Disadvantage leapfrogging is childish

 

When you want equality with those who are doing well, you might think you have a clear case. There are privileged people out there who have far more and have reached that state far more easily. Who could begrudge you a place at the top next to them?

The answer is the people you displace. The world is not divided into two categories: you, with your disadvantages, whatever they may be; and perfectly-privileged people. There is a great range of people all with their own internal and external impediments.

If you look at the people at the very top, for whom life has always gone well, and demand a seat at the same table, you are not demanding general equality. Those people who have everything will remain at the top. It is the people below them you will replace. Those who have struggled against something, whether it’s as big a challenge as your own or not, and who have only just scraped over the line. You will shift everyone a step down the ladder as you leapfrog them all.

We could get into arguments about who started further down the ladder; about who is most deserving of a leapfrog effect. But these disadvantage Olympics are foolish. If you think that someone else’s disadvantage is minor compared to yours; if you fear that their self-advocacy will detract from your chances at getting help, or you insist that they must help you up before you will support them, then you are avoiding the bigger picture.

The real issue is why there is a top table and people down below: it’s why we’re not all starting from the same point, and that the wrong people do seem to get to the top. If you can’t see that then you are too stupid for the top. If you do see it but prefer to advocate for your own self-interest only then you are realistic about the way society works, but too selfish to deserve a place at the top.

It is true that there is only so much attention for political issues, and it’s also true that smaller political issues are easier to get support for. Wide-ranging changes affect too many people; it’s more likely that there will be losers and the losers will feel any loss more keenly the more other people benefit. From a practical point of view it makes sense to limit your demands to the smallest possible arrangement that satisfies your needs.

From a moral point of view, however, it looks a lot worse. A campaign for women in the boardroom is great, as far as it goes. And maybe we shouldn’t even expect women to look out for anyone except themselves. But if an autistic man, or a poor man, or a disabled man (etc.) joins a conversation noting that he would like to be in a boardroom too, and anyone tries to put him down, the moral high ground is lost. The more voices clamouring for equality the better, and if you fear that the issue will grow too big for your own ambitions to be achieved then you are not really interested in equality. That is wanting to be the privileged group while others remain below you. It is not wanting to liberate the slaves, but to give us new masters.

On top of all this, the practical response from humanity about having a subset of differences decreed to be acceptable is to regard other deviations from normality as that much worse. If some abnormalities can be explained by specific conditions that the weirdos can't help, that makes the rest of the weirdos that much more culpable for their wanton nonconformity. It's the "I'm gay but it's ok because gays can have exclusive, long-term marriages too: we're not complete maniacs like those asexual, French or polyamorous people" argument.

I see the resentful, spiteful attitude of wanting to be the new privileged group in many modern portrayals of feminism by avowed feminists. Many women know that they have been held back, and like bullies some lash out at everything indiscriminately. Adored male characters must be humiliated; male aspirations and desires ridiculed. Men must be put down in every way and women built up. There is no good masculinity; men are inherently oppressors, an original sin that only solemn abasement to doctrine might absolve. So what if men die early, get less education and are the majority of rough sleepers? Who cares about justice? It's women's time to be on top.

Such behaviour is an easy target, so I do feel a bit guilty for taking a shot at it. Some things ought to be too low to waste time on. Yet it seems to be a strangely long-lived attitude, still prevalent amongst active campaigners and media creators. If you think it’s cool to be sexist as revenge for historic sexism, you’re a sexist. And an idiot to boot, since even tiny children understand that collective punishment is unjust.

For some feminists, none of us is truly an individual and we are all representatives of our group. Notions of individual responsibility and experience are patriarchal oppression. I have yet to see a coherent argument for understanding humanity as hive minds, or a few separate hive minds, nor any justification for any one arbitrary selection of groups for us to represent (how about 26 groups for names beginning with each letter of the alphabet?), nor even a good practical justification for how acting on such a basis will better achieve any goal, let alone a just outcome.

For some people, conflict with others is natural and everything is a competition. You fight with the weaker to stop them outpowering you and you fight with the strong to defend yourself and get their power. You must be not only 'right', but the most, or only, 'right'. The centre of attention; the locus of power. For those of us who are not privileged enough to wield material power directly, being a locus of power means controlling which ideas are the ones all the disadvantaged people fight for and promote, and the obvious choice is the ones that benefit you the most. The idea of removing such power from everyone is horrific: what purpose would there then be for all the fun conflict? Without using everyone else’s political clout to promote your own issue how will it ever get addressed?

Collective action, not collective responsibility. Key difference.