A List Of Privilege Lists
| September 26th, 2006I’ve completely swiped these links from the sidebar at Official Shrub.com, and from Lake Desire’s list at New Game Plus.
- White Privilege: Unpacking The Invisible Knapsack
This is Peggy McIntosh’s original article, which inspired the other lists. There’s a number of interesting discussions of this list on the women’s studies listserv archive. - Able-Bodied Privilege
- Average Sized Person Privilege
- Being Poor Is…
This one isn’t actually in the “privilege checklist” format, but I think it fits in. - Christian Privilege
- The Costs of American Privilege
Okay, this one isn’t even a list. But as Lake Desire says, let’s shoehorn it in here so that American privilege will at least get a mention. - Daily Effects of Straight Priviliege
- Heterosexual Privilege
- The Invisibility of Class Privilege (pdf link)
- The Male Privilege Checklist
My own contribution to the trend; probably the most-read piece I’ve ever written (or, in this case, compiled). - Non-Poor Privilege Checklist
- Non-Trans Privilege Checklist
- Privilege to Game
Lake Desire’s list of how privilege, gaming and boycotts intersect - Social Class Privilege – Beyond Ethnicity, Gender, and Religion (.pdf link)
- We Can’t Be Equal While…
Not really a “privilege” list, but similar enough in spirit that I wanted to include it. One thing I like about this list is that it includes ways that sexism harms both sexes.
I’m hoping that the comments to this post can be used to interactively keep this post up-to-date. So if you know of a link that you think is relevant to this post, or if you notice that one of these links has died, please leave a comment.
UPDATE: Maia has a critique.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:11 am
I react to these lists very differently. I think this device is more useful in analysing some types of oppression than others.
For example a lot of the class-priviledge checklist said that one of the privileges of being upper-class is that you could only interact with people of your own class. That’s just as true for the poor as it is for the rich, in fact it’s true for everyone.
I actually have quite a few problems with political analysis around priviledge, because it tends to be individualistic. I also really feel a need to distinguish between areas where you are actually privileged, and areas where other people’s rights are being trampled on. I would say not having to do your share of house work is a male privilege. But not having to be afraid of rape? I’m not comfortable seeing that as privilege - that’s a right.
Hmmm I feel a post coming on.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
September 26th, 2006 at 6:43 am
Maia: you said it better than I could, so I’ll just say : “yep.”
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
September 26th, 2006 at 6:43 am
“Maia said it better than I could, so I’ll just say “thanks.”
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
September 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Maia:
Defenders of the concept of privilege argue that it is a relative concept.
This notion can be critiqued on several several grounds. Firstly it obfuscates the important distinction between suffering an unfair disadvantage, and enjoying an unfair advantage. As Maia says, freedom from the fear of rape is a right. The problem is not that men generally enjoy this right; it’s that women very often do not.
Secondly, because many people understand “privilege” to mean an unfair advantage, as Maia does, the relative definition makes it harder to discuss these issues. It’s like trying to discuss “violence” with Objectivist Libertarians who define the term differently from everyone else
Thirdly, the “relative” definition is not an honest one. It’s sole purpose is to be trotted out in response to criticisms like mine and Maia’s. As soon as the debate moves on from what the word means, changes back to “unfair advantage”, as evidenced by the “You don’t want to give up your privilege” trope, and the claim that men “benefit”, which only makes sense if privilege is understood so by the person making this comment. (Maia, being female, has the “privilege” of never having to face that one herself, at least with respect to gender.)
And it is that ad hom which exposes the real purpose behind the trope: it’s to frustrate debate, by silencing those members of the allegedly privileged group.
My previous posts on this subject: “Privilege” and “Disadvantage” as sexist framing devices and Do white men really benefit from privilege?
I look forward to it.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
September 26th, 2006 at 11:14 am
[…] Maia makes a sagacious point in a comment over on Alas. I also really feel a need to distinguish between areas where you are actually privileged, and areas where other people’s rights are being trampled on. I would say not having to do your share of house work is a male privilege. But not having to be afraid of rape? I’m not comfortable seeing that as privilege - that’s a right. […]
This comment was written by More on Privilege « Creative Destruction.Report this comment to the moderators
September 26th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Alas, a blog. Please go read the Alas post, there are various other privilege lists, all fascinating.
