And so he marched forth from the hinterland of not posting to his blog very often, not because he had a silly set of puns to deliver or a piece of saccharine fluff about being happy, or a semi thought through treatise on a mildly diverting topic. Nah. This time I'm a bit angry. Something has been bugging me for a while. And I'm not going to tolerate it any more.
Yesterday (17th May) was the international day against homophobia and transphobia. Not, as my predictive text tried to make it, homophones and transportation. Damn those similar sounding words and the car they came in.
Now, at this stage, you would be right in thinking this blog could go in one of two directions - is RV about to rail against the mistreatment and fear of those who represent themselves as LGBT? No, though I don't like it. For many reasons, 'LGBT rights' (there is a reason for the quotes, but not a dismissive one) are close to my heart, and it remains utterly baffling to me how people can be persecuted, castigated and deprived of rights simply because of who they are, what their gender identity and choice of how to show that is, and because of who they fall in love with/engage in pleasurable (ideally) and consensual (essential) activities with. But it is SUCH an obvious point there isn't a blog there.
Nor is this an attack on the proliferation of 'International Days of...' we have now. There is, I believe, an International Day of the Sandwich. I love a sandwich, almost as much as Joey from Friends (ask your parents, or my generation, young ones, or just turn on comedy central pretty much any point in daytime). But an international day for them? Sod off. These secular saints days (and that's what they are, and they suffer from the same problem that they are starting to double up, and people only remember the big ones, and they kinda lose their value) are patently ridiculous, designed either using the Hallmark method (free advertising for a product no one wants but suddenly feels compelled to buy by creating an official date for it) or for good causes where every day should reflect them (such as being against homo- and trans-phobia), but making a day for it on some level only validates people making an effort that day (what? They do. Okay, some of you don't, but be honest, most of you are people who didn't need the 'day' to support the cause. The choir shouldn't need preaching to). They should, by and large, be scrapped. And maybe there is a blog post in looking at these days, but this isn't it. The only one which is any good is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. It fulfills the brief. Silly, sublime, not something you should do every day, costs nothing, promotes nothing (if Hallmark ever bring out a greeting card for it, I swear to Thor I will SMITE THEM), and punctures our belief in our own self importance. Long may it continue. Jim lad.
No, I'm going with a third option. This is an idea which has been rolling around in my head for a while, because it bugs me. And this day kind of made the point as well, so crystallised my thinking. And it involves me setting you a challenge. One I currently have not achieved. But I'm trying, and I hope you will too.
This was a day not in support of a group within our multi faceted community, but a day against people who are intolerant towards that grouping. And that's the problem here. The intolerance. So we're all going to stop it.
But first, we must accept something. There are obviously 'bad' intolerances. We tend to identify this with -ism or -phobia. Racism, sexism, homophobia, faithism (okay, that isn't a word...). But for this to work, we have to get rid of other intolerances as well. It's the behaviour we have to stamp on, not only when it is directed at an individual target.
We all have our intolerances. Mine, essentially, is stupidity. Only, it isn't - it is more when people, either through capacity or inclination, don't think. For all I wish I could switch my brain off sometimes, or at least slow the whirring, I would never seek to underclock to the extent many people do. It creates avoidable issues, irrational responses, breakdowns in the operation of society (if that even exists), work for other people and a lack of consideration for others. It is a bad thing. But the intolerance itself may also be a bad thing. I ascribe it to people and immediately cease to place value in their opinions and actions. I cluster people into that group when I don't know them - me, the person who has the mantra that 'there is no one right answer to anything' feels able to define someone as stupid because they are not behaving the way I would, and without trying to understand why their motivations or why this is the right thing for them, defines them in my grouping of 'stupid' people. Okay, some, maybe even most of them, might be, but I don't KNOW that.
The thing about intolerance is that it is a choice. A choice we make for convenience based on an irritation or a difference. Whilst discussing food intolerances with a member of the medical profession, I was told that there isn't really any such thing as an intolerance. You may process it badly, but a true intolerance is called an allergy. We focus so much on the larger corpus of society who should steer clear of lactose, gluten and the like, that there sometimes aren't enough resources left to deal with people who have a potentially life threatening allergic reaction. And it's like that in society. We are all so naturally intolerant, that we create the opportunity for actual hate to do some real damage.
And it all boils down to 'groups'. It is human nature to define people by a grouping, a sub set, a stereotype, a genus, a phylum. It helps us anticipate the way someone might behave, or what they might like. I get it. It's also the single most insidious habit to prevent positive human relationships.
Groupings are defined as being people with a common set of characteristics or even a single characteristic. As, sociologically and biologically, these characteristics influence behaviour, we therefore start to see trends. And it is these trends which are the basis for all intolerance.
An example. Because of the biological make up of their brains, caused by their role in simpler times, it is fair to say that the default, un-influenced development of the male brain impairs or obviates and even just reduces their ability to juggle multiple tasks, instead being inclined and designed to focus on one task at a time. Therefore, unless influenced by other factors, there is a reasonable chance that men will focus one task at a time rather than attempt multiple tasks.
Only, that's too long, too unclear, too conditional. So we simplify it to 'most men can't multitask very well'.
Only that's too vague, and to be honest, can anyone, right now, think of a man who can multitask (by which I mean be able to name them, confirm address, date of birth, and three instances of clear multitasking, cos otherwise it doesn't count)? No? So we may as well drop the moderators, and say 'men can't multitask' and then add, because now it's too short and why else would you be saying it 'and we judge them for it'.
