I can't stand it when people say that the right to moan is retracted from a person if they have white privilege, male privilege, etc. Being privileged does not make you any less human (at least not by that
reasoning alone) and therefore pain, suffering and any other negative
feelings are not eliminated from a privileged person's life. Of course there
are things that people should, for the most part, shut the fuck up about and be grateful for what they have - not having enough
money to go out or buy ‘stuff’, that kind of thing - but all pain is
relative.
As an example: imagine a white, able-bodied, heterosexual man from a wealthy nuclear family feels he is being victimized at work. The feelings of low self worth and unease will begin to have a negative impact upon his emotional well being, as they would anybody, regardless of background or any other physical, social or cultural attributions. When a person is faced with a challenge such as this, no amount of reasoning or reflecting on the good things in life will result in relief entirely. It is natural for the mind to focus on an obstacle and therefore give less attention to things that aren't causing an issue so the mind can best formulate a way of overcoming that obstacle. That is not selfish, it is logical, and if his social circle is made up of people similar to him in every way besides not being victimized at work then there will be no unbiased perspective. The issues will be magnified and his focus will become more and more introverted because of the unpleasant circumstances into which he has been forced.
The man should not be told he does not have the right to discuss this openly if that is what will alleviate his suffering in some way. By very definition, empathy should not be exclusive. He may for the most part be better off than 99% of the world population but if he feels pain either at the hands of someone else or through no fault of his own then his suffering is just as valid and deserving of sympathy as anybody else’s. If confronted by the unimaginable issues many people the world over face daily - living in a war zone, functioning despite perpetual fear and going days without food and water - then his feelings towards being victimized at work would probably change; the problem would seem minute by comparison. This, however, should not be the basis upon which to decide whether or not someone is worthy of their worry. Justification by comparison is a dangerous thing: you would not excuse someone of the murder of one if they claimed that Stalin was responsible for the death of millions and so their actions 'weren't that bad really'. The same logic (though extreme) can be applied here.
Just because someone possesses attributes that fit the criteria of the social or cultural elite (for want of a better word) does not mean they are unable to suffer, nor does it mean their suffering should be dismissed. There will always, in every walk of life, be people ready to exploit and hurt those around them for either their own gain or sick enjoyment and in turn, suffering is not limited to a particular type of person.
Who the fuck assigned themselves the right to dictate the way people are allowed to feel anyway ? It's admirable to be proactive in seeking out equality and not being ignorant to the suffering of others despite their problems being far removed from your own. This does not, however, make you a good person necessarily, nor does it mean you are worthy of casting judgement upon others. After all, the fight against inequality is surely built on the idea that all humans should be treated equally, regardless of the factors beyond their control, and this should extend to both ends of the social spectrum.
It would be fair to assume that the 'anti-elite elitists' such as those above have at some time or another in the recent past complained about a headache or temporary sickness of some kind - by their own logic, should they be disallowed this 'right' because there are people dying of terminal cancer ? Of course not, because all pain is relative.
There isn’t a ‘sympathy’ or ‘suffering’ quota; the people that care about others have enough ‘care’ to go around.
As an example: imagine a white, able-bodied, heterosexual man from a wealthy nuclear family feels he is being victimized at work. The feelings of low self worth and unease will begin to have a negative impact upon his emotional well being, as they would anybody, regardless of background or any other physical, social or cultural attributions. When a person is faced with a challenge such as this, no amount of reasoning or reflecting on the good things in life will result in relief entirely. It is natural for the mind to focus on an obstacle and therefore give less attention to things that aren't causing an issue so the mind can best formulate a way of overcoming that obstacle. That is not selfish, it is logical, and if his social circle is made up of people similar to him in every way besides not being victimized at work then there will be no unbiased perspective. The issues will be magnified and his focus will become more and more introverted because of the unpleasant circumstances into which he has been forced.
The man should not be told he does not have the right to discuss this openly if that is what will alleviate his suffering in some way. By very definition, empathy should not be exclusive. He may for the most part be better off than 99% of the world population but if he feels pain either at the hands of someone else or through no fault of his own then his suffering is just as valid and deserving of sympathy as anybody else’s. If confronted by the unimaginable issues many people the world over face daily - living in a war zone, functioning despite perpetual fear and going days without food and water - then his feelings towards being victimized at work would probably change; the problem would seem minute by comparison. This, however, should not be the basis upon which to decide whether or not someone is worthy of their worry. Justification by comparison is a dangerous thing: you would not excuse someone of the murder of one if they claimed that Stalin was responsible for the death of millions and so their actions 'weren't that bad really'. The same logic (though extreme) can be applied here.
Just because someone possesses attributes that fit the criteria of the social or cultural elite (for want of a better word) does not mean they are unable to suffer, nor does it mean their suffering should be dismissed. There will always, in every walk of life, be people ready to exploit and hurt those around them for either their own gain or sick enjoyment and in turn, suffering is not limited to a particular type of person.
Who the fuck assigned themselves the right to dictate the way people are allowed to feel anyway ? It's admirable to be proactive in seeking out equality and not being ignorant to the suffering of others despite their problems being far removed from your own. This does not, however, make you a good person necessarily, nor does it mean you are worthy of casting judgement upon others. After all, the fight against inequality is surely built on the idea that all humans should be treated equally, regardless of the factors beyond their control, and this should extend to both ends of the social spectrum.
It would be fair to assume that the 'anti-elite elitists' such as those above have at some time or another in the recent past complained about a headache or temporary sickness of some kind - by their own logic, should they be disallowed this 'right' because there are people dying of terminal cancer ? Of course not, because all pain is relative.
There isn’t a ‘sympathy’ or ‘suffering’ quota; the people that care about others have enough ‘care’ to go around.
No comments:
Post a Comment