This comment was written by And YOU will know me by the length of this url!.Report this comment to the moderators
September 29th, 2006 at 3:18 am
The list on class manages to avoid stating the obvious : upper-class people HAVE MORE MONEY.
And that makes a hell of a difference.
Also upper-class people see their interests reflected in government (else, how would they remain upper-class ? Mmm ?)
And the list of supposed “lower-class privileges” is complete delirium. “I don’t have to worry about having a career” ? Ha !
“I don’t have to worry about being attacked when I am walking.” Hello ? Most victims of attack are working-class.
“Inspirational stories of individual success are always about people like me.” Hello ? Hello ? HELLO ?
When you see “privilege” everywhere, you end up seeing it nowhere, and you also lose sight of the basic structures of oppression and exploitation in our societies. Losing this means losing sight of how to fight them.
This comment was written by ilestre.Report this comment to the moderators
September 30th, 2006 at 3:55 am
and secondhand games; how to get a human being when calling CS about an account issue; and how to return almost anything. On the politics and feminism front: more on the “Public Expression of Religion Act”; a list of class, etc. privileges; looks like “hysteria” is making a comeback; rape trials as gender performances, followed by this equally excellent post on the subject; a retort for all those “I’m not a feminist but…”;
This comment was written by p h a n t a s m a g o r i a s . n e t.Report this comment to the moderators
September 30th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
[…] Checklist. No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> […]
This comment was written by Trying to remain calm within chaos.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2006 at 5:19 am
[IMG] Ampersand at Alas, a Blog has a great list of privilige checklists. They are all based on Peggy MacIntosh’s article “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” which is about white privilege. This is how she describes the concept: I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught
This comment was written by Feminists at Brandeis.Report this comment to the moderators
October 17th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
[…] Amp put up a list of privilege lists on Alas. For those not familiar with the format, most are based on Peggy McIntosh’s White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. […]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Privilege.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2006 at 12:27 am
and the ‘heterosexual checklist’. These are less amusing but inspire much thought… there’s also a list of different checklists out there (Including a ‘non-trans’ checklist) and these can all be found here.
This comment was written by Syn Abounds..Report this comment to the moderators
October 19th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Here’s one you missed: The Pirate Privilege Checklist (via aeneas-rising).
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
November 25th, 2006 at 7:52 am
eyes? I’m not saying everyone must take on every battle, but really, how can people be okay with the world around them? I recently found a fascinating article on ‘white privilege’ and the infamous checklist, and I wonder if its really the countless privileges
This comment was written by I can't imagine all the people that you know or the places that you go.Report this comment to the moderators
September 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 pm
In case anyone is interested (probably not since this string is now so old), McIntosh just published a reflection on the whole Invisible Knapsack thing on July 24, 2007, in the online version of the magazine “Business Report”: http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=2515&fArticleId=3948242
Interesting to see her take on it so many years and so many lists later.
This comment was written by Using it to help teachers check their privilege.Report this comment to the moderators
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I just did a counterpoint to the “Male Privilege List” - the Female Privilege List. A sample:
1. I’m allowed to avoid stress and competition, so I can enjoy an additional 5 years of life
2. I can choose professions that are less lucrative, and not be called a loser.
3. If I don’t rise to the top of my profession, it’s OK – people won’t judge me the less for it.
4. I’m entitled to the benefits of a safe, orderly society, but no one expects me to risk my personal safety to maintain it.
. . .
It is at http://sweatingthroughfog.blogspot.com/2007/10/mens-privilages-vs-womans-privilage.html
This comment was written by Sweating Through Fog.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
[…] An interesting “List of Privilege Lists” — ways of “unpacking the invisible knapsack” that accompany those of us […]
This comment was written by Pick up and go « west north.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Interesting reads. As members of many of these groups, I’ve understood the deficits that place them, but rarely examined the advantages afforded to me.
However, ‘non-trans’ can more completely be summed up as ‘non-cisgendered’. ‘Transexual’ tends to imply that the term works inside the gender binary, while it does technically include non-gendered or androgyne individuals. ‘Non-cisgendered’ is clearer, meaning ‘physical sex not matching identified gender’.
This comment was written by Kat.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I’m glad this link came up in the sidebar. I haven’t gone through everything yet, but it presents an interesting challenge so far, especially in terms of able-bodied and cisgendered privilege. There are probably a few items that could be added to the Christian privilege list, though.
