White men can't jump?

By David Tizzard

I have a confession to make. I often spend time on the internet, procrastinating horribly while scrolling through Twitter or Facebook when I should be reading books or writing articles. I'm terribly lazy sometimes because of it.

However, frequent readers of online articles and forums will no doubt have noticed that what follows are many replies and comments that focus on the identity of the person that has written the piece. The ideas contained within are sometimes dismissed out of hand purely because they come from someone of a certain racial background, ethnicity, or even gender.

Not only are they dismissed, they are often outright ignored and instead replaced with meaningless abuse with a certain Sarah Jeong-esque quality. The charges come forward with certain vitriol, "How can you really understand this? You are a foreigner?", "So many men!", "More Western imperialism." "Here comes a white trying to explain it." You may add in the various emoticons and internetisms most prevalently seen: "smh" seems rather popular these days.

Not only does it appear rather distasteful, it is concerning to imagine what it might be like were the identities of the people in these various situations described be reversed.

I do not deny that racism and sexism exist in our society. And wherever that may be pointed out in individual and specific cases, I will not only happily decry them, but also work toward eradicating them as best I might be able. But to demark everything of a certain type as sexist, racist or privileged, without actually engaging the ideas, is to do harm to those that do actually experience it, for it lessens the social awareness. If everything is racist, then real racism actually becomes harder to see.

Yet what are the goals of such behavior? When one responds purely in terms of identity, it seems often to be with the objective of shutting down discourse and conversation. A standpoint position that deems one person is quite simply unable to comprehend the other's experience. It also promotes the idea that some comments are violent or offensive and should not be heard, specifically those with which we disagree for ideological or political reasons.

After all, if people are unable to understand the other's perspective, where are we then? If we can't engage with other people's ideas respectfully and rationally, what comes next? Willfully ignoring each other? Hitting each other with clubs? That's generally not a road we should be heading anywhere near.

Men are often decried for merely having the temerity to write articles on certain subjects or attend panels. Should one of these latter concepts be composed entirely of men, they are labeled "manels." A neologism and portmanteau used by people gleefully without perhaps considering the consequences of its wider proliferation.

In doing so, these commentators acknowledge that it does not matter what ideas people might have. The primary concern is that of their gender. Were there fewer men and more women, that would seemingly be a far more acceptable solution. The first principle in these instances seems to be one that calls for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

Moreover, it doesn't seem to recognize that this will not necessarily generate a greater diversity of ideas of perspectives. Indeed, it might instead produce a homogenization of thoughts ― the very opposite of that which is apparently desired.
And that seems to be a growing danger in the echo chambers of confirmation bias and social media virtue signaling.

Every person that thinks the same, talks to each other. When people encounter an idea they don't like, rather than engage it, they often just shout some meaningless labels at it: Mansplaining, Republican nonsense, Western bias, white privilege, and so on.

During an interview with Dr Stephanie Coontz of Evergreen State College on gender equality, she explained to me that there will be never an equilibrium or perfect state achieved in society. For as soon as we solve one problem, we will inadvertently create others. Thus, making panels to simply artificially induce an equal balance of men and women is not actually going to solve the world.

She then proceeded to explain to me that we should be looking at the actual process itself. Focusing on the way in which we move toward solutions, rather than the destinations themselves. It is not necessarily our utopian goals concerning gender and identity, but how we live with each other and how we progress toward things. It is in that process of acting things out with others in society that the utopia is actually found ― in the democratic and rational journey.

Quite simply, it is how we do things rather than what we believe. We are meant to believe different things. We are meant to work toward different goals. We are meant to hold different ideas. But at the cornerstone of all of this should be a respect for the sovereignty of the individual. This is the very opposite of a collective identity, label or dogma that seems to be more and more visible.

In fascist states, people are punished for the crimes of their family members ― living and dead. In fascist states, people are punished for skin color or race. In fascist states, people are punished for gender. In fascist states, people are punished for their political beliefs.

In states based on competence and democracy, ones that afford an equality of opportunity to all without exception, we are seen as an individual and any of the identifying labels are pushed aside. To paraphrase a chap that seems to have been forgotten in much of all this, we are judged on the content of our characters and ideas.
And "White Men Can't Jump" is a jolly good movie.

David Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) is an assistant professor at Seoul Women's University.