Harvard prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. has been making an ass of himself by getting as indignant as he is over his arrest, but he does make a point, if not the one he’d like it to be. Gates is alienating a lot of people by suggesting that his arrest was racially motivated even though everybody knows that a white guy would get the same treatment if he yelled at the cops, but what he’s doing actually makes good sense.
Sometimes it seems that American politics almost guarantee that no progress can be made, because everything bad that happens to a person is always viewed as something bad happening to whatever group the individual belongs to rather than to society as a whole. We’re all guilty of this to some extent, but if you look around, it seems that it is the only thing that works well: you identify what group you belong to and rally people to its defense by airing grievances. This has worked for women, minorities, homosexuals, you name it…
As identity politics have come to dominate the country, making noise has become one of the most effective ways to gain any measure of fair treatment. If you don’t scream, holler and carry on, chances are that nobody will care when the cops arrest you for something pointless like failing to show the proper respect to an officer. You’ll go to jail and probably get fined and sentenced to community service. At this point, Gates’ charges have been dropped, yet he is still demanding an apology for being subjected to what befalls hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of Americans every year. As a Harvard professor, he’ll probably eventually get one.
As distasteful as Gates’ behavior may seem, one has to look at the results. What he did was the most sensible thing to do as an individual and as a member of his group (blacks). Police will now be more careful about arresting black men for disorderly conduct, which is often a bogus charge used to justify arresting people who happen to annoy the officer, and the Cambridge Police Department will probably be extra-sensitive about bothering Professor Gates.
This brings me to men’s issues. As we know, men go to jail all the time. Fathers are thrown in jail for losing work and falling behind on child support, men are thrown in jail over false domestic violence allegations — often merely for defending themselves from violent partners, and men are also arrested and jailed for trying to contact their children despite ex parte restraining orders. What’s the difference between these men and Professor Gates? They mainly keep their mouths shut. They suffer in silence.
Perhaps this is an aspect of cursed chivalry; that stoic tendency to bear injustice without complaint. But is it doing anyone any good to give injustice a free pass? Is it good for children when their fathers don’t put up a fight for the right to be an equal parent? Maybe part of the problem is that men don’t know who to complain to. They may complain to a judge or the police, not realizing that it is these people’s job to coerce them into shutting up and doing as they are told. Instead, they should be out in the streets, calling radio talk shows, calling representatives, getting on TV, writing blogs, talking to reporters, etc. They should protest and make noise, preferably in large groups. If they do get arrested, they should try to get the story in the news. That’s what works here in America.
So, men, I say go out there and make a nuisance of yourself, just like Professor Gates. Demand apologies, rail about injustice, and make plenty of noise. If you don’t, you’ll just be sitting in front of that judge all alone, and too many of us are all too familiar with that.
15 responses so far ↓
1 alphadominance // Jul 23, 2009 at 8:06 am
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Men need to be their own advocates because nobody else is going to be.
2 Justin // Jul 23, 2009 at 8:38 am
Damn right, Welmer. Never comply with anything, that is my philosophy.
What we really need is organization. Without organization and numbers, we will continue to get what we are getting.
3 Calvin // Jul 23, 2009 at 9:38 am
It definitely is part of the whole stoic chivalry thing, but it’s also important to note that there’s a lot of pressure for men to “defect” from any sort of organized men’s interest group.
As the society tilts more and more in favor of “alpha” types, any kind of display of grievance from men, no matter how honest and just, becomes viewed as a sign of “beta” style weakness. So individual men, who’ve been made more self-conscious by society as far as how “alpha”, dominant, attractive to women, they are, face enormous pressure to avoid the taint of something that depicts them as weak “betas”, and a big incentive to defect from a large pro men’s org.
4 Welmer // Jul 23, 2009 at 10:56 am
What I’ve heard is that it’s such a messy, depressing business that guys burn out on it. Plus the money isn’t there. It’s kind of hard to be an activist when your ex is harassing you through court all the time, and the judge is ordering you to turn over all your earnings.
I think a return of private fraternal organizations of some sort is in order. Guys need their space, and they need some way to organize in a comfortable atmosphere where they don’t have to worry about appearing “beta” around women.
5 Lukobe // Jul 23, 2009 at 11:06 am
Excellent points, Welmer. Silence just doesn’t work anymore, if it ever did.
But…
“They should be out in the streets, calling radio talk shows, calling representatives, getting on TV, writing blogs, talking to reporters, etc. They should protest and make noise, preferably in large groups. If they do get arrested, they should try to get the story in the news.”
Streets: check, although I bet there’d be harassment, and a march would probably attract a bit of an unsavory element.
Radio talk shows: kind of like preaching to the choir. Also, see above re “unsavory element.”
Calling representatives: Not sure how much good it’ll do in coastal districts, but I do suppose if enough people call in to D.C. or their state capitals they’re going to have to pay some attention.
Getting on TV: Easier said than done, of course. But I guess you do cover that under “protests.” I’m just afraid something like this could turn violent.