This comment was written by Lea.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
We need an “adult privilege” list.
http://www.youthrights.org/forums/archive/index.php?t-2698.html
**My ideas and conversational inputs will not be dismissed based on my age.
This comment was written by Doug S..**I have some say in the laws that govern me.
**Unless I commit a crime and/or am mentally ill, no one has the legal right to touch my body against my will (e.g., spanking), nor do they have society’s leave to do so.
**If someone DOES touch my body against my will, they cannot–in any seriousness–claim to be doing so out of love, and I can legitimately claim a violation of my basic human rights.
**I am allowed to hear or to seek out opposing viewpoints (i.e., other than that which I have been taught), whether others (such as my “parents”) like it or not.
**No one gets to demand my respect or love.
**In a fight between parent and child, I am not the one who will be taken by the police, and it will be assumed that the other party (the child) is guilty.
**I can generally expect that my personal information (e.g., medical, academic, etc.) will remain private.
**I have the final say regarding my relations (romantic, friendly, etc.) with other people.
**I cannot legitimately be treated as de facto human property.
**I have the privilege of moving freely and engaging in more-or-less uninhibited self-actualization.
**No one has the right to attempt to mold me into a carbon copy of themselves (or of their own unrealized dreams).
**I can pretty choose how to look or dress and alter my body however I see fit.
**My desire to be independent and free from coercion is not considered pathological.
**I can choose my own religion or political ideology without others assuming they have the right to change me (or keep me FROM changing).
**People cannot prevent me from doing something, or force me to do something, and claim it’s “for my own good.”
**I can criticize adults without it being treated as a moral offense.
**I am not subject to controlling images that seek to deny me, based on my age, legitimate subjective agency. (Images such as the school shooter, the suicide risk, the punk, the nerd, the weirdo, etc.)
**Any education which I undertake probably doesn’t seek to make me into a particular kind of person; in fact, it allows–if not encourages–independent thought.
**Usually, I am not vulnerable to hospitalization, punishment, or other awful fates for being myself.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2007 at 1:29 am
[…] Amptoons has an excellent post on listing the varying forms of privilege. I have posted them here for convenience, but please do visit their site. […]
This comment was written by Listing Different Forms of Privilege | Queer People of Color.Report this comment to the moderators
March 12th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
[…] Ferraro’s political and personal awareness on issues of race preceded the work of women like Peggy MacIntosh, the uber-white-ally whose landmark work on white privilege laid the foundation for … Ferraro, on the other hand, is one of those women who is stuck in the monolithic view of white […]
This comment was written by Plantation Politics, Part Two : revrose.com.Report this comment to the moderators
March 27th, 2008 at 10:18 am
[…] valuable to sit down and examine these things from time to time. This particular list was found at Alas, a blog and taken from an article by Peggy McIntosh that I first read back in a college class that explored […]
This comment was written by Bread and Buttah » Archivio Blog » Privilege List #1: White Privilege.Report this comment to the moderators
March 27th, 2008 at 10:30 am
[…] These statements taken from http://pirate.shu.edu/~schlosle/cpexamples.htm, found at Alas, a blog. […]
This comment was written by Bread and Buttah » Archivio Blog » Christian Privilege.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The “Christian” list is in itself an example of privilege - by Christian it assumes Protestant. At least half of the items on that list, by my estimation, are NOT true for Catholics in my experience, although I live in the Midwest and that might be different in different parts of the country (for example the Northeast has a higher Catholic population so Catholics in the Northeast might not experience the same amount of othering I do in the Midwest).
This comment was written by Leah.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
On reading these lists, I couldn’t help wonder if the author of this post would consider the benefits and advantages enjoyed by people with ‘aesthetically pleasing’ appearances to be privileges also. I know you touch on Average Sized Person privilege but what about, say, taller individuals getting salaries greater than shorter ones, a well documented fact and so on. Would this constitute privilege too?
Thanks!
This comment was written by KS.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
However much “othering” one might experience while this Christian sect, or that Christian sect, the core property of having a Christian belief structure and observing Christian holidays and practices creates significantly more inclusion than exclusion. Exclusion is central to a lot of privilege and oppression — which is probably why ghettos, white country clubs, and male dominated board rooms exist. It’s hard to tell the in crowd from the out crowd if the damned out crowd refuses to know their place.
