Label Martyrdom and the War of One Upmanship

Are you a martyr for your label in a war of one upmanship?

Indeed, are not those of us who strongly identify with labels (race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.) also among those who strongly affiliate with label-centric causes? And don't those of us who strongly affiliate with label-centric causes insist on the preeminence of our agendas over those advocated by other label groups? In fact, don't those of us who champion label-centric agendas brandish our suffering as testimonies of our label-centric experiences, whereupon we elevate our agonies above all other torments? And should our personal label-centric sufferings require more heft to one up other label-centric crusaders, don't we guilefully rally the collective burdens of all of our label-centric brethren?

Which begs the question: has label-centric advocacy devolved into one upmanship vis a vis label martyrdom?

Because the appeal for peace, freedom, and equality for all, is not a label-centric appeal. Nor is it an appeal driven by label-centric experiences, history, or ideology. Despite emphatic protestations otherwise by label-centrists.

Like everyone, no one has ever not been prejudged, offended, mistreated, and oppressed vis a vis their race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc. No one. Label-centric crusaders who insist that only their label-centric brethren experience prejudice, offense, mistreatment, and oppression suffer from self-imposed myopia and abiding conceit.

Moreover, no one has ever not prejudged, offended, mistreated, or oppressed others vis a vis their race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc. No one. Label-centric crusaders who insist that their label-centric brethren are incapable of prejudice, offense, mistreatment, and oppression suffer from shameless narcissism and immeasurable arrogance.

Needless to say, our wherewithal to nurture and harm each other, vis a vis every label imaginable, heeds no label across time immemorial. For labels themselves possess no inherent virtue to inoculate us from myopia and narcissism. Nor do labels themselves possess any inherent virtue to elevate the suffering of some above and beyond others.

Rather than a superior means of empowering ourselves while substantiating our justifications for disproportionate considerations and preferential advantages -- labels are prisons of separatism that intensify our neurotic fixation with the solipsistic premise that no one but our label-centric brethren can relate to our label-centric experiences, history, and ideology -- and only our label-centric brethren and label-centric causes possess merit and value superior to all other label-centric brethren and label-centric causes. Hence, our war of one upmanship vis a vis label martyrdom is simply the logical evolution of label-centric myopia and narcissism devolving into xenophobic disengagement from our collective membership within the human community dedicated to enhancing the lives of every one of us.

More

The reality of -isms and -ists is heart wrenching to be sure.

But we rarely see -isms and -ists in their entireties. Instead, we filter our experiences so as to myopically exclude that which we refuse to concede -- realities of -isms and -ists that don't align with the one truth and the one reality of our label-centric experiences, history, and ideology.

For how better to reserve our deepest sympathies for our own label-centric causes and our coldest hostilities towards our label-conscribed antagonists -- than to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others -- on the basis of nothing more than labels?

- M.

Addendum

When conversations about label-centrism and label-centric topics are limited to label-holders -- we choose equal -- but separate -- at all costs -- every time.

For the solutions to our most dire social dilemmas do not exclusively exist within pods of homogeneous label groups. Because membership within a label group does not automatically make one an expert on any human dilemma, much less those that have plagued humankind for eons. Likewise, the mere lack of membership within one label group as opposed to another does not automatically make one oblivious, ignorant, or obtuse to the dilemmas that have challenged humankind for time immemorial.

Is it not conspicuously manifest that these 'truths' -- relentlessly proliferated by label-centrists -- are fundamentally incompatible with unity and equality for all? For as long we continue to obscure our communal humanness in favor of labels beyond all else -- we will continue to fervently oppose unity and equality for all in favor of their very antitheses: voluntary separatism and the zealous advocacy of disproportionate considerations and preferential advantages.

In the end, no #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc. makes anyone more than anyone else -- no more than no #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc. makes me or you more than you or me.

No label is more authentic and deserving than any other label. For isn't the underlying premise that propels our vainglorious war of one upmanship vis a vis label martyrdom the presumption that our labels merit the most extravagant remediation and reparation above all others, because our suffering is the most authentic and the most deserving of all human suffering? Is our conceit so rampant that it blinds us to the hardships and torments of others across time immemorial; is our arrogance so all-consuming that we refuse to acknowledge that we prejudge, offend, mistreat, and oppress others, solely on the basis of labels, as vilely as every -ist we facilely despise?

