particularly evident in male/female privilege) is makes the assumption that “privilege” is an entirely one-sided thing. 

This is not the case.  While this is particularly obvious in the case of male/female privilege, take another example:  Black men are generally seen as more thuggish and crude than white men, but at the same time this leads to them being perceived as more “masculine” which is considered a good quality in our society.  Certainly, the gain doesn’t outweigh the loss, but the fact remains that it’s there.

Take “male privilege”.  Sure, men have lots of advantages.  Men are seen more as leaders, are safer walking down the street (actually, that’s bullshit), get paid more (actually, economists have proved that one’s bullshit too), are more accepted in the workforce, are likely to be seen as strong and capable, are more likely to be venerated for having sex with many partners, etc, etc.

This comes at a cost.  See, the thing is, what happens when a man isn’t strong?  A woman is free to be weak, and she won’t be looked down on.  She can be strong, and may be venerated *or* looked down on, but even if she’s attacked for it it won’t be with the same vehemence.  Oh, wait, that’s just a side effect of institutionalized misogyny?  Bullshit.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I’m not going to let you tell me it’s a movie star.  (Unless it’s Tony Anselmo, in which case you might have me fooled for a minute.) 

The point is, for almost every single example of “male privilege” there’s a corresponding example of “female privilege”.  This is all part of the same network of bullshit.  For example, men are seen as strong and women are seen as weak.  Horribly sexist against women, right?  Well, men are expected to risk their lives for women, and at least in the US are forced to sign away their constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of person when they turn 18.  (Selective Service, for the record.)  I’d rather be seen as weak, thank you very much. 

This leads to three notable revelations.  First, “male privilege” only applies to a very restricted set of men, much like “female privilege” only applies to a very restricted set of women.  There are a few traits that are universal, but for the most part people only benefit if they play into the socially normative gender expression.  (For the record, that was your “female privilege is like giving women a cookie for behaving according to societal standards of femininity” argument giving a little squeak and dying.  You’re right, but that applies equally to men and women.)

Second, virtually every single example of privilege is in-and-of itself double-edged depending on whether you meet the criteria.  For example, while men can behave in comparatively aggressive and violent manner that society would be loathe to accept from woman, if they behave in ways that are deemed as “soft” they face considerable backlash, often violent.  Vice versa women are able to behave in ways deemed “soft” without consequence, if they behave aggressively or violently they’re likely to be quickly ostracized.

Three, virtually every argument against female privilege involves the arguer submitting to inherently patriarchal standards.  The most common basically manifests as saying “it’s not a privilege to be weak” or “weak isn’t a good thing.”  Weak is not inherently inferior to strong, and the very idea that it is is inherently patriarchal.

These things combine to make the entire concept of “privilege” worth virtually nothing except as a thought experiment, or at best something applied on an aggregate scale.  While a man or woman who fits the societal paradigm of masculinity or femininity can certainly benefit greatly from “privilege”, for someone who doesn’t fall into the paradigm that “privilege” can fall on the south side of detrimental. 

All said and done, it’s a concept that has not only been taken far beyond its limitations, but has also far outlived its usefulness in virtually all contexts. 

It needs to be let go.

Please note that racial privilege functions somewhat differently and is somewhat less bidirectional.  This has to do with the fact that the race don’t correspond to direct societal roles the same way gender expression does.  Even then, there are noticeable bidirectional aspects though as it’s not the topic of discussion it’s not worth going into at the moment. 

(via permutationofninjas)