I keep writing and NOT sharing random rants on the worst of the manosphere. Long story short, I’m tired of the negative influence that certain figures have on society. Meanwhile, it often feels like some men (people) are so eager for leadership, they will tolerate and defend folks who exhibit all sorts of behaviour.
One of the movement’s figures has been in the news lately. I couldn’t help but think it’s high time I shared one of my drafts.
You know what I would like to see?
Please Note: I would actually NOT like to see this. I think that we have more than enough poison in this world.
But anyways… Just for example’s sake, imagine a woman. Strong, gorgeous, professional. Imagine seeing her come up. Literally. From obscurity to becoming incredibly famous. She’s both a beauty—and an intellectual. Envision her hitting her stride. Imagine her having massive audiences, and being the talk of virtually every woman you know.
Let’s call her Lady Laura.
Picture a large number of the women in society, regardless of background, hanging on her every word.
And then, every now and then, repeatedly and without fail…
Imagine what would happen if Lady Laura said something off-colour about men. Her statements could range from specious or absurd, to utterly vile. But regardless of whatever she says, she’s entirely unrepentant.
And when she says these things, they come out of her mouth more than a handful of times. In fact, her horrible commentary on men is very well-known.
So well-known in fact, that every brother, son, father, uncle, random dude that you know is flummoxed. Some are even a bit anxious.
“Have you seen this ish….?” they say to their sistren. Yes, yes we have.
But we laugh and let it slide ‘cause Lady Laura gives GREAT makeup tips! She’s crafty, and one helluva cook, too!
If such a woman ever were to exist, I wonder what kind of media coverage she would receive. I wonder if reporters would actually be concerned about this woman’s ability to influence the public’s views on men for the worst. Or… Would the (mostly male) worriers’ fears be ignored?
Would Lady Laura have a podcast or a book deal? Would she be the talk of major media circles?
Because there are male public figures who have been skating by on the fact that their audiences think they’re incredibly entertaining, or rich, or God Knows What Else. All the while the media completely ignores things like their horribly outdated takes on how bigotry works. And they are not influencing society for the better.
Further to yesterday’s post, I’ve finally got a clear idea of what’s been bothering me.
Certain media figures lie consistently about the way the world works and how people treat each other. They seem to love comforting themselves and their audiences with the idea that the oppressed or vulnerable within society are trying to fool everyone.
Some do it with great flair. They may produce just enough content to seem trustworthy—offering self-help advice, or entertaining guests. Many are enchanted by the smoke and mirrors that they employ. Yet the dangerous parts of what these spin doctors share remains unquestioned and presented as fact. They blithely go about fomenting ignorance and hatred, with little thought for the impact of their words or actions. I, for one, am tired of seeing the pain that this behaviour causes.
Yesterday, one headline in particular gave me an epiphany. Or at least, a new way to articulate my thoughts on what’s going on.
We are suffering from the effects of an epidemic of people who want to be idolized even if the heartbeat of their core message rests on something that isn’t true.
These folks can be downright obsessive about their messaging. After all, they have built entire livelihoods on others’ faith in their falsehoods. And sadly, their audiences believe their words regardless of how dishonest they actually are. They do this simply because their idols’ ideas validate their fears.
And what is it that people are people afraid of? Among other things…
That human beings could be as depraved as they are revealed to be by their words and deeds, and as declared in the headlines.
But why do some of us willingly believe lies about how others truly are? We humans delight in protecting ourselves. Above all else, for many, it is far more comforting to remain comfortable than it is to accept uncomfortable truths. At the deepest state of denial, from what I’ve seen, there are folks who like to believe one or both of the following: a) The only way an instance of bigotry is unreasonable is if it involves an instance of physical violence that harms the victim(s), and b) people don’t actually perpetrate unbelievably horrific acts of physical violence against innocent people.
I pray that human beings will stop deluding themselves. Man’s inhumanity to man is truly, truly horrible.
“…I have not said to my people ‘get rid of your discontent’.”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior – Letter from Birmingham City Jail
Last week on the internet, I noticed someone with a following misinterpreting Dr. Martin Luther King’s words. Since last month was the month of his birth, I shouldn’t have been surprised.
And although the person’s speech was grandiloquent their intent was clear: They were trying to cast aspersions on people whose means of pursuing justice doesn’t meet their standards.
They were relying on a classic tactic: The general public has very a very positive image of Dr. King. Yet far too many people believe the substance of King’s anti-racist stance can be found in his “I Have a Dream” speech. Although an important piece of oratory, people are prone to focusing on its inspiring imagery. They overlook something that King and his followers know to be true: Racism is not a simple issue, and it cannot be solved via superficial means.