Indeed, our perseverative obsession with labels and vehement advocacy of label-centrism are as assuredly destructive as every -ism. For in our zeal to vindicate our label-centric fanaticism, we're all too eager to dissemble and condone -isms in service to label-centric martyrdom. Meanwhile, labels aren't winning the war of one upmanship: -isms and -ists are.

- M.

Note

In this example, the author's membership within a label group grants her carte blanche to trumpet -isms and -ists, with patent indifference: The Horrible Tale Of My One Night Stand With A Racist (BuzzFeed 10/24/15; note the title now reads: The Terrible Tale Of My One Night Stand).

Needless to say, while the author's overt -isms are jarringly offensive, especially in light of the author's characterization of her experience, the truth is that all staunch label-centrists commit egregious -isms. For in order to align oneself with any label, it's necessary to identify oneself as different and separate from other label groups, which, vis a vis label-centric self-empowerment, concurrently marginalizes and depreciates other label groups by varying degrees.

Otherwise, why differentiate and separate oneself by label, at all? Isn't the insidious corollary of label-centrism the premise that some label groups deserve compassion and sensitivity, while other label groups deserve antipathy and contempt, on the basis on nothing more than labels? How is this treatment of others -- moralized as 'deserved' -- based solely on labels -- not -isms?

While we are all different in notable ways -- when we inject these differences in between ourselves and each other and uphold them as intrinsic and resolute -- we fabricate immense intractable barriers between ourselves and each other. Thereupon, we rely on our capricious and ephemeral willingness to 'see' past our vast and disparate differences for the simplest of simple transactions, i.e. relating to each other as humans qua humans.

Is it really not beyond our capacity as human beings to see ourselves and each other as human, first and foremost, rather than [fill in the blank: #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc.]? For what's there to see past -- if we're all human?

- M.

On Peace and Taking a Stand for Tomorrow

When Jack Dorsey, the Co-Founder of Twitter was recently instated as Twitter's CEO, he tweeted:

"... What we stand for gives us purpose, and that purpose dictates our job ahead" (10/5/15)

Which -- while ostensibly noble (insofar as Jack Dorsey appears to believe himself and and his companies to be so) -- anthropomorphizes entities (in this case, corporations) whose purposes arguably rarely deviate from ensuring progressively greater financial returns to investors and shareholders.

On the other hand -- as a human credo --

What I stand for gives me purpose, and that purpose dictates my job ahead.

-- there's something intriguingly powerful about the implicit inferences within this unassuming string of fourteen words -- for what if the stand is a stand for the greater good, the purpose is a purpose for the greater good, and the job itself is a greater good?

The Stand 

If all of us stood for the greater good of all of us -- what heights could we not achieve?

Verily, would our hearts fester enmity and distrust, would our mouths espouse hatred and intolerance, would our hands tyrannize each other -- if our hearts, our mouths, our hands stood for the greater good of every heart, every mouth, every hand?

For hearts full of empathy, mouths full of compassion, and hands full of care are too intent on assuring a tomorrow for everyone -- to perpetuate mindless violence in service to a future for someone. For what else is violence -- but the actuation of narcissism? Certainly, if not our narcissism -- narcissism in service to someone or somebody.

The Purpose 

If all of us set aside our weapons -- our distortions, our solipsisms, our bigotries -- how could we not achieve peace in our lifetime?

If our souls refuse to ferment bigotries, our hearts refuse to succor solipsisms, our minds refuse to entertain distortions -- the fertile ground within which our present animosities thrive and flourish will wither into extinction. For violence within, begets violence without and all violence without germinates from violence within. Until we avow our internal landscapes of violence, we will fail to pursue conscionable peace -- within and without.

As for unconscionable peace? It is peace at gunpoint. For peace won though coercion and intimidation is tyranny masquerading as enlightened freedom.

The Job 

Lastly, what if our jobs were our lives and how we lived them -- whether we lived them for our selves and our personal advancements or whether we lived them for all of us and the greater good?

Surely, if we -- as creatures of incredible capacities for greatness -- concede the nobler imperative of life itself for all of us, the aspirations of transient titles to gratify vacuous identities and the affectations of transient successes to satiate avaricious egos would lose their prestige as preeminent ambitions. Because -- as creatures of awe inspiring inclinations -- we owe more to ourselves and each other than to champion our own comforts and pleasures to the exclusion of the greater good.

Rather, we owe ourselves and each other the gift of peace writ large. We owe ourselves and each other a tomorrow to treasure.

More

Who's taking a stand for tomorrow?

Label-centrists? Hypocrisy and solipsism -- endemic to label-centrism -- are incompatible with everyone's tomorrow.