Congratulations, you have just moved for a thoughtful awareness of a trend which correlates to (and appears to have a causal link with) a characteristic, via an oversimplified convenient truth to an outright intolerance based on an untruth. Without really having to go through much, if any, cognitive dissonance to get there.
Now, you could argue that this is not a bad intolerance, but my argument is that there is no such thing as a good intolerance. Apart from creating an acceptance of a pattern of thinking which ends with the word 'fag' spraypainted across the door of the recently married guy couple, or, in extremis, genocide, it is on a personal level demeaning, and damaging. I know of none of my friends who wouldn't baulk at being described as a 'typical man', 'typical woman', 'typical luvvie', 'typical geek' in a derogatory fashion, but we all do it ourselves. So we should stop it.
It would be easy to assume that the above list of insults is defined by the word 'typical', but actually it is the use of the group which follows.
To go back to our example.
I am a man, and therefore I can't multitask.
Only, I'm also left handed. Which statistics show leads to more 'feminised' brain behaviours, including, but not limited to, multitasking. And calls into question if they can really be described as mail or female brain behaviours.
Only, I'm also at a low level on the autism spectrum. Which, depending on your exact condition, either increases or decreases your capacity to multitask.
But I also have evidence. I drive, a lot. Statistically speaking, with the number of miles I drive, I should have had far more accidents caused by me than I have. So I'm obviously either very lucky, or quite skilled at the multitasking required to drive.
But, more evidence. When I have a project to work on, I work from home so I can focus on just that or it won't get done. So I'm better when I don't multitask.
Hmmmmm.
So I'm a man. Can I multitask? The answer is, yes, sometimes. Other times, no.
This is the problem with group based intolerance. In order to make it plausible, you've got to pick a finite number (usually 1) of groups the person belongs to. And there is some justification for that with large groups of people. Men in Black said 'a person is clever. People are stupid' and that's kind of right. If a group of people come together because of a shared characteristic, herd instinct will bring that to the fore. The most refined group of men gets a bit more 'lad' when they go away in a boys trip. Geeks get geekier when they meet up. Clever people get more focussed in just trying to be clever. Politicians get more venal whilst at Westminster. Football fans become borderline mobs chanting tuneless, pejorative mantras.....
Erm, sorry, my intolerances are showing. Never said it was easy.
But even that group of people is more than just their currently heightened shared characteristic. For all the archetypes and stereotypes, they belong to multiple groups. We all do, even simple, uncomplicated souls like me.
I am a man. I am white. I am middle class. I am British, English, Sagittarius, from the Midlands, a geek, of Scandinavian and Celtic descent, left handed, straight, camp, a rugby fan, a cricket fan, a swimmer, a luvvy, a techie, a scientist, an artist, a thinker, a feeler, shy, an extrovert, over confident, over neurotic, autistic (a bit), emotional, logical, Christian, sarcastic, clever, childish, pragmatic, fanciful, an older brother, a first child, the young for my role, older than most of my friends, very conventional, very eccentric....and so many many more. So many characteristics, some very contradictory.
Put simply, if one where to somehow be able to draw a venn diagram of all the groups and shared labels I can be assigned to, then the only person in the overlap (even if just by a fraction of an inch) is me. I could have all the prevailing characteristics of those groups. Or, by a quirk of stats, none of them. Or, where they are contradictory, maybe both. The thing I am truly 'typically' is RV. And that is true for all of us.
Look, I know about the studies. Medical, demographic, strong trends exist that justify targeting groups or certain characteristics to make a sale or achieve an end. But in the end they are just probabilities, not certainties, and in any case, are subject, as even the laws of motion are, to no other influencing force. It is impossible to group a set of people together and define an absolute set of characteristics they all have. So you can't. So stop it. And maybe, you'll start looking at each person as a person. And maybe you'll hate them. But you'll hate one person, not a whole group who have something in common. And maybe you'll be a bit less intolerant.
It is easy to be intolerant of a simplified group. It is difficult to hate a complex person who has things you abhor and things you adore. So why take the route to intolerance? If you don't know anyone who holds a characteristic, be cautious about forming a judgement.
We live in a society created, in part, by subliminal intolerances. Much of our conventions and rules are either caused by inherent racism, classism or sexism. If affected by those (I'm white, middle class and male, so the system is kind of designed for me, I'm not going to claim otherwise), I can understand being unhappy. But, rather than operating on turnaround is fair play basis being resentful, or even perpetuating the behaviour by conforming to it/developing your own intolerances, maybe try just getting on with the people in front of you. Like I say, I'm white, middle class and male. You could quite easily hate me. But I a) don't massively conform to those groups and b) right here, right now, I wouldn't make the decisions they made in the past. So please don't blame me that they did. It demeans me, and your prejudice based on an intolerance for what, rather than who, I am, makes me think less of you.
We all do it. Enlightened, largely liberal people as my friends are, at social occasions we split, usually along gender lines, and conversation will at times drift onto the 'men are useless' and 'women are confusing/irrational' theme. Harmless fun? I would contend not - it validates a behaviour. I occasionally join in on it, but I loathe it. If we stop, maybe we'll start being more tolerant. We can't do it just because it is done to us, or we will never stop.
I'm not going to say 'don't group people'. It's instinct, and a helpful skill for anticipating likely behaviour. I'm not going to say don't judge. Once again, it is instinctive, though I might caution being less harsh in your judgement just due to differences. But maybe don't judge people for being part of a group, especially one they can't help being part of. There is far, far more to them than that. Maybe we'll all find ourselves being more tolerant.
We need to get over labels, even in jest. People are far more complicated than your labels, however comprehensively they are catalogued.
Life would be pretty intolerable any other way.
