***
Unpacking the Empty Knapsack: Daily effects of straight "privilege"
I was flabbergasted by many items on this list which allegedly constituted Straight so-called "Privilege". On closer examination, many either do not stand up or are dups:
"On a daily basis as a straight person…
* I can be pretty sure that my roomate, hallmates and classmates will be comfortable with my sexual orientation.
Depending on what being "uncomfortable" constitutes, this may not be a problem. If the discomfort manifested in malicious teasing or worse, this would indeed be a problem, but the fact is that people are not always used to difference.
A student from an elite school transferring into a neighborhood school would probably find that his new classmates and schoolmates would not be comfortable with him and his background, but it would seem trivial to claim that they benefited from School Privilege (or some such term). Ditto for a bald man in a world of individuals privileged by hair (I know at least one, but I doubt he's tearing his hair out over it).
The mere fact of difference does not imply discrimination. Call this Explanation A.
* If I pick up a magazine, watch TV, or play music, I can be certain my sexual orientation will be represented.
The desire for nominal representation puzzles me even more than that for statistical equality. In every magazine, TV show or music corpus, do we need at least one Black, one Hispanic, one Asian, one Indian, some women, one transvestite, one pre-op transsexual, one post-op transsexual, one gay or lesbian, one blue collar worker, one quadriplegic, a schizophrenic and one Liberal (obviously Whites, Men, straight people, white collar workers and Conservatives can be left out because they are "privileged")?
The obvious solution for this would be to write in a token character for your favourite interest group(s) of choice, which would be worse.
To lift a line from elsewhere, if it dont matter if you're Black or White, why this obsession about whether every interest group is represented? This constitutive paradox remains unresolved.
Call this Explanation B.
* When I talk about my heterosexuality (such as in a joke or talking about my relationships), I will not be accused of pushing my sexual orientation onto others.
I generally agree with this, but I didn't know such accusations were made.
Call this Agreement A
* I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about my sexual orientation there will be economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences.
Agreement A: I generally agree with this bit although this point is rather vague, so I might not agree with all examples of "economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences" cited.
* I did not grow up with games that attack my sexual orientation (IE fag tag or smear the queer).
Agreement A. But I didn't know such games existed.
* I am not accused of being abused, warped or psychologically confused because of my sexual orientation.
Agreement A. But for the last point, some people experiment with their sexuality before finding it so such an accusation may not be totally unwarranted.
* I can go home from most meetings, classes, and conversations without feeling excluded, fearful, attacked, isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, stereotyped or feared because of my sexual orientation.
Agreement A. But note that the emphasis here is on feeling: "fearful, attacked, isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, stereotyped or feared". There might be nothing to fear in reality.
* I am never asked to speak for everyone who is heterosexual.
This bit is ridiculous. The reason gay people are asked to speak for other gay people is that they are seen (and activists portray them) as victimised and that if they are not given a voice, this would be seen as discrimination or "oppression".
So people trying to accommodate gay people is seen as an example of straight "privilege". Wth. This reminds me of how disparate sentencing for crack cocaine, even though supported by the Congressional Black Caucus, is now seen as "racism".
There's a simple way to describe this: Lum Pah Pah Lan. But of course that is phallocentric, just as the term *facepalm* discriminates against those without hands (or foreheads)...
* I can be sure that my classes will require curricular materials that testify to the existence of people with my sexual orientation.
Explanation B.
* People don't ask why I made my choice of sexual orientation.
I don't know why being asked a question is a such a bad thing. If I want to buy a Proton and people ask me why I don't get a Japanese car instead, does this mean owners of Japanese cars are "privileged"?!
Furthermore, there is evidence, most pertinently for women, that sexual orientation is not always immutable, so this question is not totally invalid.
Call this Explanation C.
* People don't ask why I made my choice to be public about my sexual orientation.
Explanation C.
* I do not have to fear revealing my sexual orientation to friends or family. It's assumed.
This is the same as the earlier point about "economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences".
* My sexual orientation was never associated with a closet.
I don't even know what this is doing here. Do the people who compiled this list have something against closets? Do they know what a metaphor is?! Harry Potter is associated with a closet, but you don't see him complaining.
* People of my gender do not try to convince me to change my sexual orientation.
Explanation C. Though admittedly it gets boring/tiresome after a while, like Christian evangelism or Malaysians trying to convince me that Singaporean Char Kway Teow isn't Char Kway Teow.
* I don't have to defend my heterosexuality.
A combination of Agreement A and Explanation C.
* I can easily find a religious community that will not exclude me for being heterosexual.
The fact is that it is against some religions to be homosexual. All religions have things that are not in their creeds; it is unreasonable to claim discrimination when you are excluded for not abiding by certain strictures.
Freedom of religion means nothing if people from religions are forced into accepting and believing things they do not believe in.
This point is especially ironic given the earlier point about being "accused of pushing my sexual orientation onto others".
* I can count on finding a therapist or doctor willing and able to talk about my sexuality.