Notwithstanding that we've been so unremittingly indoctrinated by label-centrists as to the righteous justness of our enlightened freedom, that our wherewithal to stand has dissolved into mute compliance and apathetic acquiescence -- if not you and me -- then who?

- M.

Addendum

While label-centrist agendas vie to upstage competing label-centrist agendas for disproportionate considerations and preferential advantages... who stands for peace and equality for all?

Case in point, every day there's a new feature by a major media outlet highlighting aggressions and microaggressions affecting label-centric persons and/or label-centric causes. Every day exemplifications of 'courage' amidst 'injustice'. Every day exemplifications of label-centrist appeals for peace and equality.

But...

Rather than self-empowerment... what if these features are exemplifications of self-aggrandizement via the aggressive advancement of label-centrist crusades for disproportionate considerations and preferential advantages?

Rather than courage... what if these features are exemplifications of ideological tyranny via the unreasonable presumption that dogmas espoused by label centric crusades are the one reality and the one truth to the exclusion of other realities and other truths -- sweeping intolerance of differences of opinion and dissent -- and hostile reprisal and retaliation against opposition from any quarter?

Rather than appeals for peace and equality... what if these features are exemplifications of label-centrist separatism via the overtly divisive xenophobia that propels label-centrist delusions of idealized homogeneity at all costs?

Then...

Isn't it possible that label-centrism fosters violence within via label-centrist intolerance and xenophobia? Isn't it possible that label-centric crusades perpetuate violence without via agendas drenched in ideological despotism? Moreover, isn't it possible that peace won at gunpoint by label-centrist coercion and intimidation is not peace at all -- that this tyranny masquerading as enlightened freedom is an hypocrisy of pretension?

Therefore, isn't it possible that when we abnegate our resolve to stand for conscionable peace -- by intention or torpor -- we concede to tyranny?

- M.

Note

Jack Dorsey's truncated tweet, referenced above, was posted here: Twitter Names Jack Dorsey Ceo... (TechCrunch 10/5/15). Needless to say, it bears noting that the ability to craft a corporate mission statement that imbues overtones of social good with self-promotional savvy does not necessarily lead one to assume that the statement maker (or the corporation in question) is a model of moral integrity.

In any case, with regards to label-centrism, our insistence on reducing our holistic humanism into arbitrary delineations by race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc. creates impassable bridges between all of us and each other.

Case in point: Wealth therapy tackles woes of the rich: 'It's really isolating to have lots of money' (The Guardian 10/17/15). Despite this article's ostensibly 'equitable' premise (viz. woe is a human experience, regardless of wealth), the author's inordinate fixation with illustrating wealth disparities in an article about therapy, hardly humanizes the gaping crevasse between 'the rich' and 'the poor' (not to mention, 'the poor' no more appreciate being labelled as such, than 'the rich'). Rather, this article corroborates and disseminates our label-centric bigotry vis a vis wealth.

Why does this matter?

Because articles like these illustrate how insidiously label-centrist propaganda amplifies our existing label-centric biases. For no true champion of freedom and equality condones the marginalization and denigration of a person or a group of people by virtue of their label -- including socioeconomic status. Period.

When everyone has a voice and a seat at the table, we can accomplish great things. Wondrous things. Like peace writ large and a tomorrow to treasure.

That's worth standing for.

- M.

Destroying Our Shrinking Credibility with Sound Bytes of Specious Data

The collection and statistical aggregation of label-centric data reduces the complexity of real realities into easily digestible sound bytes of statistical realities.

Why is this important?

Because it limits our ability to devise solutions to complex social problems by narrowing the scope by which we examine such problems, which, when insisted upon to inform and validate label-centric policies, chokeholds our ability to avoid self-referencing bias. In other words: when we examine complex real realities via statistical realities, not only do we limit our viewpoint to one lens of a kaleidoscope, but we also rely on this singular viewpoint to inform and validate the use of single lens label-centric statistical processes to uphold label-centric policies.

Thus, when the use of label-centric policies is defended via label-centric data while label-centric data concurrently validates the use of label-centric policies -- at what point do we exit this revolving tautological morass to explore the breadth of social problems through the multi-lens kaleidoscope of real reality?

The mere use of a tool to identify a problem does not automatically validate its use as such a tool -- no more than the mere use of a tool to validate itself does not automatically validate any problem it identifies.

