So straight white science fiction author dude John Scalzi has created a bit of a hubbub amongst straight white dudes on the interwebs with a blog post called Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is. The post, later reposted on Kotaku, is basically an attempt to talk to fellow dudes in their own language about the concept of privilege “without invoking the dreaded word ‘privilege,’ to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon.” (And they do.)
Scalzi’s thesis:
Dudes. Imagine life here in the US – or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world – is a massive role playing game, like World of Warcraft except appallingly mundane, where most quests involve the acquisition of money, cell phones and donuts, although not always at the same time. Let’s call it The Real World. You have installed The Real World on your computer and are about to start playing, but first you go to the settings tab to bind your keys, fiddle with your defaults, and choose the difficulty setting for the game. Got it?
Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.
This means that the default behaviors for almost all the non-player characters in the game are easier on you than they would be otherwise. The default barriers for completions of quests are lower. Your leveling-up thresholds come more quickly. You automatically gain entry to some parts of the map that others have to work for. The game is easier to play, automatically, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get.
Scalzi should have added “cis” to “straight white male,” but otherwise I’d say that’s fairly spot-on.
Of course, as Scalzi himself points out, life for straight white (cis) dudes is not always peaches and cream. They may have any of a number of disadvantages in life that make things difficult for them. They may have been born poor, or in a war zone; they may have been abused as children or the victim of crime or violence as an adult. Or faced any number of other problems and conditions and disadvantages.
Scalzi deals with this issue a little more obliquely than he could have, noting that some people begin the grand game of “The Real World” with more points than others, and that this can make a good deal of difference.
But do straight white cis males face disadvantages stemming from being straight white cis men? I honestly can’t think of any that have affected my life in any serious way, and these small disadvantages pale in comparison to the many advantages. Yeah, I had to register for the draft when I turned 18. Of course, when I registered there was no draft, and there still isn’t one, and the draft has virtually no chance of being resurrected in the foreseeable future, so I can’t say this requirement has affected my life in any tangible way.
As Scalzi puts it:
If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.
Anyway, Scalzi got a lot of responses to his post, many of them from straight white dudes outraged by his assertions. So he wrote a followup taking some of these critics to task. He was particularly amused by the criticism that by “picking on” straight white males he was being racist and sexist.
This particular comment was lobbed at me primarily from aggrieved straight white males. Leaving aside entirely that the piece was neither, let me just say that I think it’s delightful that these straight white males are now engaged on issues of racism and sexism. It would be additionally delightful if they were engaged on issues of racism and sexism even when they did not feel it was being applied to them — say, for example,when it’s regarding people who historically have most often had to deal with racism and sexism (i.e., not white males). Keep at it, straight white males! You’re on the path now!
I am sure there are many gems of obtuseosity in the comments, and in the Reddit thread on his original post. But it’s Friday night, and I have a migraine — which sucks, but it’s not because I’m a straight white cis dude — so I’m going to let you guys find them for me.
EDITED TO ADD: Thinking a bit more about Scalzi’s central metaphor here, and I don’t think it completely works: he assumes that obstacles other than racism, sexism, and homophobia can be explained as the equivalent of having started the game with fewer points. But it you have, for example, a disability, that’s something that makes you life harder every day; it’s more akin to raising the difficulty level than to starting off with fewer points. (Not to mention that you’re likely to face bigotry because of it as well.) This doesn’t erase the privileges a straight white male with disabilities gets from being straight, white, and male, of course, but it does ratchet up the difficulty.
And on Tolkien (fangirl here) I don’t recall if the race of the evil southerners is stated explicitly in the books but because of the Elephants and being from the south/ across the sea it is pretty easy to code it that way anyhow. I have more problems with that than the lack of women and women interacting. When he started the books he stated that he didn’t think he could write a woman character that accurately captured the female perspective due to not having much deep personal interaction with them. After being married and having a daughter he wrote Eowyn as a stronger role.
And the hobbits are by modern standards rather feminine coded. They like nice houses, clothes, pretty little things, parties, gifts, gossip, gardening, flowers, singing, dancing, they weep and laugh and chatter. These aren’t strictly female traits by any means, but most books would not have their main male heroes described this way. They easily could have been women hobbits and everything else would have been exactly the same. And I admit that could be entirely my bias talking, but it at least helps me rationalize why feminist me still loves the books and movies. And I think there is something to it because of how everyone liked to make fun of the hobbits for being gay (honestly gay hobbits just makes it better imo).
@ronalon42 — I read my brother’s copy of the books, which means they’re 500 miles from my fingers, but you might be right about the southerners not having explicit races (that translate to our universe) either. The hobbits definitely do have random women interacting, they just don’t appear to have names, which means it fails the Bechdel test — I am basically willing to give it a pass on that though, the first movie/book could easily actually pass by just naming some of the women at the party at the very beginning though.
