While driving across Northern BC today in a snow storm we had a conversation about; May, her supporters coming here and the resulting chaos in 2 threads in the feminist forum. Out of this conversation, I started writing down thoughts about how it made me,and others whom I have shared it with, perceive and feel about it all.This is the end result, enjoy, be amused, be bored, hate it whatever you choose. Yes, its a bit lengthy but so is the fight for equality.
Condescending Paternalistic Chastisement: An Erroneous Sense of Entitlement and Control.
Condescending Paternalistic Chastisement is a passive aggressive control method, used by some humans, upon other humans, in order to control and dominate that can be viewed as a form of mental and emotional abuse, and results of this abuse can be seen in instantaneous reaction, and in long-term psychological effects. Moreover, if bought into, by those whom it is inflicted upon, a heightened sense of entitlement and desire for control of others occurs within the perpetrator(s) themselves.
There are degrees of underlying intent and meaning in paternalistic chastisement such as: demeaning, condemning, dismissing, ridiculing, and threatening, all of which impact upon; the receiver(s) of the chastisement, be it an individual, proximal others, or society at large.
For example the phrase: “the tone I hear in your words does not foster a midway point where dialogue and consensus can occur”, seems fairly benign when one first reads it. It may even sound reasonable and one may desire to fix that tone in order to facilitate consensus. That is until one realizes that there can be no dialogue, or debate, upon a woman’s right to self-determination. Furthermore, this type of thing being conducted in the feminist forum should mean that the condescending paternalistic chastiser doesn’t have a legitimate platform to stand on. One could say: “one is being condemned and abused in one’s own home, just for saying it’s one’s own home.
Another, less subtle Condescending Paternalistic Chastisement, would be: “you are not listening to me, you won’t let me tell you that your failing to communicate why men should not be allowed to discuss ways, to address the pro-choice’s polarization of the issue, where WE all can find a midway point.” Then there is the good old: “people know me/others are reading…. and they won’t be impressed that you are being so emotional about this and being unkind to me.”
The sense of entitlement, for control/power, in these instances could be just the shutting down, or deflecting away from a topical communication. Either between senders and receivers, or a larger audience/group, may it be peers or other just by off topic commentary. Defame the person = define the issue on paternalistic ideology.
A more insidious and reprehensible purpose could be the lowering of self-esteem, and imposing a sense of inadequacy to divide and conquer. These erosions of self can be accomplished with a nuance of “underserved humiliation” such as: “one is just being emotional” or “frivolous”. They are such simple comments at first glance, aren’t they? Look beyond the surface and one can see they serve to spark a subconscious emotional response to the old “insane/hysterical female”, or “incompetent woman” labels. Such labelling comments, and their implications, put out by the Condescending Paternalistic Chastisers are abusive and diminish and/or dismiss the voice of women. But it is only effective if one allows the diminishment of one’s own self-worth, or others, by buying into any of it.
It would be hoped, that "real" progressives across Canada, challenge the Condescending Paternalistic Chastisers on their hubris each and every time, and put a halt to the verbal and emotional abuse they dispense. This ideology has reigned for far too long in the world and can be seen as a major destructive force upon society both past and present. Let's NOT take it into the future with us!
Email this thread to someone!
posted 16 December 2006 03:35 AM