Moreover, the process by which label-centric data is categorized, the process by which label-centric data is aggregated and manipulated, and every process in between is rife with limitations that circumscribe the veracity, accuracy, and utility of label-centric data to inform and remediate label-centric social problems.

The Whole Picture

At best, data and statistics are tools of mathematics and science that have been misguidedly appropriated by label-centric advocates to advance label-centric social agendas. At worst, without clarity, rigor, and ethical scrutiny at the helm of label-centric data collection and statistical aggregation, they are beguiling tools of label-centrist propaganda.

Slicing the Pie

In order to make sense of extraordinarily complex phenomena, comprehensible mathematic and scientific inquiry carves reality into digestible slices. In the case of label-centric data and statistics, this includes devising arbitrary systems of classification that confuse arbitrary delineations with intrinsic differences, i.e. race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.

In other words, our bias of label-centrism informs our statistical systems of classification while affirming our preexisting label-centric preconceptions. Thus, when label-centric data and statistics confirm our preexisting label-centric biases, our single lens label-centric viewpoints become further entrenched by the false sense of credibility inferred by the use of an ostensibly scientific tool.

Tools for the Job

Unfortunately, while data and statistics are effective tools for mathematical and scientific differentiation, they are extraordinarily inept for cohesion. In other words, the value of statistical tools overwhelming scale with regard to statistical significances of differences. As for similarities? More often than not, conclusions of statistically insignificant differences are demonstrations of similarities by default rather than intention.

Not to mention that when arbitrary systems of label-centric classification lead to the collection and aggregation of label-centric data that propose or conclude that statistical differences exist between label-centric groups -- statistical processes afflicted by label-centric biases often fail to adequately address statistical differences that exist due to meaningfully real realities inconsistent with label-centric agendas. Instead, such differences are elevated as definitive proof of label-centric injustices requiring label-centric advocacy.

Numbers Are Sacrosanct

Through a process akin to money laundering, we've transformed a fallible mathematical and scientific process amenable to oversight, corrections, and improvements into an unassailably impartial stone tablet upon which incontrovertible facts are carved in service to label-centrist propaganda.

Thus: when label-centric crusaders launder bad data into good data -- whose reality is real -- and whose reality is fabricated?

More

Data is far from simply data. In the case of label-centric data, it's never simply data.

In the case of Jane Elliott's infamous 'brown eyes blue eyes' experiment, label-centric advocates would've collected label-centric data by eye color, because that was the definitive label that ostensibly separated the children in her class from each other. In so doing, such data would've demonstrated a measurable difference between these two groups vis a vis classroom performance and social adjustment.

However, we recognize Jane Elliott's classification of her students by eye color as an absurd and arbitrary delineation. Exactly as she intended. Yet, we perform such arbitrary classifications of ourselves and each other every day. Is that not what race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc. are? Arbitrary classifications that fuel label-centric equal but separate bigotry?

So: if Jane Elliott's classifications are absurd... why aren't classifications by race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc. absurd, too?

- M.

Addendum

The power of label-centrist propaganda to manipulate innocuous tools to advance self-serving agendas is so insidious, that we often fail to acknowledge that (1) it exists; (2) it influences our thoughts and decisions; and (3) it reinforces our label-centric intolerances.

In the end, what's more honest than a number? Isn't that what label-centric propagandists proselytize? That label-centric numbers are label-centric facts and label-centric facts are label-centric truths?

As long as we continue to believe that label-centric data is simply numbers cum facts cum truths -- we will fail to look behind the curtain where so-called truths are deftly massaged into digestible sound bytes for our mindless consumption. Indeed, when label-centric data is used to advance preferential considerations and differential advantages -- how likely is such data to be unadulterated?

Furthermore, how likely are any of us to know whether or not or how or if any data is adulterated? For adulterated data is indistinguishable from unadulterated data. In fact, despite the deluge of data driven sound bytes with which we're ceaselessly inundated, few modern uses of label-centric data are accompanied by total clarity (i.e. robustness of study design, validity of variables, integrity of data collection, etc.), including an appalling obfucation of the ridiculousness of 'representative' samples (i.e. n vs N and n(1) vs n(2)) upon which label-centric assumptions of label-centric injustices hinge.

Also concerning? The resounding absence of forthright disclosures regarding statistical predictability and reliability with regard to conclusions derived from label-centric data. Notwithstanding that label-centric data and statistical analysis rarely 'conclude' anything. Despite the fact that label-centric statistical analysis, in service to label-centric agendas, often merely (1) infer the existence of label-centric differences (which label-centric advocates decry as 'injustices') and (2) infer a possible relationship between our labels and label-centric 'injustices' -- label-centric data is resoundingly misused to conclude the existence of label-centric 'injustices' vis a vis our labels.