“And I think there is something to it because of how everyone liked to make fun of the hobbits for being gay (honestly gay hobbits just makes it better imo).” — yes! Though I sometimes get a “huh whut?” when I say Frodo and Samwise are basically lovers until the ending.
And really, Eowyn’s “I am no man” is nearly enough to do it for me — she’s doing the long standing “tradition” of a woman dressing as a man to go to war with the menfolk, not the modern day Tomb Raider style hero who’s entirely fanservice. Even the “craaaazy king” and Woomword, that’s probably more of the religious symbolism and more like demonic possession than mental illness (and Frodo’s inability to deal with wha he’d seen and done isn’t mocked but makes him even more of a hero basically…)
I’m really curious how much the racism is written in versus a hollywood byproduct — I know the orcs are written as being dark, but they might be the only ones…hmm, are those books part of the Gutenberg project? *wanders off to check that*
Well I did just find one interesting note — Saruman and his white hand army — definitely evil though.
On topic, Xanthë nailed my thoughts on how to do disability in RP terms.
Thanks Argenti! Having read the Scalzi piece on Wednesday I’ve had the opportunity to read what better minds than mine have been able to contribute, as well as mulling over some of my own thoughts for several days, so if there’s anything good about my comments, they’re probably borrowed; any defects in them are due to me.
Just recently I was quite surprised to learn that in the last year or so, a wearable prosthetic exo-skeleton has become available on the market, allowing people with paraplegia-type disabilities to walk again – I’d seen an article describing how a paraplegic woman had been able to walk the entire London marathon course wearing the exoskeleton. So I was somewhat curious to see what something like that would cost: at it’s current prototype stage the price is somewhere in the vicinity of US $100k. So the implications for such remedies not being equally available to all game-players is rather self-evident.
At the end of the day, you really do have to accept that these people were a product of their times and culture; they’re not alive anymore, so you can’t influence how they write, and, well, sexist and racist undertones (or overt mentions) are going to be there. Not that you shouldn’t talk about them, of course.
He couldn’t imagine how women would interact with each other? But he could imagine how hobbits would interact with elves. Much easier than women, apparently ?!?!
“So the implications for such remedies not being equally available to all game-players is rather self-evident.” — indeed, and that’s a life improving device, what about the costs of experimental trials for fatal conditions where the lack of money can prove fatal…
And regarding Tolkien — the racist undertones may be lacking in the original texts, the light/dark good/evil thing could also be that Tolkien was Catholic and there’s definitely plenty of religious symbolism in the books. Also, I found a hilarious pair of letters of Tolkien’s responding to Germany (just before WWII I’d guess) inquiring whether Tolkien was a Jewish name:
“…I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine.” ― Letter 29 — Tolkien’s German publishers had asked whether he was of Aryan origin
“…But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.” ― Letter 30 (Tolkien’s unsent response to his German publishers; a more neutral version was ultimately sent)
I cut them for length, but they’re available here for the curious. He certainly seems a hell of a lot better than much of the world was in the early 40s. It may be more about religion and lack of foresight than racism. But yeah, if I’m going to complain much about it, it’s the movies, not the books, by 2001 we frikken’ knew better, or should have.
Magpie — large chunks of the books are battle scenes, with the women and child hidden away and that whole bit — it is kind of crappy, but understandable from someone who’d served in WWI. And I’m watching them currently because I’d intended to do that last week, and the hobbits are “a simple people” but otherwise treated as humans — right down to the children thrilled at Gandalf’s fireworks. The Shire itself is a respectable enough (though entirely white, in the movies at least) portrayal of the English audience it was written for.
Lol, and I jsut jumped half out of my skin at those fireworks, damn you Gandalf!!
I’m British, so I didn’t even have to do that. Our two years’ compulsory military service was abolished by 1963, though several other European countries admittedly still require it.
In fact, a half-Finnish schoolfriend of mine was horrified to discover that his dual nationality meant that he’d have to serve a year in the Finnish Army, though he was more exercised by the fact that he barely spoke a word of Finnish than the prospect of doing military service per se. (In the end, he found that virtually everyone spoke enviably fluent English, and he seems to have had a great time).
This is where I boggle at how people can enjoy Tolkien for realz.
I mean, seriously. I haven’t heard that many genealogies since I attempted to read the Bible from end to end.
And while I know that 99% of fantasy is based off of Tolkien’s writing, that’s one reason why 99% of fantasy PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF. I can’t stand reading one more story where the same old tired tropes get played out again and again and there’s always some stupid fucking war that involves some Ultimate Evil that must be defeated by whacking sticks together and going on a Big Manly Quest.
