What I think about 'be kind'

[Iknowitisheresomewhere]

This is inspired by the webchat yesterday with Stella Creasy and Caroline Nokes where 'be kind' was used.

I don't think 'be kind' works well when you are talking about groups of people. Being kind requires knowledge of what another person wants or needs, and also has connotations of 'helpful' 'doing a favour' or 'allowing someone something to which they are not absolutely entitled'. It works best on a one-to-one level.

For example, it might be 'kind' in one situation to speak loudly as the person you are talking to can't hear very well. In another situation it would be kinder to speak quietly because someone is very sensitive to noise.

You could not therefore say 'it is kind to speak louder' because sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

Therefore a simple 'be kind' doesn't work without knowing who is being asked to be kind to who.

It doesn't work in a conflict of rights situation because being kind to one person is not being kind to another. It also requires clear acknowledgement of what behaviour is 'kind' (going above and beyond what is necessary) and what is simply 'right' (giving someone what they are entitled to).

If someone points out that a Muslim women would not want to share a changing room with a transwoman, 'be kind' gets us precisely nowhere, because being kind to one is not being kind to the other.

'Being kind' implies that there is also a time and a place where not being kind is OK. 'It would be kind of you to share those sweets with your brother' implies that there are other times when sharing would not be required.

What we are generally discussing is a situation where (generally women) are bing told to 'be kind' to transwomen but the recipient of the kindness feels that it is their right, not a favour.

I really don't know why any politician would think it is a solution to a genuine societal problem. Deaf people wouldn't want politicians to say 'please, television companies, be kind to deaf people and subtitle your programs'. Noone wants to rely on kindness.

The problem was that she did know how it would be read here, she said so, and did it anyway.

Completely underlining the point that only a certain cohort of women are ever asked to set aside their beliefs, fears, arguments. And can then be derided and/or ignored when they choose not to obey!

I am being kind, certainly far kinder than Nokes and Creasy. I'm treating transpeople as the equals they are (as opposed to a sacred caste) and I understand that women are equal human beings too with rights and interests that may not be ignored or overridden.

I can get behind "don't say or do things you know to be cruel", but "martyr yourself to other people's feelings" can fuck right off.

Be kind seems to mean don't say something that other people disagree with or hurts their feelings. It requires you to know what the other person wants/believes. Which just means defer to others at all times. Which means the bullies carry on bullying without being challenged.
Perpetuating a lie isn't kind. It just makes the pain greater when the truth bites you on your arse.

'Be kind' means, almost always, 'woman, subordinate yourself'

It is never a command issued to male people. No. Is the short answer.

'Transphobic'..... well let's face it. We're now at the point where it means nothing more than 'displeased me'. It's not even 'did not do as they were told' or 'said no' any more, as you can err without even realising or intending to. The intolerance within it is breathtaking.

It demonstrates the utter hypocrisy in 'be kind' which as mentioned many times above, is never seen as a reciprocal value. Such as 'be inclusive' now means 'exclude females'.

Hello 1930s. How odd to see you here.

Every time I read 'be kind' I now hear this song:

Pisses me off that the moral of every single kids story and KS1 lesson seems to be ‘be kind’. It pisses me off, because every time I read it to them, I have to stop and explain that they have no obligation to be kind to anyone - that sort of statement without exceptions makes them vulnerable to people who may wish to do them harm or trample on their boundaries. I tell them they should be respectful - unless someone shows them otherwise and have boundaries, but saying all of this in words they understand is hard going. Whereas ‘be kind’ just trips off the tongue and is all too easy for adults to use (it’s lazy) because the kids understand it. But telling kids to be kind without exception undermines all of the safeguarding work done over the last 20 years.

I am being kind, certainly far kinder than Nokes and Creasy. I'm treating transpeople as the equals they are (as opposed to a sacred caste) and I understand that women are equal human beings too with rights and interests that may not be ignored or overridden.

Yes. Don't that bunch talk about "intersectionality" a lot? All those different axes of oppression/privilege or whatever.

Asking that sex be one of the axes considered doesn't seem like it's being terribly unkind.

But the core of the movement we're facing is demanding that sex be removed from consideration - erased from this intersectional consideration. Despite being the most fundamental immutable characteristic of any human (or other species of mammal). How unkind is that to those that might be on the oppressed end of that axis? (Oh, but we'll keep that axis around, sort of, and call it gender, and use it for other purposes, but sorry, it's not about female people anymore. )

Clearly women are the most oppressed group here because they're the only group being explicitly told they can't even have an oppression axis. (And it's not as if there's a shortage!)

And I don't think anyone here would suggest that being "trans" should not be considered - obviously people calling themselves "trans" or claiming "gender identities" may have particular issues, and should face no discrimination. They should already have this protection in law, both under "gender reassignment" and/or "belief".

Is there any reason why, say, women in Stella's constituency couldn't join the Labour Party in sufficient numbers and remove her? I know in my own Labour CLP the current MP has been under a lot of pressure and has only managed to survive by three votes. I have no idea if that's typical of other CLPs.

Is there anyone in Stella's constituency who knows how things lie there? How many women might it take? It would send a message to Starmer that we are serious. It's democracy in action, isn't it?

I can't believe I'm suggesting trying to remove a female Labour MP. The fact that I am indicates how strong is my sense of betrayal by Labour.

Yes. Don't that bunch talk about "intersectionality" a lot? All those different axes of oppression/privilege or whatever.

Asking that sex be one of the axes considered doesn't seem like it's being terribly unkind.

This. People who ignore biological sex are not "intersectional" in the slightest.

