I don't know about you, but I find double-standards disturbing. I find this particularly jarring when I see it coming from those I admired, those who were supposed to be on what I consider "my side".
Yes, there are sides, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you can't see beyond your side. In other words, the problem isn't tribes, it's tribalism. Whether we can have one without the other is a question for which I have no answer. As extreme as my opinions may be, I do my best to avoid tribalism and to base my criticism of others on their words, acts, behaviours, or attitudes, instead of tribal affiliation.
I'd say the main offender is the all-encompassing generalization, the "All X are Y" thingy (yes, I know, I use it, too, sometimes - just ask me my opinion about entrepeneurs, managers, or politicians). If I were to give free rein to my tribalism, I'd probably agree that those who claim "All women are sluts" should be dragged into the street and shot, and those who say "All men are rapists" may have a point. Since I make an effort to see beyond my tribalism, I don't agree. I believe both are equally idiotic and destructive.
Also idiotic and destructive is the more subtle way of expressing "All X are Y". E.g., when speaking about online harassment, the sentence is usually "A vast majority of the victims of online harassment are female, harassed by angry white males". Note the description of the perpetrators. There are only characteristics, which are combined to create a group which is then collectively held responsible for an act.
However, point this out and you'll get an answer like "Ah, that's not what I meant, that's just your interpretation, and you got it all wrong. It's not about you, and if you think it's about you, then you're probably sexist/racist/whatever. Get over it".
OK, sure, let me have a go at it, then, I'll change the words a bit, OK?
"A vast majority of the victims of terrorism attacks are civilians, killed by angry Muslims".
There, what do you think? Ah, it's wrong because I'm denigrating a whole group based on the actions of some members of said group? Good point. We shouldn't do that. Tell me again, then, why is it not wrong in the "angry white male" thingy.
"All men are rapists" or "Harassment if carried out by white males" is perfectly acceptable, while "All Muslims are terrorists" is not. Anyone who identifies as progressive will tell you the latter is wrong, and I unreservedly agree. What I can't understand is why on Earth those same people will go out of their way to support the former. Anyone with a functioning brain and the ability to hold tribalism in check can see that the above examples are all terrible.
Terrorism isn't carried by Muslims, it's carried out by... terrorists. Most terrorists are Muslims. Maybe. The point still stands, though - terrorism is carried out by terrorists. By the same universal standard, harassment is carried out by harassers. Most harassers are white male. Again, maybe.
Then, again, maybe not. Harassment has become a tactic used by every tribe, these days, both online and offline. However, certain tribes believe harassment is justified because their cause is Right(TM) and the person they're harassing is horrible. The thing is... every tribe believes this. This argument is meaningless, and if you're piling up on someone on Twitter or Facebook, congratulations. You're part of the problem.
Now, truth be told, we've always had double-standards. So, what is my beef with the current crop?
Because the tribe that's currently legitimizing the use of double-standards is the tribe that, in the past, has rightly denounced them. That was the tribe you joined, if you believed double-standards were wrong. Suddenly, you find your tribe using the same weapons that were used against them, and still claiming some sort of moral high ground. Your tribe is harassing, all the while condemning harassment.
And you can't change to the other tribe, really. Because you look at the other tribe and it's still horrible. It's just that your tribe has also become horrible. A different sort of horrible, but horrible nonetheless.
I'll leave with a fine example of what I mean. It's from the Guardian. I didn't select it for being the worst example, mind you, it just happened to be the last one I read, while writing this.
Across the internet, we have now reached a tipping point. For women, the abuse is often violent and sexualised, with direct threats to rape and mutilate. For non-white people, the abuse is often racist; for Jews, it is antisemitic; for Muslims, it is Islamophobic. To some extent, everyone online is affected. To the extent that our lives are conducted online, this is the water in which we all swim: it’s horribly polluted and it’s making a lot of us sick.
Did you say "To some extent, everyone online is affected"? OK, that sounds fair. Let's see, then, how you define "everyone":
- women
- non-white people
- Jews
- Muslims
As editor, I think we need to act more decisively on what kind of material appears on the Guardian. Those who argue that this is an affront to freedom of speech miss the point. That freedom counts for little if it is used to silence others. When women and minorities don’t feel able to speak their mind for fear of insult, threat or humiliation, no such freedom exists.
Again, we have a strange definition of "everyone": "women and minorities". Somehow, this seems to be the only free speech threatened.
And, then, I ran into another story, also on the Guardian, the story of a woman explaining why it's OK to have an affair that's been going on for nearly a decade, build an incredible lie around her, including keeping a calculated fake friendship with her lover's wife, all for the purpose of facilitating the affair. It ends with this question:
It takes a very brave person to give an honest response, but, before judging me, ask yourself just one question – what’s stopping you from doing exactly the same?
I know my answer. Since I think differently from this person, and going by the current way of thinking, I'm probably not brave. And I'm probably sexist, because I have a different opinion.
I will, however, finish with a question of my own: How would this go if the story was about a man, instead of a woman?
No comments:
Post a Comment