I respect others’ rights to enjoy fantasy epics, but I’ve never been able to understand the interest in Tolkien’s work. ‘The Hobbit’ was one of the only stories of his that I could actually read, and even then I had to skip over some of the long-winded “son of father of” parts.
And honestly? The only part I liked about the movies were the parts involving Gimley because I <3 Jonathan Rhys Davies.
Class seemed to be another big thing in Tolkein, as far as I remember. It’s a long time since I read any.
Nanasha — An analogy — “And while I know that 99% of fantasy is based off of Tolkien’s writing, that’s one reason why 99% of fantasy PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF.” — that’s like saying you don’t like abstract expressionist paintings, so how can anyone like van Gogh?!! You’d be welcome to hate abstract expressionism, and even van Gogh, but to have a “the mind, it boggles” about it? You don’t like it, ok, don’t watch/read it then, unless it’s become HS reading or something, no one is going to force you to watch all 9+ hours of the movies or anything…
Shorter version — we like it, you don’t, but so what? I absolutely hate mayonnaise, that doesn’t mean you can’t love it, just means I have nothing to say on a “w00t mayonnaise!!” discussion…
Magpie — so far the only maybe-classism I’ve seen is the description of the hobbits as “simple people” — but given they’re the heroes, I’m not sure what to make of that. Tolkien’s personal letters seem to show an appreciation for having served alongside farmhands/etc in WWI. There’s definitely a strict royal hierarchy, but it’s the sort of thing you’d expect in the WWI era (and um, don’t you have a queen still?)
“the hobbits as “simple people” — but given they’re the heroes, I’m not sure what to make of that” — ahh ok, its because anyone else would be too tempted by the ring (and even as it is, remember the ending? Frodo’s not exactly immune to it)
Yep, still have a queen 🙂 And a Governor General to representer her.
It’s one of the things I remember, the way Frodo and Bilbo treated Sam, their servant. It seemed very English, to me.
@Argenti Aertheri- The thing is, I *love* a lot of the fantasy elements and honestly think that a lot of really cool things can be done with fantasy stuff. The problem is that I have to wade through so much crap that it’s exhausting. As a kid in the library (I was an avid reader as a child), I had tons of time to try out different types of books (Anne McCaffrey is still one of my heroes) and there was quite a lot of fantasy that is actually really good. I enjoyed the Alanna the Lionhearted series and the Sabriel series as well- both involved many fantasy elements without having that Tolkien-esque drivel about long-ass wars and genealogies. Plus most of them had female characters that actually felt like PEOPLE and I didn’t feel like all the interesting characters were just a bunch of guys who I had nothing in common with.
As an adult, I’d really like to go out there and find some good fantasy reading, but as a parent and full-time worker I’ve found myself in a serious time crunch and don’t have nearly as much time to sit for hours looking through books for something that is my personal brand of fantasy.
And that makes me very sad. Oh well, I guess I’ll just go read “Stardust” for the tenth time again.
If I remember correctly, the so-called Easterlings and Southrons that marched under Sauron’s banner weren’t really described in a huge amount of detail in the books, but it seemed to me like they were meant to be vaguely Western Asian and Northern African.
I’ve always thought of the orcs as being very pale, for the most part. Probably due to their severe intolerance of sunlight. With the obvious exception of the Uruk-hai.
So yeah, I’ve no doubt there was more than a little internalized, though not necessarily overt or intentional, racism influencing the books.
Magpie — fair enough on Sam being a servant, but he’s also basically the actual hero of the book (particularly towards the end once the ring starts getting to Frodo), and the movies anyways he’s treated more like household hired help than any sort of slave or anything — it is rather English. I also just passed the bit where they torture Gollum, and that is consistently portrayed as something only Really Evil characters do — something America still can’t figure the fuck out. *has a small fit that gitmo is not closed yet*
This is also what makes it better than a lot of fantasy, nearly 100 years later it still has political allegories. (And Orlando Bloom, which I’d say would always bias me, but the Pirates series just keeps getting worse and worse, like worst pirate movie with the largest budget is their goal.)
Um, can’t really blame Tolkien for being full of tropes that weren’t fantasy novel tropes when he wrote the darned things.
Also, “big manly quest” is not really the atmosphere of LoTR. In fact, a number of the primary characters are small and are seen by those around them at various points as useless in battle. Sam isn’t exactly “Big Manly Quest” “whacking sticks together” as one of the main heroes. Boromir is, and he becomes corrupted. While the LoTR is rather straightforward good vs evil in a lot of ways, it’s not nearly so simplistic as you are making it out to be.
Tolkien does write the orcs and the evil humans as dark (there’s also noble savage in there). There are also allusions to the dwarves representing Jews. On the other hand, he did publicly oppose apartheid and anti-semetic laws/the holocaust. So, yeah, not unracist, but not Nazi/Klan racist either on the whole.
