Winning the War Against White Male Privilege

It is obvious that being white, male, strong, bright, and creative is unfair to all who lack those traits. So, in the interests of social justice, I will carry on the legacy of Dean Swift and Ayn Rand by offering a few modest proposals for rectifying such inequality.

The most visible problem is that of skin color. If everyone were light brown, the average color for mankind in general, that would solve the problem. Paint or makeup would serve. Especially the darkest-brown people in Africa must be painted also, since that color gives them privileges in their society.

The problem of sexual equality is exacerbated by the fact that males and females differ significantly in their reproductive apparatus, a difference on which the survival of our species depends. Presumably, that survival is a sine qua non for any decision about how best to combat this inequality.

One solution would be to castrate all males except for a small breeding pool selected for their flawless genetics and diversity. These would need to be kept under strict government control in order to ensure that their physical integrity would not enable them to exercise any privilege. (This was essentially the policy of the Amazons, according to Greek belief.)

A perhaps more popular solution would be one described by Theodore Sturgeon in his Venus Plus X (or maybe it was Y), of a society in which all newborn babies (well, half of them) are given a fully functional set of both male and female reproductive organs, thus ensuring both equality and survival. It would be important to standardize whether the male genitals should be on the right or on the left, since having both lefties and righties would again produce two different social classes, and marriages of a lefty and a righty would create a third and underprivileged class.

Next, it is obviously unfair for some people to be stronger and swifter than others. A system of weights could be used for males (and would not be needed as often for females). Each male would be assessed for them upon reaching his maximum physical development. An individual could be exempt from the weights by never lifting a weight or running at a speed more than the variance from the average legally allowed, but any excess would need to be speedily suppressed.

Height is also a privilege. There is a strong correlation between height and social status for both men and women. The tall would need to walk hunched over, keeping their heads within the 90-110 range defined as average on the bell curve. Those who could not consistently do so would need to be shortened, a la Procrustes, and fitted with artificial feet. The short, however, would learn to walk on platform shoes of up to twelve inches.

It is inequitable that some women are beautiful, that is, have an unfair advantage in attracting male attention. There was another science-fiction story in which all women were Barbie-ized at public expense, that is, given plastic surgery to achieve a standard degree of beauty.  The protagonist, a beautiful woman who had refused the surgery, was awarded with it while anesthetized for a different type of surgery.

Next,the average student is traumatized because some students learn much more quickly and comprehensively. We should ensure that all students learn only the curriculum prescribed for their age bracket and achieve the same scores on the standardized tests. A student who consistently earned As rather than Cs would need to be thoroughly investigated for possible antisocial tendencies.

(Back in my day, bright kids were punished by being skipped over a grade or two. Worked fine for the girls. Adults seem not to notice what flaming bitches teenaged girls are toward younger boys. I matriculated at UC Berkeley before I was old enough to drive. I envied guys who graduated at 18 and therefore had a social life. Seriously, programs like Running Start have done a lot to ameliorate this problem.)

We also need to deal with the inequities in mental and emotional health. It would obviously be hard to improve the human condition universally, even given the miracles of modern chemistry. Mandated use of marijuana would do much toward achieving universal serenity. (Huxley also proposed that.) However, much less effort will be needed on this front, since our society is already proficient at producing severe neuroses in the vast majority of our citizens.

Yet another inequity is that in creativity. Clearly it is unfair that a small minority come up with new ideas, products, inventions, and innovations. It should be illegal for anyone who is above average in any way to produce changes in our overall society. Only the mediocre should be allowed to do that.

Great vigilance will be needed to carry out such programs without exceptions. Those who are wealthy and powerful have the means to fiercely resist them, and will be invulnerable to social pressure or governmental enforcement. Nevertheless, given the will of the people and the clear need to eliminate inequities in wealth, they too can be brought to heel.

If all such suggestions were implemented I foresee that we would have a world-wide utopia in which all persons would be equally happy, healthy, and content, although never more than average, a society in which we would no longer need to fear change—because nothing would ever change.

There are skeptics who claim that such a society would inevitable collapse suddenly into an irredeemable ruin that would threaten the survival of our species. To them I say, Have faith.

N.B.

Ayn Rand meant well. She intended to defend individual creativity against the mediocre who always try to tear the creative down to their own level, an attitude that appealed greatly to geeks who were bullied in school for being bright. I know. My brilliant son Evan tells me that Bioshock was a simulation model which demonstrated that such a society as Rand envisioned would swiftly crash and burn.

Unfortunately, her Rational Universal Egoism (the evil twin of Enlightened Self-Interest) has been corrupted into a bogus philosophy, as embodied in the Libertarian Party and the Tea Party hijacking of the Republicans, that has provided the greedy and selfish with justification, in their own minds, for their heresy away from the humane values taught by all genuine religious traditions. They, with no faith at all, usually want to call themselves Christians, for the same reason that the Mafia want to call themselves Catholics. Pope Francis has repudiated their claim. Would that there were a person with enough moral authority to repudiate the One Percent and their toadies in Congress, whom they have bought with currently legal bribery. Remember, evil triumphs if the good do nothing, and silence is consent.