The bottom line? If label-centric biases drive our label-centric data -- how trustworthy and infallible is our label-centric data? And if label-centric data drives our label-centric remediation of label-centric injustices and if label-centric data is our proof that label-centric injustices exist and that label-centric advocacy is appropriate and just -- how incontrovertibly certain are we that injustices exist vis a vis labels and advocacy is just vis a vis labels and remediation is efficacious vis a vis labels?

In fact, what if label-centric data is label-centrist propaganda? If so, would we sanction its use to inform and validate social advocacy and public policy? Because we do. Moreover, what if label-centric data as an insidious tool of label-centrist propaganda surreptitiously corroborates our label-centric intolerances? If so, would we rely on it to inform our personal thoughts and decisions, as well as our public positions and policies of advocacy and governance?  Because we do. Ultimately, what if label-centric data hinders human advocacy via overt and covert dissemination of bigotry? If so, isn't label-centric data problematic for the advocacy of equality for all? Because, in the end, isn't human advocacy unequivocally more conscionable than the advocacy of equal but separate?

- M.

Note

When candidates for the highest political office in America offer propagandized data to confirm a reality that we've already presumed a priori to be true (especially vis a vis our ideological alignment with numerous label-centric crusades) -- what does that say about our candidates, our label-centrism, and us?

Read more: Fact check: The first Democratic Debate (USAToday 10/14/15) (content originally posted here at FactCheck.org (10/14/15)).

One of the hot topics of today is the 'gender pay gap'. Yet, while unadulterated label-centric data does show statistical differences of pay across gender -- unadulterated label-centric data does not definitively conclude that this difference is wholly due to gender or gender bias. Period. Any such conclusion is a distortion of both statistical realities and real realities. Rather, there are a multitude of complex reasons why statistical differences exist within the unadulterated data for pay vis a vis gender.

Nevertheless, propagandist distortions like the derivative conclusion above are often guilefully crafted to propel tone-deaf label-centric crusades: Women are more likely than men to go to college, but still get paid less by Jillian Berman (MarketWatch 10/10/15). Advocacy for higher pay vis a vis gender within the singular context of women who've attained college degrees spotlight how self-righteously label-centric advocacy elevates self-serving label-centric agendas over far more grievous realities. (Likewise, advocacy for equitable pay vis a vis gender within the singular context of performers who earn millions highlight the overweening solipsism endemic to label-centric crusades.)

- M.

At All Costs: How Label Centric Separatism Whitewashes Tyranny

Now, more than ever, the rallying cry for voluntary, social, and institutional separatism is virulently vehement among social crusaders who propagandize statistical realities. For only via statistical realities are inequitable policies whitewashed as remedies for social injustice.

But what if statistical realities aren't real realities?

Insofar as the argument to collect label-centric data doesn't stem from knowledge for knowledge's sake... no more than the collection and statistical aggregation of any data, stems from knowledge for knowledge's sake... the collection and manipulation of any and all data is always motivated by an agenda that benefits someone. (Not to mention that the practice of collecting and manipulating any and all data is also arguably always biased by an overt intention to divide all of us from each other, via the most dramatic illustrations possible, especially as the value and validity of statistical realities overwhelmingly scale with regard to statistical significances of differences not similarities.)

So: who benefits when label-centric data is gathered and aggregated? In other words: who asks for and who receives preferential considerations and differential advantages when label-centric data statistically validates label-centric social causes (ostensibly via statistical realities)?

Is not our insistence on classifying ourselves and our subsequent crusade to martyrize ourselves via the collection and manipulation of label-centric data, merely an elaborate justification for the reinstatement of separate but equal policies and institutions? Is that not what all label-centric causes ultimately advocate -- at all costs -- that we are all equal -- but separate?

Is separate ever equal?

While we ultimately decided, as a country, to eschew our flawed adherence to separate but equal policies for their repugnant institutionalization of inequality... did we also, as a country, ultimately muster the courage to reject separate but equal norms... altogether? What else but these anachronistic ideologies of inequality paved the way for modern social crusaders to unswervingly advocate voluntary separatism via separate but equal agendas vociferously cloaked in self-righteous legitimacy?

No staunch data point nor stridently determined anecdote can obscure the fact that when label-centric data is used to sanction institutional inequity via separate but equal policies and institutions to ostensibly remedy label-centric injustices -- nobody wins and everybody loses.

