But then I was reading a post that I very much agreed with when I hit this in the comments: one of which pointed out that discussing things in terms of privilege carries with it "an embedded implication" that the things that people are excluded from are a "privilege, not a right" -- when most of what is discussed in the "privilege" discussions is the denial of rights.
In the cases that come to mind the most, they are life without fear (e.g. the gay men I've known who lived their lives with a constant fear of being assaulted, or women who have had similar worries).
The best comment on the entire thread was:
Anyway, making me think.
I don't think that many of these discursive spaces were intended to be anti-woman. They just ended up that way, because they were built by men, and women's experiences weren't considered. It's like a game of basketball where the participants split into teams of shirts and skins. And as long as it's an all-male space, that doesn't bother anybody. But when a woman wants to join the game (and wants to keep her shirt on), suddenly this norm becomes potentially problematic. It's not that it was necessarily meant to be exclusionary, but it's a norm that was put into place by men for a game played by men.
- http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/harassment-male-privilege-and-jokes-that-women-just-dont-get.html -- the post I agreed with.
- http://faultline.org/site/item/how_not_to_be_an_asshole_a_guide_for_men -- or, in other words why no one wants your advice ...