In spite of this, many believe that in order to solve racism, people ought to sanitize their language. As far as they’re concerned, people like me must be careful not to offend those who have hurt their fellow humans in the most horrible of ways.
Yet if one person abuses another, should they not be made aware of the pain that they have caused?
Seeing Dr. King’s words used in an attempt to stifle anti-racist activism, at first, I thought of tagging Dr. Bernice King. She is a master at correcting people who manipulate her father’s words. Thankfully, though, I also remembered something else: Last year among other unread books, I had purchased A Testament of Hope. Edited by James A. Washington, Testament is an anthology of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s writings and speeches.
This weekend, I began to read the book’s introduction. As I went, I paused. Suddenly, I felt an urge to flip through its pages. I wanted to see if any particular statements caught my eye. And that’s where today’s quote came from.
Some may woo their audiences with smooth rhetoric. They may try to use statements from Dr. King as a cudgel to degrade Black people. But I want you to know something:
It is not wrong to be uncomfortable with racism. Never mind the ugly lens that some use to frame the outspoken among us. It is not wrong to want people to do better than be bigoted towards their fellow human beings.
Some really believe that people like me ought to be ashamed for wanting things to change. Those individuals want a of sanitized version of the world where those who harm others do not face consequences.
As for the words above, I’m thankful for Dr. King. I already knew that works such as his Letter contained sentences that certain people will object to. And in the days to come, I look forward to discovering more of them.
Continuing my discussion of how racism is reflected within our media, let me give you a concrete example. There’s a media host whom I’ll call Craig. in the past I’ve seen Craig use his platform to promote someone who can’t grasp the idea of why fetishizing people from within a particular non-white community might be a bad idea. Yet via another outlet, he had absolutely no trouble discussing why women as a whole need to be careful when dealing with men who are strangers to them.
Similarly, I’ve seen moments on social media where men will defend the hell out of women. Yet concerning race-related issues, either they say nothing, or they easily back down from any defense they may have started to make.
The incidents that I’m referring to reflect a particular type of hypocrisy that needs to be called out:
Certain people support justice, regardless of who seeks it. In theory, a lot of people love the idea of being noble and standing up for what’s right. (Who doesn’t love The Hero?)
Yet I’ve paid attention to what some folks do in practice: They have no trouble with the idea of defending a woman’s honour. (Here, one might ask: Who do they think of as women, or specifically, women that deserve to be held in high regard?)
In contrast, when the time comes to stand up for people of colour, the hand wringing begins. In spite of some folks’ claims, there are limits to their unconditional kindness. It’s quite interesting to note: Their chivalrous energy evaporates when the people who need defending are from a group that they might not want to be intimate with.
Privilege may yield power, but it doesn’t automatically bring knowledge.
– Claire
A few years ago I interviewed a white female professor for a diversity-driven story. Dr. Shelly Tochluk is an expert on challenging white people’s perspectives on bigotry. And she explained something to me about why some Caucasians are so defensive when attempting to tackle racism.
Our conversation centred on allyship. The following is an excerpt from her answer to my question, “Suppose a white person claims that they’re genuinely interested in combating racism. What’s one of the most critical things that they need to [realize]?”
“White people are conditioned to see ourselves as competent, as people who can get things done. We hear that we need to end racism. We hear that white people need to do something. We think we’re supposed to jump in and take charge. We are often like bulls in a china shop. We need to first understand how little we actually know at the beginning. Listening and learning are important.”
When confronted with race-related situations, due to their biases, some white people risk making wrong assumptions. They may misunderstand the gravity of the circumstances involved, as well as their potential psychological impact.
A white person may be aware that racism is wrong. But that doesn’t guarantee that they have an inherent understanding of how to dismantle it. Nevertheless, some of them choose to ignore this fact. They assume because they have Black colleagues, friends, or connections, that by association they possess knowledge of what constitutes racist circumstances or behaviour.
Furthermore, some think that all it takes is associating with Black people to guarantee that they will approach the subject with the appropriate amount of sensitivity. Yet it doesn’t. Especially when they don’t think it requires any.
The Lure of Lackadaisical Dialogue
“I don’t burn crosses on people’s lawns. I don’t use racial slurs. What’s the problem?” That’s where some people’s idea of what constitutes racism begins and ends. And it’s especially troubling when those who think this way have impressionable audiences.
This is the crux of my concerns: People need to pay attention to perspectives that are expressed in the media they consume. Said perspectives can colour their perception of legitimate problems and affect their real-life interactions with those who have a different point of view.
In the current news cycle, misinformation is being discussed quite a bit. However, much of the dialogue is surrounding COVID 19. Yet there’s harm that can come from the willful consumption of misinformation as it relates to other issues. Among them, racism.
And how does the idea of misinformation about racism reveal itself in the media?
