what is privilege?

simply put, privilege is when one person/group has unfair advantage due to opportunities available only to that person/group. people can have privilege because of laws that are passed (or still on the books), bias presented in news stories, hiring practices, personal cultural capital, and countless other ways. power is having (either personally or through group affiliation) privilege through ideological control, control of resources in society, ability to determine "normal," "real," and "correct," and the imposition of culture onto other groups. typically, when we have power and/or privilege, we are blind to it.
it is easy to see what we don't have and quite difficult to see what we do and how we got it. we have to re-train our brains, our biology and psychology to acknowledge our privilege, as well as the effects of our privilege. from a young age, we are taught to ignore differences and believe in equality. with such teachings, we successfully ignore advantage because we have been told too often it does not exist. we only notice this advantage when we do not have it or when we use it to taunt others.
i am reminded of the "survival of the fittest" theory...biologically, any advantage we have as humans will help us survive. that is biologically though, not socially. advantage given to us socially does not mean we are biologically fittest. social advantage is based on choice and hierarchy. the choice to exault one group over another. the choice to advantage some and simultaneously disadvantage others. biologically, we have all survived. socially, we have not accepted this survival as the biological sign that we all should be here--equally.

i am tired of hearing privilege is having a job or that a person should feel privileged to have a job. unless the job was given based on unfair hiring practices...for instance, if a job was never posted and the owner of the company is having dinner with friends, the friends mention their child doesn't have a job, and the owner agrees to hire this person because their families have been friends so long. something like that is privilege. where people who were qualified for the job didn't even get the opportunity to apply for such a position. instead, a person's social capital granted them this job unfairly. in this case, having this job is an example of privilege. not a privilege as in it's an honor.
i am tired of hearing examples like this because the fundamental definition is different. when you use an example under a different definition yet apply it to the original situation, you are just creating chaos. in the messiness of such chaos, it is easy to dismiss having privilege.
changing the definition of privilege to avoid acknowledging you have it is just a perfectly logical explanation (ple) and more specifically, an excuse. this ple is like an ostrich who just sticks its head in the sand--it doesn't work and it doesn't take away reality. end of story.

turning the other cheek

privilege and ignore are scary words to me when they are in the same sentence. a couple months ago now i helped lead a training about privilege. a man at the training said that he would just ignore his privilege and that would serve as a solution for the system of privilege.

it’s scary to think that the two-year-old child’s solution of covering up your eyes—if i can’t see you, you can’t see me—is suddenly a viable solution for adults in regard to privilege. when we see two-year-olds do this, it’s cute and endearing. when adults do this, what do we think? it’s sad to me because i have seen covering one's eyes as an acceptable solution. it’s sad and scary to think ignoring privilege and pretending not to have it all of a sudden seems a likely way to solve the problem. is it true that in reality when it happens, we think it's okay? why is this funny for a child to do and serious for an adult? to me, this indicates something very wrong is going on. something we are not willing to acknowledge but is there nonetheless.

the real problem of privilege, however, is systemic, cultural, and personal. we might not be able to see it because we are not really looking. it’s a pervasive system wrought with expectation and entitlement, fear and blame whether we acknowledge it or not. when people have privilege and acknowledge they do the guilt that accompanies is overwhelming. let me ask though---who makes guilt an overwhelming emotion? only the person feeling it, that’s who...rightfully so to some degree being that the system is so insidious. it chokes everyone, suffocating people into consciouslessness.

i am not trying to knock the tactic of ignorant bliss altogether. sometimes it is useful; i recognize it as a defense mechanism, but i think it’s important to unpack that. why is there a need for defense when it comes to acknowledging privilege? my best guess is the lack of readiness to accept responsibility for privilege. responsibility for how the system currently is, responsibility for contributing to oppression, and responsibility to do something about it and with it. that’s a huge mental and spiritual undertaking. avoiding such an undertaking, such a responsibility, is certainly easier than facing the reality.
on the other hand, people lacking privilege face reality everyday. there is no option of defense—of ignoring, of pretending, of avoiding responsibility. privilege truly is having this luxury. the option of avoidance if and when you choose.
ignorance by choice is just one more perfectly logical explanation (ple) to not change; to not have to try to live and achieve social justice.
stay awake people! don’t use a ple because it’s easy. be in it (in your privilege) even though it’s hard and brings about emotions that are difficult to face up to. reality in its fullest is difficult to face up to. what’s worse is when you don’t see what is truly going on around you and how you are a part of it. don't continue to contribute to oppression. it doesn't benefit anyone. how is ignoring privilege beneficial to anyone--including yourself?

so, what do you do with your privilege?

oh, propositions

let's talk about politics and some current ballot propositions. i'm in california and there are a couple of heavy, controversial ones. protecting marriage is one. the title says it all: eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. let's talk about this.
eliminates right. well, to me that means there is a right present. the right that is present is marriage.
how is taking away rights in any way what we want to happen in this country? a country of freedoms and equality for all. an amendment to a state's constitution and over the california supreme court ruling allowing same-sex marriage is threatening to disallow freedoms and grant inequality.

proposition 8 discriminates in two ways--one favoring heterosexual couples by continuing their right to marriage and the other oppressing and discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (lgbt) couples who will lose the right to marriage. it is a proposition that segregates the population and chooses in favor of or against based on religious values. i say this because the writers of and primary fiscal contributors to the proposition are from religious organizations. should the right to access marriage be decided upon my religiously affiliated beliefs?
my issue is there are all these protections and freedoms we are supposed to have, namely equality and separation of church and state. neither of which seem to be occurring in this proposition. as a sidenote, i am aware that separation of church and state (and proponents of proposition 8) is not all or nothing; there are religious organizations who oppose eliminating the right to marriage for same-sex couples. it is their stance that actually attempts to keep a separation of church and state. unfortunately, it must be a pretty small separation.

