” ‘Yes, young people are usually blind to everything but their own wishes, and seldom imagine how much those wishes cost others,’ said Mrs Garth….
‘I cannot conceive how it could be any pain to Mr Farebrother,’ said Fred, who nevertheless felt that surprising conceptions were beginning to form themselves.
‘Precisely; you cannot conceive,’ said Mrs Garth, cutting her words as neatly as possible.”
~From Middlemarch, by Mary Ann Evans (aka. George Eliot), p. 218
As the official Idiot Guides love to say, “You’re no idiot, of course.” The vast majority of men are not idiots when it comes to the effects of their actions. We’ve all had plenty of opportunities over the course of our lives to figure out when our actions cause harm to others.
In fact, most men know when they are harming women, and the proof is in the tactics they immediately employ in order to avoid blame. If a man was truly naive to a harm that he had just caused, then he would be caught off-guard when confronted with it. The expertise employed by people hiding behind their “intentions”, and their dextrous ability to deflect responsibility, betrays their true understanding of cause-and-effect, and of the power their actions have.
Rather than trying to “educate” those who already know what they are doing, I’ll use the Idiot’s Guide motif to pick apart the shield of “intentions” and show how the privileged use it to silence the unprivileged and legitimize abuse.
The shield of “intentions” is simple to summarize: if you didn’t mean to harm someone, then everyone is suppose to let you off the hook.
For anyone out there who wants to defend the idea that “unintended consequences” are less serious than “intended consequences”, consider the fact that the consequences remain the same regardless of whether or not they were intended. A house will remain burned down whether or not one intended to start the fire. Premeditation means nothing to a murder victim.
If you are still felling sympathetic for “unintended consequences”, perhaps this blatant rip-off of the Idiot’s Guide format will help clear up any remaining confusion about this basic concept of social justice.
The Idiot’s Guide to the Principle of Intentions vs. Effects
Chapter 1
The Invention of the Intention
Sometimes the best way to understand something is through an example. Let’s take the ‘controversy’ surrounding the New Yorker cover of Barak and Michelle Obama that came out a few weeks ago. [1] Now all the brouhaha seems revolve around whether or not the cover amounted to an attack on Michelle and Barak Obama, or an ironic mockery of their detractors. Now, for reference, here is the cover that caused the controversy:
Now according to the press, this cover is a lot like the Rubin Vase. Is it a cup? Or is it two faces? Is it Obama bashing? Or is it irony? You may find that your interpretation of the picture shifts every time you stare at an article discussing it.
Chapter 2
Weighing the Sides: Let’s Reflect on the Effect
Since the cover seems so hard for people to interpret, let’s instead try to step back and examine the two sides of the controversy.
Did You Know That: To help the privileged, every controversy in life can be conveniently boiled down to two easy-to-stereotype sides. And to make things even easier, the minority view is always crazy or evil! (see the Privilege to Define Everything, and the Privilege of Unquestioned Majority).
From here, we can look at both sides to see whether or not the cover amounted to an attack on Michelle and Barak Obama. On the side claiming the article was an attack, we have the following evidence:
- A lot of outrage online that the cover is not satire.
- The NAACP condemns it, NOW condemns it, and many others condemn it.
- Nut jobs are using the cover as ammo against Barak and Michelle.
- 10% of Americans still believe Obama is a Muslim.
And on the irony side, we have:
- Well, the author said it wasn’t an attack on Obama. So you’re an idiot to believe otherwise: “I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.” [Emphasis added] [2]
With such equally compelling arguments on both sides, how are we to judge the effects of the cover?
Jay Sez: Remember that the Author’s intentions will have little to no effect on how people interpret the cover, so it is likely that the author stated his intentions as part of an effort to avoid blame for the consequences of his work.
How did we get to the point that a single white man’s word, backed by no other evidence, could stand up solidly against a chorus of opposition? How did such an obvious case of Michelle-and-Barak-bashing get stymied in a “controversy” that lets the cover’s creator off the hook?
