Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Is "Straight White Male" The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is? Part Three

Emma Bull has the best answer yet. (Why, yes, I'm prejudiced, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.)

From her comments at Scalzi’s Latest: But I didn’t get MY say!:
Our host is saying, I think, that ALL identitarian bickering is obscuring the real issue, which is that all but the richest people live in a world that’s unnecessarily limiting and unjust. When you focus on the minor imbalances of ethnicity or gender or sexuality or religion, you help obscure the real problem. In other words, whether you’re assigning “privilege” to white males or Asians or Latinos or women, you’re playing the socially approved game, and failing to acknowledge that the game itself is deplorably rigged.
The issue is not whether women have an advantage over men, or men have an advantage over women. As long as we frame the injustice in terms of, “I am struggling because I am X,” we can’t understand the real rules and rewrite them. We are struggling because a small percentage of humanity–male and female, of many skin colors, religions, and national origins–owns a disproportionate amount of the world’s wealth and has made the game rules to give themselves the points. They’ll win no matter how hard we try to outplay them.

So why are we still playing? And worse, why are we participating in identitarian side combats that only offer us the illusion of winning, when in the real game we’re nothing but cannon fodder and non-player characters?