Well, just neglecting the fact that the woman is bisexual, she's married heterosexually, and is therefore exhibiting heterosexual privilege. Marriage currently is a heteronormal occurance, and until homosexual marriages become accepted, it will remain as such.
It's hard to get my point across, do you sort of see what I'm saying?
I hear you. I've been having this debate in my head for awhile, and mostly it just feels weird to me to say that she has het privilege when she's not straight.
I found this a bit of a tough call. I voted for "heterosexual privilege" since it's being in a heterosexual relationship that allows the woman to marry the partner of her choice while ignoring that same-sex partnerships don't have that right. But on the other hand, for a self-identified bisexual (as I presume from your wording that she is) to "forget" that same-sex couples can't marry is a worse offense, in my opinion, than for a heterosexual to do the same thing. So it seems like it needs a separate term, "bisexual privilege," indicating the ability/choice to have legal recognition and social approval of your partnership choice while still claiming a queer identity. Obviously not all bisexuals exercise this privilege, but it's available to bisexual people as it isn't to lesbians and gay men.
I'm not sure the difference is anything but semantic? It's not a question of whether it's one thing or another--i.e. that we understand what het privilege is and what bi privilege is but don't know which box this fits in--but merely whether to call it one thing or the other.
I can see arguments for calling it either way, but as much as I think policing our language is important because language shapes thought, I'm not quite sure what exactly depends on one's answer.
But that's the thing--I'm not sure what it would mean for there to be such a "thing" as het privilege or bi privilege: forms floating in a platonic heaven? They're elements in a language game. A very important game, since it allows for the identification of systemic opression, but these are concepts.
I guess the real question would be which system for categorizing privilege would be the most useful (as opposed to which corresponds with reality). And I can think of reasons why using a theoretical structure including bi privilege as a concept could be very useful, but also potential disadvantages to such a theorization.
But I don't know, I sort of detect a worry that if you theorize things differently than someone else, you'll somehow be "wrong"--and I don't think it works like that. (IMO, you can be "wrong" only insofar as the ramnifications of the theorization prove damaging or disempowering. It's an ethical determination, not one of accuracy or verity.)
I voted for heterosexual privilege because privilege comes from being (or being perceived as) part of the default/accepted group. Bisexual poeple... aren't.
I look at it like this: if someone who is part of a racial/ethnic minority but who "looks white" can reap some of the benefits of white privilege by being perceived as white without actually being white, then bisexual people who are in love with someone of the opposite sex can reap some of the benefits of heterosexual privilege without actually being heterosexual.
I think neither. I think she is exhibiting the privilege of an individual in an opposite sex relationship, and that doesn't easily boil down to a nice two word capitalized phrase. It is still privilege, but it is neither bisexual privilege nor heterosexual privilege. It is, on the other hand, HETERONORMATIVE privilege -- the privilege of somebody living a heteronormative lifestyle.
I really get a little nervous when people start talking about "bisexual" privilege, because I'm in just such a situation. I am a bisexual, cisgendered woman who is engaged to a straight, cisgendered man. And yes, I get the privilege of not having people stare at me in public when I hold hands with him, or not having to answer rude questions ("which one of you is the man?" or "how do you have sex?") or face prejudice from people who judge things on first sight.
But I also have people in my family who think that it means I'm not really bisexual and who have laughed in my face when I tried to tell them that I was. It also means that I've had people in the queer community who've called me a "tourist" and a "faker", saying I wasn't really queer at all.
I liken it to someone who, while being of another race, can "pass as white". So, in public, when people don't know any better, they treat that person white. But once they know the person is, say, Latino or Asian or something, then they start applying prejudices and racism.
And it doesn't mean that the racism that's used against the group the person belongs to doesn't hurt, because they identify with that group, so even if someone believes that one individual to be white, hearing things like, "Oh you know what the Hispanics are like" doesn't hurt.
It doesn't mean they have privilege, it just means they have camouflage.
I can't say bisexual privilege, because bisexuals do not really have any societal privileges given because of their sexuality. Her sexuality could still be used against her in any other aspect of her life. Bisexuals not in heterosexual partnerships would not get that benefit. Whether in the straight or gay community, bisexuals face discrimination because the expectation is one way or the other with no in between. That woman was able to ignore that fact because heterosexuality is privileged in society. That's the core of the issue. She is in a het relationship and thus has some het privileges. If she had been with a woman, the question wouldn't have been raised.