Chapter 3
Putting It All Together
Here’s an interesting observation: Mr. Blitt did not offer any solid evidence that he was against the fear-mongering rhetoric. And why should he? Our Patriarchal society never expects men to prove that their intentions were genuine (see the Privilege of Not Being Judged). A man’s word is trusted by default. Mr. Blitt did not need to show us an Obama 2008 bumper sticker on his car, or a donation receipt to the Obama campaign, or even a simple montage of past cartoons that skewered republicans. All he needed to clear his name was make a single statement to the press that his intentions were not to encourage fear-mongering. (I doubt Arianna Huffington would ever be let off the hook that easily!) His statement of good intention is all we need, right? And since he intended no harm, there was no foul, correct?
Not so fast. Even though the cartoonist never owned up to any harm, harm was still done by this cover . But as we have seen in the case of the New Yorker, any act committed against an unprivileged individual isn’t a crime unless the privileged perpetrator [3] says it is! This isn’t justice, this is Hierarchy. And since the words used by women to rebut men’s intentions are regularly rewritten by men, this is Patriarchy.
Chapter 4
What The Privileged Need to Do
The Principle of Intentions vs. Effects simply asks that we take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, whether we intend them or not. The alternative is to retreat into the life that Patriarchy offers: a the guilt-free and conscience-free infantile existence supported by Male Privilege.
If you do not wish to retreat from the life of an adult, then you must ascribe to the Principle of Intentions vs. Effects, and give up the Male Privilege to define the feelings of those that you have wronged. You can start by fighting the urge to contest every single complaint that anyone ever has about your actions.
Admit it, you don’t take complaints without a fight. But, come on, every single time? Human beings are immensely fallable creatures. You can’t be right 90% of the time, because no one is! Just think about the last time you screwed up majorly. Did you gave your wife/girlfriend/mother trouble when you were confronted? Even though you were the one who glued the refrigerator shut? Well that has to stop! Don’t worry, you’re not “whipped” just because you finally decided to listen to someone besides yourself. That’s actually called maturity.
Considering complaints against you without automatic retort may bruise your to your ego a bit, but trust me, you will grow into a better human being because of it. You’ll also stop screwing up so much once you start acknowledging your mistakes and learning from them (This is unlike the show Home Improvement, where all mistakes and their morals were conveniently forgotten in time for the next episode.). You will also enjoy the added bonus of seeing newfound happiness in the faces of your close female relations as you finally acknowledge their legitimacy to have opinions that matter.
Also, stop using phrases like, “that’s not what I meant”, or “I’m sorry you feel that way” every time you screw up. Instead, learn to apologize for real. If you truly regret something, then be sorry for the actions or words that caused the offense, and change your actions in the future.
And if you still find yourself balking at these simple and basic requests, then you may want to consider how you already take responsibility for the unintended consequences of your actions elsewhere in life. Do you wear a seat belt? Do you own collision insurance on your car? Do you say, “my bad” to your male buddies when you screw up, or do you say “that was not my intent”? It’s likely the former. If you’re fine with owning up to unintended consequences in these cases, why not the rest of the time? Why not with women? Unless you desire to ride high on a tide of injustice and oppression, you must give up the privilege of defining the consequences of your actions on the backs of those who were hurt.
Extra Credit Time!
Here is another of Mr. Blitt’s covers:
Now what does this cover say to you?
A: “Nothing! I feel nothing except whatever Mr. Blitt says it depicts. Can he tell me what it means?”
B: “DUUUDE! AHMAD IS SO GAY!!!1!”
Appendix A:
Intentions vs. Effects for Right-Wingers
If you still find it hard to see the effects of the New Yorker cover, let’s see what happens when we turn the tables around. Vanity Fair recently ran this cover:
Would you believe me if I said that the author intended to highlight the ridiculousness of attacks against McCain’s age? Didn’t think so.
The Least You Need to Know:
In the delusional world of Male Privilege, men’s actions never have consequences, no matter how blatant they are, until the male culprits themselves say they do!