throughout all this, there are some lovely perfectly logical explanations (ples) for taking away equality/eliminating rights/ruling the state through church. it is okay to eliminate rights because proposition 8 will:
restore marriage.
"It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be."
not an attack on the gay lifestyle.
less government.
"It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people."
protect families.
"Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father."
protect children.
"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage."
"As social and legal norms change, there would be many unwanted consequences for families. For instance, all children would be taught that they can marry someone of the same or of the opposite sex when they grow up. Their parents would be unable to object to such teaching. Experts predict such misinformation will cause developmental insecurity in many children and encourage experimental behavior, with disastrous outcomes."
protect marriage.
and my favorite, proposition 8 doesn't take away the rights of gays.
"Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else."

why are these ples, you might ask. i have some thoughts...
restore marriage--before the 1970s in california there was no definition of marriage being between a man and woman. which means that since california became a state over a hundred years ago (1850) the definition of marriage was written in gender-neutral language. so, from what time period does marriage as being between a man and a woman need to be restored?
less government--it sounds like when there needs to be a constitutional amendment that overturns a state's supreme court ruling, that is more government that is involved in people's personal lives. we are all part of the government! when you have an elected official, you are part of the government. when you vote, you are part of the government. when you write legislature, bills, or propositions, you are part of the government. all propositions on their face are for more government. also, this proposition is about amending the constitution, not about reversing the ruling of judges. this proposition is about amending the constitution in order to take rights away from lgbt couples.
protect families--children are not in danger with both of their legal guardians/parents are able to marry. children are not in danger when raised by lgbt individuals or couples, on the sole merit of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity and expression. this ple is all about fear. the logic is there, but the need for this argument is based on fear. when fear of the lgbt community is so high that there is a movement to try and remove children from settings with these individuals, there is a problem. families are not threatened or in need of protection when all people have access to the right to marriage. in fact, when all people have access, more families can be legally recognized. why would families need protecting when there can be more of them?
protect children--this is a similar ple to "protect families." although, in this ple, it is important to note the assumptions that are made...there is not one word, one mention of education in proposition 8. current california law gives parents the overall authority over their children's education in terms health and family issues. parents have an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. this ple is saying that it is okay to eliminate rights of lgbt people because of the potential that kids will be taught that everyone (straight and lgbt folks) has the right to marry. ultimately, this once perfectly logical explanation becomes perfectly ludicrous explanation--we should eliminate rights to one group for fear that we teach our kids about equality. that's interesting reasoning. let me know how that works out.
doesn't take away the right of gays--heck yeah it does! that is exactly what this proposition says it will do--IN IT'S TITLE! for this reason, i wouldn't say it is actually logical, however i suppose it could be read as such. on the radio i heard this ple used because "gay people are allowed to marry; gay men just have to marry women." this is another topic altogether, but this is why we need to begin recognizing the differences between equality and equity--this argument raises the need for equity.

the value of marriage is not lost when all people have the right to marriage. the value grows exponentially. i challenge the thought of marriage losing its value as fewer people have access to it, and more people are prevented from choosing to enter into it.

now, i am not saying vote this way or that; i am saying think about the effects and impacts of your vote. what do you want your vote to stand for?

religious privilege

i often do diversity trainings and use social justice as the foundation of my trainings. a few weeks ago, i led a training on religious privilege. it was only an hour long session; aimed at getting people to talk about how religious privilege affects and impacts all our lives.
the group was certainly slow to talk with one another and i attempted to roll at their pace. talking about religion over lunch is, afterall, a little unusual and potentially scary. i gave that to them. so i am nearing the 45 minute mark--we still needed to verbalize concrete examples of religious privilege. i pulled out my old stand-by, the academic year vacation schedule. christmas break and easter break, now of course, politically corrected to be winter and spring break respectively. from no where i expected came an absurd PLE! our vacation schedule is based on the farming season. that's why we have winter break. logical, perfectly. accurate, debatable.
first, i was blown out of the water and stumped with this response. it made me a little disappointed; disappointed for a few reasons actually. i was disappointed in myself because i wasn't prepared for this answer. i was disappointed in the answer itself because it blocked that person and the rest of the group from having a dialogue about religious privilege. and, i was disappointed because at the end when i asked the group for something new they took from the session, the first few answers were that our vacation breaks were based on the farming season.
why is it that what people who came took away something that wasn't even about the topic? this PLE totally took center stage to the potential learning and exploring that could have happened.
i do want to say that yes, we still farm in this country. however, we are an industrialized, technology-driven country and society. we have been for a long time. if our vacations were in fact determined from farming, why isn't farming a greater part of our current culture? i still believe that religion is the greater determinant of why we center our annual vacation breaks around december 25 and easter sunday.

when i was younger, the holidays i celebrated were not given as school holidays. that continues to be the case even now with the changed language of what our vacations are called. i always had christmas and easter off, including the week around each of those holidays. in order to take the two holidays celebrated in my non-christian religion, my mom had to lie. taking holidays that were not christian, and therefore not already blocked out in the academic year, was unacceptable. how is it that to practice religion in a country that grants freedom of religion is unacceptable? all i knew as a kid was that my holiday, my religion was not valid enough for the school system. being "sick" was valid, even without a cough, headache, illness, or symptoms of illness. so, on holidays--just two days in the whole year, i was called in sick. yet, no one had to be sick to get christmas off.

that PLE just took away my experience...i think that's why it took me by such surprise.