Isn't an injustice always an injustice, regardless of motive? For motive no more transforms an injustice into justice, than the aggregation and manipulation of label-centric data transforms statistical realities into real realities.

Across time immemorial, tyrants have used this perverse logic, of injustices to redress injustices, to defend the most appalling of villainies. So is not the zealous endorsement of this indefensible logic by label-centric crusades, nothing less than the sanitization of tyranny masquerading as moral superiority and justice?

More

Until we renounce our obdurate insistence on the preeminence of labels over people as humans first -- we will continue to champion voluntary, social, and institutional separatism -- thereby creating a climate anathema to equality for all. For is equality for some, really equality for all -- or is not equality for some, despotism for all?

Until we acknowledge the tyranny inherent to the practice of moralizing the defense of wrongs to remedy wrongs -- we will continue to tyrannize each other -- in the name of righteousness and justice. For if label-centric crusades achieve the moral high ground through deceptions and perversions, are such crusades really on the moral high ground -- or are not such strategies the tell-tale tactics of tyranny?

Until we lay down our arms -- the institutions, the norms, and the labels that we've manipulated and distorted to justify our weaponized war for inequity -- we will continue to harbor the mistaken belief that our label-centric crusades are morally just. For when label-centric crusades silence any and all dissension, including voices that illuminate label-centric distortions of logic and morality -- voices of peace are silenced in service to nothing less than ideological despotism.

Until...

- M.

Addendum

Isn't it ironic that the rationalizations for label-centric remediations of label-centric injustices advocated by the most adamant supporters of label-centric crusades, echo the propaganda of tyrants, despots, and fascists throughout history? Yet, isn't it also ironic, that the mere suggestion of this fitting parallel evokes virulently vehement hostility from label-centric crusaders whose militant fanaticism also rationalizes the suppression of any and all opposition?

Moreover, isn't it possible that hashtags divide us -- more than unite us? For isn't it possible that label-centrism is separatism masked as self-empowerment? In fact, aren't countless label-centric crusades inaccessible to many on the grounds that only select someones possess the inalienable right to wave label-centric flags? Furthermore, aren't such movements inherently exclusive with regard to who benefits from the preferential considerations and differential advantages advanced by label-centric social causes? Which begs the question: isn't this practice of selectively preferential treatment nothing less than the appropriation of unjustly prejudicial practices against which label-centric social causes so vociferously contest?

Therefore, isn't it possible that the equality and unity delineated by label-centric crusades are nothing more than elaborate deceptions? And aren't those of us who propagate label-centric agendas -- complicit in this deception?

- M.

Note

Think the oppressed never usurp the unjust practices of their oppressors? One need only compare the persecution of Christians in Roman times to the Crusades of the Middle Ages. It took less than a thousand years for persecuted Christians who martyred themselves as righteous at the hands of pagan oppressors -- to morally defend their persecution of those whose differing religious beliefs led them to martyr themselves as righteous at the hands of Christian oppressors.

Isn't this still happening... in the name of #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc.?

Not to mention: isn't this why we clamor for the ruin of individuals demonized as oppressors for egregious comments that are vilified as oppressive by label-centric activists? Simply Google any profession loses job over comment (i.e. "scientist loses job over comment") and observe how social media maelstroms in favor of public ruin are vociferously upheld as just victories of label-centric crusades to redress social injustices. (Examples of social media character assassinations are highlighted in: The price of public shaming in the Internet age, by Todd Leopold (CNN 4/16/15).)

When equal but separate at all costs agendas ruthlessly rationalize the destruction of livelihoods and protracted public defamations of people who are as human as you and me, such overtly tyrannical misdeeds exemplify the intrinsic hypocrisy of label-centric crusades. For justice gained via persecution and intimidation is tyranny wearing the emperor's new clothes.

On the other hand: 'Children of the aggressor': the Japanese war babies adopted by China by Harumi Ozawa (Yahoo/AFP 8/12/15).

- M.

The New Separate But Equal: How Cultural Competence Legitimizes Inequality

There is an idea that shackles us from solving the most difficult of social dilemmas: cultural competence.

Not only is cultural competence itself a suspect concept, our derivative assumptions vis a vis cultural competencies hinder our ability to recognize resources masked as incompetencies. In other words: cultural competence is the legitimization of bias.

For some, culture is a term interchangeable with race. For others, culture is a term interchangeable with a variety of factors, including socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.

