In reflection to Scalzi’s “Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting there is”, I’m quite surprised that this article had provoked hundreds of people and raised up a dispute. Because usually, the sensitive subject matters are targeted toward minorities with certain gender and race. It seemed like the issue of using the term “privilege” was highly controversial in this context. So, I looked up the word “privilege” and according to Merriam Webster dictionary, it is described as “a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor.” Instead of using the word “privilege”, it should have been rephrased as “more potential and chances”. Besides describing straight white male as a merely privileged human being, the author ranked different types of people(white male and minorities) into lowest difficulty setting to hardcore setting. At that point, I found this article little disturbing.
Here are the reasons why:
The author’s attempt to address this statement of straight white male being the lowest difficulty setting is unclear. In his defense, Scalzi stated “I do: recognize it, and work to make it so the more difficult settings in life becomes closer to the one I get to run through life on – by making those less difficult, mind you, not making mine more so.” Honestly, his intention did not cross my mind. I just feel like the author is just reiterating the fact that everyone already knows and complaining about the unfairness in life.
The author specifically categorized straight white male (neither white male nor white female) as lowest difficulty setting. Additionally, he classified “gay minority female” as hardcore setting. While I was reading it, I thought that the author is the one who is forming the stereotype against race and sex. Although It is undeniable fact that there are discrimination toward minorities, I believe that race and gender are merely social constructions.