Thank you for the response. I seem to have expanded where I should have focussed. The original post discussed “White Privilege”, and it was to that which I was primarily responding. I did analogize to “Male Privilege,” but that seems to have created a tangent, and was also a mistake on my part.

You are, of course, correct that within traditional family structures men get ‘privileges’ like less housework that, in order to even the odds, would require men to give up that privilege.

As to “white privilege,” I think I stand by my original post. The goal is not to treat white people differently (make them “give up” their privilege), but to create a world where that “privilege” can be shared by all. As such, I think ‘privilege’ is probably an unfortunate term for what is being discussed.

Those are just the privileges they gain from unpaid domestic labor, there are a whole lot of privileges they gain from unpaid emotional labor and unpaid social labor, too. Wifework and The Second Shift are really good resources for viewing these privileges in depth.

What would we have to take from men in order equalize the situation?

To talk about white (or male or whatever) ‘privilege’ makes it seem that the white man is getting extra credit above and beyond what they are rightfully entitled to. At least that’s what I hear, but I don’t think it is what is meant.

Actually, sometimes that *is* what is meant. You’re right, and some “privileges” are just rights that all people should be able to enjoy. On the other hand, there are actually privileges that are unfair advantages based on other people’s disadvantages, and those should be eradicated altogether. For example, women are far more likely to end up doing the unpaid “reproductive labor” in a household (such as raising children, but also the repetitive chores such as cleaning). The ability to escape such work is a limited good that cannot be enjoyed by everyone. To equalize this situation, we would have to take something away from men, and “bring them down” closer to women so that both are doing their equal share of work.

I have seen some writers make a point to distinguish between these two sorts of privilege, and I think it would help clarify the problem you bring up.

To talk about white (or male or whatever) ‘privilege’ makes it seem that the white man is getting extra credit above and beyond what they are rightfully entitled to. At least that’s what I hear, but I don’t think it is what is meant.

The point, as I understand it at least, is that EVERYONE should be entitled to stuff like not getting pulled over for no reason, implicit trust, making enough money, and being considered equal by society’s ideology.

Being treated as equal is not really a ‘privilege’ — it should be a right. The fact that certain groups are given that right, while women or people of color or other sorts of ‘others’ are not, does not somehow transform that basic right into a ‘privilege.’ It just makes it a basic right that not everyone is getting.

I think the initial revulsion to being called ‘privileged’ has a lot to do with the word itself — and its implications that you are getting something ‘extra’ beyond your fair share. But ‘not getting arrested’ is not a limited good where if you stop wrongfully arresting black people you’ll have to start wrongfully arresting white people more, or if you start trusting the 18 year old minority kid in jeans you have to start being suspicious of the 55 year old white man in the business suit.

I don’t really have a better term in mind that ‘perks’ or ‘privilege’, but I just think that they both have the same problem. “Privilege” or ‘perks’ are things that can be taken away, so saying Whites are Privileged (Perked?) implies “To make the world better, we must take things away from you.” The ideal term should express, “You have all of your rights, and we only have some of ours.” Privilege doesn’t do that.