I've heard the idea kicked around by some people, primarily in dismissing the Tea Party and like-minded groups, that "These people just want some of that white privilege they've heard so much about," or some variant on that theme.
Then there's the idea of "underprivileged" - which generally means either poor or belonging to a minority group.
Then there's "male privilege."
But none of these are accurate. Privilege is a legal term; it's not the opportunity to do something, it's the specific and legally granted right to do so.
Normalcy is not a privilege. Being able to walk is not a privilege; I'm not privileged because I can walk through a door. It's not an advantage I have. People who are unable to walk are -disadvantaged-. They are handicapped, in the literal meaning of the word.
Normalcy does not and should not begin at the worst state of being imaginable, which is what arguments in favor of things like "white privilege" come down to; somebody is privileged because they -aren't- disadvantaged in a particular way. Such a mindset is that of somebody who pursues single-mindedly as a semblance of normalcy that is which wrong with themselves and with others.
As with affirmative action, the language and philosophy of privilege is such that, if everybody were systematically reduced to the worst state of being imaginable, the problem would be solved. Meaning that it is a morally bankrupt philosophy and a poor criteria by which to define social problems.