Agreement A. But one wonders if it would be unreasonable if someone into golden showers could not count on this either.
* I am guaranteed to find sex education literature for couples with my sexual orientation.
Explanation B.
* Because of my sexual orientation, I do not need to worry that people will harass me.
Agreement A.
* I have no need to qualify my straight identity.
I'm not sure what qualifying one's gay identity means.
* My masculinity/femininity is not challenged because of my sexual orientation.
Presumably the complaint here is that typical masculine or feminine identity depends on sexual orientation as well as sexual identity.
Yet, how then should masculinity or femininity be defined or benchmarked?
Does the fact that humans are partially defined by having two eyes, a nose, two ears and a mouth challenge the humanity of Tan Chor Jin (when he was alive, at any rate), someone whose nose has been broken, Evander Hollyfield, those who've had their mouths sewn shut (like Weapon XI) or Jaws (James Bond, not Peter Benchley)?
To dilute benchmarks in order to be more inclusive not only makes steadily less sense as the benchmarks become looser and looser, it also discriminates against the majority who do conform to those benchmarks, who will then suffer from anomie.
* I am not identified by my sexual orientation.
Being identified by a unique feature is not a bad thing unless there is something inherently derogatory about that unique feature. I doubt Al Capone was upset at being called "Scarface", Edward Teach at being known as "Blackbeard" or Ali Hassan al-Majid for being called "Chemical Ali". Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be a problem when people identify Jews with Wall Street or Think Tanks or Sikhs with Turbans.
Also, this is not helped by those who are flamboyantly homosexual, which further reinforces the link.
* I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help my sexual orientation will not work against me.
Agreement A.
* If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has sexual orientation overtones.
I have no idea what this means. Presumably my car breaking down or my cellular phone dropping into an unflushed toilet bowl cannot have "sexual orientation overtones". Otherwise, this is a repeat of "economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences."
* Whether I rent or I go to a theater, Blockbuster, an EFS or TOFS movie, I can be sure I will not have trouble finding my sexual orientation represented.
Explanation B.
* I am guaranteed to find people of my sexual orientation represented in the Earlham curriculum, faculty, and administration.
Explanation B.
* I can walk in public with my significant other and not have people double-take or stare.
Explanation A. And it's not like straight couples don't get double-take-d or stared at.
* I can choose to not think politically about my sexual orientation.
If you choose to think politically about your sexual orientation, that is your choice and you shouldn't blame other people for it.
* I do not have to worry about telling my roommate about my sexuality. It is assumed I am a heterosexual.
This is a repeat of "economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences."
* I can remain oblivious of the language and culture of LGBTQ folk without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
Agreement A, but this seems very trivial. It's like saying people who like to eat rice are "privileged" in most of Asia, or that people who wear jeans are "privileged" in university campuses.
* I can go for months without being called straight.
Explanation C. Is there something wrong with being called gay?
* I'm not grouped because of my sexual orientation.
Explanation C. Is there something wrong with being
* My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as heterosexual.
Au contraire. It is used to justify the idea of straight "privilege". What's sauce for the goose...
In any case, if we wanted a reflection of a particular group, it would only be logical to look at the behavior or characteristics of members of that group. The (apparently laudable) alternative would presumably be relying on preconceived notions - believing what we want to believe, rather than what really is.
* In everyday conversation, the language my friends and I use generally assumes my sexual orientation. For example, sex inappropriately referring to only heterosexual sex or family meaning heterosexual relationships with kids.
Explanation C. Default assumptions in language are not a bad thing, and indeed can make it more precise.
* People do not assume I am experienced in sex (or that I even have it!) merely because of my sexual orientation.
Given that gays at least have more sex than the general population, this is a reasonable assumption. It would even be reasonable (if wrong) to assume that my moobs are smaller than the breasts of virtually all Singaporean Chinese females.
* I can kiss a person of the opposite gender on the heart or in the cafeteria without being watched and stared at.
People get kissed on the heart?! Damn, I'm missing out.
Explanation A. And it's not like straight couples don't get double-take-d or stared at.
* Nobody calls me straight with maliciousness.
Explanation A. Though the way some people rant about so-called "heteronormativity"...
* People can use terms that describe my sexual orientation and mean positive things (IE "straight as an arrow", "standing up straight" or "straightened out") instead of demeaning terms (IE "ewww, that's gay" or being "queer").
This totally misunderstands the nature of language and is like claiming that those who describe Turkish politics as "byzantine", PAS as an "underdog" or who accuse Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of practising "pork barrel politics" are being offensive.
Furthermore, the last ignores that before LGBTs "reclaimed" it, "queer" was a perfectly good English word describing something "Deviating from the expected or normal; strange"
* I am not asked to think about why I am straight.
A combination of Agreement A and Explanation C.
* I can be open about my sexual orientation without worrying about my job.
This is the same as the earlier point about "economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences"."
I could do another post on White "Privilege": Unpacking the Empty Knapsack II (which, incidentally, is even more ridiculous), but the idea is the same.