One example of religious exclusion that’s not experienced by many (if any) Christians, relates to holy days and the way some religions insist on having them on days other than Sundays and bank holidays. My employer permits me to take off — with pay — any religious holy day that involves being in or near a synagogue from sundown to sundown. And yet, I’ve had managers and co-workers and colleagues all boggle that I’m taking time off — with pay — to beg and plead with G-d not to kill me.
“Othering”, however, is not the same as “oppressing”. Catholics can still marry Catholics, or Protestants can still marry Protestants, but queers can’t marry, and trannies are even more hopelessly screwed than the non-trans queers of the world.
There are things about being Catholic (I was raised in a city that was extremely Catholic) that might throw others, but as the list points out, “I gave up meat for Lent” is something that is fairly well understand by the dominant class, even if they aren’t all Catholics. Feeling uneasy as the only white person in an otherwise all-black environment does not make up for the crime of “Driving While Black”. Having ones femininity questioned does not make up for having ones entire gender, and validity of ones gendered behavior, attacked at every turn.
Privilege is NOT NOT NOT about the trivial things.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
May 12th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Who is to decide what is trivial and what is not? Who is to decide what is oppression and what is not?
My husband’s family had the KKK demonstrate in front of their house within the last 20 years (I’m not sure of the exact year). They were essentially chased out of town.
Why? Because they are Catholic. Is that trivial?
True, Catholic holidays usually coincide with Protestant ones. I also don’t disagree that there is Christian priviledge, and that Catholics partake in it an benefit from it. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t any oppression against Catholics, as a group, by Protestants, as a group. Many parts of that list are NOT true for Catholics (in my experience), ergo the list is problematic to be called a Christian list. I’m sure a list could be made for Christian priviledge that was universal for Protestants, Catholic, and Orthodox Catholics (whose holidays are NOT shared with other Christians), but this list was not. Specifically, in my experience the most problematic items are:
“2. I can talk openly about my religious practices without concern for how it will be received by others.” When I mention my religion, I’ve been called a Devil worshiper, a Papist, an Idoloter, a cannibal, been told I support child molesters and want Africans to get AIDS…
“8. I can probably assume that there is a universality of religious experience.” I am acutely aware of how my religious experience, my theological basis, the style of holiday worship and even which holidays and sacraments are celebrated differ from that of Protestants.
“9. I can deny Christian Privilege by asserting that all religions are essentially the same.” See #8
” 11. I am probably unencumbered by having to explain why I am or am not doing things related to my religious norms on a daily basis.” Why is there dust on your forehead? Why are you fasting? Are you aneorexic? God doesn’t WANT you to starve yourself, you know. God doesn’t WANT you to not eat meat, you know. If God cared for you He wouldn’t make you do that. It’s hypocritical.
“12. I am likely not judged by the improper actions of others in my religious group.” How can you be Catholic when priests molested kids? Do you support child molesters? The Pope came out against gay marriage. Why do you hate gays? Why are priests celibate - clearly it causes child molestation.
“13. If I wish, I can usually or exclusively be among those from my religious group most of the time (in work, school, or at home).” That was only true when I went to parochial school. Otherwise, I’m in the minority.
” 14. I can assume that my safety, or the safety of my family, will not be put in jeopardy by disclosing my religion to others at work or at school.” As you read above, in the case of my husband, that is not true. In certain areas of the country it isn’t a problem, but in others, you must watch yourself. Likewise with some people.
“15. It is likely that mass media represents my religion widely AND positively.” Widely, yes. Positively…eh. It’s pretty mixed.
“17. I can travel without others assuming that I put them at risk because of my religion; nor will my religion put me at risk from others when I travel.” There are parts of the world still where if I were VISIBLY Catholic I would be in danger. Heck, there are parts of this country (USA) that are like that. If I do not reveal my religion, however, I should be fine.
“23 I can safely assume that any authority figure will generally be someone of my religion.” Catholics are ~ 25% of the US population, or ~30% of Christians (less in my region though). This is a sizeable chunk, yes, but it is a minority so I cannot assume other people I meet are Catholic, including authority figures.
“24. I can talk about my religion, even proselytize, and be characterized as “sharing the word,” instead of imposing my ideas on others.” In my experience, non-Catholics do not take kindly to unasked-for sharing of the Catholic version of the Bible. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of this (section 4): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Contentious_interactions_with_other_religious_and_non_religious_social_groups
“26. I am never asked to speak on behalf of all Christians.” I am often asked to speak on behalf of all Catholics. Why don’t Catholics like birth control (don’t get me started on that question)?
