Sunday Times article

[Kenneth Allen Hyde]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Emma Moore wrote:

> I'd be interested to know what other people think. I think it provides
> an excellent example of the dangers of abstracting social categories.

Well, I don't really follow British news (I don't really follow US news
for that matter--but that's a different story), so I am unable to speak to
accuracy of some of the authors claims or the bias of his presentation.
However, aside from the actual facts of the matter, the author does
highlight a disturbing trend that I have also noticed, to whit, the
acceptability of "bashing" traditionally powerful enfranchised groups.
This in itself would be reprehensible, but if/when it spills over onto
individuals who happen to be members of one of those groups, it becomes
more disturbing.

Now, in some cases (and possibly in some of the cases the author
mentions), this weeping about "unfair" victimization is just a cover for
the regret that the "franchise" of the group no longer allows its members
to get away with the sort of thing they used to.  When a working-class
white man is slapped down for harassing a woman or for yelling racial
slurs, I have no sympathy for him beyond the basic human sympathy for
anyone who is mired in that kind of mentality.  However, there are two
cases where he does get my sympathy.  In the case that the social
punishment is unduly harsh because he is a member of a specific group, I
sympathize.  And in the case where the protections afforded to other
specific groups are not also extended to him, I sympathize.

This problem is perhaps easier to see if we don't focus on race,
however.  Consider religion.  In the USA (and I assume, the UK),
attacking someone's religion or attacking the person with religious
slurs is unacceptable and swiftly punished, as long as they belong to a
traditionally disenfranchised religion.  However, if they are a member of
a mainstream Christian religion, they are on their own.  Recently a
Christian friend of mine had to sit and listen to several co-workers make
fun of her religion, but couldn't protest because defending Christianity
is very un-PC.  I was the one who ended up saying something (the irony of
a radically non-Christian agnostic in the role of "defender of the Faith"
was not lost on me).  Several of the people involved were actually
offended that I asked them to stop.

I'm sure that anyone on this list can think of hundreds of similar
examples involving gender or sexuality.  Think of all the times you've
heard women complaining about men in a public venue.  How many of those
times involved someone saying "excuse me, but that sort of sexist talk is
offensive, and I'd prefer that you stop"?  Or simply recast the
conversation with male speakers talking about women.  Would the reaction
to the conversation be the same?  One glaring seasonal example of the
imbalance is the existence of those "Men are..." calendars in the stores
right now.  Interestingly enough, you never see a similar calendar about
women (the stores would probably be sued out of existence).  Similar
situations occur with gays and lesbians talking about straight people (and
don't even get me started about gays and lesbians talking about lesbians
or gays).

I think the author was heading towards an important point: that equality
needs to be equal.  To use an amazingly gender-equal proverb: "What's good
for the goose is good for the gander."  Of course, I don' think that he
reached that goal or carried his audience along with him.  Still, the
issue is there and probably needs to be considered.

Ken

Kenneth Allen Hyde     |  No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife
Univ. of Delaware      |  between the shoulder blades will seriously
Dept. of Linguistics   |  cramp his style  -- Old Jhereg proverb
kenny at Udel.Edu         |  A mind is a terrible toy to waste! -- Me

//www.ling.udel.edu/hyde/prof/