0
0
I wanted to try and tackle a complex issue in this post, which is the relationship between anger and social issues.
What do I mean? Let’s take an example where I was hurt by someone from a social group that is currently under scrutiny. It would be easy for me to channel this hurt into anger and jump on the bandwagon to scrutinise the social group that hurt me rather than look at my own shortcomings.
Let’s say I was a woman and I dated a man who I fell in love with and then was hurt badly when the relationship ended. One way to justify the relationship ending badly and shift the entire blame to the other party is by jumping on the scrutiny of men bandwagon. I am innocent because men are bad.
Notice how easy it is to generalise from a specific person to a whole social group. One man hurt me but that’s ok because men in general are bad. This kind of generalisation is something we have fought hard to try and break, as it is the same generalisation that leads to say a coloured person being shot by the police on suspicion.
Obviously I am a guy and I am trying to stand up for guys because I feel like I am part of a social group that is under intense scrutiny. I completely agree that there should be scrutiny on men to ensure we remove any biases that favour men over women. Just as I believe any social group that has an advantage over other groups should be scrutinised, as we should strive for equality.
That said, I also think it’s important for a social group under scrutiny to be able to defend themselves where appropriate. In the current climate I don’t feel men have any empowerment to defend ourselves and we end up being the punching bag for every angry women regardless of whether it is justified or not.
Let’s take an example where I was a woman who worked in the same profession with the same experience as a man. If I was paid less then I would speak out and be justified in my objection. There is no justification for why a man should be paid more than a women for the same quality of work.
I had a heated exchange with a female colleague who stated all men were terrible over the office lunch table. I asked her why and she very candidly gave me the run down that if she meets a guy she likes and doesn’t sleep with him quickly then she’s seen as prudish but if she sleeps with them too quickly then she’s seen as a slut. She then stated that all men want is looks and they don’t care about personality.
I tried to suggest to her that perhaps she needs to try liking a different type of guy but she reinforced that all men are the same. She was angry and hence all men were the same and she was on the scrutinise men bandwagon. No matter what I said to her she found a way to redirect her dating failure to men being the problem and that she was always the victim.
I haven’t touched on another important group, which is the people that jump on the bandwagon to gain popularity whether they agree with the social issue or not. In the social media world popularity is power, which I discussed in my post on popularity paying.
So where this leave us? In a situation where anger towards your personal situation can be redirected towards a social issue to remove personal blame. How can the group being scrutinised defend themselves in this situation? Or should we just keep our mouths shut and take the punches? Reminds me of a situation women fought hard to get out of!
