This article is a response to Peggy McIntosh and her article White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

There is a fundamental flaw in our current handling of the “isms.”  Whether through feminism, sexism, heterosexism, or racism, many of those fighting for eradication of social injustice are doing nothing more than exacerbating the primary issues.  McIntosh captures this misunderstanding of effective diplomatic problem solving by suggesting that the key to fighting any “ism” is to lessen the privileges of those in the oppressive group.  What she fails to realize is that the social context of superiority and privilege is not a zero-sums game.  Forcing a culture to revoke some of its earned or unearned privileges will not generally increase the privileges of an oppressed group nor will it remove any social prejudice or cultural gap of understanding.  In fact, acting on the pure acknowledgment of social privilege perpetuates the “invisible systems” McIntosh acknowledges as the main contributors to any sociocultural bias.  Her idea of fighting masculism with feminism is no better than adding fire to an already burning hell.  The two are much more similar than different and no combination of societal privilege or power from either sex will produce the neutral and equitable society Feminists are trying to create.

A sociocultural crisis undeniably exists in the United States.  Minority groups, be it the various non-caucasian bodies, LGBT communities, or medically disadvantaged citizens, suffer from the inherent shortcoming of any democratic, majority focused,  political system.  Minorities’ voices are low and displaced from the center of political influence.  A more radical interpretation of McIntosh’s position would suggest that she is advocating for an overturn of America’s political foundation.  In her view, the only way to properly solve the primary issues of discrimination in the context of politics would be to remove the unearned privileges of the straight, white, able-bodied, middle-age American in this nation’s majority subgroup.  Doing so would destroy all principles of democracy, which seeks to cater towards the greatest number of people.  A redistribution of voting rights enabling each subgroup to an equal share of say could in effect create an oppressive force against the majority.  No longer would a relatively small population be affected by systematic inequality but instead the forces driving the current oppressive crisis of supremacy would turn on the much larger population of those in a majority.  Not only is McIntosh’s solution not unique, it is misguided and ultimately a catalyst of even greater injustice.  Removing sociocultural injustice must utilize a solution which takes into account the interests of all parties involved and seek to maximize the privilege potential by creating symbiotic multicultural understanding.

McIntosh briefly alludes to this current American tendency of viewing those who are different through an ethnocentric lens.  But I found it slightly hypocritical of her to use such an observation as a launching point for her ideas of recycling women and gender studies research on racism.   How can it be justified for a woman to wish her current social standing on a man through limiting his authority when it is notably wrong for a white man to see his position as neutral and wish to elevate the black man’s standing?  Both perspectives assume equality is synonymous with having others be given the same rights and resources as you.

However, equality does not mean the same.  It is for this very reason that a solution must exist which can maximize the social prosperity of woman without the need to remove from men what have generally been reserved as social benefits of manhood.  A solution must exist which values the voice and culture of those holding a minority status without compromising the rights of those in a majority.  The first step to creating a truly free, unprejudiced society is to educate the population of its own diversity.  By understanding the differences and more importantly realizing the similarities, effort can be made to ensure fair and equal rights for all by cooperatively developing a society which recognizes and values what matters most to each individual party.

Where I believe both McIntosh’s arguments ultimately failed is where she attributed these social privileges to race.  Nearly each privilege in McIntosh’s list is gained by living in a majority.  Nothing, not even an acknowledgment of the very real existence of unearned rights and natural oppression, can change the simple nature of having the most number of people in a group.  The only thing stronger than numbers is knowledge and understanding.  As long as we continue to segregate our diversity by strategically creating programs which focus efforts on one race, gender, or sexual orientation, rather than the human, the breeding ground for the “isms” of society will continue to be very fertile.