The Child In Distress

Parents and professionals who continue to fall prey to cheap tabloid journalism have learned nothing from the childhood tale of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." In the "child in distress" narrative perpetuated in our culture, children are constantly prey to whatever new scary apparition appears on the horizon, and everything must be sacrificed to keep them safe from the next "flying inevitable". One can scarcely go through ten minutes of media without being bombarded by a child in distress. This repetitive narrative of the child in distress, however, only drives the same psychological niche for adults as the "damsel in distress" once did for the chauvenist culture, and is just as flimsy a vehicle.

Being concerned about the actual hazards a child may immediately encounter is crucial to human survival, but we seem to think being afraid of the foretold but non-existent "wolves in the fold" has something to do with it as well. It doesn't. It's a justification we created for ourselves. In general, those who are in their own minds powerful like to perpetuate fantasies of their own usefulness, stemming from arrogance. It doesn't matter who that powerful source is or whether that usefulness is needed, natural, or man-made. For adults, that fantasy manifests itself when we make ourselves feel useful for slaying the demons in our own heads out to possess our children (which probably don't pose any immediate threat to justify such a reaction), regardless of whether such a crusade is actually useful. 

It is hardly a revelation, as Nietzsche and Rousseau described the arrogant fantasy of the powerful in terms of social class in the 19th century, and Mill and Wollstonecraft in terms of indefensible sexism in the 19th and 18th century respectively. But I equivocate it now toward all adults who still maintain this ideology of superiority over all age groups below them despite hundreds of years of evolution on the "dignity of difference" between class, race, and sex. Why the feminists in particular ignored the similarity between the "child" and "damsel" "distress narratives" when they hurled criticism at the old self-serving male fantasy only speaks volumes about the limits of feminist critique. After all, women are adults too, and are served by the repetition of the "child in distress" narrative just as much as men are, if not more.

Instead, the myth of some "age determinism" of superiority and inferiority continues without reproach, with the justification that children ought to aspire to the adult example and adults ought to aspire to the child's. It is just assumed, by adults first and then by children, that this is a beneficial co-dependence between the age groups and that it is necessary, but it is neither. It's not instinct. It's in fact a self-serving ideology on behalf of those who created it--the powerful, the adults. It is created out of adult-centric culture. 

It's easy to see how superiority theories like this breed only inter-group contempt. While aspiring to the adult example as they are expected, children are taught to despise their childish nature, and while aspiring to the child's "innocence" as they are expected, adults are taught to despise their "adultish" nature. Neither is expected to appreciate who and what they are at either end of the developmental timeline, and they take their induced self-loathing out on the other group, be them perceived as superior or inferior. Sentimental sloganeering is constantly depicting children as "wide eyed" and "innocent," and proposing that if only adults could be like that, all our world dilemmas could be solved. While this is hardly convincing, it is pervasive, because adults and children alike will naturally seek out the positive traits of the other for their own sake, and condemn the negative traits of their opponent for their opponent's sake.

So I don't like to ever say one group is better than another group, because typically the group that assumes it is better is only better because it alone set the standard by which "betterness" is tested. Adults have always been powerful. They've always set the standards by which betterness is tested, so by their might alone, they are superior. And what have they done with their power? They've declared that only they are capable of using the power they've granted to themselves, and they remind themselves of this by reproducing the child in distress narrative.

But does not assuming that children are capable threaten to become an even worse imposition on children than assuming that they are incapable? After all, children and adults are different, you say, and wouldn't imposing the adult world onto children be just as bad as imposing the will of adults over them onto them? That kind of thinking, while overtly condemning ageist imposition, further establishes systemic ageist inequality. It is like dropping a weight down on one of two otherwise "conceptually" equal scales. To justify legitimate differences, the two must be given two different narratives? That only works when you can be sure you're not inadvertently disenfranchising one's differences and advantaging the other's in your distress narrative. 

Educator John Holt, in Escape From Childhood, wrote on how the assumption of capability in children only opens the doors for those who can, and does nothing to impose on those who can't or won't, so long as the initiative is voluntarily entered into. Right now, children are automatically involuntarily entered into the narrative as pawns in the adult's innocence game, and are thus stripped of their dignity as women once were, and rendered involuntarily defenseless despite their abilities. What in the chauvinist narrative, as it existed, advantaged a woman's dignity? And if you can't answer, ask yourself, what in the adult narrative of the "child in distress," as it exists now, advantages children? The answer is nothing at worse, or a negligible advantage at best, as perhaps one could argue that the "child in distress" narrative "motivates" adults to care about children. But the assumption of their inability affects every child through repression by its involuntary imposition still, while the assumption of a child's potential only affects those who rise to the occasion through voluntary inclusion, and in doing such, is not repression.

