Do not mistake caste for hatred

| Thursday, May 30, 2013
Quick disclaimer: Caste isn't quite the word I'm going for.  Maybe disdain works better.  Hopefully context will do the trick.

 I'm seeing hatred pop up a lot lately.  Someone hates gay people.  Someone hates women.  It's usually wrong.  The problem is not one of hatred, at least not initially, and so to diagnose it as hatred is to attempt to treat the wrong disease.

The true problem is one of dogs.  Let it be known that I love dogs.  They're a species that co-evolved with humans, evolved to accept us and be accepted.  I do not think dogs should be abused, starved, or even left alone and unloved.  Yet I also do not think that dogs deserve the right to vote.  I believe they should pee outside.  They should stay out of the flowers.  They should not bark excessively.  As much as I love them, I also have rules for them and will attempt to keep them following these rules.  That's not a euphemism for abusing dogs when they break the rules.

Are women so different?  Well, obviously.  In my mind at least.  I'm guessing in yours as well.  But what about in the mind of the supposed hater?  I'm guessing they don't actually hate women.  Instead, they regard women as something somewhat like dogs: beings of varying intelligence that we have the right to order around, and in fact it is the natural order to do such.  The issue here is not hatred, but caste.  Women are placed in an inferior caste and are therefore subject to certain treatment.  They'll be stared at (or worse (much worse)).  They'll be kept out of professions.  They'll be portrayed a certain way and told to fit that portrayal.

Hatred may happen, but when?  Only a select few monsters beat a dog that behaves.  A much wider group of monsters beat a dog that misbehaves.  Here enters the hatred, directed, not against women, but against those women who misbehave.  Few people like to think of themselves as hateful.  Call them hateful and they'll reject the idea and anything that goes along with it.  In their minds they're simply putting dogs in their places.

The problem is the rules.  What are the rules?  Are they reasonable?  Who wrote those rules?  Who enforces them?  Should those rules even exist?  What's so natural about the natural order and even if it is natural, does that make it good?

This isn't a problem just for women, but for gay people, black people, and anyone who doesn't fit the rules, or doesn't want to fit the rules but does out of fear.  Some people hate gay people, but the wider problem is the rule that men must have sex with and marry women.  I used to believe in that rule.  Then I stopped caring much if people broke that rule.  Eventually I wondered why that rule even exists.  Seems like a pointless rule.  Like so many.

Of course, accusing someone of following stupid social rules doesn't have quite the same ring to it.  Maybe it can.  Regnusantiquisphilia is a mouthful and doubtlessly grammatically incorrect, but it's a start.


Ephemeron said...

I believe the word you're looking for is "Dehumanization".

Klepsacovic said...

That's it!

Unknown said...

Caste was much better actually, you should stick to it. If you say caste, you have a valid point about societal structure and expectation that can be applied to many groups, not just the ones whose status it's become fashionable to fight for.

Klepsacovic said...

Caste might work better. I'm wary of the concept of groups being "fashionable" to fight for. There may be trends of awareness and activity, but to use the same term we'd use to describe which color to wear this year places it in the wrong context and makes advocacy seem insincere and undeserved.

Post a Comment

Comments in posts older than 21 days will be moderated to prevent spam. Comments in posts younger than 21 days will be checked for ID.

Powered by Blogger.