“27. My citizenship and immigration status will likely not be questioned, and my background will likely not be investigated, because of my religion.” Not so much anymore, but once upon a time this was true for Irish Americans. Now, Catholics who are of Latino, Chicano or Hispanic origin have a difficult time.
“28. My place of worship is probably not targeted for violence because of sentiment against my religion.” This happens at Catholic Churches. Mostly vandalism.
“38. The elected and unelected officials of my government probably are members of my religious group.” There has been one Catholic president. He was assassinated. In my experience there isn’t a Catholic around who was alive at the time who doesn’t have some suspicion that those two facts are related.
Catholics do share some Christian priviledge, however there is also Protestant priviledge from which Roman and Orthodox Catholics are excluded, and by glossing over that, and assuming the Christian list represents a universiality of all Christians including Catholics, which it does not, is in itself priviledge on the part of the list’s author. This is not about denying priviledge. Many items on that list DO apply to me, as a Catholic. I’m just pointing out that, also, many do not.
That said, I’m pretty sure these lists aren’t about the Oppression Olympics. Many of the points raised about furrycatherder could be said about any religion, or many of the other lists (Jews can marry Jews, and Muslims can marry Muslims but gays can’t marry…this is a non sequitor, because one can be Protestant AND gay and still not be able to marry - these are not mutually exclusive) . Am I to understand from your statements that religious oppression is not as “bad” as oppression of homosexuals? Oppression is oppression. It differs in flavor, yet it does have defining characteristics.
This comment was written by Leah.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2008 at 6:55 am
@Leah: I hear what you are saying. You’re definitely right that there is still anti-Catholic sentiment in the United States and that any oppression is oppressive. You’re right that in the U.S. social context, especially, Catholics have often been viewed with suspicion and denied posts of power due to unjustified stereotypes about the Roman Catholic Church.
However, simultaneously, it’s also true that at the Roman Catholic church, as an institution, (which should be held distinct from the power exercised by most individual Catholics) participates in particular ways in oppression. It exercises power in the world in ways that no other denomination of Christianity, and in some way, no other religion, can. As with being on the receiving end of oppression, oppressive institutions also “[differ] in flavor, yet [do] have defining characteristics.”
No other religion on earth, including any Protestant denomination, has anything like the status of the Holy See (in Vatican City) which has all the rights of full membership in the UN, and only does not vote because the Church chooses not to exercise this power at this time.
The Pope’s status in the world is unequaled by any sole representative of any other religion. His word on birth control, abortion, women in leadership, has a lot more power than any woman’s, of any religion, in any place in the world.
Since 12% of all hospitals in the United States are Catholic hospitals, many of which refuse to provide emergency contraception and ALSO refuse to make referrals for such, women who are victims of sexual assault in locations where the closest (or only) hospital is a Catholic hospital regularly are barred from receiving appropriate sexual assault care, regardless of her personal beliefs.
(The closest hospital to the college campus where I work is a Catholic hospital; it hires no sexual assault nurse and refuses to provide emergency contraception. I know many young women who have been raped and not treated properly because they simply were taken to the wrong hospital.)
Meanwhile, there is actually a majority of Roman Catholics–5 of the 9–on the Supreme Court at present, who were chosen (however, by WASP male presidents and confirmed by the WASP dominated Senates*) partly because of the Church’s stance on abortion, birth control, LGBTQ rights, etc.
Individual Catholics, especially wealthy, white male Catholics, on the Court and in other places have specifically benefited from and participate actively in the Church’s oppressive role in the world; i.e., they have experienced Catholic privilege, even within a U.S. context.
It is wrong to see all Catholics as having equal access to this power and privilege, and many Catholics/Catholic organizations resist and actively work against the Church’s oppressive power. Protestant privilege in the majority of US social contexts remains strong. And we both agree, I think, that the workings of privilege and power are just really complex.
*FYI: Wikipedia says the current US Senate closely reflects the demographics of the US with about 24 Catholic Senators, or 24%–making it the largest single Christian denomination in both the US and the Senate. BUT Judeo-Christian religious dominance, in general, is pronounced in the Senate, with 100% identifying themselves as Christian or Jewish, although 15% of the US is non-religious–not to mention that there are no other religions (e.g. Islam, Buddhism) represented.
This comment was written by lori.Report this comment to the moderators