Because the adult narrative often disenfranchises youth and solely advantages adults (as it exists for their benefit), it shouldn't be tolerated as the sole paradigm. The narrative should only be justified when the inequalities between the age groups, or gender groups, or race groups, don't "consistently" manifest themselves along traditional power differentials. If the child is "always" the disenfranchised one, the meek one, the one being saved, when positioned in the distress narrative, and the adult is always the one in control, always the one doing the saving, then it is unjust inequality being represented. Likewise it would also would be unjust inequality if, all things being equal, it was assumed that only black children did poorly in school and had to be rescued by whites, or if it was assumed that only women become jeopardized and need to be rescued by men.

Unjust inequality is the imbalance between groups that exists due to human assumption rather than natural occurrence. It is one thing for natural inequalities to present themselves--for a black child to do poorly, for a girl to do poorly, or for a child to be controlled by an adult--but if any of those are the only paradigm ever shown, then one group is being unfairly advantaged while another group is being disenfranchised consistently. Individual variation is a good measure of natural inequality. If individuals vary from person to person, then all are equally being served and all are varying in their response. If a whole swath of people aren't being served to begin with, then there is no variation, just one group advantaging while another group is disenfranchised. That is not an acceptable "difference."

But adults have more self control, you say, and better cognitive skills, and superior strength. Should not adults take the initiative to rescue the weaklings? Of course they should, but only because it is intuitive that those who are strong look out for and protect those who are weak, and not simply because they are adults. If a child or young person happens to be strong and capable enough to take the initiative, why deny them only for not being old enough? To continue to misrepresent strong and capable young people as meek and defenseless only implies that one favors infantilizing them, and all the repercussions that causes, over empowering them, and all the benefits of that.

After all, it's not about believing one group is better than another group, it's about recognizing the differences between the two and affording them respective to their individual ability. The weakness of the adult narrative is that it ignores the possibility that capability is a human trait that everyone possesses to some degree, and instead tries to claim "capability" as its own entirely, and therefore the term "humanity" as well. There is nothing wrong with an adult taking initiative for a child in distress, so long as we recognize that there's also nothing wrong with a child taking responsibility for another child in distress, or an adult in distress, if they are capable of doing so, and we should depict all scenarios accordingly.

The question becomes whether or not children benefit from the adult narrative of "the child in distress," or if they are just the recipients of neutral, natural circumstances. Perhaps adults are inspired in some way from the repetition of the narrative to nurture their children, but even still, this isn't a satisfactory motivation. The best display of the adult's weakness is their need to justify their position of unquestionable authority (their so-called "maturity") by fantasizing about distressed and endangered children. If adults were truly matured, they would feel the requirement and responsibility to nurture the young the young people's sake, without having to resort to storytelling cliches that serve only their personal sense of pride, and ego.

Real Gender Equality

Seeing as it is International Women's Day, I figured I should clarify my idea of gender equality. It goes a little something like this: If males get it, females get it, and if females get it, males get it. For everything that exists, for every statement that can be made that includes any connection to males or females, of any age, the syntax should not be any different with the word "male," "men," or "boys," than it would be with the words "female," "women," or "girls." That is all there is to gender equality. If there is an International Women's Day, and it has widespread publicity, the same should apply to International Men's Day. If there is a "Girl Effect," there should be a "Boy Effect." If there is a "Women's History Month," there should be a "Men's History Month." There should be no "women and children first" policies any more than there should be "men and children first" policies. This is what the feminists envisioned--total 1:1 equality across the board, not just "rough equivalence." But is that what we have?

Gender equality should be like writing a novel full of stereotypical characters, changing the sex of every single one of them, and coming out with a story no different than before. Gender equality means that all human beings are people regardless of their sex, that sex is a biological assignment and gender is a cultural construction. There could be infinite genders, even if there are only two biological sexes, and none of those genders should be expected to correspond to any particular sex. Gender equality is not about erasing gender, just about erasing the barriers that hold individuals back from participating in the varieties of human expression, and having their needs responded to. It means that alimony, child support, and full custody, ought to be rewarded to stable men in a divorce once in a while. It means that men ought to be able to mentor girls just as women can mentor boys, because one's biological sex shouldn't determine what child can benefit from what adult.

