Well, I guess I believe they are just like everything else that unless examined, as Natja mentioned they has somewhere discussed as unexamined (he?She? which is the reason for "they has" instead of "he has" or "she has" sorry Natja I don't recall reading of your gender) as being similar or the same meaning as
Originally Posted by Emm
The word privilege, as it's usually used in these conversations, is rarely about the actions of the person observed to hold it but rather about how those around the person (or in this case couple) treat them.
If I were a man in my current job (military), I would have the privilege of knowing that when I walk into a meeting at least 90% of the other attendees will be of the same gender as me (I've been keeping a tally in my diary). When I need to speak to others at a similar level of authority I would have the privilege of knowing that I would be dealing with someone of my own gender. When I start a new job in a new office I would have the privilege of knowing that I will be judged by my actions rather than my appearance. If I were to become angry that my instructions to a subordinate weren't being followed and expressed my displeasure I would have the privilege of knowing that nobody would make jokes about menstrual cycles. When a new item of uniform clothing is issued I would have the privilege of knowing that it was designed to fit my body shape (seriously, I don't know what they measured when designing our old shorts, but it wasn't a human female).
None of that says that a male in my position is in any way lording it over me that he's male and I'm not or that he feels entitled to more respect than I get, but he's starting from a position of comfort that I'll never know. The fact that he has never asked to be treated any differently doesn't reduce the fact that, simply by being a male officer rather than a female officer, he is demonstrably treated differently in countless ways every day.
In the case of couple privilege, it exists whether the people in the couple use it to fuel their sense of entitlement or not. When an outsider assumes that the members of a couple will act a certain way and makes room for that to happen without friction then that's couple privilege in action. By asking people to examine their privilege nobody's saying that they should reject it out of hand or feel guilty about it, just that they should realise that not everyone has the same advantages.
I believe an unexamined privilege if experienced by a person who is likely to cross the lines of abuse or unjust ways of having said privilege, that privilege is a freedom taken for granted. Freedoms that are taken for granted AND being distributed with equity are fastracted to be lost.
For example, no married couple should feel the least bit guilty about having power of attorney in regards to having authority to execute decisions as the couple in the event of sickness or death, married people should feel no guilt about being able to add the those they are committed with to insurance policies, or tax breaks, committed people shouldn't feel guilty about any of the privileges they benefit from which are gained from a high level of commitment called marriage.
But heres the thing, much like Erik Kuehnelt-Leddihn essay written in the 80s, and the excerpt that was edited in 2013 to add the wording just and unjust discrimination (which I think he wrote about on a forum giving us a hint of the edit to come, but I can't find it as he must have deleted it knowing he was using it in a publication for profit elsewhere) the thing is about privilege, you should only feel no shame if you are not engaging in unjust benefits from said privilege.
An example of unjust privilege would be to deny others their privileges for the equal commitments. More clearly defined by the unjust privilege laws that are the agenda of "the defense of marriage act"
To go so far as to actively persue, or worse labor for the injustice to become written into LAW that the privileged be unjustly awarded, you have absolutely have no right whatsoever to those privileges
This is fact, according to the 50 states standards of what constitutes the union of marriage.
Now those who back DOMA won't agree and they are wrong, I can't change that
However, if gay committed couples by their own choice, free from extortions or manipulations declined their benefits, that is not injustice, and married couples could without a doubt benefit from their non-declined privileges without one iota of shame
Exactly in the same manner a unicorn could voluntarily enter any sort of relationship they desire with the a privileged couple, and the unicorn's polyship with THE COUPLE can be as free from shame as Freedom can be imagined, no matter what some other jealous couple attempts to afflict the shameless couple with a content and satisfied hot bi babe.
yes many people have been suffered severe emotional pain due to entering relationships riddled with either misunderstandings or ignorance, but it doesn't mean that others can't do it shamelessly and justly
In the manner exactly the same as a bigoted married couple could also be shameless if each and every gay married couple freely chose to decline their privileges
bigots who would seek to benefit from privileges they exclude from qualifying married people will also be excluded from the benefits of marriage as that is being an agent of injustice
poly people who afflict perfectly knowledgeable unicorns and couples who desire exactly the polyship they have are no different from the bigot.
There is a difference between looking out for a friend's best interest, and afflicting or sabotaging a relationship due to jealousy. Become an advocate for singles rights, but to infringe upon anothers rights is to ultimately forfeit your own.