Skip to main content

The problem with social movements often becoming like a game of telephone

Do you remember that game we used to play as a kid, often referred to as telephone? You'd start by telling the person next to you something random, like, "Johnny has a crush on Maxie." The person next to you would then supposedly spread that same message to the person next to them, and so on and so forth, until the final person in the group blurted out what he or she was told, which often times wound up being something like, "On September 22nd of 1976, a little boy named Johnny once killed an ant he called Maxie with a magnifying glass. He was then grounded for 2 weeks." Unfortunately, social movements have often times followed the same path as this childhood game and, at a certain point, the initial purpose and message appears to be lost in the midst of varying tangents. This has rung true for the Black Lives Matter movement and more recently, the Me Too movement, both of which I'm a part.

I'll focus on the Me Too movement. It initially started as a movement for victims of sexual assault, abuse, and harassment to speak up about their traumatic experiences, speak out against their perpetrators, and bring power to these victims whom had felt helpless and silenced and silent for so long. This movement has resulted in derailing the careers of many, mostly namely, Harvey Weinstein. Unfortunately, while many in the movement, myself included, continue to try and stick to its original purpose, some have decided to expand said definition, which has wound up harming the movement's standing and ability for growth and progression.

I won't get into names, but well after the movement first broke through, I've heard fellow self-described Me Too members share stories that involved: A bad date, a person embarrassing themselves, an offensive joke, an inappropriate gift, hurt feelings, etc. It's reached the point where I've read headlines that label an individual a "sexual abuser" due to a dirty joke they were once alleged of telling. I'm sorry, but these before-mentioned scenarios are not examples of sexual assault, abuse, or even harassment, and it does a disservice to the movement's original intent and the members whom were actually victims of such atrocious acts of sexual misbehavior to treat them as such.

Look, we've all experienced bad dates. That doesn't mean the other party to the date was sexually inappropriate. If there was a potential misunderstanding that didn't involve any form of assault, abuse, or harassment, then talk it out with that person. Don't act like you're out to get revenge on social media, because what is the actual point, who does that truly harm, and what can that accomplish? If a crime was committed, take it up with the proper authorities, because any and every person who commits an act of sexual assault, abuse, or harassment should face legal repercussions for their wicked acts.

If a person was offended by a gift they received, a joke they heard, or their feelings were hurt by another's words or actions, then again, talk to them about the matter so that there is a greater understanding of one another, which will then hopefully decrease the odds of the same event occurring again. Let's look at the person's intent, though. What is the intent of a gift? To make another feel special, perhaps stimulate laughter (a gag gift), etc. What's the intent of a joke? To bring about laughter, and sometimes stimulate thought. These intents do not in any way coincide with the intent of a serial assaulter, abuser, or harasser. A perpetrator of sexual assault, abuse, or harassment never has the intent of making their victim feel special or stimulating thought or laughter. So it's ridiculous to equate an abuser with a jokester. Let's stand back for a moment and think about this with a broader lens. What stand-up comedian has never told a joke which didn't offend at least one person? Yes, this is going to take a while, eternity as a matter of fact. That's because there's no such individual present in the history of existence. This does not mean every stand-up comedian is a sexual abuser and it does a great disservice to the Me Too movement to claim such a thing.

I'm a proud member of the Me Too movement, am proud of fellow members coming out with their heart-wrenching stories about dealing with some form of sexual impropriety, and can't express how satisfying it is to see sexual abusers finally get the punishment they so richly deserve! However, we must be careful to not lose focus of what the movement truly stands for, so as to lose the power we once had. While it's never fun to get one's feelings hurt or to get offended by something, everyone's been subject to such sensations at least once, and to claim all such occasions constitute as a Me Too moment is to say every single person has been both a victim and perpetrator of some form of sexual misconduct, and it thereby becomes increasingly more difficult to distinguish the abusers from the abusees. Victims of sexual assault, abuse, and harassment have felt helpless and silenced for far too long as it is. The last thing we need is to feel like our traumatic experiences of such abuses have been blurred with a joke a stand-up comedian told at the Madison Square Garden on a Saturday night.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"