Gender equality is about being able to say: "X's are typically strong, nurturing, aggressive, and emotional," and seeing that any sex, any gender, could substitute for X without causing you confusion. You should have no idea of what gender is being implied by the words "strong," and "aggressive," any more than "nurturing," and "emotional." If you truly believe in gender equality, these are qualities that any human being can possess. Gender equality does not mean biological sexes are the same, it just means that as far as culture is concerned, they should matter no more than eye color. A blue eye is different than a brown eye, surely, but does it matter what color it is so long as it sees? What is true for eye color should be what is true for gender. The sexes are different, but they should not be valued any differently. I support this extreme equality because it can be used as a thinking tool to disassemble all destructive social evaluations of males and females.

And valued differently they are, as the fetishization of the emasculation of men and boys carries on in popular culture, and the sexual objectification of women and girls continues to persist as well. If true gender equality is what we are striving for, then I will not rest until the fetishization of the devaluation of women and girls is carried out, and the sexual objectification of men and boys begins in full too. Since the existence of feminism does nothing to devalue the importance of men and boys, the same should be true in the reverse, and there should be no "feminism" without also a "masculism." There should be no double standards for men and women, at all--women should earn what men earn for the same positions and the same productivity (whatever the criterion is), and at the same time, women should not be permitted to abuse men, and there should be "Men's" shelters just as there are "Women's" shelters. What one gets, the other should get equally as much, across the board.

We could also just treat people with dignity, uphold that they are valuable, and deserve respect, based on who they are, and not what they are, but that has so far been outside our grasp as a culture. Seriously, if we can't say "International Human's Day" because to do so would be to strip away the significance of the day with a vague "human" label, then "feminism" has a long way to go before it can be considered truly pro-equality. Either we surrender to the total equality formula, stripping everything down to a vague and therefore meaningless "human" level, or we allow only equal distribution of resources and values to both sexes. Because I believe that males and females are equal, but different, I prefer the later.

Severity over Statistics

I don't believe in putting people down and hiding behind statistics to justify doing it. I despise that mentality of compartmentalizing people by numbers, or assigning respect by numbers, or thinking about people in terms of averages and percents rather than faces and names. Statistics is a tool used to justify the inequality of respect and reverence shown to human variation, particularly in regards to tragedy. It doesn't have to be that way, and it would be great to live in a world where people were people and received the respect or disdain they deserve regardless of what group they belong to and what the average crime rate for that group is, or what the average poverty rate for that group is, or what the average grade point average for that group is...etc.--but sadly, that is not the world we allow ourselves to live in. Individuals get credit or criticism based on the characteristics most common to their group, and statistics makes it possible.

Statistics is often used to engineer equality by pouring resources into a priority group at the expense of the so-called "stronger" group, but social engineering promotes nothing but unequal opportunity--mainstreaming for one, and disenfranchisement for the other. True "equality for all" means exactly that (if one values equality, that is), so you can't both organize to benefit or prioritize one group (ie. women/children/men/wealthy/poor...etc.) at the expense of another group, and still remain an egalitarian. But there's no question that the facts of a situation are indeed the facts--that men earn more than women for instance--but the general facts shouldn't blind us and keep us from respecting and observing that people do exist outside the "average." This we tend to forget as we cater to the mediocrity of the middle. Our minds fall prey to heuristics and stereotypes, ignorance rules the day, and statistics makes it possible. 

Furthermore, if it's wrong to claim about individuals, then it's wrong to claim about groups of those same individuals. Insensitivity is more than just being disrespectful to individuals, it should also include showing disrespect to groups of people. This isn't to say that we should censor ourselves, just that we should not tolerate disrespectful speech, even if the thrust of that disrespect is supported by evidence (statistics). We might agree that saying "Bobby is stupid," is insensitive, but how much less insensitive is saying, "the group that Bobby belongs to ("boys," for example) is a whole batch of stupidity"? We think we're good people when we dodge the bullet of hurting someone's personal feelings as we use statistics to justify our personal prejudices against the group that person belongs to, but it doesn't make it right, or valid, to do such. We ignore individuals and insult groups of humans en mass, and we think these numerical truths we are using to accomplish this categorization are doing society a service. They are most likely not.

