Response to John Scalzi on "white male privilege": A failure in condescension

melb22 · 2012-05-24T22:14:37+00:00

Scalzi is wrong even on his own terms. If what matters is income levels, education, family outcomes etc then whites do not have it best, Asians do. I've presented the evidence for that here and here. To give just one example, in 2010 the median income for whites in the U.S. was $54,620 and for Asians in the U.S. it was $64,308.

When I present this information the response is often an outraged "But that's because Asians work hard, have strong families etc" - which is true. But the same logic isn't applied when it comes to whites doing better than some other groups. People don't say "Well, if there's a gap it's because white family outcomes, work ethic etc is better" - there's always a resort to "unearned privilege" or "racism" or some such thing.

Having said all that, I think the real problem is not so much that Scalzi hasn't inputted the correct data into his framework, but that the framework itself is inadequate. One clue that it is inadequate: Scalzi is still going on about white male privilege at a time that men are falling out of higher education and the professions and at a time that whites are heading toward a demographic oblivion. There's a disconnect between a basic assumption of his framework and the larger trends in the real world.

pocketknifeMT · 2012-05-24T20:23:37+00:00

Oh. This makes me sooooo very sad. I had disliked him for his economic thoughts before this, but this just piles on.

Old Man's War was quality scifi. Kinda makes me sad to buy more of his books now.

Pyehole · 2012-05-24T21:22:44+00:00

It's hard to buy into this as a serious retort when it begins with a personal attack on Scalzi. If you want to debate the ideas he wrote about do that; go after his ideas. Going after him just paints the entire response as childish and mean-spirited.

Grapeban · 2012-05-24T22:05:50+00:00

This article begins with insults on Scalzi of the type that reinforce societies expectations of men:

he's about as socio-sexually Gamma as it is possible to be and still be straight

overweight

soft-handed little man

Then he moves into straight up white supremacy:

white men created the desirable parts of the map where everyone wants to go

They're [white men] probably less naturally accomplished at the Grass Hut Game, the Aesthetic Stasis Game, or the Naked Savage Orgy Game.

And finally ends with some rather confusing homophobia (really not sure what kind of point he's trying to make, perhaps that homosexuality is a choice?):

As for the straight question, that's not even relevant, since homosexuality is not the equivalent of a difficulty setting, but rather, being left-handed and choosing to play with your left hand on a right-handed controller.

So yeah, shitty article.

Edit: It's worth noting that out of all the choices, the comments focus mainly on the concept of white and male supremacy. For instance:

we [white men] make the hard things in life look easy because we have mastered (and in some cases transcended) the techniques.

By "privilege" does he really mean talents and/or values? As a white man, am I suppose to negatively regard my own IQ and work ethic?

The game is (slightly) easier for straight white men because straight white men created the game that everyone else wants to play. Don't like that truth? Fine, then go create your own competing game that's better.

So yeah, shitty site.

Note: My additions to quotes are in square brackets.

Title	Response to John Scalzi on "white male privilege": A failure in condescension
Author	EvilPundit
Upvotes	7
Comments	9
Date	May 24, 2012 8:14 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/u3agr/response_to_john_scalzi_on_white_male_privilege_a/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/response-to-john-scalzi-on-white-male-privilege-a.1021144 https://theredarchive.com/post/1021144

Comments