Where to begin? Let’s start at the beginning.

  1. Gender and race are not artificial constructs.

They both are real, BUT gender has never been binary. And races do not exist as 100% this or that. We (the world at large) are beginning to see that what we thought was cut and dried, is not so at all. We are beginning to understand that such ideas are more fluid.

2. “Sexism” and “racism” are real constructs, but they are malevolent and inherently flawed.

To me, it seems that youre throwing out some juicy red meat, but I’m not sure for whom it’s intended. “Age of victimhood.” Now there’s an emotionally charged phrase. Do you mean that we live in an age when people are self-identifying as victims? Or do you mean that others are labeling others as victims? Or do you mean both?

Please understand, I’m not attempting to be snarky or passive-aggressive, I simply don’t understand. You make some good points (for example, the mistake we make with our prejudices — that’s spot on correct), but others are not as clear and subject to misinterpretation. It seems that the initial premise is murky.

Two different opinions about something can exist and they both can be correct. Take the “victim minority” position. If it’s one person’s opinion of you is that you’re a victim (based on their frame of reference), that’s okay. It doesn’t make it factual, it’s simply an opinion. If you yourself do not regard yourself as such and recognize no victimization in your life, that is your opinion. But I’d say, since you’re the one living the life in question, your opinion holds more sway. Both are valid, but both may not be true.

Also, we have to take context into consideration. If two people are viewing something in the same context, the likelihood is greater that they’ll arrive at similar conclusions. And the converse is true. Different contexts, different conclusions, ergo confusion.

“Exaltation of subjectivity.” Again, another emotionally charged phrase, coupled with “universal consequences,” but what are you saying? Bad things happening that will affect each and every of members in some group? The world doesn’t work that way. Nothing is totally black or white, either-or.

With the phrase “mechanism for attaining disproportionately large amounts of power” … power for whom? The victims or their cheerleaders?

I’m sorry, I get that you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. I’m new to this, but I’m experiencing a disconnect. Maybe this is your point, or maybe not — people as a whole are indeed individuals with different abilities, interests, and aptitudes, but those same people should be given equal opportunity.

It also seems that to view everyone as “uniform” and “interchangeable” is a very OBJECTIVE (not influenced by an individual’s feelings or opinions, impartial) point of view, not SUBJECTIVE (influenced by opinion).

See? I don’t know. It seems to me that a couple of really good points are getting conflated with a few misguided ideas. But I will say this, I agree that we let go of the need to be right and focus on what the world needs to get right. Framing concepts in relation the whole — in most cases — always seems to be a better approach. However, that doesn’t negate the need to take steps in correcting problems. That’s called progress. But I’m willing to settle for “as best as we can get now” with our current understanding as we work towards the best solution. Again, that’s progress.

Thanks for your time in putting your essay together.

Written by

Artist, actor, author, editorial director of Our Human Family (http://medium.com/our-human-family). Connect via social media: @clayrivers. Love one another.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store