I also believe in focusing on severity over statistics. Numbers are used as a form of distancing oneself from tragedy. To headline on "only 20 people killed"  kind of makes whatever happened in the story seem insignificant. That's a lot different than simply saying, "20 people killed." Likewise, if only one kid got raped in a juvenile detention center in the last hundred years, who am I to disqualify the significance of that for the victim by referring back to numbers--by saying, essentially, "well, it wasn't so bad, you were the only one in the last hundred years!" The point being, if it was severe enough, and it hurt the victim, then no other quantity should get in the way of that "fact". Severity over statistics. Bruises over averages. Humans over outliers. Cases over representative samples. People before numbers.

I think this constant need to frame tragedy in a numerical context is a defense mechanism built into us to maintain our personal perspective rather than have it subject to the full weight of the tragedy itself. This is normally supposed to be of great benefit to the human, but in these times of constant information, we find ourselves turning away from tragedy at a rate unseen in human history. When you read something appalling, you automatically search for reasons to discredit what you're reading so as to not have to feel upset over it, even if it's a minuscule piece of information missing, or any tiny part that may not relate to your personal circumstances (so you don't have to believe that it happened).

This is especially true if the victim is not your typical victim (a "man" getting raped, for instance). People only seem to get fired up about things when they fit into a preconceived schema (ie. "women are always victims"), and otherwise ignore and underestimate all else to distract themselves from the validity of the tragedy before them. In all truth, I don't know what is worse, a mind like mine (which tends to take all sources of information at their word), or the multitude of minds that need constant verification for every detail before they feel any human emotion, period.

If you can find a reason not to feel bad about something you see, do you not feel better as a result? You could say then that the reason we study things at all is so we can "feel" in control of a situation we feel powerless about. Instead of feeling that gut reaction of disgust regarding rape, for instance, we study it and put a whole bunch of numbers in our heads to persuade ourselves into thinking of it in terms of percents and averages rather than faces and names. And when we do that, we underestimate the names and faces, particularly those we have cast to the side as "outliers." We create a society, an organization, that caters to the statistical average, and not only ignores the "outlier" but even flat out mocks him, and takes pleasure in his dejected circumstance. The male victim of rape is one such outlier that is routinely mocked and underestimated.

People underestimate the human element in the rightfully quantitative social sciences. I don't. I concern myself with that which people underestimate.

More Honesty, Less Irony

Irony is the package that truth is delivered in, so that it can be palpable to comprehension. Contrary to what people think, truth is actually pretty simple, but it's impossible to comprehend due to its simplicity, so people invented irony to tease it out. When truth is delivered with naked honesty, it is feared at best and disregarded at worst. So society is full of irony, which is to say, pretense, which is to say, lies in the guise of truth and truth in the guise of lies. Our intuitions are always an honest representation of ourselves, but adults in particular (far more than children) are contented to bury their intuitions under false pretense for the purposes of keeping up appearances. Adult society is built by honest conviction that is delivered and made palpable by lies, self-deprecating humor, sarcasm, and ironic twists of personal judgment to fit in with prevailing cultural standards. If society decides to castigate or lynch a group of people, the individuals within it are more inclined to support that lynching with their love of irony, sarcasm, self-deprecating humor, and misrepresented values, than they are with their honesty and truthful conviction to their gut.

Truthful conviction and honesty tells us that all people deserve respect unless they have personally done something that amounts to a forfeiture of that right by their own discretion alone. For instance, our honest, truthful, "heart of hearts" knows by pro-social evolution that to disrespect an individual on the stereotypes or heuristics of the class, race, sex, or creed they belong to (or are perceived as belonging to) is shameful. Our intuition directs us to value some version of an equality standard for all, and not solely base an individual's inclusion in that standard on the perceived class or "group" that an individual belongs to. For most non-sociopaths capable of shame, it seems unconscionable on the face of it to show disrespect to someone for a reason having nothing to do with that person's own character or actions, but to circumstances totally beyond that person's control. This is not a novel concept to most people, so we have every reason to assume there is at least some truth to it, but let's see how irony will cause a person to break those very same conventions in the name dishonest truth, often for humor's sake.

