When I first heard of privilege, I thought of the idea that my parents had taught me — of earning something. Something that is not a right, but rather something that had to be earned. Of course the definition of privilege in a feminist context is a near opposite to my former definition. Privilege describes not a particular earned ‘thing’, but rather what is unearned, Privilege describes the things given to those who fit the ‘norm’. The norm describes simply the ‘better’ or ‘natural’ category that society deems best. And the opposite of privilege, oppression, being the deviation from said norm.
The norm of heterosexuality, the norm of whiteness (in America), the norm of cisness, the norm of maleness; all of these describe a quality in which a person is deemed normal, yet this normal is deemed superior. Those who fit these characteristics don’t have to face the problems that many ‘others’ have to face (for the most part). Thus, this privilege is not something given, but rather something not taken away.
In media, we see those who fit the norm — or as close to the norm as possible. We see those who succeed overwhelmingly possess this attributes, even when considering population size. Their privilege, their closeness to the ‘norm’, is what allows them the opportunities to achieve these positions. So is privilege giving the opportunities? Or is oppression taking them away?