Talking to reporters: What reporters?
Writing blogs: Now this is something that can have real impact, though I am afraid that there are a lot of people who should be reading your blog who simply don’t. Don’t read much at all, don’t read on the Internet, what have you.
Nobody ever said it was easy, of course, and your main point stands. Anyone who wants change has to either be vocal about it or support someone who can.
6 Calvin // Jul 23, 2009 at 11:35 am
“I think a return of private fraternal organizations of some sort is in order. Guys need their space, and they need some way to organize in a comfortable atmosphere where they don’t have to worry about appearing “beta” around women.”
I totally agree. The traditional male organizations of generations past have all been dismantled by now though, in the name of gender equality, “inclusion”, “diversity”. New private fraternal type organizations are necessary.
The major challenges I see to this are the diversity/gender equality mongering power structure that dismantled the old male institutions, and the societal pressure that attacks anything that might appear “beta”.
Not only will the state and public institutions seek to attack any resurgence of male organization, but social and female pressure will come out to stigmatize the male orgs as filled with disaffected “beta” males, weak angry men, homoerotic, etc.
Perhaps secret societies could do some good. While there’s no public display of organized male power, which of course is desirable, it could assuage fears of men who would be uncomfortable with publicly acknowledging their participation. And it could perhaps induce a greater degree of honor.
One major downside, among others, of course is the whole defection thing. If the group became publicly known, it would be under attack, and a disaffected member may find it in his interest to go publicly against the group, and earn fame, public approval from women and the dominant gov’t and public structures.
7 Lukobe // Jul 23, 2009 at 11:56 am
Aren’t groups like Elks, etc., still male-only?
8 Derek // Jul 23, 2009 at 11:58 am
There was a scene in Malcolm X where a group of black Muslim men marched in perfect military formation to first confront the cops and then to the hospital to support a member that the cops had almost beaten to death. The movements where clear, crisp, and threatening.
Only Malcolm X did any talking and he did it in a non whiny, non girlishly, cool as ice manner backup by an army of men. The discipline and power displayed by the men following him made all the presentation that was needed to force the cops to deal with his demands. I think actions of this nature play to our strengths as men, not the whiny protest shit.
9 Lukobe // Jul 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I remember that scene. (Great movie, BTW.) Of course, Malcolm X ended up dead and his movement ended up splintered, but that doesn’t take anything away from the power of that scene.
10 Justin // Jul 23, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Uh guys, that was a MOVIE. It did not occur that way in real life. Frankly, it is just part of the media agenda of strengthening the image of the minority male.
The overall point is correct, though: the only way we will get attention is by taking it to the streets. Organization is the solution!
11 miles // Jul 23, 2009 at 5:53 pm
“Instead, they should be out in the streets, calling radio talk shows, calling representatives, getting on TV, writing blogs, talking to reporters, etc. They should protest and make noise, preferably in large groups. If they do get arrested, they should try to get the story in the news. That’s what works here in America. ”
Yep. When a child-support reform law was up for a vote, a big crowd of men with bullhorns would scare the daylights out of the legislators.
12 Reggie Greene / The Logistician // Jul 23, 2009 at 9:26 pm
We have three observations about the Harvard professor incident:
1. We find it interesting that the fact that this was the professor’s home was evidently not established early on way before the dispute escalated;
2. We find it fascinating that the versions of two members of society, who most would ordinarily view as responsible and honest citizens (this obviously does not include politicians), would vary so dramatically from a factual point of view.
3. Finally, considering that the reading and viewing public were not present at the scene (and thus have no first hand knowledge), and that there is no video tape to our knowledge of the sequence of events and what was said, how so many have formed conclusions, and made assumptions, about who did what and who was wrong.
There are some things which Professor Gates might have considered upon the arrival of the police, no matter how incensed he may have been.
13 icr // Jul 24, 2009 at 6:50 am
Yep. When a child-support reform law was up for a vote, a big crowd of men with bullhorns would scare the daylights out of the legislators.
You’d better make sure you have a contingent
of blacks and hispanics in the group. Any gathering of white males who are don’t fit into the elite or SWPL categories is seen by the MSM to be a probable crypto-Klan rally.
14 Welmer // Jul 24, 2009 at 6:55 am
Given how many black and Mexican guys get nailed by the courts for unrealistic CS, I don’t think that would be too difficult.
15 Zencommand // Jul 29, 2009 at 5:01 pm
And, I thought I lived in America.
It is my right ON MY PROPERTY to speak to a police officer any damned way I please.
Just who the hell do these cops think they are?
In a public place – OK different story. But in MY HOME a cop can quickly be a trespasser if he doesn’t behave him/herself. I am the who’s in charge at my home regardless of the uniform and badge worn by ANYONE.
This is not a two-way street – a cop, like any guest, is required to behave in the way I see fit. I, on the other hand, am not required to reciprocate. It’s my kingdom and my rules. Period.
Leave a Comment