Irony in the broadest sense is a narrative device where a circumstance exists for which an unexpected result occurs with the property of contradicting or going against the meaning behind the circumstance. It is usually easier to depict than to define, for instance: when a child and an adult are competing, and the inexperienced child outwits the adult, it is an ironic situation because it is not expected that someone of smaller experience would outwit someone of larger experience. Adults find such joy in irony like this because they have more of an experience with social conventions and like to see something that challenges them or contradicts them from unexpected sources. Girls outwitting boys, for instance, is another common trope, even now when we should no longer consider a girl to be an "unexpected source," but such is the backwards way with irony. 

Adults use irony to accomplish the opposite of challenging convention though, and deliver the "unexpected truth" by confirming convention only so much as to kill it with kindness. This forms the basis of most deconstructionist, post-modern philosophy. For instance, by saying something like "children are better than adults by their savagery," there is an attempt to combine "superiority" with "savagery" (an unexpected pairing), and children (traditionally considered to be pure and inferior to adults), with the same, for the purpose of exposing the more intuitive truth that "adults are no better or worse than children." But why all that diversion when one could have just said: "adults are no better or worse than children?" It's because that truth is made more thought-worthy when it comes dressed in a subtle poetic quip involving lots of comparisons. Blatant statements of belief mean nothing to anyone beyond the church pew, but lies that cover up truths seem to really cause people to stop and reconsider their thoughts. That is just how the secular world prefers its truths. But by confirming something that one does not actually support, even with the intention of laying bare some truth about it, one is essentially dressing a truth in a lie, which is to say, lying.

So human beings can get away with making the most ludicrous and crass statements, cast misguided judgement, purposefully misrepresent where their values lie, and get away with it, as I have done at times, by calling it "sarcasm" in the pursuit of a higher truth, or by being humorous. But where do we draw the line before we've totally divorced our honest intuition from our outward dishonest personality? Do we get away with saying that "boys are stupid" so that we may appear ironic for saying it and therefore be "interpreted" as saying anything supportive of girls? "Boys are stupid" will never be a supportive statement for anyone. Do we get away with calling a particular boy "stupid" because of the circumstance of his sex (which he had nothing to do with)? Do we get away with advocating for the lynching of ethnic minorities just so we can feel sarcastic and witty enough to be espousing truth in furtherance of tolerance? "Lynch him in a back alley" will likewise never be a statement endorsing tolerance, no matter how ironic it is perceived to be. 

It is not that sarcasm this hurtful should be outright censored though, just that those who speak it should be regarded shamefully. It is shameful to say something that contradicts one's better judgement, whatever that judgement may be. If we have to assume that no one truth exists, but that each one of us has our own truth, the best we can do is be truthful to ourselves as best we can, and that is called direct honesty. The truth does hurt, which is why we invented irony--to soften it, to make it more palpable, to make it humorous, to add distractions so that we're not forced to accept it as much as we'd like to--but the truth is always the truth and it can't be twisted, even if one doesn't agree with it. As much as the truth hurts though, dishonesty hurts more. When you are being honest by saying "peace on earth," chances are, it was dishonesty that lead the first battle cry.

Saying "equality for all people," is the only way of truthfully conveying the message of "equality for all people," even if it sounds comically vague or naive on the bare surface like that--but that is what the truth is! The truth is naive. It is simple. You can not arrive at "equality for all people" if you're going around, cheekily saying "girls are better than boys," for instance, because you know that statement, when expressed categorically in relation to a whole group of people, is false, and therefore, a comic lie. It is a statement of devaluation toward one group and a superficial support of another (not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of circumstances neither child had any control over) against your better intuition. You know you are lying when you say it, so why don't you feel shameful? If you are saying the opposite of truth--a falsehood---and if you know that it is false, then you are lying.

Adults don't think of irony or sarcasm as lying because they know a deeper truth is attempting to be exposed with its phrasing, but they only arrive at that conclusion because they have adult brain capacities. Ask any child what a lie is, and they will tell you about the time they lied to get away with something they didn't want exposed. In our case, what we don't want exposed is the truth, and instead, favor a pretense of falsehoods, lies, and sarcasm. How does that not describe, in its entirety, all that the sarcastic, ironic, hypocritical, pretense and illusion that the adult social world is built on?