Totally with you on gitmo.
“Treated like household hired help” is what I’m talking about – we might be talking across each other, because treating hired help* differently to a friend or acquaintance would be seen as arrogant and rude.
Or even having hired help.
I’ve never understood this urge people have to comment on subjects that they dislike, know little about and clearly have no interest in. Yesterday’s discussion blended the films of Ed Wood (which I know well) with anime (which I know very little about), so I contributed to the former and generally sidelined the latter, aside from thanking someone for reminding me that I really should get around to watching Satoshi Kon’s Paprika sometime.
I saw similar tendencies yesterday when the great German baritone Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau died, and some Facebook friends used this as an excuse to bash Donna Summer’s fans: I wasn’t entirely sure why, but I suspect it was due to over-ostentatious public grieving. But I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of Fischer-Dieskau mourners knew little or nothing of Summer’s work, but the fact that it was not only popular but played in discos (urgh!) must therefore mean that it was Automatically Inferior. Never mind the fact that her fanbase was far more extensive than his, and that her death clearly touched more people as a result.
(For the record, I think Fischer-Dieskau was probably the more important artist – for starters, hardly anyone can match his recorded legacy – but I’d have thought that was more an excuse for celebrating his life rather than denigrating someone else’s.)
darksidecat, could you talk a bit more about dwarves representing Jews? That’s not something I notcied. (Not that I notice a lot of things, I’m a bit slow.)
nanasha, I agree LOTR can be a slow slog.
“So yeah, I’ve no doubt there was more than a little internalized, though not necessarily overt or intentional, racism influencing the books.” — yeah, *that*
They aren’t exactly progressive, but they aren’t particularly terrible either, which is kind of saying something considering how often modern works do flat out “dark skin is evil” bullshit. Pretty good for something that’ll be 100 soon though. (Should LoTR get an 11d1 party? XD )
I think you’re right about the orcs too, even in the movies only the Uruk-hai are dark, and they aren’t anything like human. And that is perhaps the biggest racism issue in here — the only explicitly dark skinned race is not only evil but isn’t even human?!
Still, if I required all my entertainment be perfectly progressive, I’d get bored very quickly unfortunately. I’d be curious actually if anyone could come up with something that doesn’t fail on one axis or another. Lol, skimming my DVD rack, Gothika might be the least fail (it even takes mentally ill women seriously! main character is a woman of color!), except it isn’t very good. I bet that does pass the Bechdel test though…
@Magpie — he explicitly said in letters that the dwarves were representative of Jews, and while there’s critism that the dwarves just love their good and fuck…he also explicitly said he “regret[ed] that [he] appear[ed] to have no ancestors of that gifted people” — what he intended them to share was being cast out of their own lands, wanders with a shared language and customs, to comes off more as sympathy than antisemitism. And I think we probably are talking past each other regarding Sam, I’m too young for hired help to be something I can really conceive of as an occupation and not like, my brother shovels snow for money some storms.
And Gothika does pass the Bechdel test, hate it when the database loads 30 seconds too late to be relevant >.<
Thanks Argenti, I can see the “wanderers with their own customs” bit, now that you point it out.
The baddies in LoTR and Xena (and The Last Indian which wasn’t fantasy) are always played by Maori actors.
Just to be clear, I totally respect people’s rights to like stuff that I don’t like. And the main good that came of LOTR was the fact that “The Hobbit” (which was written last but is chronologically first) was actually quite well-written (barring a few parts that were a bit sloggy). My father is a HUGE Tolkien fan (even though otherwise he’s one of the least geeky people I know), and he’s the one who had me reading the books at maybe…10 years of age…I think..? I plowed through the Hobbit but it was hard to read LOTR and I ended up putting them down in frustration. I picked them up again when the movies actually came out (and I was an adult) but they still didn’t hold my attention. So I just added them to the other “classics” that are intrinsically “greats” but that I just personally didn’t enjoy (such as “Grapes of Wrath,” “Moby Dick,” and “Huckleberry Finn.”).
As a literature fan and someone who studied it as a major in college, I have read a good number of pieces of literature that are “greats” but I didn’t find all that great. It happens. But I do think that in order to have a truly critical discussion, I’d have to spend a whole lot of energy and time citing things and making a concrete argument and that’s frankly more effort than I feel would be appreciated on this blog. Needless to say, I know what I *do* like in the realm of fantasy and fiction, which is great when my favorite authors come out with new stuff, but it does make the entry point into discovering new great authors that I would probably enjoy pretty formidable.
I think that the thing that terrifies me the most is feeling like I’m turning into those people who are totally out of touch with new and interesting stuff and instead just watch the same old 10 movies over and over again and read those horrible pulpy mainstream novels written by people with pen names like Diana Diamonds or Desmond Malcontent.