So: who is more competent to assist an LGBT couple seeking family counseling?

Anyone? Or a professional who demonstrates competence with regard to family counseling? Or someone who professes the same races, socioeconomic statuses, ages, genders, national origins, religions, marital statuses, educational attainments, sexual orientations, etc. as the individuals seeking family counseling?

What if this LGBT couple were African American? Which dimension of cultural competence would be essential for this family? Race? Sexual orientation?

What if this LGBT couple recently emigrated from Nigeria? Which dimension of cultural competence would be essential, now? National origin?

What if this LGBT couple belonged to the Catholic church? Would cultural competence for this family be defined as: Catholic, Nigerian, LGBT, and African American?

Meanwhile... why do we assume that one person who is Catholic, Nigerian, LGBT, and African American possesses the cultural competence to negotiate family therapy with another person who is Catholic, Nigerian, LGBT, and African American?

Moreover... why do we assume that one Catholic person possesses cultural competencies vis a vis all Catholic persons... or one LGBT person possesses cultural competencies vis a vis all LGBT persons... or one African American person possesses cultural competencies vis a vis all African American persons?

Aren't assumptions like these little more than -- sanctioned biases?

Isn't it possible that cultural competence is, itself, an empty term? For how can membership in any group automatically confer competence? Isn't this the real fallacy of cultural competence: our unswerving refusal to see people as people... in order to see people as labels? Not to mention, our pernicious refusal to see our very selves beyond our labels.

Imagine the resources we would have at our disposal, if we recognized the brilliance and capacity for understanding, empathy, and care, within people who do not possess the same labels as those for whom they feel compassion and kindness. Imagine if we eschewed the fallacy of label-driven bias and embraced human generosity from every quarter. Wouldn't a step like this... bring us closer to peace and equality for all... than the zealous defense of separatism?

More

I am not [fill in the blank: race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.].

I am human. Aren't we all? I belong to the world. Don't we all? I don't belong in a box. And neither do you. For no matter how content some of us are, to flourish within our self imposed limitations, boxes irrevocably separate each of us from each other... and no membership within any group is worth the harm that ensues from entrenched separatism. No label is worth the misunderstanding and bigotry of separatism... nor is any life lost worth the zealous defense of self imposed boxes.

So: what if all of us... stopped living in our boxes...? For an hour... or a day... or a year...?

That's a future worth fighting for.

- M.

Addendum

The problem with the occupy Wall Street movement, the feminist movement, the black lives matter movement, the LGBT movement, the autism movement, etc. is the self imposed separatism that these social causes promulgate.

Ultimately, none of these movements are movements of equality, so much as they are movements of preferential bias that benefit one label over another. In the end: everyone is on the same side. When we take sides, we blind ourselves to solutions to social dilemmas that benefit everyone.

No one deserves to be marginalized. No one deserves to be disenfranchised. No one deserves to be persecuted. Yet, in our zeal to rectify social injustices, we often devise remedies to social injustices that propagate sanctioned biases, which further entrench our existing separate but equal separatism.

The solutions to social dilemmas, problems, and injustices identified by label-centric movements begin with bankrupting the social currency of labels and embracing our collective membership within the human community dedicated to enhancing the lives of everyone.

Nevertheless... as long as we maintain the delusion that labels are meaningfully empowering... and as long as we abet label-centric biases vis a vis label-centric social causes... we will continue to sabotage our efforts towards real social good.

- M.

Note

Think I'm overstating the harm of remedying social injustices with social injustices? In order to improve access to the Ivy League for some students, other students with more than appropriate (let's be honest, more than exceptional) qualifications, are denied access on the grounds of bigotry and bias. Moreover, because these students rarely incite riots and advocate violent acts, their injustices never bubble into hot topics or water cooler fodder: The Model Minority Is Losing Patience (The Economist 10/3/15).

Needless to say: haven't enough people died for the civil rights of everyone in America -- for social injustices like these separate but equal policies to be categorically antithetical to our American social values?

Sadly, any time that labels matter more than people -- social injustice is rife -- and ivory tower luminaries are no more immune from the myopia of label-centric biases than anyone else.

- M.

Modern Feminism: Equal Opportunity Misogyny

A quick perusal through social media will reveal the appropriation of feminism, by the most unlikely of social justice warriors, for less than plausible injustices... so: what does feminism stand for... today?

