'On Weaponising Kindness'

[Parisite]

Lively blog post 'On Weaponising Kindness'. By a writer who was in last year's Manchester WPUK meeting targeted by activists.

'We are all fragile. The trans youth who hates their body; the migrant woman carrying the emotional scars of rape; the lecturer hiding a book; the white male blamed for a power and privilege he has never felt; the feminist at the other end of the baseball bat.'

https://www.flaneurnotes.com/post/on-weaponising-kindness

Thanks for sharing this excellent article. I never thought I’d see the day that the notion of ‘kindness’ could be turned on its head so spectacularly. I think they seized on ‘be kind’ largely because women are socialised to be kind, and it’s women who are currently getting in the way of gender ideology.

Very well explained, thank you for sharing.

Imposing your own definition of kindness on others is not kind

Yes, this is one of the key issues.

Kindness, very much, is something expected of women, and kindness in that context includes handing over any rights other groups ask for. The UN some time ago told feminists to be kind and so on.

Also, much of the general kindness arguments I see online seem to be about performative kindness, about not really getting involved, acting in a superficially kind manner (liking a tweet or post or doing something else almost costless) when true kindness might require helping someone first face facts and acknowledge problems so that cure could ultimately be found.

Is a therapist kind if she or he simply supports everything the client says, including false beliefs? Is a therapist who gently challenges those cruel?

Am I kind if I repeatedly bail out someone with a gambling addiction and cruel if I demand the friend get treatment before one final bailout?

Exactly this.

Well put.

Its also linked to the ingrained, unconscious sexism that sees female humans as providers, that mummy will always meet everyone else's needs and nobly eat the scraps remaining, that there is a biological birthright of sacrifice, martyrdom and no real inner life beyond nurture to others.

Which kind of makes a total nonsense of any belief that there's more than two sexes and that anyone moves between them, as no male ever gets landed with those expectations (or de personing) whatever identity they adopt.

Excellent article, thank you.
I was just thinking about kindness recently before seeing this. Kindness in the context that women are groomed to be kind and that kindness must mean "giving back" through donating eggs or being a surrogate mother.

I hope Sweary Godmother is well and busy doing other important things these days.
But I miss her "fuck kind".

(Screenshots from a USA surrogacy agency and a U.K. egg bank. Spot the difference). (Spoiler - there isn't any difference).

It is just preaching by people who see themselves as some sort of secular priesthood.

That's an excellent article. There are plenty of people out there who preach the gospel of be kind who are vile in their personal lives. I've known a few. It's almost as if the more people talk about kindness and imply that they are, themselves, hugely kind, the more likely they are to be utter tools. There's an inverse relationship between boasting about it and being it.

A good way to put it as it's often used in a judgemental way. Although I do admit it's also confronting, because if someone asks you that, usually you know you're not being kind. I find it myself and then it makes me feel a bit mean tbh!

100%

I've learned to be extra circumspect when someone bangs on about being kind.

'Spiritual' people are also prone to sugary ideals of kindness.

Real 'kindness' can be bloody difficult. In many instances it's far less simple and straightforward than advertised. Bracing moral dilemmas (is it 'kind' to kill a creature that's in pain? Or the train track dilemma, etc) can be useful to think about what 'kindness' actually means.

I wonder if 'kind' is increasingly used to replace 'fair' or 'just' as a moral imperative? Those two last ones don't get a lot of airtime these days. Kind is a sort of vague, neutered morality, whereas 'justice' or 'fairness' require positive action and critical thinking, discernment, and judgement.

Anyway, I should read the article.

Interesting thought about 'spiritual' people and sugary kindness. That rings true.

It's often well meant.

But often not very well thought through.

If you look at great spiritual leaders, they often emphasise 'kindness', of course - Desmond Tutu, Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Gandhi, etc. Yet what is sometimes forgotten is that often these people have a history of non-violent action also, informed by and alongisde that 'kindness'.

That entails bravery, discernment and action. It often means standing up against oppressors, taking non-violent direct action, making self sacrifices, risks to one's own safety, withstanding opprobrium, threat, attack, smears, etc.

I expect some of the trans rights activists think they're doing this, too, when protesting women's events. They're using self justification fallacies to rationalise their intimidating and aggressive tactics.

Various earnest and very righteous people involved think they're on the 'good' side and therefore entitled to be aggressive avenging angels. At least, I presume that's how they see themselves.

I don't think they realise that they've got it arse backwards.

Glad people enjoyed the article, and thanks for such interesting contributions.

I'm now thinking about the idea of 'performative' kindness, that doesn't get its hands dirty or challenge people.