People who ignore biological sex are not "intersectional" in the slightest

They also wholly ignore real oppression as if they're not aware of such things but just repeating learned phrases.

Can you imagine if TQ+ people came in floods to tell those two MPs their greatest and most pressing questions and concerns for their group and were hushed, deleted, told to let others speak, scolded for not being kind?

It would have been head tilts galore and much promises to listen and think, and horror that such strong feelings had arisen from such bad treatment and rushing to show support.

Isn't it funny how Be Kind is written all over "girl's" clothing while clothing aimed at boys have Gamer Forever, Skate or Chill.

They also wholly ignore real oppression as if they're not aware of such things but just repeating learned phrases.

What a thing to say. They're just sticking up for .

Can you imagine if TQ+ people came in floods to tell those two MPs their greatest and most pressing questions and concerns for their group and were hushed, deleted, told to let others speak, scolded for not being kind?

When they go and talk to TGNB groups (or even "LGBT" groups) do the moderators ever say "we've had enough questions about trans rights, so I'm deleting any more on that topic"...

I read the opening post and this is what came to mind.

No Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Sikh, Christian, other religion, atheist ie no woman at all, should have to share a changing room or other facilities with someone born male - and don't start with the 'intersex' nonsense, the chromosomes always know.

'Be kind'. Yes, I'll be kind. To women and girls who want their dignity and safety preserved in single-sex spaces and single-sex sports. To women and girls needing personal or medical care from women staff - actual women, not wannabe ones.

For too long we've empathised with and been kind to people who see their own needs as more important than the needs of women and girls.

No more. 'Be kind' can get to fuck.

I've not RTFT but the problem with 'be kind' is that one group of people are expected to 'be kind' while another group are not expected to be kind back.
It's a one way street.
And that means it's not actually kindness that's being requested, it's self-sacrifice that's being demanded by way of guilt tripping.
And that is a hard no.

People that demand others "Be Kind" are usually, in my experience, the ones that are the least kind to those that disagree with them.

“EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

When they say #BeKind

I hear an invitation to#SelfHarm and #HarmAllWomen”

I agree.

Also, Woman have been brought up to be kind for a very long time anyway, so why the new Ad campaign aimed at women as though we suddenly have a brand new, important, philosophical ( almost) idea?

Christianity with ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘forgive’ already had ‘be kind’. And often it means women doing so to their own cost, and leads to them not “ first putting on their own gas mask” - something we need to remind women of because their default is to “be kind”.

And I don’t want children learning to “ be kind” to all and sundry no matter what. No. Kick and scream and bite if you need to.

I also recently read on another thread that a “Kind” is a euphemism for a paedophile.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

When they say #BeKind

I hear an invitation to#SelfHarm and #HarmAllWomen

Exactly.

My dd is over 20 and I was in thrall to someone who was being abusive in any way they felt like, so what she saw, to me everlasting shame, was me being kind, excusing, appeasing. Justifying it to myself as being kind. Strongly brough up to be so - my mum wanted me to be a nun I think, utterly Godly.

Dd and I have since decided that be kind is crap. She has none of it and is all the safer for it. In times of stress though, I see her being kind, to her own detriment.

Don't be kind, be honest.

@StopStartStop

I read the opening post and this is what came to mind.

No Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Sikh, Christian, other religion, atheist ie no woman at all, should have to share a changing room or other facilities with someone born male - and don't start with the 'intersex' nonsense, the chromosomes always know.

'Be kind'. Yes, I'll be kind. To women and girls who want their dignity and safety preserved in single-sex spaces and single-sex sports. To women and girls needing personal or medical care from women staff - actual women, not wannabe ones.

For too long we've empathised with and been kind to people who see their own needs as more important than the needs of women and girls.

No more. 'Be kind' can get to fuck.

Yep that nails it.

No autistic woman who finds it disturbing either. Or any woman who has been assaulted and traumatised and would be unable to enter where someone they perceive male is present. Or any woman who will not enter because of their feelings around privacy, dignity and wishing for a female only space.

I nearly spat my coffee this morning when I read the minutes of the TQ+ centred meeting Tinsel shared on another thread: all the big players there. Mermaids, GIRES, Stonewall.... the first thing in reference to a suggestion TQ+ people should go to record something in a certain place is a rush of reminders that this does not work for disabled people nor those with other needs.

And this same lobby has not one single care for their impact on disabled women, or anyone else with other protected characteristics. In fact no apparent care for anyone at all ever, other than the requirements of TQ+ male people. Females can be excluded, they can even be raped in prisons, it's fiiiiiiiiiiine.

'Be Kind'? Under those circumstances? Are you mad?

Be kiiiiind is the contemporary "smile, darlin"

It's telling us what to do, how to be. That what we are doing and how we are behaving is Wrong and Must Change.

Whenever I hear it, I go on inner alert for the latest scam or fashionable tripe, dreamt up by some raging capitalist disguised as salt of the earth activist.

And I always think "oh fuck off".

I think it’s dangerous to tell women and girls to be kind. The times I’ve been attacked by men happened when I suppressed my natural instinct to tell them to fuck off when they started saying inappropriate things and instead tried to be polite and kind and gracious.

In fact it happened just today in a class I am taking. This time however I was flat out rude to the man who kept touching me and getting in my space and I’m not sorry.

I have to stop and explain that they have no obligation to be kind to anyone

Exactly. You don't have to be kind to anyone, you don't have to lend them a tenner, you don't have to let them stay in your spare room.

You can choose to do any of this, if you want, but you can also choose not to. It's extra.

• Unless of course you're a woman who wants to be an MP in which case it's all mandatory. And you should rethink that hairstyle -