I try to judge people (since we absolutely must judge others, right?) based on what they do rather than what they say in a handful of characters,
and certainly not based on what they hashtag. You say you're a civil
rights activist...a feminist...a humanitarian (seems like that last one should
incorporate the first two, no?), I say cool. But the proof is in the pudding.
Your actions will prove or disprove it, and they will indicate the things that you are for to a greater extent than telling me what you're against. I'll instinctively
assume you're against civil wrongs, misogyny and space alien invasion.
But since I
spend FAR TOO MUCH time on Twitter, activism by hashtag is what I see plenty
of these days. I'm not against the principle exactly. For the most part it does no
harm even if often does no tangible good either. A hashtag can raise awareness of a
cause. Fine, we're aware, what now? I ask only two things of a
hashtag to consider it constructive. 1) That it not be created to blanket insult a broad group of people
which includes many individuals undeserving of the insult. 2) That the name of
it accurately conveys the message. Be specific. If you want to create a
hashtag about basketball don't name it #sports #sportsinvolvingaball
#thingsthatmakeyousweat. Call it #basketball.
Recently a
hashtag that caught on like wildfire was #YesAllWomen. As this article neatly summarizes, the hashtag’s
purpose was to "raise awareness of the effect of misogyny and sexism in the
daily life of women". So
far so good. The article goes on to shoot down any complaints men might
opt to voice about the hashtag. It lists some reasonable complaints, some less
reasonable ones, and a handful of ridiculous explanations for why men might be troubled
by the tone of the more outlandish proclamations. The goofy ones are good for a laugh
but not in need of addressing. But is it fair to say that a man who walks the
walk of feminism by being a good husband/father/colleague/person who is a
respectful friend to women, nevertheless does not qualify as an ally to the
cause because he thinks many of the statements made within the #YesAllWomen
hashtag go too far and paint with too broad a stroke?
Not long ago a
discussion broke out on Twitter about what women happened to be wearing when
they were sexually assaulted. It was a powerful social media moment, I
thought. A hashtag was probably used for it, though I don't recall what it was.
What I do remember is the point explicitly made that rape has
nothing to do with how provocatively the victim was dressed or behaving.
The only requirements for a rape to take place are the presence of a
rapist and a victim. What beyond that causes rape? I honestly don't
know. I only know that rape isn't something men do. It's something
rapists do. There is a world of difference between the two. I found the discussion that evening to be an effective use of social media to confront ugly truths, even it if did
devolve a bit towards the end with arguments breaking out over which
journalists remarked on the group conversation properly and which did not. No
reasonable person felt insulted by the exchange. Anybody who
disagreed with the central argument and believes that certain outfits cause and
justify rape is a monster best to be avoided. The stories told that night
were heart breaking and eye opening.
On the other
hand, when awareness raising results in people cyber yelling at each other, all
sides claiming to have been misunderstood, then I'm less inclined to declare
that it was a complete success. If you need to continually clarify what
your point was, repeatedly explain what it is you didn't mean because you sure
as hell seem to have implied it, then in my opinion a teachable moment has gone
awry. I don't believe the purpose of #YesAllWomen is to alienate those men about whom the complaints are not applicable and in whose direction the
bile is not pointed. I get that #AllMen are not the target of ire. Still, a fair number of men (such as this one who I believe makes several valid points despite a rather weak door opening anecdote) felt
that they were unfairly hit in the crossfire. They weren't looking for
credit or acknowledgment as "nice guys". They weren't asking
for a trophy because they don't habitually view and treat women like pieces of
meat. They (and I include myself among them) simply felt that things had gotten out of hand and rather than being instructive and cathartic, the hashtag had become
a runaway ball of negativity that didn't care who it ran over.
"Watch out grandpa!!!" If a substantial number of people
feel a hashtag went overboard, perhaps this is something to respectfully
contemplate rather than being dismissive. When I see someone comfortable
with being insulted I wonder about their motivation. Does he not want to
make trouble by standing up for himself, or is his silence admission of a
guilty conscience?
It ultimately
comes down to the individuals jumping on board a movement rather than the
hashtag itself. For any given tag there are those with legitimate commentary to share and those
who see it as an opportunity to randomly bash based on gender/race/whatever.
It's hard to filter one group out from the other when they are lumped together.
But for good and not so good, that's precisely what a hashtag does. That
is the very intent. A hashtag mashes voices together, makes no
distinctions between the articulate and the incomprehensible, the compassionate
and the bitterly furious, the fair minded and the stereotype promoters, the well meaning teachers and the blindly hurtful. There is no fix for this that I can think
of other than what I started out with. Judge individuals on a case by
case basis. Distinguish between those you loathe and those you love.
Even in the social media era, at root I believe most of us want to like
each other. I believe we can play nicely, and when a topic of
disagreement is landed upon, manage to disagree in an agreeable manner. We can speak the truth without resorting to general slander.
I agree with
this article that #YesAllWomen matters, just as I feel #BringBackOurGirls
matters, and other movements carried out online as well. That doesn't mean everyone is deploying #YesAllWomen correctly and effectively, or that those who have something to say to the
contrary don't deserve to be heard. No conversation can take place when
we tune each other out, nothing new can be learned.
Bottom line:
If a man insults or degrades you, he isn't worthy of your respect. On the other
hand, if a man feels insulted or degraded by
you because you lumped him in
with rapists and street harassers and guys with the bare minimum of home
training, maybe he has earned the right by a lifetime of respectful attitude
and actions to feel offended. He'll probably get over it though, just in
time for the next hashtag to drop.
Posts
