Iwent to university in the early 90s. Campus life back then was all about ‘political correctness’. We were all very careful about either purposely acknowledging or discretely overlooking issues and stereotypes of identifiable groups. We didn’t know when to say or what to do so most of the times avoidance was the only contrived response. It became impossible to engage in serious conversation much less address the inequities of select groups within the student body. I believe that this heightened sensitivity did more damage than bring acceptance as people were constantly walking on eggshells. Many issues simply got ignored as both sides resented the pretense.
I have been very lucky that I have never been boxed into a category that needed to be accommodated. And if I had, I wondered if social activism and the re-emergence of woke would have given me more or fewer opportunities. This is an impossible question to answer and I never really thought about such issues again after graduation. But occasionally, situations thrust themselves into my life and I have an opportunity again to think about how society has evolved—or not.
On a ski hill in a foreign country, I witnessed a local man verbally chastising a white woman. His English was very difficult to understand, but after a few moments and the presence of cigarette smoke, it was clear that the man was telling the woman to put out her cigarette as there were signs prohibiting the habit on slopes, lodges and generally everywhere. Not helping the matter, the woman became irate and shouted back saying that he doesn’t need to yell and that she didn’t know the policy. A white man, presumably her husband, came forward and started screaming at the local man also, “You don’t talk to women that way. Keep it up and see what happens.” Eventually, the white couple scurried away.
A man defending thoughtless defiance isn’t feminism—this is blind machoism defending female righteousness.
I rejoined my skiing companion and recounted that the whole incident was unfortunate. While I understood the white man coming to his wife’s defense, but threatening to defend her honor (or his) was the wrong approach, especially, when only words were exchanged at a distance. Afterall, it was she who lit up the cigarette violating local laws. If she were back home, she would likely never do this so it’s entirely possible that she may be exerting some defiant privilege until challenged. For her husband to defend this behavior suggests that he’s not after equality, but dispensation. In fact, he was also smoking and enjoying the wife’s thoughtless defiance and shielding her was also to his benefit. This isn’t feminism—this is blind machoism defending female righteousness.
As I vicariously face many incidents of racism, ageism, sexism and other -ism since leaving university, I must conclude that true equality means that everyone must be treated equally, all the time including the consequences that may befall them. There can’t be get-out-of-jail cards that can exempt or excuse violations. People can’t plea ignorance to game the system until it catches up to them, either. And strict exceptions can only be granted on truly humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Should women be treated with respect? Absolutely. Certainly, no less than a man. Should a person of color be prejudged? Absolutely not. Certainly, no more than another race. This is why I believed that any type of political correctness is simply the temporary fix for the liberal guilt du jour. It’s also why national programs like affirmative actions, DEI and other wokeful agenda are just band-aids that only mask the problem. Problems can’t be solved simply by redefining the solution.
I think for true equality to be pervasive and permanent, the first thought shouldn’t be about the individual and how different that person is from others and that this difference needs to be ‘compensated’. The first thought must be how common we all are and how each of our differences contributes to that the greater whole.
Kids can and should be exposed to many things, but it doesn’t mean they will excel at any, much less all of it. This isn’t a deficiency. It’s just undiscovered calling. This is how I teach my daughter…that she can do and get anything a boy can. But how she does and gets anything must be based firstly on merit and ability, not because she’s a girl.
Feminism that accommodates is no progress; it’s just the same old perpetuation of disparity.