It shows up in how people view diversity-related subjects: They seek deeper levels of education on issues when they believe they need to. They do not pursue knowledge about things that they think they’re competent in.
And certain media figures speak ignorantly about the pursuit of justice. Yet as they do so, they convey a sort of confidence. They genuinely believe their assertions, in spite of evidence that it would behoove them to educate themselves about their subject matter.
They simply don’t understand what’s at stake. And yet they do things such as make inane comments, believing they’re being insightful or even entertaining.
After all, everyone should just love each other. Why can’t people just get past their frustrations?
In a perfect world, yes. But…
Overall, they seem to prefer a simple approach to important issues. And they regard people who are too thorough as troublemakers.
But quite frankly, racism isn’t something that persists simply because Black people refuse to get over themselves.
Forget racism for a second. We could be talking about almost any other subject that deserves to be treated with nuance and depth.
The fact of the matter is that some people ingest what these media figures are saying—not because they’re actually right. But rather, because they have a likability factor. These people are telling them what they want to hear. They provide an ego-driven refuge of sorts.
There’s something some audiences find reassuring in believing that things out there aren’t as bad as “those people” say it is. Even if you don’t think of yourself as an “us vs them” type of person, consider the possibility that you harbour some unconscious biases. Your determination to commit to a skeptical perspective can have broader implications related to things such as how you process information as being either true or false.
But where was I?
For some, skepticism towards “those people” is where the conspiracy theories kick in:
“The Others keep insisting that Such and Such is awful. But that can’t be true. Surely, it’s a part of their Great Plan to do XYZ to us.”
And their response to The Others?:
“Come on in, the water’s fine. And you don’t know what you’re talking about.“
Meanwhile, those who are vulnerable are saying “We need help….” And another problem arises from that, because the help that some of us are asking for doesn’t actually begin with help. Rather, it starts with a request for a change in attitude on the part of those who insist that people who point out things such as injustice are lying. And a change in attitude begins with vulnerability, as well as a willingness to consider a change in thinking.
For many, this is too unnerving.
But do you know what else is unnerving? The perspectives that some have come to take as gospel.
I will not use an exact quote. But, among other things, I once heard a popular pundit claim that those who protest against inequity and injustice are imagining things. He was adamant about it. In fact, as he went on, he was, essentially, insisting that those who long for justice—and aren’t silent about it—aren’t in their right minds.
More concerning, though, there is the fact that this person is someone who has repeatedly been promoted by someone else, who has an even more popular platform. And their audiences believe what they say.
Powerful people are talking about racism in a trivial way. Do they care about the impact of their words?
I mean really. How are people who are committed to following these media figures’ ideas processing their perspectives? What are they doing with what they learn from these people?
When I think of the consequences, I’m not only considering vulnerable people.
What happens after you put your faith in a certain type of media’s messaging, and adopt their worldview as your own? When your favourite media people insist on believing that serious issues are simple, how does that affect your interactions in the real world? What are your relationships like with people who aren’t like you?
I’ll be honest. When you insist on adopting a superficial attitude towards serious things, that doesn’t instill confidence in you. In fact, it can make you seem ignorant and inconsiderate. Here, I’m not critiquing you for the sake of being cruel.
Those adjectives suggest a damaging impact on your relationships—both individually, and with humanity at large. That type of outlook will also undoubtedly affect your ability to understand other people.
Imagine someone in your circle comes to you, sharing their feelings about a racist encounter or incident. They could be anything from hurt, to angry, to frightened. But most likely, a mixture of all three.
How do you respond? Do you take them seriously?
If you ardently absorb a certain kind of popular media, likely not. Chances are, you’ll dismiss your contact as being hyperbolic or hysterical. Their concerns aren’t worth listening to.
After all, your media gurus say so.
Please know that I’m speaking from experience, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Time and again, legitimate concerns are met with what may as well be laughter. It’s a frustrating, fatiguing cycle. It’s a battle that seems impossible to win. And it’s one that many of us are tired of repeatedly fighting.
Here’s something for the skeptics to consider: You may understand where Your Favourite Media Figure is coming from on a topic. And they may very well have a prominent platform. But that doesn’t guarantee that what they are saying about their subject matter is actually correct.
At the end of the day, it’s not realistic to expect a difficult, nuanced subject to be simple just because you want it to be.
And a simplistic approach to real-world problems is harmful. As I think about how I long to engage an audience, I’m aware of the following: Some might be more sympathetic towards issues that don’t affect them if I demonstrated some restraint. To them, I suppose it would be more palatable if I adjusted my language. It might be better if I said that adopting a mistrustful approach towards the outcry against injustice was “unproductive”. But people like me can’t afford to mince words. There’s far too much at risk.
claire.she.goes 