While the right to vote seems reasonably appropriate as a platform for gender equality of yore... feminism now, vis a vis our privileged American society, pits women against each other, in service to the personal aggrandizement of modern feminists. For rather than recognize the realm of personal decisions as personal, modern feminists excise private (and often deeply complex) considerations from contextually personal domains to the domain of public scrutiny, in order to commend their own decisions, opinions, and proclivities... while marginalizing, disparaging, and shaming women who favor differing decisions, opinions, and proclivities.

Rather than feminism for all women, modern feminism propels an agenda that excludes women, as resoundingly as male misogyny. So: is the ugly truth of modern feminism, its rampant practice of equal opportunity misogyny?

Case in point, how is a feminist's refusal to validate a woman's right to a career sanctioned by a male misogynist (i.e. full time homemaker), no less problematic than a male misogynist's refusal to validate a woman's right to a career sanctioned by a feminist (i.e. CEO of a Fortune 500 company)? Aren't such exclusions by modern feminists, antithetical to the spirit of feminism, which values all women? Not to mention the irony of modern feminists who purport to "lean in"... while dismissing the incalculable contributions of women who eschew leaning into the corporate rat race in favor of leaning into their families.

While our privileged American society frowns on social media displays of male misogyny, isn't the constant criticism levied on women by modern feminists, for not leaning into suitably feminist herds, itself, a form of intolerant bigotry?

In the end, it's not surprising that modern feminism has devolved into misogynistic chauvinism. For women swayed by the allure of power and financially measurably success are no less invested in disempowering and devaluing invisible hordes, than anyone else... for achieving remarkable personal fortunes, at the expense of others, is an emphatic virtue, equally embraced by men and women.

More

I am a humanist first and foremost, as every social issue that touches a human being, is a human issue - not a male issue or a female issue or a black issue or a white issue or an American issue or an alien issue. Until we embrace humanism, our society will continue to sabotage any effort towards real social justice and real social reform.

Why?

Because - when labels come first - we abnegate understanding, empathy, and compassion towards others - in favor of interests that serve us. Meanwhile, self serving interests invariably backfire and handicap our ability to devise solutions to social dilemmas that serve everyone. Nevertheless, as a society that worships heroes, demonizes villains, and cocoons victims in swaths of oversensitivity, we will never achieve that state of enlightenment that acknowledges the hero, villain, and victim in all of us.

- M.

Addendum

Too often feminism promotes the masculinization of women's roles, careers, and achievements... insofar as we categorize roles, careers, and achievements as masculine and feminine. Nevertheless, the fact remains, that when it comes to conversations about women's roles, careers and achievements, we often remove these conversations from their appropriate contexts (which are often importantly meaningful)... in order to legitimize the propagation of decisions, opinions, and proclivities that align with feminist agendas.

Unfortunately, these agendas are often incompatible with the choices of women who meaningfully chose differing paths. While many women appreciate their options, in this modern era... the reality persists that many women chose not to lean in for a variety of complex reasons. Moreover, it is perplexingly confounding that feminists choose to marginalize, disparage, and shame these women for choices that are as right for them, as they are for those who choose to lean into the allure of power and financially measurably success.

Meanwhile, for every woman who bemoans disparity (i.e. the pay of actors vs actresses), what is missing from these water cooler conversations, is context. Not every example of disparity is unwarranted, nor is every victim of pay disparity a woman. Don't men who are paid less than their peers, deserve the same considerations, as women who are paid less than their peers? Likewise, don't we expect those who contribute less time and work towards a corporate bottom line (i.e. vis a vis movie revenue), to earn less, regardless of gender?

Nevertheless, if every person who resists the insistent thrum to join the corporate rat race, suddenly stopped following their hearts and "leaned in", full throttle... what a cold egoistic world this would be... for men and women.

- M.

Note

The phrase "lean in" is a reference to the form of feminism advocated by Sheryl Sandberg in her book Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead (2013).

Think I'm overstating the rampant misogyny of homemakers by modern feminists? Here's an example: Stay-At-Home Mom Facing Divorce? Don't Expect Alimony (Forbes 10/27/14), by Emma Johnson. Needless to say, this attitude towards full time homemakers encourages the unbridled disparagement of women who often struggle to enter or re-enter the corporate work force after their careers of leaning into their families -- a stark counterpoint to our insistence that women of today are free to choose any career.

Sadly, women are all too capable of rationalizing intolerant bigotry under the guise of modern feminism. For while the spirit of feminism encourages every woman to have a voice, modern feminists are all too eager to silence nonparticipants and dissenters of "lean in" feminism... regardless of gender.

- M.