I'm glad I read this. As a white boy who grew up in poverty like he did, his explanation of how wealthy people simply don't understand the priveledge they have, and connecting that to race really hit home.

I can only begin to understand the perks I get by being white and belonging to the mainstream, white collar culture. Growing up, people knew I lived in a trailer, and was therefore "white trash." The fact that I spoke in the dialect of my family (a thick, Appalachian accent which is itself a relic of heavy Ulster Scots settlement of the region) marked me as an outsider when I arrived at college courtesy of a wealth coal-man's scholarship and heapings of Pell Grants. I am now able to shed this accent, this marker of "inferiority" at will. My brothers and sisters of color are unable to shed the markers which make them stand out as outsiders.

There is one thankful trend I have observed: I have seen prejudiced people become less numerous, and less likely to hold positions of power than they used to, but it is a slow process. The minions which often guard the doors to the hiring process are often samll minded, petty bigots, unbeknownst to their leadership. They see "Tyrone" on a job application, and it gets moved to the "no" pile. I'm glad my father didn't name me "Jethro." Perhaps I would have been marked out as inferior by proxy of my "hillbilly" name.

There's hope, though: every time a link like this is posted, a few of the folks who haven't had their "ah-ha!" moments yet may get nudged in that direction (just as the commenter he quotes did). Those nudges do have an effect, and they do add up. Or at least, they did for me.

I just wish there was a way to make it happen faster.

It took a few times for me, but it happened on forums and Twitter many months ago.

They're not his intended audience IMHO - people like you (who already approve of his politics) are.

John Scalzi is an award-winning author with a considerable fanbase. Last time I was in Times Square, his latest book was being projected on the largest screen there.

I humbly suggest that among his immense readership are people who either disapprove of his politics, or who are not quite as aware of their privilege as he is and would benefit from having a smart, eloquent person point it out publicly.

Possibly, but irrelevant. I think he is addressing male and female feminists - women who don't think their voices are heard and men who've already had some sort of come-to-Jesus moment regarding "privilege".

To me - not exactly anti-feminist but certainly anti-a lot of people who call themselves feminists, it comes across as a load of smarmy, self-congratulatory, intolerant not-even-wrong rhetoric and I suspect that I it was his intention to convince others like me, he would have written in a different register.

edit: eliminated a renegade apostrophe

It's also possible that your perspective on feminist issues is distorted enough that while you're interpreting this as smarmy and self-congratulatory, it is in fact reasonable and well-argued. Right? That sort of argument by its nature swings both ways.

Clearly a lot of people here find something worthwhile in how Scalzi writes about this, and some of the literally hundreds of commenters on that blog post are at least finding it worth discussing. Perhaps you'll get something out of them, if not out of Mr. Scalzi's post itself. I do hope so, because from where I'm sitting you're the one being intolerant and not even wrong, and I'd love if this could at least make you pause and reconsider your perspective.

>It's also possible that your perspective on feminist issues is distorted enough that while you're interpreting this as smarmy and self-congratulatory, it is in fact reasonable and well-argued. Right?

It's always possible, but that's precisely the problem with false-consciousness arguments presented without substantiation: it's always possible.

For example some people might see the habitual accusation of distorted perspective as the nervous thought stopper of an ideologue faced with contrary experience.

> Perhaps you'll get something out of them, if not out of Mr. Scalzi's post itself. I do hope so, because from where I'm sitting you're the one being intolerant and not even wrong,

Do you really think that or is it just a thematically convenient inversion?

> I'd love if this could at least make you pause and reconsider your perspective.

I hereby coin the term 'fem-splaining' to label this sort of concerned exhortation towards self-reflection so honest you'll realise you were wrong all along. It's not bad advice in general but in the context of an argument on the internet, difficult to accept as good faith (I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith here)

edit: improved flow

I suggest the intended audience of his blog and the intended audience of his fiction are not the same.

Well der.

New observations: Don't put your hands in a fire, water is wet, etc etc.