To call it bisexual privilege would be discriminatory because it negates the duality of bisexuality; it places preference and expectation on straight partnerships and dismisses homosexual ones.
Heterosexual privilege, because the privilege comes from other people's perception of her as heterosexual. (Just as my best friend from childhood benefited from white privilege even though she's not white/stopped identifying as white in high school when she found out who her bio-parents were, because she "looked" white and had white adoptive parents, so was assumed to be white.)
Bisexual privilege (if one accepts that it exists, and I'm not sure that I do) is the privilege to seem heterosexual, and therefore access heterosexual privilege.
The only time I've come across the concept bisexual privilege are situations where people imply that bisexuality means being able to chose never to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex/gender. As though sexual attraction were a choice for bisexual people in a way it's not for exclusively straight or gay people.
Also, because heterosexuality in the norm, it's the privilege. Everything else is not-privilege, even if a person's intersecting (non)privileges and personal history mean that they are or are not able to access that privilege in the same way as someone else.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wisdomeagle) wrote2009-04-06 08:35 pm
no subject
It's hard to get my point across, do you sort of see what I'm saying?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I can see arguments for calling it either way, but as much as I think policing our language is important because language shapes thought, I'm not quite sure what exactly depends on one's answer.
no subject
no subject
I guess the real question would be which system for categorizing privilege would be the most useful (as opposed to which corresponds with reality). And I can think of reasons why using a theoretical structure including bi privilege as a concept could be very useful, but also potential disadvantages to such a theorization.
But I don't know, I sort of detect a worry that if you theorize things differently than someone else, you'll somehow be "wrong"--and I don't think it works like that. (IMO, you can be "wrong" only insofar as the ramnifications of the theorization prove damaging or disempowering. It's an ethical determination, not one of accuracy or verity.)
no subject
I look at it like this: if someone who is part of a racial/ethnic minority but who "looks white" can reap some of the benefits of white privilege by being perceived as white without actually being white, then bisexual people who are in love with someone of the opposite sex can reap some of the benefits of heterosexual privilege without actually being heterosexual.
no subject
no subject
no subject
thanks.
no subject
I really get a little nervous when people start talking about "bisexual" privilege, because I'm in just such a situation. I am a bisexual, cisgendered woman who is engaged to a straight, cisgendered man. And yes, I get the privilege of not having people stare at me in public when I hold hands with him, or not having to answer rude questions ("which one of you is the man?" or "how do you have sex?") or face prejudice from people who judge things on first sight.
But I also have people in my family who think that it means I'm not really bisexual and who have laughed in my face when I tried to tell them that I was. It also means that I've had people in the queer community who've called me a "tourist" and a "faker", saying I wasn't really queer at all.
I liken it to someone who, while being of another race, can "pass as white". So, in public, when people don't know any better, they treat that person white. But once they know the person is, say, Latino or Asian or something, then they start applying prejudices and racism.
And it doesn't mean that the racism that's used against the group the person belongs to doesn't hurt, because they identify with that group, so even if someone believes that one individual to be white, hearing things like, "Oh you know what the Hispanics are like" doesn't hurt.
It doesn't mean they have privilege, it just means they have camouflage.
no subject
I can't say bisexual privilege, because bisexuals do not really have any societal privileges given because of their sexuality. Her sexuality could still be used against her in any other aspect of her life. Bisexuals not in heterosexual partnerships would not get that benefit. Whether in the straight or gay community, bisexuals face discrimination because the expectation is one way or the other with no in between. That woman was able to ignore that fact because heterosexuality is privileged in society. That's the core of the issue. She is in a het relationship and thus has some het privileges. If she had been with a woman, the question wouldn't have been raised.
To call it bisexual privilege would be discriminatory because it negates the duality of bisexuality; it places preference and expectation on straight partnerships and dismisses homosexual ones.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The only time I've come across the concept bisexual privilege are situations where people imply that bisexuality means being able to chose never to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex/gender. As though sexual attraction were a choice for bisexual people in a way it's not for exclusively straight or gay people.
Also, because heterosexuality in the norm, it's the privilege. Everything else is not-privilege, even if a person's intersecting (non)privileges and personal history mean that they are or are not able to access that privilege in the same way as someone else.