Laura McKenna notes that it's difficult to conduct a debate within the constraints of 140 characters. That doesn't stop people from attempting to do so. The problem with many sharp-sign, er, hash-tag (why does that sound like a price sticker in a Colorado pharmacy?) campaigns is excessive aggregation. Perhaps it's more accurate to think of such devices as stereotypes. Rush Limbaugh decides to provoke his listeners, essentially proposing #notallmoslems as analogy.
You have one male go nuts here, and every man is capable of what this guy does, right?  Now, follow me on this, the way the feminists and the way the media and everybody else portray it, so Elliot Rodger goes nuts and that becomes symbolic of what every man is capable of.

And yet when militant Islamists blow up the World Trade Center, what's the first thing we're told?  Now, don't judge the whole religion by this, no, no, no, no, no.  These are just some isolated events with some isolated malcontents.  But you let some Looney Tune go nuts in a sorority house or wherever he went nuts, and all of manhood is indicted.
An Uncle Tim at Time suggests that "not all men" is a derailment tactic. In making that claim, he only makes it easier for the Perpetually Aggrieved, whether of the feminist or the boutique multiculturalist ilk, to antagonize people who might otherwise be sympathetic to arguments such as "it's easier for men to get away with being boors" or "the people of the book have more in common than not."  Cathy Young sums up what follows.  "But the worst possible answer is a toxic version of feminism that encourages women to see themselves as victims while imposing collective guilt on men." Indeed.

No comments: