#and also explicitly mentioning socialism is counterproductive | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

argentdandelion · 4 years

Text

Make Ralsei Say Heck No (Part 2)

As specified in Part 1, it’s quite odd Ralsei is so cooperative, submissive, and eager to help Lightners even when not explicitly asked to do so. He practically can’t say no, even to absurd or outrageous demands.1 Even to Susie, it takes a while for him to become the slightest bit assertive, visibly frustrated with her, or otherwise non-apologetic and submissive.

Why is this so?

Option 1: Lack of a Choice

Ralsei may believe he has no choice but to be a Delta Warrior, so he must act as hero-like as he can. He apparently thinks hero-like behavior is cooperative, polite, and peaceful, at least relative to Susie’s aggression.

To Kris, he says:

“As heroes we have the power to make a peaceful future. So from now on let's try to avoid FIGHTing OK?”

Later, after listing three instances of Susie’s aggression and how bad it was, he tells Susie:

“Susie...Whether you like it or not...You're a hero. One with the power to bring peace to the future. Could you please start... acting like one?”

Furthermore, he strongly believes getting by without fighting will ensure a happy ending to their tale, and if not, the result will not be “favorable”. Ralsei therefore might think he must be the best hero possible to ensure the best ending, or perhaps to ensure a happy ending to the tale at all.

Counterpoints

As much as he talks about non-violence, he does goes along with Kris’s orders, even if it’s to beat up people not even affiliated with the Spade King’s armies. Regardless of whether he beats people up, he remains polite and cooperative.

Option 2: Delta Warrior at All Costs

It’s also possible Ralsei believes he does have a choice to be one of the Delta Warriors, as a “prince from the dark”. He believes serving Lightners is the only way for Darkners to feel truly fulfilled, and Seam and the Spade King corroborated part of Ralsei’s claim. Ergo, being one of the Delta Warriors would not only let him assist Lightners, but be able to interact with two of them a lot, and so feel very fulfilled.

However, Ralsei isn’t the only “prince from the dark”: there’s also Lancer. (If he didn’t know that at the beginning, he surely learns it early on in the journey.) More specifically, as Lancer has actual subjects, he has a greater claim to the position. If Ralsei makes himself a valuable, pleasing party member, Kris and Susie won’t go searching for other princes from the dark.

The interpretation is suggested in the following dialogue:

Lancer: Just walking along with you guys...Feels nice. Like I'm doing something... important. Ralsei: That's because you're alongside the Lightners, Lancer. Our purpose—Darkners' purpose—is to assist them. It's the only way we can feel truly fulfilled.”

Strangely, Ralsei doesn’t exactly look happy when he says “It’s the only way we can feel truly fulfilled”, suggesting his desire is deeper than just wanting a fun adventure.

Option 3: Friend Desperation

Overlapping with Option 2, Ralsei may be so desperate to be friends with Kris and Susie that he doesn’t have any boundaries or social standards. In fact, he says: “I've been waiting alone here...um...my whole life for you two to arrive. So...I'm really happy to meet you.”

Though Ralsei would logically be friends with the other Delta Warriors, his sheer conflict avoidance suggests he thinks he has no other options. It might be something like “country niceness”: when a countryside kid has only ten playmate options, alienating any of them is a big loss, necessitating extra-polite behavior. Most of the time, he acts as helpful as he can, deferring to Kris’s judgement. If “...” is selected when he talks to Kris before exiting through the great door, Ralsei says: “Kris in the end what you choose is up to you. As long as you're happy with it I'm happy too.”

Furthermore, he obeys even strange commands, such as Kris telling him to “offer his services” to Lancer and Susie during a fight with them. (he offers to braid hair) Most worryingly, in the first Lancer encounter, Ralsei even says he’ll “protect the heroes with my life!”. 2

Oddly, Ralsei is helpful even when his teammates are mean to him or go against his beliefs. Although Susie is consistently aggressive, uncooperative, insulting and otherwise rude, Kris, too, can be mean to Ralsei. (dropping the manual, attacking the dummy repeatedly, making Ralsei eat the stump salsa) Though Ralsei points out multiple times that “FIGHTing is unnecessary in this world” and he believes it will give an unfavorable ending, he nonetheless obeys Kris when told to FIGHT, and even equips the Ragged Scarf, which improves his fighting ability.

He might act strange to Kris and Susie not only because they’re his only (even first) friends, but also “cool kids” he puts on a pedestal. After all, Kris and Susie aren’t simply two people his age who arrived in the kingdom, but two Lightners, worshipped like gods, who he believes are the prophecized “heroes of light”. This contrasts with his blunter behavior to Lancer. After he attacks with two Hathies, Lancer asks how much money he gets after the battle, and Ralsei says he doesn’t get any because he lost. He also acts unusually blunt when pointing out Lancer hasn’t made the thrash machine yet: although he’s talking about something both Lancer and Susie were working on, he was addressing Lancer.3 One of the few times Ralsei is gets angry is when Lancer taunts Ralsei on the swear-word name of their team, as he tells Lancer: "OK, fine! We can keep the name! I just won't say it." However, there’s also a time he was clearly, loudly angry at Susie: on the third post-designed machine encounter, (see video) Ralsei says: "Fine!!! We don't want to be bad guys!!!" (with three exclamation marks, even)

Counterpoints

Although Lancer is not one the “cool kids” (if that’s synonymous with Lightners), Ralsei’s different behavior towards him might not have anything to do with him being a Darkner, less cool, or less suitable for friendship. Ralsei might act differently to Lancer because he’s an obstacle to their goals, annoys them, or mocks them. Rouxls Kaard himself describes Lancer as “more annoying than a fistful of fleas!” and a “strange and irritating darling”.

Option 4: Crush on Kris

Ralsei might be so obedient and eager to please because he has a crush on Kris. According to Kidshealth, people might feel shy, giddy, or both around a crush. Concerning giddiness, he believes Darkners can only feel true fulfilment by serving Lightners, and he is quite eager to serve Kris. Concerning shyness, Ralsei acts submissive, polite, eager to please, and shy or socially-anxious around Kris. As mentioned in Option 3, he says: “Kris in the end what you choose is up to you. As long as you're happy with it I'm happy too.” His submissive-polite speech pattern could indicate nervousness around his crush, and a lack of experience with his feelings and how to act around crushes. Social inexperience is quite plausible: he has barely, if ever, socialized with anyone, since he says he’s been “waiting his whole life for” Kris and Susie, alone in his castle.

At multiple points, Ralsei blushes or acts lovestruck while Kris is physically affectionate or complimentary to him. He blushes when Kris hugs him in the battle tutorial against the dummy. He also blushes when Kris gives the White Ribbon to him, and he asks Kris if he looks pretty. (If Susie’s in the party at that point, he still blushes, but asks Susie instead) More convincingly, when Kris stands really close to Ralsei, Ralsei blushes (but doesn’t ask Kris to move) and when Kris repeatedly attacks the dummy, Ralsei says it’s okay if Kris attacks him, too. (while also blushing) He also amusedly says Kris doesn’t need to donate to the tutorial masters to get him to call Kris “honey”, and that's something married couples, not friends, call each other.

He is also polite, submissive, and waffling to Susie, cares a lot about her, wants her on the team, and goes along with her plans when it’s not outright counterproductive (e.g., being launched at K. Round). However, he still treats Susie differently: he doesn’t blush when talking to Susie, nor does he anticipate Susie’s needs as he does for Kris. (The closest he gets to that is mentioning he “WAS going to bake a cake later” when Susie alludes to her hunger over three sentences.) This suggests he doesn’t have a crush on Susie, too.

It’s likely that this crush is combined with putting Kris on a pedestal or being intimidated by then. Seam says “[Lightners] were like gods to us.” and the Spade King continues with the godlike characterization, telling Ralsei to “perish with the pathetic Lightners you worship!” An NPC also points out the Delta Warriors took the Ragged Scarf in the chest without even asking, and claims it's a "gift to help you defeat the KING!" but also points out they're "potentially criminals". When Kris does the wrong thing, such as repeatedly hugging Ralsei in a combat tutorial, he might be too intimidated to say no, especially for harmless actions. Furthermore, Ralsei might lack integrity or feel insecure at the start, making him especially socially malleable.

Counterpoints

Though blushing in certain circumstances (e.g., saying Kris can hit them) could indicate Ralsei is lovestruck and possibly a masochist (see below), blushing can also show shame or anxiety. Therefore, Ralsei might blush when saying Kris can hit him due to his anticipation of Kris’s needs and inability to say no combining with discomfort on the matter.

It’s unclear whether he enjoys being hugged in general, hugged by people he likes, or specifically being hugged by Kris. After all, he said he’s never hugged anyone before, so he, logically, would never have been hugged back.

Option 5: Social and Physical Masochist

It’s possible he actually likes some combination of getting hurt, insulted, or bossed around, as well as serving Lightners. This is unusual: other Darkners also respond unhappily to getting hurt or insulted, such as Jigswaries getting attacked by Susie or Susie being mean to Bloxer. Even Lancer, as much as he likes Susie, doesn’t act submissive or servile towards her. There’s no evidence Lancer likes getting bossed around or insulted, and he doesn’t like getting hurt. Lancer even imprisons Susie to prevent her and the other Lightners from fighting (and potentially killing) his dad: Ralsei never poses such an obstacle.

Although the Rudinns are unhappy fanning Susie and Lancer, Ralsei offers to fan Kris just in case they’re envious of an evildoing lifestyle. If Kris throws away the manual, Ralsei offers to make a better one next time. The biggest piece of evidence is that, when Ralsei says it’s okay if Kris hits him, Ralsei blushes.

This is one of the less likely interpretations. Although he has a strangely high tolerance for others being mean to him, he does eventually ask Susie to stop being mean to him. However, he’s still a pushover: he entices her into simply being nice to him on a journey to save the world by offering cake, rather than for the sake of decency.

Option 6: Slightly Insane

Mental disturbance is another less likely possibility. After all, Seam says “Around here, you learn to find ways to pass the time...or go mad like everyone else.” If Seam is right, descending into madness is a risk for Darkners, so Ralsei could be mildly insane.

Still, even without supernatural explanations, his behavior and beliefs could easily become erratic if he was alone in the quietude of his castle for long enough, especially without a variety of fun activities. Seam may describe the Dark World as a “prison”, but Ralsei’s kingdom is a prison within a prison: except for two hedges in the tiny Castle Town, there apparently aren’t any living things there but him. Even hermits have richer nature surroundings, and animals for company. Yet, unless Ralsei climbs a cliff to the starting zone to meet with the spoon-like hazards and the sleeping dust lumps, he doesn’t even have animals: just the dummy based off himself.

Conclusion

Although there’s definitely something psychologically weird about Ralsei, it’s hard to figure out what, since there are many ways to interpret his behavior. Some explanations can even be combined: he could, for example, be happy about inevitably becoming a Delta Warrior, solitude eroded his social boundaries (if he ever had any), and he’s simultaneously in love with and intimidated by Kris.

There’s not enough data to say which interpretations are true, or how many, or to what extent. But one thing’s for sure: Ralsei ought to put up some boundaries and say “heck no!” a lot more.

If you enjoyed this post, you may be interested in the author's Patreon and Ko-Fi.

Related Reading Flowey and PTSD series (also analyses the causes and symptoms of strange behavior)

When the Spade King tells him to "perish with the pathetic LIGHTNERs you worship", Ralsei says: “Sorry, but we’re not going anywhere!” Even when responding to the villain of the story who wants to kill him, he sounds almost apologetic. ↩︎

He says this as if he’s not a hero himself. It might mean he knows he's a not one of the prophecized heroes, or that he doesn't have have a high opinion of himself. ↩︎

Lancer: The WHAT machine? Ralsei: The machine... ? We had a whole sequence about it...? Lancer: Oh that. Yeah we'll make it at the last minute. Ralsei: You two should REALLY start working on it earlier...

↩︎

#Deltarune #Ralsei #Analysis #Character Analysis #Delta Rune

63 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 5 years

Text

Women and “medieval cruelty and ignorance”

Okay. So. We could probably have guessed that this tweet was like waving a red flag in front of a bull, but here we are anyway.

(Tagging @artielu because I know she enjoys my history smackdowns and this is right in her wheelhouse of interest.)

First: nobody denies that the Alabama bill and similar efforts are absolutely heinous, are designed to be test cases to get Roe v. Wade overturned, and are deliberately gratuitous in their constitutional overreach and general horrible Handmaid’s Tale nature. But for well-meaning liberals, such as above, calling them representative of “medieval cruelty and ignorance” is a) not accurate and b) counterproductive. If we insist on using “the medieval” as a conceptual category inferior to “the modern,” these recent bills bear a complicated, at best, resemblance to medieval canon law and social practice. And there was never, I promise you, any law that prescribed a 99-year jail term for abortionists. So if we want to point out how the modern Republican party is actually much worse than their medieval counterparts, we can do that, but also: trust me, this is thoroughly modern cruelty and ignorance, and we should insist on that distinction.

First, obviously, women’s bodies have always been subject to a social discourse of power, control, gendered anxiety, and attendant responses. This was certainly the case in the medieval era, but our modern interpretations of that discourse can be... iffy, at best. In discussing the feminization of witchcraft in the late 15th century, M.D. Bailey critiques how scholars have tended to take the Malleus Maleficarum, the famous witch-hunting handbook, as representative of a self-evident and endemic medieval and clerical misogyny. In fact, the Malleus was the equivalent of the extreme right wing today, was relatively quickly condemned even by the church itself, and was largely reworked from earlier ecclesiastical anti-sodomy polemics, because the idea of “disordered gender” was certainly one that occupied medieval moralists and theorists. I have discussed the Malleus in other posts, but while it certainly is virulently and systematically misogynist, it also was a work of rhetoric rather than a reflection of historical reality. Medieval misogyny absolutely and obviously existed, and it impacted women’s lives, but we also really need to get rid of The Medieval Era Was Bad For Women, (tm), Therefore Everything Was Worse Back Then.

The possibility of magic being used to cause impotence/loss of fertility was another concern, and one of the main anxieties about the practice of witchcraft was that it would bring “sterility” and irregular sexual activity (usually with the devil). However, an extensive corpus of contraceptive and abortifacient knowledge has existed since antiquity, and in tracing the representation of unborn children in medieval theological thought, Danuta Shanzer notes:

My findings suggest that it is overstatement to claim that from the start Christianity considered the fetus a living being from conception. Augustine is a major agonized and agnostic counter-example.

Hence, contrary to right-wing claims that the church has “always” thought that life began at conception (spoiler alert: the church has never once “always” thought the same thing on anything), it was almost never the case in medieval legal or theoretical practice. Thomas Aquinas and other medieval theologians argued that “ensoulment” or the separation of the fetus into a living being happened at quickening, when the baby could move on its own (which medieval medical treatises had various standards for measuring, but it would be the equivalent of about 20 weeks of pregnancy). Monica Green, a leading medieval medical and gender historian, has examined a vast corpus of obstetric and gynecological Middle English texts, and in “Making Motherhood,” argues:

Texts on women’s medicine might also be concerned to “unmake” or prevent motherhood, either by preventing conception in the first place or expelling a dead foetus that would not emerge spontaneously. Abortion per se was almost never mentioned.

In other words: abortion was not paid attention to in nearly the same way we do today, and while canon law, in theory, prescribed penalties for contraception and abortion, historians have consistently (surprise!) discovered a disconnect between this and secular law and everyday practice. And while some twelfth-century (male) jurists did attempt to equate miscarriage with homicide, and to install it in canon law, these laws were almost never practically used or prosecuted. In Divisions of Labor: Gender, Power, and Later Medieval Childbirth, c. 1200-1500, Rebecca Wynne Jones surveys the extant literature and notes:

In his 2012 book The Criminalization of Abortion in the West, Wolfgang Müller documents how 12th‐century jurists' increasing tendency to equate violence resulting in miscarriage with homicide was institutionalized in canon law. Though this development led to the widespread criminalization of abortion in ecclesiastical jurisdictions, Müller has little to say about gender relations on the ground. Rather, by highlighting local communities' reluctance to prosecute, he presents laws that might once have been seen as proof of a medieval “war on women” as legislative enactments whose practical power remained limited.

Once again: medieval ecclesiastical proscriptions against abortion were, at best, sporadically enforced, communities were reluctant to actually prosecute women or to criminalize early-term pregnancy loss, and church law was not identical with secular law, which was the standard ordinary people used and were subject to. This concords with what Fiona Harris-Stoertz has found in her survey of pregnancy and childbirth in twelfth and thirteenth-century French and English law:

It is striking that in these thirteenth-century English texts, no penalty was assigned for the loss of less developed fetuses. This absence flew in the face of high medieval church legislation, which, in theory at least, took all contraception and abortion seriously. John Riddle finds that the idea that early-term abortion is less serious than late-term abortion occurred in the work of Aristotle and appeared occasionally throughout the early Middle Ages, particularly in church penitentials, although it also appeared in the early medieval Visigothic code.

While late-term abortion of potentially viable fetuses was still a crime, secular law still essentially held to quickening as the moment at which a pregnancy could not be terminated. Before that, however -- anywhere in the first 4-5 months of pregnancy -- it could often be dealt with, if desired, without any penalty. Anne L. McClanan has investigated the material culture of abortion and contraception in the early Byzantine period. And Ireland, which as recently as last year remained one of the last European countries to outlaw abortion, had a medieval hagiography that actively canonized abortionist saints:

Medieval hagiographers told of Irish Catholics par excellence, the saints themselves, performing abortions as well as of “bastards” becoming bishops and saints. In hagiography and the penitentials, virginal status depended more on a woman’s relationship with the church than with a man. To my knowledge, no other country in Christendom, medieval or modern, produced abortionist saints or restored virgins, apart from the nun of Watton. Why Ireland is among the few European countries to maintain severely restrictive policies on reproduction remains an unanswered question, but it clearly cannot be attributed to its medieval Catholicism.

Last part bolded because important. Modern bans on abortion don’t relate to how these notions were conceptualized or used in the past, and they are not holdovers from The Medieval Era (tm). They don’t represent medieval concerns or medieval ideas of gender, or at least certainly not in a direct genealogy. Even as late as the seventeenth century, when ideas of childbirth, marriage, and reproduction were more strictly controlled, the period prior to quickening, or the movement of the baby, was still generally not penalized or subject to legal control or coercion. So in sum: while religious moralists and canonical lawyers absolutely did object to abortion (aka right-wing men, the same ones who object to it today, funnily enough), in secular law and daily practice, a pregnancy that was terminated prior to quickening was not subject to practical prosecution or legal punishment, and medieval women had access to a vast corpus of gynecological texts, medical practices, herbal recipes, rituals, and charms intended to accomplish a wide range of fertility goals: conception, contraception, abortion, a healthy pregnancy and delivery, and so forth. I also answered an ask a while ago that discussed all this in detail.

Also: abortion was explicitly mobilized as a wedge issue in the 1970s and 1980s with the rise of the religious right in American politics, and that happened not because of abortion, but in resistance to the IRS penalizing them for refusing to racially integrate evangelical schools and colleges. Randall Balmer has written about the history of the “abortion myth”; do yourself a favor and read it. The Southern Baptist Convention campaigned in 1971 for the liberalization of American abortion laws, and hailed the 1973 Roe decision as a win for the rights of the mother. (Oh how the mighty have fallen?) The right wing came together as a political force to resist racial integration, exemplified by their loss in the 1983 Supreme Court case Bob Jones University v. United States. But since it was not a winning political strategy (yet, at least) to fly the flag of “let us be racist in peace,” they, as Balmer discusses, created the “abortion myth” to make themselves look better and to present a narrative of holy/moral concern for the lives of the unborn. The reason abortion is as huge as it is in the present American political landscape owes to modern religious conservatism and extremism, resistance to racial equality, ideological control over women, and other bigotry, and (again) not to medievalism or medieval practices.

So, yes. Let us call the Alabama bill and other heinousness exactly what it is: a modern effort by a lot of terrible modern people to do terrible things to modern women. We don’t need to qualify it by fallacious equivalences to so-called “medieval cruelty” -- especially, again, when medieval practice and perspective on these issues was nowhere near the stereotype, and certainly nowhere near this “99 years in prison for performing an abortion” dystopian nightmare. If we want to shame the GOP, by all means, do so. But we should not resort to distorting and simplifying history to do it, and using the imagined “bad medieval” as a straw man to club them with. There’s plenty on its own. The modern world needs to take responsibility for its own misogyny, and stop trying to frame it as a historical issue that only existed in the past, and that any manifestations of it must be medieval in nature. Because it’s not.

#history #medieval history #women in history #history of sexuality #history of medicine #cw abortion #long post

675 notes · View notes

elvishmusings · 4 years

Text

Violent protest

It seems like a distant memory now, but it was less than two months ago that protests and riots were occurring throughout the country to protest police brutality against Black people in the wake of George Floyd’. It’s easy to see the situation as muddy or conflicted; while most people agree, at least somewhat, with the premise of the Black Lives Matter movement, how far is too far? Murder – especially murder sanctioned by the government and carried out according to race – is, obviously, wrong. And protesting is an incredibly powerful tool to help those of us without a large platform to make our voices heard. Rioting, however, has been largely condemned by the people who support peaceful protest. It raises the question: Can violent protest be a legitimate and justifiable method of advocating for social change?

Many chose to address this issue by saying it doesn’t really matter; when you’re talking about a system that murders people on the basis of their skin color, property destruction pales in comparison. Still, this isn’t really a discussion of the question but a rejection of it, and only allows it to be put aside until the next time . Instead, I want to try to analyze the factors that cause these issues and the ways that a violent response addresses them.

First, it is important to establish what rioting accomplishes. In general, rioting can be viewed as a violent form of protest, with most riots involving physical resistance against law enforcement, as well as looting or other forms of unorganized activity. The surest consequence of violent protest is that it attracts attention, although it’s usually negative. It can also be viewed as a protest against state control of free speech (violating orders by law enforcement to disband), and, in many contexts, more generally against law enforcement. Looting against large businesses also carries an anti-capitalist message, which is fitting as any large company is guaranteed to uphold the capitalist, discriminatory systems that make systemic racism (and, secondarily, other forms of inequality) a fundamental part of life. Although some looters are opportunistic with the goal of stealing without supporting a particular cause, it’s important to note that their actions do not, by definition, reflect the motivations of the majority, which I would generally summarize as anti-establishment, anti-government control, and anti-capitalist (at least in a sense of opposing some capitalistic control of human rights).

Now, the question has become: Is violence a reasonable and justified response to oppressive systems of government and commerce? In this case, I think the first step is to examine the violent nature of capitalist government oppression.

Violence, when used in this context, can be taken to mean, “control of choice or autonomy by physical means.” For example, laws contain an element of violence in the sense that they are, ultimately, based in physical enforcement by the police, military, or other government forces (i.e. arrest or detainment). Even if a prior non-violent warning is issued, ignoring it will eventually result in physical violence against the person in violation of the law. Capitalism operates in tandem with this form of violence, with money being a primary way to avoid being the target of violence. This is particularly clear when looking at homelessness, which is the usually-criminalized result of not having enough money — not to mention the wealthy elites who get away with much larger crimes with no legal consequences, thanks to their immense political and social power and perceived role as vital to society. In other words, capitalism provides a system of focusing governmental violence on the working class in order to protect wealthy elites and the capitalist structures that keep them in power.

Having established the violence that is used by the government as part of the capitalist system, the original question gains new context. Rather than protestors acting in senseless violence, they are replicating the same conditions of reckless violence that Black people endure on a daily basis. Seen under this lens, violent protests begin to look more rational. By looting large businesses, the protesters force themselves to be listened to (Notably, small businesses are not the criminals here, since they also lack the influence that causes these societal problems and are often victims of large corporations themselves). Violence against the police serves a similar purpose, especially when those same police are engaging in dangerous and barbaric crowd-control methods on mostly peaceful protestors. As a result, I would argue that violence, in these cases, can be a powerful tool for forcing society to pay attention to people who are usually ignored, and can hardly be viewed as the brutal, senseless violence that most news shows.

The other major argument against protests of this nature is public image. Many people claim violence is counterproductive because it ultimately discredits the movement’s message and believe it will give it a bad image. While there may be some truth in this argument, I would argue that anyone who is willing to ignore a system that intentionally criminalizes and kills Black people because someone broke into their favorite Starbucks is probably shortsighted at best, and flat-out racist at worst. It also ignores the failure of peaceful protesting to capture the attention needed to create systematic change. I think the best way to address this issue is not to stop participating in what has shown itself to be an effective means of protest, but to show why it can be the most effective option, as well as limiting violence to law enforcement (or other direct antagonizers of the protestors) and stealing to large corporations rather than extending it to civilians and small businesses, which are not the main vehicles of violence in our society. I also want to explicitly condemn the opportunistic looters whose primary motivation was not a commitment to racial justice but a desire to steal things, which contributes to viewing the movement as a self-serving attack.

Taking this into consideration, I think violence can be an appropriate response to police brutality, which is responsible for over a thousand deaths each year and kills Black men at three times the rate of white men. Peaceful protest and legislative action has failed to create meaningful change, as evidenced by steady rates of police violence and abysmally low conviction rates of officers. Although these are huge issues that won’t be quickly addressed, police brutality and the Black Lives Matter movement has become a movement that attracted major attention, and efforts to defund the police have gone from a fringe issue to a serious suggestion in some cities. While these measures are still hugely inadequate to truly end police brutality, they do represent a shift from what was possible two months ago. In other words, these protests — many of which were violent — worked.

Overall, I think that the extreme violence of the government and the effectiveness of violent protest creates a strong case for its use, at least in some cases. While violence is a tool that must always be used with caution, in cases as clear and horrific as the killing of George Floyd and the hundreds of other Black people killed each year by the police, the failure of peaceful protests to create change means that more drastic action must be taken. And, to anybody who sees riots as unjustified, chaotic violence, remember that they are often the only option available to groups of people who have been systematically denied human rights. This is the context behind that Martin Luther King Jr. quote that has been going around: “A riot is the language of the unheard.” That is exactly what we’re seeing now — and to not listen is ignoring their struggles to be treated like human beings.

#blm #black lives matter #anarchist #police brutality #acab #defundhate #george floyd #fuck cops #fuck the police

5 notes · View notes

sweetandsavageautistic · 6 years

Text

(CW: helicopter parenting mention, law enforcement mention):

So I found this post someone shared and, oh boy:

“Dear families I am begging you to listen to me. Over the last few years I have heard heart breaking stories of our young adults getting into trouble with the law in a variety of ways. The individuals with autism are usually innocent, entrapped or unaware of the situation unfolding. Several of these young adults have served time and families have lost huge amounts of money trying to protect their children from the system. Here are my recommendations based on these families experiences. Here is my plea: 1. Get guardianship. You can always give it up later. 2. Teach your child to reach out and use you as a resource. Teach them to ask for help even as adults. 3. Being a helicopter parent is important as we release our adults in the world. There will be a huge transition and we should be actively involved in double checking they are handling life okay and not being taken advantage of or bullied in any way. 4. Be brutally honest about your child’s strengths and weaknesses and put measures in place to help them build those weaknesses up. Set goals and really think about what tools they need and create them. Denial is not your child’s friend. 5. Understand all the technology your child uses and double check it. There are people including law enforcement on social media and playing games who may entrap your child without the child knowing they are doing anything wrong. According to Homeland Security Officer I talked to there is no privacy in any of the technology platforms and every thing is recorded. 6. Make sure to put your child thru the Be Safe Program. Be Safe helps our young adults interact safely with law enforcement. One of the issues discussed is understanding their right to remain silent and their right for an attorney. You have to understand this right to get this right and it needs to be explicitly taught. We want our individuals with autism to be included in society but society does not always accommodate them and that is ESPECIALLY true of the legal system. I have tried for years to do trainings for courts, so far I have trained people who work within the system excluding the real people needing the training like judges and prosecutors and defense attorneys. Our Be Safe Program has made huge changes in our relationships with law enforcement but the legal system is still a train wreck. So we must be very vigilant and protect our kids!”

What. the fuck. are they thinking?

I have a lot of qualms over this. I understand that the law isn’t responsive to us or even trained to help us, but that gives no excuse to enforce what I consider to be the biggest problem of this post (besides calling us kids when talking about adults), which I replied with:

“I have some qualms over this, but there's one in particular; helicopter parenting. It's fine to be protective, but DO NOT become a helicopter parent. It's scientifically proven that those whose parents are helicopter parents are less able to handle the world. On top of that, speaking as an autistic woman who has felt like her parents have been kinda helicopter parents, it's stressful to the autistic person because it makes us feel like we always need to be acceptable. It makes us feel like we have no sense of control over our lives whatsoever and it makes us LESS likely to ask you for help about things or tell you about things like if we're LGBT+, things that we may not be quite comfortable with you knowing right away, things that we ourselves may need time to come to terms with. Like a lot of young adults who are not autistic, we're more desiring of independence and trying to develop our own identity. Hovering over your autistic son or daughter all the time will make them stressed out and perhaps lash out because even WE like our privacy. It's totally understandable that you want us to be safe and that's cool, but how are we supposed to handle the world if we can't be left to make a few mistakes of our own? In short, for big decisions, some guidance is okay, but only if they ask you. You can tell your autistic son or daughter that "hey, I know this is a pretty big decision. if you need help with anything, I'm here." If it's something huge, then maybe step in a bit. But if it's something like withdrawing money or depositing a check or going to the doctor's office, unless they say they would like help from you, please step back and let them do this themselves. You can ask them "hey, would you like me to go with you to do this thing?" but if the answer is no, then step back and respect their answer. Another important thing is to ask them what their boundaries are in terms of these things; when they give their answer, respect what they say. If it doesn't feel safe to you, then work with them on a compromise that both of you can be happy with. Not only does this give them a sense of independence and you a sense of security, but they may be more likely to come to you to ask for help because they trust that you'll keep to those boundaries you two have established.”

Also the phrase I bolded: The individuals with autism are usually innocent, entrapped or unaware of the situation unfolding.

Fuck me gently with a chainsaw. That post is another plea to treat us like helpless, innocent children. Which may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we aren’t given AT LEAST SOME autonomy and control, we won’t know how to be independent, so this post is somewhat counterproductive to what some parents want for their autistic sons or daughters. They want us to be able to be independent and functioning adults, but by treating us like helpless, innocent children, that’s what we may start to become. Because psychology.

This is one of my main problems (out of many problems) with autism parents/NT-exclusive advocacy of autistic people; they treat us like we have no autonomy or that we can’t be independent. And, in its core, it’s one of the things the Autistic Rights Movement seems to be founded on; the idea that we CAN be independent, that we DO have autonomy, and that we ARE able to advocate for ourselves in some way. Even those who society considers to be “severely autistic” can probably advocate in some way with the right kind of help and adaptions. Because what society seems to disregard is that they are people as well, people who have opinions, people who have likes and dislikes, people who have emotions.

“Autism Parents” take them into regard when it comes to THE PARENTS AND NTs advocating over them and to argue that those of us who society considers “mildly autistic” don’t speak for them because we’re not like them, but it seems like they refuse to acknowledge them when it comes to our rights.

#autism #autistic #actuallyautistic #actually autistic #sweet and savage autistic

13 notes · View notes

tenscupcake · 7 years

Text

my first, and possibly only, official statement on the new doctor.

i've honestly been truly and thoroughly baffled, and rather disappointed, by the lack of discussion occurring around this polarizing issue. in fact, in my brief experience on various social media platforms, discussion is rarely, if ever, allowed. the tiniest expression of discontent with the new doctor immediately elicits a slew of insults and accusations of misogyny. i have yet to have an actual conversation with anyone about this, aside from close personal friends who share my views, because those who don't share them will not even engage them. they instead immediately resort to name calling and shut down any attempts at conversation i make. honestly, it has driven a wedge between me and doctor who and its fandom like i've never experienced, not even in all my suffering through the moffat era.

i hesitated for a while about coming back on here at all. but i figured it would be wrong of me to not give my friends and acquaintances here a chance to really hear me out, since before i took a hiatus i hadn't really properly articulated my reasoning (for the aforementioned reasons). so to anyone interested in my thoughts on the matter (and let me explicitly mention here that i am referring only to rational people who are willing to either read silently and go about their day or else engage in a polite discussion with me, not people who are just going to send me vicious anonymous asks), here they are.

i’m sure it’s no surprise to any of my followers that i haven’t been actively watching the show for some time now. in fact, i stepped away indefinitely sometime early season 8, not because i had any issue with capaldi, but because i didn’t feel moffat’s writing had improved any since the last season.

so, it may have come as a surprise to many of you that i even had a strong reaction of any kind, be it positive or negative. and i can certainly see where you’re coming from, if that’s the case.

when it was announced early last year that moffat would finally be leaving, i threw a party. i literally did. i got together with my one other real-life friend who watches the show, watched rtd episodes, and made blue cupcakes (that were supposed to be TARDIS colored but turned out more of a pale teal and baby blue combo). i can’t even explain how happy i was at the mere suggestion of him leaving. because in my eyes, he took my favorite show and turned it into something i resented. it was such a slow and painful process to come to terms with the fact that a show i once loved was causing me so much grief, and finally part ways with it (at least in the sense of following along with the new episodes; i’ve obviously remained active in the rtd sect and continue to devote a significant chunk of my life to the doctor and rose *blush*). but i just couldn’t deal with the constant disappointment and rage anymore. i knew it was for the best.

i liked broadchurch well enough, with the exception of the second season, and i thought there was no way chibnall could be worse than moffat. and best case scenario, he could potentially resurrect the show into something i’d enjoy again. maybe it was foolish to hope for such a thing, but i owe far too much to this show after all it’s done for me to not give it a second chance under new leadership. so when, a few weeks ago, they told us the date they’d be announcing the new doctor, i got properly excited again. to put a face to my renewed hope in the series? it was hard not to get excited. the sound of the tardis still makes my heart swell with joy and gratitude. i’m still invested. just look at my room or my wardrobe. i’m a self-proclaimed doctor who geek through and through. if i wasn’t, i don’t think it would be possible for me to be genuinely upset about anything that happened to the show. the things we love are the things that can hurt us the most.

so, without prolonging the inevitable any longer, i’ll try to explain why i was/am upset by the casting announcement.

i really have three main reasons.

1. the issue of representation.

let me start out by saying i am a passionate advocate for better (i won't say more, because i don't think that's the issue at hand) female representation in media. especially film. i desperately want more intelligent, strong, powerful women in fiction. but what i absolutely do not want is to recycle traditionally male characters into female ones. doesn't this seem counterproductive to anyone else? its almost as though a man always has to pave the way, and only once he's established a character can a woman potentially take over. it’s trite and more than a little insulting.

give me more original female characters who kick ass. give me more natasha romanoffs, more reys, more elle woods, more leslie knopes.

don’t give me more batgirls or supergirls. don’t take a character as prominent and culturally significant as the doctor and morph him into a woman after 50+ years (or 2000+, depending on your perspective).

and you know, i've actually seen people say (addressing people who are upset about the casting): ‘a character’s gender doesn't have to match yours to be a good role model for you.’ you know what? to an extent, i actually agree. as a matter of fact, i strongly identify with and take inspiration from the doctor, even though he's a man. does nobody hear how hypocritical it sounds to say you want a woman to play the doctor purely so girls can have another role model, and then turn around and in the next sentence say gender is irrelevant to role models? yeah, this one really floored me.

but though i do think that one’s role models don’t have to match one’s gender 100% of the time, it is important to have some that do. and i do think there is an imbalance in the number of strong male leads in tv and film versus the number of strong female leads. keyword: strong. i’m tired of sexist stereotyping and failed bechdel tests, too. probably more than most, actually. but i think taking existing male characters and gender bending them is the absolute worst way to go about rectifying this imbalance.

2. the issue of the nature of gender.

i want to preface this by saying that, until fairly recently, i was something of a fundamentalist when it came to gender. but over the years, i’ve realized how problematic such views are. i’ve invested hours upon hours of my free time scouring reddit threads and watching documentaries about trans issues to understand this crucial part of the LGBT community. to learn. and what i’ve gathered from my thorough research, and heard from the many personal experiences of transgender individuals i’ve read, is that gender is something distinct from biological sex that is immutable. the gender you’re born with is the gender you are for life. (and yes, as i understand it this does also apply to genderfluid individuals - they’ve always been genderfluid even if it was not always expressed.) and changes made to physical appearance are merely affirming one’s gender, not changing it.

changing the doctor into a woman flies directly in the face of this very concept. and to me, it really, truly feels like an insult to the trans community.

it’s going back to the regressive fundamentalist view that sex = gender. that because the doctor has a woman’s body now, he must therefore identify as a woman. though this hasn’t been explicitly confirmed in so many words, given the widespread use of feminine pronouns and the term ‘woman’, i think it’s safe to conclude this is the case for the show. and this is so contrary to the whole message the LGBT community is trying to put out.

now. i’ve heard several potential counterarguments to this, so bear with me as i go through them.

first, people say ‘but the doctor is an alien, not a human. our gender expectations don’t apply.’ true. yes. he is an alien. but is the show really about his alienness? i think you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that it is. the truth is, though it’s told through tales of distant planets and creepy aliens, it’s really a show about humanity, and always has been. doctor who has always espoused a meaningful kind of secular humanism. it’s explored what it means to be human in so many impactful ways. and it’s because the doctor looks and acts human much of the time, succumbs to human emotions and has such human flaws, that he is so relatable. yes, it’s a sci-fi show about time travel and regeneration and spaceships, but if the doctor were completely alien and had no human qualities, it wouldn’t have become such a hit. don’t try to deny that. trying to distance the doctor from humanity is a detriment, not a benefit, to the show.

and though some may argue we ought to hope for and potentially work towards a future where gender is irrelevant, the fact is in today’s society gender is exceedingly relevant. and important. transgender people and feminist movements wouldn’t exist - wouldn’t need to exist - if it weren’t.

second, i see people say ‘the doctor has no gender.’ this one admittedly really throws me. no gender? where is the evidence for that?

for one thing, what point would there be to differentiating between time lords and time ladies if gender was not of import on gallifrey?

there is also a plethora of evidence to the contrary: the doctor has in fact consistently identified as a man. starting JUST with ten:

in ‘the christmas invasion’: he says ‘same man, new face. well, new everything.’

also in tci: ‘oh, that's rude. that's the sort of man i am now, am i?

also in tci: ‘no second chances. i’m that sort of man.’

in ‘fear her’: ‘look at my manly hairy hand’

in ‘evolution of the daleks’: ‘the only man in the universe who might show you some compassion’

in ‘utopia’: ‘i was a different man back then.’

in ‘voyage of the damned’: ‘i’m the man who’s going to save your lives’

in ‘the end of time’: ‘even if i change, it feels like dying. everything i am dies. some new man goes sauntering away.’

a couple of these quotes actually indicate that he has an innate sense of being a man that transcends regeneration. depending on his current level of angst, it seems, he sees himself as a different man or the same man, but the ‘man’ part remains the same. he doesn’t say ‘person’ or ‘character’ or anything to that effect. he says ‘man.’

not to mention, the doctor consistently objects to being called a human (or martian), and corrects those who mislabel him as such, but never once objects to being called a man (which is quite often).

and just so that no one accuses me of singling out one doctor too much, here’s a quote from the first doctor from the pilot, an unearthly child: ‘i’m an old man. how can an old man like me harm any of you?’

right off the bat. the doctor has been identifying as a man for literally thousands of years.

sorry for lingering on that sub-point for a while. it’s just so mind-boggling to me because there’s so much freely available evidence to the contrary.

third, i’ve noticed there seems to be some level of collective amnesia of the backlash from when the master made a comeback as missy. given what i’ve observed of people praising the decision retroactively, no one seems to remember the fandom’s response from that revelatory episode anymore. but i remember it vividly. a number of people were furious, the trans community and its allies in particular. and this outrage returned with a vengeance when missy kissed the doctor (12) later on. though i had already given up on watching the show by then (at least as long as moffat’s hellish reign continued), the anger and frustration i was seeing really resonated with me.

i have never forgotten that, and it is undoubtedly a big part of the reason i’m so angry and frustrated now. i am at least consistent, if nothing else. but conversely, there seems to be a lack of consistency among much of the fandom, as i sense none of the widespread ire from the past making a resurgence now, and it’s unclear why. the same issues regarding gender are at play. it’s leading me to assume that many people are embracing this decision purely for perceived representation, while disregarding potential cultural issues it may raise, which i think is dangerously selfish and shallow.

3. the choice of actress.

i’m not going to pull any punches here, since i’m already putting my blog’s reputation in jeopardy by making this post at all. i don’t like jodie whittaker, specifically. i think she’s a terrible actress.

this is based purely off of watching broadchurch, because it’s the only thing i’ve seen her in. but her performance paled miserably next to david’s and olivia’s, and even some minor characters’. i mean, beth’s life thoroughly sucked, and everything in it went from bad to worse for a while, but i didn’t really care. she didn’t make me care. i think that’s a huge red flag for any actor. because, i mean, compare that to olivia’s performance. i mean, SHIT. miller made me feel things every episode. intense things. and beth didn’t. at all. ever.

so, even IF the other two issues were somehow resolved, i still wouldn’t be happy with the casting choice, because i am not at all impressed with this person’s acting ability. the doctor is a huge role. a critical one. and i’m honestly not sure what she did to earn it.

so, that’s it. it’s not every nook and cranny of my position, but it’s the gist of it.

as my final thought, i’ll reiterate what i said at the beginning, to anyone considering responding to this: hostile ad hominem responses will be resolutely ignored, but (time and volume of responses permitting) polite intellectual debate will likely be engaged. but let it be said that though i’m willing to listen to reason, it’s highly unlikely anyone will change my mind.

i don’t want this to widen the chasm between me and the fandom. i already feel so distant from it already, like i’m hanging on by a thread. in all likelihood, i won’t discuss the subject at all any more after this post, save for when responding to others’ comments or questions about it. and even then, i will do so privately whenever i can. because i really don’t want to dwell on it anymore. i’ve finally sunk myself back into ep after an extended hiatus due to surgery and work, and that’s what i’d really like to dedicate my free time to from here on out. that and my other d/r fics. that’s what makes me happy; not bickering with people who don’t agree with me.

so please! feel free not to respond to this at all. it is completely optional and even somewhat discouraged, because i am tired of thinking about it and being yelled at and insulted for it. i’d love to forget about it and move on, at least until i’m forced to confront it again this christmas. i want to get back to what my blog is all about - nine and ten’s era. david. the fun smattering of friends and parks gifs. but above all else, the doctor and rose. the couple i’ve dedicated the past four years of my life to.

no matter what happens, i’m going to stay with them. whether or not i stick around on tumblr, i’ll continue posting my fics on ao3. they’re my happy place. these characters mean the world to me. and doctor who will always be very dear to my heart, regardless of how the future of the show pans out. i hope my followers never doubt that.

#please do not reblog #negativity cw #if you don't want to see it #don't read it #i know it's long #but it's me #i'm nothing if not thorough #meta #hope i don't regret this #there's also a substantial amount of anti moffat talk in here #fair warning for that too

29 notes · View notes

bluewatsons · 5 years

Text

Leo Kant & Elisabeth Norman, You Must Be Joking! Benign Violations, Power Asymmetry, and Humor in a Broader Social Context, 10 Front Psychol 1380 (2019)

Abstract

Violated expectations can indeed be funny, as is acknowledged by incongruity theories of humor. According to the Benign Violation Theory (BVT), something is perceived as humorous when it hits the “sweet spot,” where there is not only a violation, but where the violation is also perceived as benign. The BVT specifies how psychological distance plays a central role in determining whether a certain event, joke, or other stimulus is perceived as benign or malign. In line with the aims of this research topic, we specifically address how this “sweet spot” may be influenced by social distance. This form of psychological distance has so far received less attention in the BVT than other forms of distance. First, we argue that the BVT needs to distinguish between different perspectives in a given situation, i.e., between the joke-teller and the joke-listener, and needs to account for the social distance between the two parties as well as between each of them and the joke. Second, we argue that the BVT needs to acknowledge possible power asymmetries between the two parties, and how asymmetries might influence the social distance between the joke-teller and joke-listener, as well as between each of these and the joke. Based on the assumption that power influences social distance, we argue that power asymmetry may explain certain disagreements over whether something is funny. Third, we suggest that cultural differences might influence shared perspectives on what is benign vs. malign, as well as power balance. Thus, cultural differences might have both a direct and an indirect influence on what is perceived as humorous. Finally, we discuss potential implications beyond humor, to other social situations with border zones. Close to the border, there is often disagreement concerning attempted violations of expectations and norms, and concerning their nature as benign or malign. This can for instance occur in sexual harassment, #MeToo, bullying, aggression, abusive supervision, destructive leadership, counterproductive work behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, parenting, and family relations. New understanding of border zones may thus be gained from BVT along with our proposed systematically mismatched judgments which parties could make about attempted benign violations.

To the extent that amusement can be seen as an emotion, it is perhaps the emotion for which there is the strongest uncertainty as to what type of antecedents elicit it (McGraw et al., 2014; Martin and Ford, 2018). The fundamental question that any psychological theory of humor needs to explain is why something is perceived as funny and other things are perceived as not funny. A theory developed to answer both questions is the Benign Violation Theory (BVT) (McGraw and Warren, 2010; McGraw et al., 2012, 2014; Warren and McGraw, 2016). According to this theory, two types of appraisals must be simultaneously present for something to be regarded as funny. First, the stimulus must represent a violation which is contrary to expectations and threatens the person’s view of what the world “ought” to be. Examples could range from being “attacked” by a friend trying to tickle you, to violating a linguistic norm. Second, the violation must be perceived as benign, which may be influenced by several factors. In the current paper, we specifically focus on the social component of psychological distance (cf. Trope and Liberman, 2010). As will be accounted for in more detail later, increased psychological distance makes minor events appear less funny, and more serious events more funny (McGraw et al., 2012).

However, the BVT has certain limitations, which constitute the starting point for this paper. One is that even jokes that include norm violations not regarded as benign can sometimes be perceived as funny (Olin, 2016). Another is the failure of the theory to account for disagreements between people as to whether something is funny within a given situation (Meyer, 2000). In our view, theories of humor also need to address why people sometimes tell jokes that others may find insulting or inappropriate. Clearly, what is intended to be funny by someone telling a joke is not always perceived as such by others. Even seemingly intelligent and emotionally sensitive people sometimes make jokes that others find offensive. For instance, a sexual joke told by a leader to a follower in a workplace, may be perceived as harassment rather than a joke. The #MeToo campaign has shown that sexual harassment often occurs in cases where someone tried (or claimed to try) to be funny. Additionally, it often occurs in relationships of asymmetric power, and may be influenced by culture (Luthar and Luthar, 2002).

We suggest that the BVT could potentially be applicable to a broader array of situations if it included three additional elements: firstly, a distinction between the joke-teller and joke-listener; secondly, the role of power differences; thirdly, the acknowledgement of the cultural context in which a joke is told. All three elements are relevant to the model’s predictions about the role of psychological distance in humor. Note that we limit our discussion to cases in which humor is used with the intention of amusing others, rather than for other communicative purposes (cf. Meyer, 2000).

Psychological Distance in the Benign Violation Theory

According to the BVT, psychological distance reduces the tendency for people to perceive aversive stimuli or events as threatening (McGraw et al., 2014). When something is perceived as psychologically distant, people tend to represent them more abstractly (Trope and Liberman, 2010). The more psychologically distant a violation is, the more likely it therefore is to be perceived as benign. A violation can take the form of a threat to a person’s physical well-being, identity, or cultural, communicative, linguistic, and logical norms (Warren and McGraw, 2016; Warren et al., 2018). A threat is benign when perceived as “safe, harmless, acceptable, nonserious, or okay” (Warren et al., 2018, p. 5). Examples used by McGraw et al. (2012) include joking about someone stubbing their toe yesterday or being hit by a car 5 years ago. Importantly, the theory is not only concerned about what makes something funny, but also about what makes something not funny. A violation that is too harmless or too severe is not funny. Examples include, respectively, making a joke about someone stubbing their toe 5 years ago, or someone being hit by a car yesterday (McGraw et al., 2012).

The BVT builds on Trope and Liberman (2010, p. 440), construal level theory of psychological distance, in which psychological distance is defined as the “subjective experience that something is close or far away from the self, here, and now.” The theory distinguishes between four dimensions of psychological distance: firstly, temporal distance, i.e., whether something happened recently or a long time ago; secondly, geographical distance, i.e. whether something is physically near or far away; thirdly, hypotheticality, i.e. whether something is actually happening/perceived or only imagined; fourthly, social distance, which Liberman et al. (2007) exemplified as being determined by whether something happens to oneself or others, involves someone who is familiar or unfamiliar, or involves someone who belongs to an in-group or out-group. They also highlighted the relevance of social power.

The “Sweet Spot” of Humor is Also a Matter of Social Distance

A fundamental question in the BVT is to identify the area within which something is regarded as simultaneously benign and a violation. In a longitudinal study on temporal distance and humor, McGraw et al. (2014, p. 567), “posit the existence of a sweet spot for humor—a time period in which tragedy is not too close nor too far away to be humorous.” Throughout this paper, we use the term sweet spot synonymously with the distance range (temporal, geographical, social, or hypothetical) at which a violation is seen as benign for a given person or a dyad, and thus being potentially funny.

One limitation to empirical studies of the BVT is that they have not addressed all forms of psychological distance to an equal extent. Even though all four forms of distance are mentioned in the BVT literature, the main focus seems to be on temporal and geographical distance (e.g., McGraw et al., 2012, 2014). Accordingly, more is known about the sweet spot of humor in relation to these two distance dimensions than about hypothetical and social distance. Importantly, we know little about how the sweet spot for humor is influenced by social factors, including whether it happens to yourself or someone else, whether that “someone” is familiar or unfamiliar to you, or belongs to an in-group or out-group. Similarly, we know little about whether and how the sweet spot for humor may be influenced by social power.

The main emphasis here is on social distance, defined as the felt distance or closeness to another person or groups of people (Stephan et al., 2011). When we address the psychological distance between a person and a joke, social distance refers to the felt distance between the focal person and the individual, group, cultural practice, norms, or roles that the joke is concerned with. In the instances where our claims refer more broadly to psychological distance, we use this broader term.

A stronger focus on the role of social distance in humor also requires that theories explicitly distinguish between different social perspectives. This is because the sweet spot for humor may differ between people. The existence of different perspectives is not explicitly acknowledged in BVT, which instead largely focuses on situations where there is agreement over whether something is funny or not.

Notably, Kim and Plester (2019) also addressed the social element of humor, including the existence of multiple social roles and perspectives. They demonstrated how the perception and usage of humor in an organizational setting may be influenced both by the persons’ relative social positions and the culture at large.

The Importance of Social Context, Power, and Culture

Olin (2016) pointed to questions that theories of humor need to explain, over and above the fundamental question of what makes something funny or not funny. The majority of these questions related to the social/societal context in which humor takes place. The importance of knowing more about the social context of humor is also implicated in the current research topic. This goes both for the organizational context (Kim and Plester, 2019) and for the larger societal context (e.g., Jiang et al., 2019).

In the BVT, the sweet spot of humor has to do with identifying something which is a violation of the expected, while simultaneously being benign. However, to the extent that a humorous situation involves multiple persons, the sweet spot would also be likely to depend on social variables. One example is roles. You can play around with roles—violate them—in a benign fashion. For example, a violation can occur when a person by telling a joke steps out of their expected role. Such violations may be funny, for instance when a teacher starts dancing on the table. However, there are also potentially adverse sides of breaking roles or creating ambiguity around them (e.g., Örtqvist and Wincent, 2006; Eatough et al., 2011). One example would be a general practitioner who jokes with a patient about breaking doctor-patient confidentiality.

Violation of social expectations may also be funny. Social expectations may pertain to roles, but also to the activities, tasks, and goals that social relationships involve. Our social relationships to family, friends, leaders, and coworkers can involve a goal of catching a bus, getting a work task done, or getting the children to bed at night. It is therefore possible to violate the relationship itself, but also the activities or organizational interests (cf. House and Javidan, 2004; Einarsen et al., 2007).

In line with this general focus on the social element of humor, Olin (2016) differentiated between the joke-teller and joke-listener. This distinction is drawn in Olin’s discussion of jokes that implicate negative group stereotypes. Here, attitudes and beliefs of different parties may influence the extent to which a joke is perceived as humorous or harmful.

Interestingly, Kim and Plester (2019) drew similar distinctions in an ethnographic study of the influence of roles and hierarchy on humor perception and expression in Korean work settings. They found substantial differences in the contents of and reactions to humor among subordinates and superiors. For low-power individuals, humor expressions even had negative emotional consequences. This study demonstrates the importance of addressing multiple social perspectives and power differences in humor research.

Our theoretical account is also in line with a recent empirical study by Knegtmans et al. (2018), who studied the influence of power on the perception of jokes. However, here power was conceptualized as a temporary psychological state. In contrast, our conceptualization of power goes beyond temporary states, feelings or experiences of power. We focus on more stable power asymmetries deriving from hierarchical differences in organizations, and from social roles. Examples include a leader’s position compared to a subordinate’s, an emperor’s compared to a peasant’s, and a parent’s compared to a child’s. Furthermore, we emphasize the important role of culture, which is likely to have a direct influence on the shared norms for what constitutes a violation and what is considered benign (e.g., Gray and Ford, 2013). Culture could also influence norms for expressing amusement. It might also influence power differences and social distance in various ways. Thus, it could have both direct and indirect effects on humor perception.

To the extent that humor perception is influenced by power differences and culture, this may largely take place through their influence on social distance. Even though social distance, power, and culture are discussed separately in subsequent sections, it is important to keep their interrelatedness in mind.

Three Suggested Elements that Could be Added to Benign Violation Theory

We now turn to three components that in our view need to be included in the BVT to increase its explanatory value. These are in line with Olin’s (2016) suggestion to focus on the social aspects of humor in understanding when incongruent events are perceived as humorous and when they are not. They specifically address “boundary areas” of humor (e.g., Plester, 2016). These components are (1) distinguishing between the joke-teller and the joke-listener; (2) addressing possible power differences between the joke-teller and the joke-listener; and (3) acknowledging the influence of culture on the relationship between power differences and humor.

Note that this discussion will be limited to situations in which someone intentionally tells a joke to someone else, and where the intention is to be funny by hitting the sweet spot of both joke-teller and joke-listener. This is in contrast to any intentionally dark uses of humor (cf. Plester, 2016) aimed beyond the sweet spot, deliberately hurting the joke-listener, such as in power play, conflicts, ostracism, or bullying. A joke-teller may attempt both to split a crowd, hit the sweet spot with someone, while victimizing others (cf. Salmivalli, 2010). Again, our discussion concerns attempts to hit the sweet spot, and associated risks of over- or undershooting.

Joke-Teller vs. Joke-Listener

Empirical research on the BVT seems to mostly address situations in which someone regards or does not regard something as funny (McGraw and Warren, 2010; McGraw et al., 2012, 2014; Warren et al., 2018). However, one does not specifically differentiate between a joke-teller and a joke-listener, and whether different perspectives may influence the extent to which something is perceived as benign, a violation, and funny. If one is to understand humor at a level beyond the individual, this distinction is essential.

Thus, psychological distance in the BVT seems to normally be conceived of in terms of the distance from the person (who could either be the joke-teller or the joke-listener) to the something (the stimulus, which could either be a joke or an episode). The social setting in which the something is observed, heard, or experienced is not taken into consideration. In reality, a social setting would normally involve several people who would have different roles and perspectives and could in principle disagree as to whether the joke was a violation, whether it was benign, and whether it was funny. We choose here to use Olin’s (2016)terminology of joke-teller and joke-listener. Other related concepts are humor user, target person, and audience (Meyer, 2000).

Whether a joke told by a joke-teller to a joke-listener is perceived as funny by either or both of them could depend on a number of factors that would influence the extent to which something would simultaneously be seen as benign and a violation. It can be meaningful to analyze this in terms of the following four subtypes of social distance in a joke setting, namely sections “Social Distance Between Joke-Listener and Joke”; “Social Distance Between Joke-Teller and Joke”; “Social Distance Between Joke-Teller and Joke-Listener”; and “The Relative Social Distance Between Joke-Teller, Joke, and Joke-Listener.” We think that all four forms of relationships are relevant for both parties. However, because the joke-teller is the active part, s/he is perhaps more likely to actively consider these distances when preparing for a joke delivery than the joke-listener is when hearing a joke. In the following, we only provide selected examples illustrating either of these perspectives.

Social Distance Between Joke-Listener and Joke

The one form of distance that McGraw et al. (2012, 2014) have most clearly addressed is the psychological distance between the joke-listener and the joke. They addressed how a joke-listener can feel temporally close or distant to an event, depending on whether it happened recently or long ago. Similarly, a joke can pertain to something geographically close or far away. Here, we argue that a joke-listener and a joke also may be socially distant or socially close, as perceived by the joke-listener or joke-teller.

The social distance to a joke would be conceptualized slightly differently depending on whether or not the joke directly addresses specific people. To the extent that a joke refers to a person or group of people, the social distance to the joke would directly correspond to the social distance to those involved, whether it was a specific person or a group. Even jokes that do not refer to specific people may still have contents that are relevant to the social roles, social identities, attitudes, cultural practices, values, and norms of a joke-listener. The social distance to the joke would then depend on the person’s commitment or dedication to each of these. For instance, Hemmasi et al. (1994) showed that sexist jokes targeting the opposite sex were regarded as more funny (by men and women) than sexist jokes targeting one’s own gender. Similarly, violations could be more likely to be viewed as benign if concerned with an out-group or unfamiliar persons.

The social and ethnic groups and cultures to which the joke-listener belongs or associates her-/himself with would obviously be important. The history and identity of that larger group or culture in general could also be relevant.

Social Distance Between Joke-Teller and Joke

Another form of distance seemingly overlooked by the BVT is the perceived/attributed social distance between the joke-teller and joke, as perceived by either party. This refers to whether the joke-teller is perceived as either socially distant from or socially close to the content of the joke. The joke-teller’s perception of this may be likely to influence what s/he chooses to joke about. It is well established in research on attribution that emotional responses are highly influenced by inferences of responsibility, including intent, causal controllability, free will, and other associated concepts (e.g., Weiner, 1993, 2006). Therefore, the joke-listener’s perception of this form of distance could influence how s/he perceives the intention of the joke-teller. For instance, imagine someone (with intact vision) who tells a joke about blind persons. Whether this violation is seen as benign, and whether the joke is perceived as funny, might depend on whether the joke-perceiver knows or thinks that the joke-teller has had a close personal relationship with someone who is blind.

Thus, the perceived social distance between the joke-teller and the joke might be influenced by the one person’s perception of the other’s attitudes, social roles, social identities, cultural affiliation, etc. (Liberman et al., 2007; Trope and Liberman, 2010). The perception of the joke-teller’s actual roles and identities may be more or less accurate.

Social Distance Between Joke-Teller and Joke-Listener

The social distance between the joke-teller and joke-listener is also relevant. This point is related to but not overlapping with the two previous points.

The closeness of the relationship between the two parties is important. If the joke-teller and joke-listener do not have a close personal relationship, it is relevant whether the joker is familiar or unfamiliar, or belongs to an in-group or an out-group. Note that the two parties may have a different idea of what the social distance is between them.

Power differences, that is the relative power between two parties, appears to be a crucially important variable in this context. Hemmasi et al. (1994) asked survey respondents to indicate how likely they would be to perceive sexual and sexist humor as sexual harassment, if coming from a person of the opposite gender who was either a coworker or leader. Both sexist and sexual gender-related jokes were more likely to be perceived as sexual harassment when the joke-teller was a leader rather than a coworker. Hemmasi et al. (1994, p. 1125) concluded that “Regardless of the manager’s intent (i.e., to deliberately insult/intimidate the subordinate, or merely to innocently retell an ‘amusing’ joke), such behavior is a high-risk activity.” We will discuss power differences in section “Power Differences and the Case of Asymmetry.”

The Relative Social Distance Between Joke-Teller, Joke, and Joke-Listener

Importantly, any of the three previous types of social distance cannot be understood in isolation. Whether a joke is perceived as a benign violation will also depend on the relative distances between the joke-teller, joke, and joke-listener. The social distance between a joke-listener and joke-teller may moderate whether a joke is perceived as benign or not. For instance, a sexist joke about women, told to a woman by a man unknown to her, and belonging to a different social or cultural group, could be perceived as more malign and offensive, and less funny, than the same joke told by a close female colleague belonging to one’s in-group. Similarly, imagine your grandfather attempting a joke, using a term which is insulting among millennials. If you attribute a well-meaning intent and infer it to be unknowingly done due to distance to the lingo of the youth, you may still laugh. Thus, we suggest the relative distance between joke-teller, joke, and joke-listener as a fourth type of social distance relevant to humor. Again, different parties may disagree in their perception of these relationships in a given situation.

Implications

Note that all four types of distance identified here (sections “Social Distance Between Joke-Listener and Joke” to “The Relative Social Distance Between Joke-Teller, Joke, and Joke-Listener”) could also be applied to other dimensions of psychological distance. For instance, the joke-teller and joke-listener could be temporally or geographically close or far apart, as could the content of the joke be to either or both parties. However, since the focus of this paper is on the social dimension, we will not discuss the influence of the other dimensions any further. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that social distance may be influenced also by geographical and temporal distance. For example, a leader who sits in the office next door and who you interact with frequently might (from your perspective) feel socially closer than a leader who sits in the headquarters in a different city, and who you only communicate with by email a few times every month (cf. Antonakis and Atwater, 2002).

Power Differences and the Case of Asymmetry

Asymmetric Power and Social Distance

In our view, a potentially important element in the relationship between the joke-teller and the joke-listener is that of power. Notably, the theory of psychological distance that the BVT largely draws on has specified that power is a predictor of social distance. The presence of power differences between individuals or groups of individuals may influence the perceived social distance of both parties. High-power people see themselves as more different and distant from others than low-power people do (Liberman et al., 2007). This is of course primarily a question of relative distance. Power differences could very well increase the absolute social distance as perceived by the low-power individual—a notion compatible with theories on leader distance (e.g., Antonakis and Atwater, 2002). The important point is that power differences would always increase the social distance as perceived by the high-power individual even more.

In addition, Smith and Trope (2006) argued that increased power leads to increased tendencies to think more abstractly, a tendency indicative of larger social distance from others. They conducted a series of experiments where participants were primed with power concepts, and claimed to find that such priming increased people’s tendency for abstract, high-level construals.

If power is an additional determinant of construal level, power differences may be relevant in the search for a “sweet spot” within which both joke-teller and joke-listener can agree on a joke constituting a benign violation. It is therefore surprising that these elements have not yet been systematically integrated into the BVT.

In their Social Distance Theory of Power (SDTP), Magee and Smith (2013) have built on the positive correspondence between power, abstract construals, and increased social distance reported by Smith and Trope (2006). A central point in SDTP is that power asymmetry may lead to asymmetry in the perceived social distance between two parties of a dyad: whereas a low-power individual may feel relatively close to a high-power individual, the high-power individual may feel relatively distant to the same low-power individual. Their theory is mostly concerned with dyadic relationships where power is related to interdependence. However, it could be relevant to other types of relationships where interdependence is less present or central than in dyads.

Of particular interest are those cases where there is asymmetric power between the joke-teller and the joke-listener. What Magee and Smith (2013) hypothesized about the relationship between asymmetric experiences of social distance and power could provide an important contribution here.

Asymmetric Power and the Benign Violation Theory

How can the basic ideas in the SDTP (Magee and Smith, 2013) be incorporated into the BVT? In principle, asymmetric power might influence all four forms of social distance presented previously.

Most fundamentally, power asymmetry might influence the social distance between a joke-teller and a joke-listener. According to Magee and Smith (2013), this in turn may have several cognitive and emotional consequences for how the other person is perceived. For example, they argue that high power is associated with a reduced feeling of being similar to the other person. In contrast, low power is characterized by a stronger tendency to feel similar when comparing oneself to others. Moreover, high power is associated with reduced attention and responsiveness to the mental states, thoughts and feelings of other people. According to the SDTP, this may lead high-power individuals in an asymmetric relationship to display empathic inaccuracy (Magee and Smith, 2013). This is consistent with experimental findings showing that high social class predicts increased unethical behavior (Piff et al., 2012): the unethical behaviors in the experiments included ignoring shared norms, even rules, with high-social class individuals allowing themselves to break traffic rules and steal candy from children. It is worth noting that the mediating mechanism was a baseline-difference in mind-set between high- and low-class individuals.

How does this influence whether something is perceived as a benign violation, and funny, in a situation where a joke-teller tells a joke to a joke-listener? According to predictions derived from the SDTP, this would crucially depend both on which form of social distance (sections “Social Distance Between Joke-Listener and Joke” to “The Relative Social Distance Between Joke-Teller, Joke, and Joke-Listener”) we are concerned with, in combination with the particular power balance in the relationship.

Let us first turn to the case where the joke-teller is in the high-power position, and the joke-listener is in a low-power position. This is a potentially risky situation in the sense that the joke-teller experiences a greater social distance both toward the joke and the joke-listener than the joke-listener does. As a consequence, it takes more for the high-power joke-teller to regard something as a violation, and more for something to be perceived as benign. For instance, the joke-teller may feel that it is more appropriate to make jokes about events that are closer in time, geographically, or socially, than the joke-listener feels. Another way to put it—the impropriety threshold (for when a violation is no longer perceived as benign) is higher for the high-position joke-teller (cf. Geddes and Callister, 2007). This might not pose a problem in cases where the power distribution is symmetrical. However, when the joke-listener is in a low-power position, their impropriety threshold becomes correspondingly lower. This might imply a smaller (or no) overlap between the sweet spots of the two parties. Thus, a violation could more easily be perceived as malign. If the high-power joke-teller is also less “empathically accurate” (cf. Magee and Smith, 2013), s/he might not realize that the violation was perceived as malign by the other, which could contribute to a vicious cycle.

Magee and Smith (2013) also claimed that power is related to the tendency to experience socially engaging versus disengaging emotions. They argued that high-power individuals are less motivated to affiliate with others and therefore less likely to experience socially engaging emotions and more likely to experience socially disengaging emotions. To the extent that humor is a socially engaging emotion, an additional prediction can therefore be that this tendency further increases the high-power joke-teller’s threshold for experiencing something as funny. This could further increase the risk of offensive jokes.

As the idiom goes, it is lonely at the top. It is also safer to shout out. Those below may however perceive the same as a beginning avalanche. For a high-power individual to hit the sweet spot with a joke to a low-power individual, s/he needs to decrease the severity or increase the social distance between the joke content and the joke-listener. This principle is perhaps reflected in the frequent practice of making jokes about people from a neighboring country. For instance, Swedes among themselves joking about Norwegians and vice versa, and Americans joking about Canadians.

What then about the case of a joke-teller being in a low-power position and the joke-listener in a high-power position? This should be a less critical situation. Here, it would take more for the high-power joke-listener to perceive something as a violation, and to perceive a violation as malign, than it would take for the low-power joke-teller. Thus, the biggest danger might perhaps be that the high-power joke-listener would be less likely to be amused by jokes that the low-power joke-teller thinks represent benign violations. This is indeed consistent with what Knegtmans et al. (2018) found when they induced experimental participants with states of high or low power. High-power participants were less likely to rate jokes as inappropriate, offensive, and also less funny. These findings are compatible with the assumption that high-power individuals’ “impropriety threshold” (cf. Geddes and Callister, 2007) was higher, and that they may not have perceived the joke as a violation. Thus, asymmetric power relation is also likely to involve an asymmetry in what a joke-teller and a joke-listener regards as funny, offensive, or simply boring. Again, the challenge would be to find the sweet spot that overlaps for the joke-teller and joke-listener. For a low-power individual to hit the sweet spot with a joke to a high-power individual, one needs to increase the severity or to somehow decrease the distance, e.g., getting more personal with the high-power individual. The latter may of course have cultural limitations/restrictions, or even involve cultural taboos—one is not always at liberty to inform the emperor that he is in fact naked.

We do not claim to be the first to suggest that social power may be an important variable for the BVT to take into account. Knegtmans et al. (2018) also addressed possible implications for the jokes one might choose to tell. However, their main emphasis was on how the power of the joke-listener influenced perceived inappropriateness, offensiveness, and funniness of jokes. Moreover, they did not discuss the case of asymmetric power, or possible consequences of power differences between a joke-teller and joke-listener. Additionally, their emphasis was on power as a state variable rather than more stable power differences.

Superimposed Sweet Spots?

It follows that a joke-teller in a certain power position may have one sweet spot as defined by the BVT, whereas a joke-listener in a different power position may have a different sweet spot as defined by the BVT. If one were to superimpose one over the other, it may become logical why a given joke may be offending for one person, bland for another, or if all goes well—funny for both. If the superimposition revealed nonoverlapping areas, these could be described as the “asymmetric upper” (i.e., the joke-teller considers it a benign violation, but the joke-listener considers it a malign violation—offensive) and the “asymmetric lower” (i.e., the joke-teller considers it a benign violation, but the joke-listener considers it benign, but not a violation—bland). This can be understood in relationship to section “The Relative Social Distance Between Joke-Teller, Joke, and Joke-listener.” The relative social distances involved in the triad of the joke-teller, the joke-listener, and the joke might be perceived differently by the joke-teller and the joke-listener.

Cultural Differences

We started by discussing the different roles of the joke-listener and joke-teller. We argued that the social distance between each of these and the joke, as well as the relative distance between the three, is not always identical. This may in turn lead to differences in perception. We then turned to how power asymmetry may generate asymmetry in social distance, making it possible for the two parties to have different sweet spots of humor for a given joke in a given setting. We will now place these factors in the broader context, by highlighting three ways in which culture may influence the sweet spot of humor.

First, cultural differences may influence the absolute level of what is considered benign or malign for entire societies or organizations. Even though humor is a universal phenomenon, there are also cultural differences. These may concern both how humor is perceived, valued, and used (cf. Jiang et al., 2019 for a review). Jiang et al. (2019) largely focused on the broader cultural differences, especially those between Eastern and Western societies. However, differences between subcultures, i.e., between different cultural groups in a country as well as regional groups within a country, could also have an influence on humor perception and usage. The role of subcultures is illustrated by an empirical study by Gray and Ford (2013). People’s interpretation of sexist jokes differed depending on whether jokes were told in a setting where such jokes were tolerated (i.e., a comedy club) or prohibited (i.e., a workplace). Here, it may also be meaningful to point to the possible influence of organizational culture (e.g., Geddes and Callister, 2007), which could influence the absolute level of how certain groups of individuals may perceive or use humor. Cultural differences (between societies, organizations, or even families) may also influence the extent to which individuals are expected or allowed to express certain emotions. In the case of humor, this is relevant to the extent that such cultural differences concern the appropriateness of expressing amusement(e.g., Gottman et al., 1996; Magee and Smith, 2013). Cultures may thus dictate a shared impropriety threshold (for when a violation is no longer seen as benign). It might also be meaningful to think of cultural values influencing the permeability of the border, as well as the willingness to explore border areas. This goes for societies in general (Gelfand et al., 2011; Plester, 2016), organizations (Plester, 2009), as well as for other social entities.

Second, cultural differences may influence power differences in multiple ways. According to the classic theory of Hofstede (1980), high versus low power distance is one of four dimensions along which national cultures differ. Obviously, culture may therefore influence high-power and low-power positions as is also known from cross-cultural leadership research (e.g., Antonakis and Atwater, 2002; Chhokar et al., 2007; Aktas et al., 2015). Magee and Smith (2013) pointed to two important ways in which culture may influence power asymmetry, which in our view may be particularly relevant to the case of humor. Their first point is that since culture may influence people’s beliefs about what behavior is considered appropriate for a high-power individual, power differences may not necessarily lead to asymmetric social distance in all cultures. Their second point is that cultures may differ in the extent to which they take for granted or justify power differences. Therefore, in some cultures, low-power individuals may experience equal levels of social distance as high-power individuals in a given relationship. The implication of our current arguments is that culture could influence the circumstances under which a joke told between two individuals belonging to the same culture is seen as funny or malignant.

Our third point concerns those cases in which the joke-teller and joke-listener have different cultural backgrounds. In this case, cultural differences may influence the relative thresholds for each party. Using the same analogy as previously, cultural differences may cause the superimposed sweet spots to change in relative location, and perhaps even in shape.

As mentioned earlier, the important role of culture in influencing power asymmetry has to date been overlooked in studies that address the possible role of social power in BVT (Knegtmans et al., 2018). It could also be added that the influence of culture is likely to be slow to change. It is probably slower than group-level changes in hierarchical roles in an organization, or even in a family. Moreover, definitely slower than an individual level state of power (e.g., Knegtmans et al., 2018). An important message of the current paper is that the BVT needs to acknowledge how culture might influence the mechanisms specified by the theory.

Implications of Our Claims

“From a distance there is harmony” (Julie Gold)

We have suggested that the humor mechanism accounted for by the BVT needs to be specified and extended, also beyond recent efforts (e.g., Knegtmans et al., 2018). The BVT explains why some attempts may succeed, some may fall short, and others may overshoot the sweet spot. Our emphasis on the role of potential power asymmetry may explain why a joke-teller and a joke-listener may perceive the sweet spot to be of different size and different location. Power asymmetry entails distance asymmetry, and therefore different sweet spots. This may lead to some humorous attempts to remain unnoticed by high-power individuals, and other efforts being perceived as offensive by low-power individuals. The former may involve frustrated low-power individuals not gaining acknowledgement from high-power listeners. The latter may however touch quite sinister topics, such as sexual harassment, bullying, abusive supervision, destructive leadership, and so on.

Our theoretical suggestions may have consequences for who can joke about what with whom. Do you come from a position of power, be it formal or informal? Leaders, parents, representatives of the dominant cultural group, the dominant gender, the in-group, the seniors at the workplace may all see a different sweet spot than their counterparts. This may be of value in humor research. For instance, when investigating jokes in romantic relationships, in workplaces, on the sports field, and so on.

Our small addendum to BVT is to acknowledge two aspects. Both are in line with recommendations to attend more to social contexts in humor research (Olin, 2016), and social power beyond temporary experimental states (Knegtmans et al., 2018): first, the importance of two main parties, the joke-teller and the joke-listener; second, power-related asymmetry in the cases it exists, and how it may influence four forms of perceived social distance asymmetrically. Herein lies the systematic potential for mismatched maps. When superimposing the different maps of the high-power party and the low-power party, it does not only reveal a fixed border zone, but a disputed no-man’s-land with split opinions, perhaps even a frontier for change.

Benign violations reside between two outer areas which the majority can agree on. One outer area being unequivocal good, in humor constituting the benign but non-funny. The other being the unequivocal bad, in humor the harmful where only the violation remains. In between lies the sweet spot—a violation also perceived as benign. Such sweet spots, we suggest, exist in other models of social interaction. Therefore, it could be possible to bring the BVT into a greater social context. If benign violations may take the form of any type of behavior occurring in the narrow border areas between the acceptable and unacceptable in everyday social interaction, the theoretical implications of our arguments may be broad.

Even though this paper is a conceptual analysis, we here briefly exemplify some ideas for empirical research that could be used to test our claims. The ideal way to test our model would be a full factorial design testing the joint effect of distance, power, and culture on perceived severity and amusement, inspired by existing procedures (e.g., Hemmasi et al., 1994; Knegtmans et al., 2018). However, quasi-experimental investigations could also be used. One example is to study sub-components of the model where naturally occurring power differences are relatively stable, as in hierarchical organizations such as hospital wards or families, or in organizations where hierarchies may change across time (Breevaart et al., 2014).

Bringing Benign Violation Theory into a Broader Social Context

We now turn to other forms of benign versus malign violations, beyond humor. If the phenomena include a sweet spot as well as power differences, the BVT with our addendums may supplement the understanding of border areas in other models.

There are solemn issues in everyday life, described by established theoretical models, which also concern what can be seen as dual thresholds in social interaction. These are cases where there is a sweet spot or zone between the expected and the unexpected, the in-role behavior and extra-role behavior, the normal and the non-normal, the constructive and the destructive, the expressed and the improper, the good and the bad. Here, a benign violation would not necessarily be associated with humor or amusement, but could be associated with other positive emotions (e.g., appreciation, enthusiasm, respect) and have other positive personal and interpersonal consequences (e.g., organizational improvement, loyalty, identification).

Among the areas which we thus suggest may encompass benign violations, we find the sweet spots described more or less explicitly in relevant theoretical models. Some models clearly establish a sweet spot, whereas others only indirectly imply its existence.

An explicit sweet spot can be found in the dual threshold model of anger in organizations (Geddes and Callister, 2007), which directly corresponds to the basic notion in BVT. Not expressing anger is in the normal or unequivocally good zone. Anger above the expressed threshold but below the impropriety threshold is in the sweet spot. Expressed anger can thus quickly enter into the bad and vast realm of over-the-line aggression. A notable similarity to our line of reasoning is that Geddes and Callister (2007) argued that culture may influence where the shared thresholds are set, in their case through an implicit agreement for each organization. A dissimilarity is that our reasoning on power asymmetry opens up for multiple, simultaneous, and asymmetric fields for individuals.

Other models also attend to a form of sweet spot, although the correspondence to BVT mechanisms is less explicit. For instance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (cf. Spector and Fox, 2010) refers to a form of extra-role behavior, where an employee goes above and beyond the call of duty. It is thus a violation of the expected or contractual obligations, which also is deemed benign. However, discussions on OCB include reflections on the facts that (1) the expected behavior should not be left undone and (2) everyone cannot exclusively perform out of the ordinary OCB. The bland, boring, and necessary task must be done—someone must sweep the floor. In other words, there is a “too much” in OCB, which may become offensive. This behavior can thus be both benign and malign if present. In a similar vein, in a study on workplace bullying enacted by leaders, Rayner and Cooper (2003) discussed spectrum behavior. That is, behavior which if present could be either benign or malign. Humor with its bright and dark uses could in general be considered a type of spectrum behavior (cf. Plester, 2016). This is in contrast to behavior which, if present, is either exclusively malign or benign. Examples are, respectively, humiliating people, or displaying constructive leader behavior (Rayner and Cooper, 2003).

Yet other models give a lot of attention to the good or the bad, but less to the border area. An example is destructive leadership (Einarsen et al., 2007) pertaining to leaders—along with several alternate concepts such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000) or toxic leadership (Padilla et al., 2007), and counterproductive work behavior (Spector and Fox, 2010) pertaining to subordinates. In these models, it is clear that severe anti-subordinate/interpersonal and anti-organizational behavior is bad, and correspondingly, that strongly pro-subordinate/interpersonal and pro-organizational behavior is good. The border may however be ambiguous, hard to define, and influenced by a variety of factors.

Some of these solemn issues by definition involve power asymmetry, for instance leaders and subordinates operating in a formal hierarchical system, where anger, destructive leader behavior, and destructive subordinate behavior occur. However, such behaviors may also take place in other contexts of power asymmetry, for example in families. Gender-related asymmetry may for instance be found in matriarchies and patriarchies. In any culture, societal or subcommunity, there are also dominant in-groups and minority out-groups with power asymmetries aplenty.

A methodological implication is the need to consider appropriate levels of analysis (Yammarino and Dansereau, 2008). By this, we mean that the individualized or dyadic level of analysis may be particularly relevant in the border zone, and group-level analysis more relevant with increasing levels of severity (be it good or bad). That is, in the border zone, relative power and distance will lead to individual variation, which may be detectable as dyadic level significant effects. However, with such variation, an entire team or an entire family or audience may not agree on the ratings. Thus, inter-rater reliability should be low. With increasing severity, more individuals will agree on the joke being bland or offensive, the expressed anger being improper, or the leadership behavior being clearly destructive. High social distance is notably also associated with group-level outcomes (Antonakis and Atwater, 2002).

A potential theoretical implication is whether change is possible through the suggested mechanisms. In the “sweet spot” lies the potential for positive change. Humor used with ambitions to “develop organizational culture” has been empirically reported (Plester, 2016, p. 88). We may consider an appropriate level of OCB as a case of benign violations. We may also consider whether nonviolent change such as that of Gandhi could be another. Gandhi (1940) emphasized just barely breaking the (oppressive) law, without hurting others, and while telling the truth. In everyday working life, leaders may need to violate the interests of either the organization or the subordinates at times, in order to facilitate change. An example of the former would be a middle manager motivated by a wish to protect the flock while breaking organizational interests, thus displaying friendly-disloyal leader behavior (cf. Einarsen et al., 2007). Examples of the latter would include virtuous betrayal toward subordinates which Krantz (2006, p. 221), argues leaders sometimes have to do “in the service of higher purposes.” As this involves pushing subordinates beyond their comfort zone, it bears similarities to borderline tyrannical leadership (cf. Einarsen et al., 2007).

In contrast, a change for the worse is often diffuse and done in a series of malign violations, each of which could be minor, i.e., just passing the impropriety threshold. Corrupt organizations or totalitarian states are rarely created overnight. Passivity and silence are often required of many, as in the rise of the Nazi regime (Lewin, 1943) or with the #MeToo. Malign violations are accepted in spite of opposing views. Power asymmetry could be an integral part, where the low-power person, the new employee, the young, and so on want to appeal to the high-power person. Perhaps they modify their emotions for organizational survival as they typically do, suppressing negative emotions and exaggerating positive emotions (Glasø et al., 2006), including laughing at the rich man’s joke. The stepwise nature of malign violations might increase the likelihood for change. The high-power individual takes an ever so little step over the line, “and then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules” (Lewis, 1949, p. 63). With the behavioral step already taken, the low-power individual is left only with the opportunity to change the values in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962).

We could also mention other social phenomena characterized by sweet spots of acceptable behavior, and where the border between the benign/acceptable and the malign is likely to be influenced by social distance, cultural norms, and power distribution. Examples would include (but not be limited to) white lies, courtesy, and cursing.

Concluding Remarks

Our attempt to specify the role of social distance in the BVT, focusing on power differences and culture, could be seen as a first step in identifying the mechanisms that are involved when social norms and expectations are unsuccessfully violated. Even though this paper has focused on the intentional joke leading to unintentional crossings, inappropriate crossings may of course also be done intentionally (cf. Plester, 2016).

We have focused on voluntary behavior, intended on hitting the funny—the sweet spot—which is both a violation of the expected and something benign. We have argued that there may exist a systematic tendency explaining certain cases of mismatch between parties, with a potential for transgressions. This systematic tendency cannot be fully understood unless set in a social context where the potentially great influence of culture and power asymmetries are incorporated. This has implications for our understanding of humor in general, humor in asymmetric power relationships, as well as for understanding other situations of benign violations, far beyond humor.

References

Aktas M., Gelfand M. J., Hanges P. J. (2015). Cultural tightness–looseness and perceptions of effective leadership. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 47, 294–309. 10.1177/0022022115606802 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Antonakis J., Atwater L. (2002). Leader distance: a review and a proposed theory. Leadersh. Q. 13, 673–704. 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00155-8 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Breevaart K., Bakker A., Hetland J., Demerouti E., Olsen O. K., Espevik R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 87, 138–157. 10.1111/joop.12041 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Chhokar J. S., Brodbeck F. C., House R. J., editors. (eds.) (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. (Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; ). [Google Scholar]

Eatough E. M., Chang C.-H., Miloslavic S. A., Johnson R. E. (2011). Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 619–632. 10.1037/a0021887, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Einarsen S., Aasland M. S., Skogstad A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and conceptual model. Leadersh. Q. 18, 207–216. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Festinger L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Sci. Am. 207, 93–107. 10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Gandhi M. (1940). An autobiography, or the story of my experiments with truth. 2nd edn. (Ahmedabad: Navajivan; ). [Google Scholar]

Geddes D., Callister R. R. (2007). Crossing the line(s): a dual threshold model of anger in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 721–746. 10.2307/20159331, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Gelfand M. J., Raver J. L., Nishii L., Leslie L. M., Lun J., Lim B. C., et al. . (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332, 1100–1104. 10.1126/science.1197754, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Glasø L., Ekerholt K., Barman S., Einarsen S. (2006). The instrumentality of emotion in leader–subordinate relationships. Int. J. Work Organ. Emot. 1, 255–276. 10.1504/IJWOE.2006.010791 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Gottman J. M., Katz L. F., Hooven C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of families: theoretical models and preliminary data. J. Fam. Psychol. 10, 243–268. 10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.243 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Gray J. A., Ford T. E. (2013). The role of social context in the interpretation of sexist humor. Humor26, 277–293. 10.1515/humor-2013-0017 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Hemmasi M., Graf L. A., Russ G. S. (1994). Gender-related jokes in the workplace: sexual humor or sexual harassment?1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24, 1114–1128. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb02376.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Hofstede G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; ). [Google Scholar]

House R. J., Javidan M. (2004). “Overview of GLOBE” in Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. eds. House R. J., Hanges P. J., Javidan M., Dorfman P. W., Gupta V., editors. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; ), 9–28. [Google Scholar]

Jiang T., Li H., Hou Y. (2019). Cultural differences in humor perception, usage, and implications. Front. Psychol. 10, 123–123. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00123 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Kim H. S., Plester B. A. (2019). Harmony and distress: humor, culture, and psychological well-being in south Korean organizations. Front. Psychol. 9:2643. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02643 [PMC free article][PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Knegtmans H., van Dijk Wilco W., Mooijman M., van Lier N., Rintjema S., Wassink A. (2018). The impact of social power on the evaluation of offensive jokes. Humor 31:85. 10.1515/humor-2017-0106 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Krantz J. (2006). Leadership, betrayal and adaptation. Hum. Relat. 59, 221–240. 10.1177/0018726706062733 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Lewin K. (1943). The special case of Germany. Public Opin. Q. 7, 555–566. 10.1086/265642 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Lewis C. S. (1949). The weight of glory, and other addresses. (New York: Macmillan Co; ). [Google Scholar]

Liberman N., Trope Y., Stephan E. (2007). “Psychological distance” in Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. vol. 2 eds. Kruglanski A. W., Higgins E. T., editors. (New York, NY: Guilford Press; ), 353–383. [Google Scholar]

Luthar V. K., Luthar H. K. (2002). Using Hofstede's cultural dimensions to explain sexually harassing behaviours in an international context. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 13, 268–284. 10.1080/09585190110102378 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Magee J. C., Smith P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev.17, 158–186. 10.1177/1088868312472732 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Martin R. A., Ford T. (2018). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. (Academic press; ). [Google Scholar]

McGraw A. P., Warren C. (2010). Benign violations: making immoral behavior funny. Psychol. Sci.21, 1141–1149. 10.1177/0956797610376073, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

McGraw A. P., Warren C., Williams L. E., Leonard B. (2012). Too close for comfort, or too far to care? Finding humor in distant tragedies and close mishaps. Psychol. Sci. 23, 1215–1223. 10.1177/0956797612443831, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

McGraw A. P., Williams L. E., Warren C. (2014). The rise and fall of humor: psychological distance modulates humorous responses to tragedy. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 5, 566–572. 10.1177/1948550613515006 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Meyer J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: four functions of humor in communication. Commun. Theory 10, 310–331. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Olin L. (2016). Questions for a theory of humor. Philos Compass 11, 338–350. 10.1111/phc3.12320 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Örtqvist D., Wincent J. (2006). Prominent consequences of role stress: a meta-analytic review. Int. J. Stress. Manag. 13, 399–422. 10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.399 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Padilla A., Hogan R., Kaiser R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadersh. Q. 18, 176–194. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Piff P. K., Stancato D. M., Côté S., Mendoza-Denton R., Keltner D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 4086–4091. 10.1073/pnas.1118373109, PMID: [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Plester B. (2009). Crossing the line: boundaries of workplace humour and fun. Empl. Relat. 31, 584–599. 10.1108/01425450910991749, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Plester B. (2016). The complexity of workplace humor. (London: Springer; ). [Google Scholar]

Rayner C., Cooper C. L. (2003). The black hole in “bullying at work” research. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 4, 47–64. 10.1504/IJMDM.2003.002488 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Salmivalli C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: a review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 15, 112–120. 10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Smith P. K., Trope Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: power priming and abstract information processing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 578–596. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Spector P. E., Fox S. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior and organisational citizenship behavior: are they opposite forms of active behavior? Appl. Psychol. 59, 21–39. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00414.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Stephan E., Liberman N., Trope Y. (2011). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 397–402. 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.001, PMID:[PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Tepper B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 178–190. 10.2307/1556375 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Trope Y., Liberman N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117, 440–463. 10.1037/a0018963, PMID: [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Warren C., Barsky A., McGraw A. P. (2018). Humor, comedy, and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 45, 529–552. 10.1093/jcr/ucy015 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Warren C., McGraw A. P. (2016). Differentiating what is humorous from what is not. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110, 407–430. 10.1037/pspi0000041, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Weiner B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: a theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation. Am. Psychol. 48, 957–965. 10.1037/0003-066X.48.9.957, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Weiner B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ). [Google Scholar]

Yammarino F. J., Dansereau F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. Leadersh. Q. 19, 135–141. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

#humor #psychology #benign violation theory #psychological distance #social distance #culture #power asymmetry #destructive leadership #sublimation #humor perception #sense of humor #anger #offense #power dynamics

0 notes

mrsteveecook · 5 years

Text

I can’t trust the snacks from my coworker, large employee won’t use heavy duty chair, and more

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. My boss wants me to fire a heavier employee if she won’t use a heavy duty chair

One of my employees is a rather heavy person and has broken four chairs in the past year. My office is pretty flexible about office equipment, so after the first chair, I gave her the catalogue to pick what she needed. After chair #2 and two conference room chairs broke, I suggested getting a heavy duty chair. She burst into tears and said she didn’t want a “fat lady chair” because it was stigmatizing. I get it. Our culture is unforgiving to fat people, especially fat women. Chair #3 met the fate of chair #2, so for chair #4 I ordered her a heavy duty chair. She swapped it with a coworker. That chair broke too. My boss, looking at our supply budget, said that she takes and uses a heavy-duty chair or she is gone.

So, my question to you is what did I do wrong to get to this point? And how should I approach the “use this chair or be fired” conversation? She’s an otherwise okay employee, not the best, not the worst. I just can’t have her absorbing the equipment budget for six people.

It’s reasonable to require her to sit in a chair rated for her weight, but your boss is being unreasonable by threatening to fire her over this, particularly when it doesn’t sound like anyone has told her directly this isn’t optional.

I don’t think you did anything wrong to get to this point — you were trying to be understanding — but you do need to be more direct now and say something like, “I know this is awkward, but we don’t have the equipment budget to replace chairs this frequently, so I need you to use the new chair I’m purchasing. You cannot swap it for someone else’s.” If she pushes back, say, “I’m sorry this is upsetting, but I don’t have any flexibility with the budget anymore, and I do need you to stick with the chair I’m purchasing.”

If your boss is really serious about firing her if she doesn’t comply, you’d be doing her a favor by letting her know that too. But ideally you’d push back with your boss on that, saying that you’re committed to making it clear your employee needs to use her own chair but that announcing her job is at stake over this will be counterproductive and alienating. If your employee refuses after you get clearer with her, that’s a different issue — one that wouldn’t about the chairs, but rather about her refusing to do something that you’ve explicitly told her she needs to do.

2. I can’t trust the snacks from my sort-of-vegan coworker

For about a month every year I go vegan. I’m newer to my current job so this hasn’t yet happened but will very soon. The problem is that my coworker Bessy is vegan. But she’s not. We’re a very snacky office and food gets brought in a lot. One time I brought in a snack and read out the ingredients to make sure Bessy would know if it was vegan. The snack had skim milk and I expressed that I was sorry she wouldn’t be able to eat it. But she ate it. We’ve also been out to lunch and she’s eaten pizza with non-vegan cheese and Mexican food that says on the menu it’s traditionally cooked in lard.

I am so not the food police and could care less about what Bessy labels herself. She’s fantastic and I have a very good working relationship with her. The thing is that when I go vegan I try very hard to stay completely plant based. Bessy brings in homemade “vegan” snacks and desserts routinely. I’ve tried them every time she brings them. However, when I’m vegan, I don’t want to take a chance that there are animal or dairy based ingredients in what I eat. How do I opt out of her food without implying I think she’s not a real vegan? Just for clarification I’m connected to Bessy and other staff on social media where the vegan challenge is discussed openly so I can’t pretend I’m not doing it.

The easiest option is to just not take the food she brings in and don’t say anything about it. But if she asks, can you say, “I’m being really strict about seeing the ingredients on everything I eat this month”?

Of course, that won’t work as well if she sees that you’re eating treats other people bring in. Ideally it would be nice if you were able to just say, “Oh, I’m being super strict and I know you’re sometimes more flexible about ingredients” — but that’s the kind of thing some people get weird and defensive about, so I wouldn’t say it unless you know she won’t.

3. Taking another job with a boundary-challenged ex-manager

Last year, I relocated to a different state, leaving a job that paid extremely well and gave me tons of opportunity for growth. While I enjoyed the paycheck, my employer had some serious boundary issues, and I struggled to maintain work/life balance. The issues stemmed primarily from the fact that he thought of me as a friend, first and foremost, rather than his employee, and would do things like text me all the time about work (and non-work) related things all hours of the day. It’s hard to get into specifics, because our whole relationship was a boundary issue in itself. I was a highly valued employee, and the company really tried to get me to stay.

I enjoy my new job, but opportunities for growth (especially in terms of pay) are somewhat limited, and the culture here isn’t all that healthy. Overall, though, I don’t have any major complaints.

My previous employer and I have kept in touch, and I now have an offer in front of me to work for the company remotely. The pay is significantly better than my current employer, and I’ll have more flexibility in terms of time off and scheduling.

Part of me thinks that working remotely will alleviate some of the boundary issues I experienced previously, but another part thinks I’m crazy for even considering it. I wish income wasn’t such a big factor, but I’m the breadwinner, and it is a significant factor in weighing the decision. Do you think it’s possible to establish boundaries with a boss when you previously didn’t do a good job of that?

I’d be very, very skeptical that it can be pulled off, especially about a relationship that you call “a boundary issue in itself” and especially with a manager who thinks of you as a friend more than an employee.’

In theory, you could try having a very candid talk about what the issues were last time and what you’d need to be different thing time … but even then I’d be skeptical. If you’ve seen this person be extraordinarily self-aware and able to make major changes in response to feedback, then maybe. But I’d go into this assuming that there’s a good chance the boundaries issues will come back up, and figure out how willing you are to deal with that if they do.

4. My coworker keeps commenting that I work all the time

I’m a manager at a Fortune 500 health care company. I work a flexible schedule of 9 hour days (with a required 30 minute lunch break) so I can have a half day off every other Friday. I’m the only employee in my smaller satellite office that has a flexible schedule, as far as I’m aware.

I get into the office by 7:45am and leave by 4:45pm most days. A new employee recently started at my office, and she sits near me even though we work in different departments. She works an 8 hour day, getting into the office after I’m already here and leaving before I do.

She has recently started making comments to me about how I must live in the office because I’m always here, I guess as a way to make some small talk? I told her I leave before 5 so I’m not at the office late, but she has continued to make these comments on a daily basis. I’m the only one in my area she makes these comments to, even though others are here before her. This morning, she made a comment to the tune of, “Hey, at least you had a change of clothes for today!” I gave her a half hearted smile and shrug and went back to my work because I didn’t really know how else to respond. She seemed miffed that I didn’t reciprocate more.

Should I have reacted differently? I don’t complain or discuss my workload with her, so these comments seem really weird to begin with. Or am I just annoyed by some innocuous comments and I should just laugh and move on?

My bet is that she’s latched on to this as your mutual “thing” — in her mind, this is the small talk you make together and she thinks it’s enjoyable banter for you both, rather than realizing how annoying it is.

If you want to put a stop to it, you can say, “It sounds like you’re really concerned about my schedule. Like I’ve mentioned, I work nine-hour days so I can take a half day every other Friday. There isn’t anything weird about that, so I’m wondering if there’s something you’ve misunderstood.”

If it keeps happening after that, then she’s not someone who picks up on subtleties (although the above isn’t really subtle) and you’ll need to be more direct: “All this talk about my schedule is unnerving. Could we find a different topic?”

Or, sure, you could ignore it. But it sounds annoying, and it’s also not great if one of your employees happens to overhear her and starts thinking you’re working crazy hours and then feels they’re supposed to do the same.

5. Can I ask if there have been changes to a job I turned down that would make me reconsider?

Last August, I applied for a job at a very small nonprofit. I was interviewed three times, including a full day on site to meet the employees and the board. I really fell in love with this organization and I think the job would be a great fit for me personally and professionally. However, they made it clear early on that the salary range was lower than my expectations and current salary – also significantly under market value. Each time it was brought up, I was honest that I was only willing to consider a lower salary in exchange for more flexibility and generous PTO. They made an offer and, unfortunately, indicated that they were firm on only offering two weeks vacation and no option to occasionally work from home – so really no flexibility or extra PTO at all! I turned down the offer and explained that I would need significantly more time off to make up for the reduction in salary and wished them well on their search.

Flash forward to now. The position has just been reposted for the third time. Is it ever appropriate to reach back out to see if they have reconsidered their stance on time off and flexibility? To be clear, if they haven’t I would not be interested in the job, but I’m wondering if seeing the candidate pool and their difficulty in filling the position would have made them soften the hardline stance. To add context, the board and the executive director have all been with the organization a very long time, and the previous person in this role worked there for 15 years, so I think some of the rigidity around time off and working from home was due to being unfamiliar with how the standards for flexible work arrangements have evolved in recent years. I imagine that other candidates are similarly turned off by the combination of low salary with high demands and no flexibility because otherwise this job would be quite desirable in my field and region.

Should I just assume that if they changed their minds, they would have contacted me and leave it alone? Or would it look strange or unprofessional to reach back out to see if they have reconsidered some of their positions?

It won’t look strange or unprofessional to reach back out. That said, it’s not likely to be terribly fruitful — they have the same info you do about what the sticking points were between you last time, and if they were ready to reconsider, they’d likely let you know.

But there’s nothing wrong with saying something like, “I noticed the X position is still open. I know we couldn’t agree on the terms of your offer back in August, but I wanted to reiterate how excited I’d be to do this work if you end up having any flexibility on the salary range or the PTO and remote work. I realize that likely hasn’t changed — but if it ever does, please know I’d love to talk.”

You may also like:

updates: my coworker is rude to Uber drivers and more

can we make hot-desking work in our office?

4 updates from letter-writers (the clock watcher, the over-sized chair, and more)

I can’t trust the snacks from my coworker, large employee won’t use heavy duty chair, and more was originally published by Alison Green on Ask a Manager.

from Ask a Manager http://bit.ly/2ARztOO

0 notes

andyswoodworksblog · 6 years

Text

WTF Just Happened with Alo, Cody App, Kino and the Instagram Yoga Community

Learn more: http://www.nysurbanforestrycouncil.com

In this Instagram blowout between Alo, Cody App, and teachers Dana Falsetti and Kino MacGregor, the yoga community revealed-in both supportive and damning comments-how complicated yoga business and social media can be.

On December 6, 2017, Dana Falsetti was at home when she was served legal papers by Cody Inc., an online platform that sells video training programs and had just been acquired by Alo, LLC, a yoga apparel company for defamation and trade libel.

You're probably familiar with this story by now: On December 6, 2017, Dana Falsetti was at home when she was served legal papers by Cody Inc., an online platform that sells video training programs and had just been acquired by Alo, LLC, a yoga apparel company. Cody was suing the 24-year-old yoga teacher, body positive advocate, and (now former) Cody instructor for breach of contract and trade libel, which they claimed Falsetti committed in a short-lived Instagram Story about the then-confidential Cody-Alo merger. On December 8, Alo also filed a lawsuit against Falsetti for defamation and trade libel.

In Falsetti's Insta Story, she harshly criticized Alo, saying that the brand “lies,” “perpetuates body shame,” and that an Alo executive faced “sexual harassment/assault allegations." The contentious post was triggered by an email Cody had sent its subscription-based customers advertising Alo apparel, which Falsetti claimed “led her students and followers to 'reasonably' believe she was affiliated with Alo,” causing them to express “concern and disappointment” about her new relationship with a company that they viewed as “antagonistic to her advocacy for the health and wellness of large-bodied persons.” Falsetti countersued for breach of contract and equitable indemnity, stating that the acquisition violated her Talent License and Release Agreement because it harmed her reputation.

Her counterclaim was dismissed by the court on March 8, 2018, and the Cody/Alo lawsuits were settled out of court on April 12, but what ensued on social-in both supportive and damning posts and comments-continues to ripple through the community and reveal how complicated the marriage of yoga business and social media can be.

Social (Media) Justice?

A few months after Cody and Alo sued Falsetti, Ashtanga yogi, Cody instructor, and Instagram celebrity Kino MacGregor (@kinoyoga)-with 1+ million followers-stepped in to defend Falsetti, and the yoga community broke into unprecedented, sometimes crude and aggressive commentary regarding the true nature of yoga and yoga business. MacGregor posted on her Insta that “If yogis enter business, or even seek to make money off of yoga, the yoga should always come first. Any brand or brand owner that seeks to capture the hearts of yogis would be held up to the moral and ethical standards of the practice itself.” She linked to an opinion piece on Elephant Journal in support of her fellow Cody teacher, and launched a crowdfunding campaign that raised more than $50,000 to assist with Falsetti's legal fees. While this post received almost 24k likes and some commented that they unfollowed and planned to boycott Alo in response to her message, others said that it's not Kino's place to criticize others for not behaving yogically, especially since she, too, has an apparel line and her own business, OMstars-a video platform similar to Cody's. At the same time, Falsetti (@nolatrees, 330k followers) who had kept lawsuit details and references off social media received thousands of messages supporting her outspokenness and lauding her as an inspiration.

Kino MacGregor spoke up on Instagram siding with Falsetti, which ignited a myriad of responses-both positive and negative-revealing just how delicate yoga business and social media relationships can be.

MacGregor's siding with Falsetti stemmed, in part, from her own negotiations with Alo. “For me, personally, it was reaching a stalemate,” Kino told YJ. “The line was drawn when they filed the lawsuit against Dana.” According to Alo, acquisition of OMstars was part of that negotiation. "Kino MacGregor was negotiating the sale of her yoga platform to Alo in late October for more than a million dollars," an Alo spokesperson told YJ. MacGregor, however, says she never intended to sell her company. “I wanted to keep an open mind and hear what Alo and Cody were creating. They made me a multi-million dollar offer and told me they would glorify me and make me their 'special voice.' I told Paul [Javid, co-founder of Cody] and Marco [deGeorge, co-founder of Alo] thank you for the offer, but no thanks. I didn't like the direction they were going and how they think about yoga, and didn't want to be affiliated with them. I told them that I am running OMstars and their offer didn't take my channel into account.”

Tension between Alo and MacGregor may have been the catalyst for a blog post she wrote on her own site in December that discussed subliminal marketing and brand transparency. In the post, MacGregor encouraged consumers to “vote with your dollars and boycott their products” if they see big companies “monopolizing the message of yoga.” The post also mentioned the Instagram accounts @YogaInspiration, @YogaGoals, and @YogaChannel-all of which include images of yogis wearing Alo apparel. Alo does own all three accounts, but only @YogaInspiration's profile mentioned Alo, and while @YogaGoals had an Apple app store link to the Alo Yoga Poses app, it did not mention Alo explicitly. After MacGregor posted the blog, Alo sent her a cease and desist letter. According to the Alo spokesperson, "Kino had violated the terms of her contract with Cody".

Shortly before Falsetti announced that the lawsuits were settled out of court, MacGregor received a subpoena-served to her after class in Birmingham, Alabama, as she was talking to students-on the grounds of “discoverable information,” or evidence that could be used in the Alo, LLC v. Dana Falsetti case. On our publishing date, MacGregor was still in negotiations with Cody and Alo regarding her contract and content use.

After the lawsuits, the yoga community broke into unprecedented, sometimes crude and aggressive commentary regarding the true nature of yoga and yoga business.

Yogic Values Scrutinized: The Yoga Community Backlash On Social Media

The dialogues that originated with the lawsuits took a sharp turn when Instagram commentary among yogis started to heat up to dramatic levels-challenging one of the most sacred yogic principles, ahimsa (non-violence, non-harming). People, many of whom are yogis themselves, condemned those with an opposing point of view. It wasn't just Falsetti and MacGregor who receive insensitive feedback; several prominent Alo ambassadors (who were listed in the Elephant Journal piece) were shamed for their partnerships with the clothing company. Even more troubling was the competitive back-and-forth among strangers. “People are encouraged by social media and are soapboxing each other on comment platforms and stories,” says Waylon Lewis, editor-in-chief of Elephant Journal who published MacGregor's opinion piece. “They split into sides and no longer view the opposing side as a good human being. Everything gets rancorous. It's the fake news-isation of yoga.”

While this type of behavior may be surprising given that it's happening in the yoga community, it shouldn't be. Social media thrives on extreme behaviors, amplifying conversations with incredible speed. The juxtaposition between spiritual agendas and commodification-after all, we spend time and money on yoga mats, teachers, malas-can breed strong feelings if a conflict questions one's investment in a yoga practice. “Yoga is many things to many people,” says Andrea Jain, associate professor of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and author of Selling Yoga: From Counterculture to Pop Culture. “One of the upsides [of social media] is that yoga can be tailored to fit the needs of individual audiences so they can see themselves in the yoga world. The downside is that it provides a forum for people to claim authenticity and ownership [of yoga] and to verbally abuse those who they think are straying from the right path.”

Briohny Smyth (@yogawithbriohny), an Alo ambassador with over 100k Instagram followers and one of Cody's top coaches, felt the effects of the community split first-hand. Days after MacGregor's Elephant Journal article, the numerous DM requests for her opinion prompted Smyth to address the story. She wrote: “I have no personal issue with anyone in this drama, in fact, I have a lot of love for them all…Business is business. After reviewing the facts, I believe that an amicable settlement could've been reached if people were being sensible and not reactive.” This unleashed a flood of commentary-many applauded her thoughts, and just as many threw out insults, calling her “stupid,” and “money-hungry.” “It's time for us to reexamine what yoga has become instead of sit there and hate it,” Smyth tells YJ in response to reactions on her posts. “We want to cultivate community, not create community through hate.”

When MacGregor started the conversation regarding the Falsetti lawsuits, her hope was that if people chose to speak out, her call to action would be handled with maturity and responsibility, she tells YJ. “Anger does not equal hate,” she adds. “I never ever, ever, directed anyone to hate or send hate messages to anyone. I am utterly heartbroken how it has all turned out.”

The lesson we can all learn here is that trying to align the message of yoga with a single entity is counterproductive. “I would encourage yoga practitioners to think of yoga as a large system,” says Jain. “We are driven to respond impulsively [on social media]. When you see something that angers you, sit back and reflect and think critically before forming an opinion or stance. It's not necessarily about this figure or that corporation, it's about the system in which they are functioning-capitalism.”

'Amicable Resolution' Between Alo, Cody App and Dana Falsetti

After Falsetti reached her own resolution with Cody and Alo, she posted a public statement via her Instagram account, admitting that she made some mistakes. “If I could go back and do it all again, I would do more fact-checking and seek a non-reactive path to expressing my concerns…” she wrote. “I failed to completely understand a contract that I signed, and that is my own fault…I spoke out of a desire to be transparent to my community and true to my work.”

While the details of the resolution were not made public, the issue of Falsetti's content has been addressed. "Members of Cody who paid for Dana's content are still able to access it,” says the Alo spokesperson. “However, her content has been delisted from the Cody platform. We are pleased that we came to a resolution with Dana and wish her the very best.”

As for Falsetti, she feels that at least her lawsuits sparked dialogue about important issues (like body image and how stereotypes are reflected) relevant to the yoga community now. “The foundation of a yoga practice is that we need to be listening to the experiences other people are having,” she told YJ. “People are mad about the disconnect that exists between the yoga and wellness microcosms [on Instagram].” Her hope is that these comments are parlayed into actual in-person conversations that reach people on a deeper level, bringing awareness to stereotypes and biases, she said.

“For me, yoga is social justice,” says Falsetti. “My yoga practice is not just asana, but uplifting marginalized communities, having tough and often controversial conversations, and expanding awareness. If anything positive has come from the publicity of this situation, it seems to be the dynamic conversations communities are engaging in. The topics at hand: commodified yoga and wellness, diversity in marketing, transparent advertising, freedom of speech, ethical practices, the intersection of capitalism and spiritual practices, ableism, fat bias, and so many others, are important. They matter. Let's not shut them down.”

0 notes

bloominglotusyoga · 6 years

Text

WTF Just Happened with Alo, Cody App, Kino and the Instagram Yoga Community

Learn more: http://www.nysurbanforestrycouncil.com

Social (Media) Justice?

After the lawsuits, the yoga community broke into unprecedented, sometimes crude and aggressive commentary regarding the true nature of yoga and yoga business.

Yogic Values Scrutinized: The Yoga Community Backlash On Social Media

'Amicable Resolution' Between Alo, Cody App and Dana Falsetti

0 notes

chocolate-brownies · 6 years

Text

WTF Just Happened with Alo, Cody App, Kino and the Instagram Yoga Community

WTF Just Happened with Alo, Cody App, Kino and the Instagram Yoga Community:

In this Instagram blowout between Alo, Cody App, and teachers Dana Falsetti and Kino MacGregor, the yoga community revealed—in both supportive and damning comments—how complicated yoga business and social media can be.

You’re probably familiar with this story by now: On December 6, 2017, Dana Falsetti was at home when she was served legal papers by Cody Inc., an online platform that sells video training programs and had just been acquired by Alo, LLC, a yoga apparel company. Cody was suing the 24-year-old yoga teacher, body positive advocate, and (now former) Cody instructor for breach of contract and trade libel, which they claimed Falsetti committed in a short-lived Instagram Story about the then-confidential Cody-Alo merger. On December 8, Alo also filed a lawsuit against Falsetti for defamation and trade libel.

In Falsetti’s Insta Story, she harshly criticized Alo, saying that the brand “lies,” “perpetuates body shame,” and that an Alo executive faced “sexual harassment/assault allegations". The contentious post was triggered by an email Cody had sent its subscription-based customers advertising Alo apparel, which Falsetti claimed “led her students and followers to ‘reasonably’ believe she was affiliated with Alo,” causing them to express “concern and disappointment” about her new relationship with a company that they viewed as “antagonistic to her advocacy for the health and wellness of large-bodied persons.” Falsetti countersued for breach of contract and equitable indemnity, stating that the acquisition violated her Talent License and Release Agreement because it harmed her reputation.

Her counterclaim was dismissed by the court on March 8, 2018 and the Cody/Alo lawsuits were settled out of court on April 12, but what ensued on social—in both supportive and damning posts and comments—continues to ripple through the community and reveal how complicated the marriage of yoga business and social media can be.

Social (Media) Justice?

A few months after Cody and Alo sued Falsetti, Ashtanga yogi, Cody instructor, and Instagram celebrity Kino MacGregor (@kinoyoga)—with 1+ million followers—stepped in to defend Falsetti, and the yoga community broke into unprecedented, sometimes crude and aggressive commentary regarding the true nature of yoga and yoga business. MacGregor posted on her Insta that “If yogis enter business, or even seek to make money off of yoga, the yoga should always come first. Any brand or brand owner that seeks to capture the hearts of yogis would be held up to the moral and ethical standards of the practice itself.” She linked to an opinion piece on Elephant Journal in support of her fellow Cody teacher, and launched a crowdfunding campaign that raised more than $50,000 to assist with Falsetti’s legal fees. While this post received almost 24k likes and some commented that they unfollowed and planned to boycott Alo in response to her message, others said that it’s not Kino’s place to criticize others for not behaving yogically, especially since she, too, has an apparel line and her own business, OMstars—a video platform similar to Cody’s. At the same time, Falsetti (@nolatrees, 330k followers) who had kept lawsuit details and references off social media received thousands of messages supporting her outspokenness and lauding her as an inspiration.

Kino MacGregor spoke up on Instagram siding with Falsetti, which ignited a myriad of responses—both positive and negative—revealing just how delicate yoga business and social media relationships can be.

MacGregor’s siding with Falsetti stemmed, in part, from her own negotiations with Alo. “For me, personally, it was reaching a stalemate,” Kino told YJ. “The line was drawn when they filed the lawsuit against Dana.” According to Alo, acquisition of Omstars was part of that negotiation. “Kino MacGregor was negotiating the sale of her yoga platform to Alo in late October for more than a million dollars,” an Alo spokesperson told YJ. MacGregor, however, denies any intention to sell her company. “I never exchanged my company records. OMstars was never on the table,” she tells YJ. “They were interested in me as an individual and not my company. I wanted to keep an open mind and hear what Alo and Cody were creating. They made me a multi-million dollar offer and told me they would glorify me and make me their ‘special voice.’ I told Paul [Javid, co-founder of Cody] and Marco [deGeorge, co-founder of Alo] thank you for the offer, but no thanks. I didn’t like the direction they were going and how they think about yoga, and didn’t want to be affiliated with them. I told them that I am running OMstars and their offer didn’t take my channel into account.”

Tension between Alo and MacGregor may have been the catalyst for a blog post she wrote on her own site in December that discussed subliminal marketing and brand transparency. In the post, MacGregor encouraged consumers to “vote with your dollars and boycott their products” if they see big companies “monopolizing the message of yoga.” The post also mentioned the Instagram accounts @YogaInspiration, @YogaGoals, and @YogaChannel—all of which include images of yogis wearing Alo apparel. Alo does own all three accounts, but only @YogaInspiration’s profile mentioned Alo, and while @YogaGoals had an Apple app store link to the Alo Yoga Poses app, it did not mention Alo explicitly. After MacGregor posted the blog, Alo sent her a cease and desist letter. According to the Alo spokesperson, Kino had violated the terms of her contract with Cody.

Shortly before Falsetti announced that the lawsuits were settled out of court, MacGregor received a subpoena—served to her after class in Birmingham, Alabama, as she was talking to students—on the grounds of “discoverable information,” or evidence that could be used in the Alo, LLC v. Dana Falsetti case. On our publishing date, MacGregor was still in negotiations with Cody and Alo regarding her contract and content use.

After the lawsuits, the yoga community broke into unprecedented, sometimes crude and aggressive commentary regarding the true nature of yoga and yoga business.

Yogic Values Scrutinized: The Yoga Community Backlash On Social Media

The dialogues that originated with the lawsuits took a sharp turn when Instagram commentary among yogis started to heat up to dramatic levels—challenging one of the most sacred yogic principles, ahimsa (non-violence, non-harming). People, many of whom are yogis themselves, condemned those with an opposing point of view. It wasn’t just Falsetti and MacGregor who receive insensitive feedback; several prominent Alo ambassadors (who were listed in the Elephant Journal piece) were shamed for their partnerships with the clothing company. Even more troubling was the competitive back-and-forth among strangers. “People are encouraged by social media and are soapboxing each other on comment platforms and stories,” says Waylon Lewis, editor-in-chief of Elephant Journal who published MacGregor’s opinion piece. “They split into sides and no longer view the opposing side as a good human being. Everything gets rancorous. It’s the fake news-isation of yoga.”

While this type of behavior may be surprising given that it’s happening in the yoga community, it shouldn’t be. Social media thrives on extreme behaviors, amplifying conversations with incredible speed. The juxtaposition between spiritual agendas and commodification—after all, we spend time and money on yoga mats, teachers, malas—can breed strong feelings if a conflict questions one’s investment in a yoga practice. “Yoga is many things to many people,” says Andrea Jain, associate professor of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and author of Selling Yoga: From Counterculture to Pop Culture. “One of the upsides [of social media] is that yoga can be tailored to fit the needs of individual audiences so they can see themselves in the yoga world. The downside is that it provides a forum for people to claim authenticity and ownership [of yoga] and to verbally abuse those who they think are straying from the right path.”

Briohny Smyth (@yogawithbriohny), an Alo ambassador with over 100k Instagram followers and one of Cody’s top coaches, felt the effects of the community split first-hand. Days after MacGregor’s Elephant Journal article, the numerous DM requests for her opinion prompted Smyth to address the story. She wrote: “I have no personal issue with anyone in this drama, in fact, I have a lot of love for them all…Business is business. After reviewing the facts, I believe that an amicable settlement could’ve been reached if people were being sensible and not reactive.” This unleashed a flood of commentary—many applauded her thoughts, and just as many threw out insults, calling her “stupid,” and “money-hungry.” “It’s time for us to reexamine what yoga has become instead of sit there and hate it,” Smyth tells YJ in response to reactions on her posts. “We want to cultivate community, not create community through hate.”

The lesson we can all learn here is that trying to align the message of yoga with a single entity is counterproductive. “I would encourage yoga practitioners to think of yoga as a large system,” says Jain. “We are driven to respond impulsively [on social media]. When you see something that angers you, sit back and reflect and think critically before forming an opinion or stance. It’s not necessarily about this figure or that corporation, it’s about the system in which they are functioning—capitalism.”

‘Amicable Resolution’ Between Alo, Cody App and Dana Falsetti

While the details of the resolution were not made public, the issue of Falsetti’s content has been addressed. “Members of Cody who paid for Dana’s content are still able to access it,” says the Alo spokesperson. “However, her content has been delisted from the Cody platform. We are pleased that we came to a resolution with Dana and wish her the very best.”

0 notes

cedarrrun · 6 years

Link

Social (Media) Justice?

MacGregor’s siding with Falsetti stemmed, in part, from her own negotiations with Alo. “For me, personally, it was reaching a stalemate,” Kino told YJ. “The line was drawn when they filed the lawsuit against Dana.” According to Alo, acquisition of Omstars was part of that negotiation. "Kino MacGregor was negotiating the sale of her yoga platform to Alo in late October for more than a million dollars," an Alo spokesperson told YJ. MacGregor, however, denies any intention to sell her company. “I never exchanged my company records. OMstars was never on the table,” she tells YJ. “They were interested in me as an individual and not my company. I wanted to keep an open mind and hear what Alo and Cody were creating. They made me a multi-million dollar offer and told me they would glorify me and make me their ‘special voice.’ I told Paul [Javid, co-founder of Cody] and Marco [deGeorge, co-founder of Alo] thank you for the offer, but no thanks. I didn’t like the direction they were going and how they think about yoga, and didn’t want to be affiliated with them. I told them that I am running OMstars and their offer didn’t take my channel into account.”

Tension between Alo and MacGregor may have been the catalyst for a blog post she wrote on her own site in December that discussed subliminal marketing and brand transparency. In the post, MacGregor encouraged consumers to “vote with your dollars and boycott their products” if they see big companies “monopolizing the message of yoga.” The post also mentioned the Instagram accounts @YogaInspiration, @YogaGoals, and @YogaChannel—all of which include images of yogis wearing Alo apparel. Alo does own all three accounts, but only @YogaInspiration’s profile mentioned Alo, and while @YogaGoals had an Apple app store link to the Alo Yoga Poses app, it did not mention Alo explicitly. After MacGregor posted the blog, Alo sent her a cease and desist letter. According to the Alo spokesperson, Kino had violated the terms of her contract with Cody.

After the lawsuits, the yoga community broke into unprecedented, sometimes crude and aggressive commentary regarding the true nature of yoga and yoga business.

Yogic Values Scrutinized: The Yoga Community Backlash On Social Media

The lesson we can all learn here is that trying to align the message of yoga with a single entity is counterproductive. “I would encourage yoga practitioners to think of yoga as a large system,” says Jain. “We are driven to respond impulsively [on social media]. When you see something that angers you, sit back and reflect and think critically before forming an opinion or stance. It’s not necessarily about this figure or that corporation, it’s about the system in which they are functioning—capitalism.”

‘Amicable Resolution’ Between Alo, Cody App and Dana Falsetti

While the details of the resolution were not made public, the issue of Falsetti’s content has been addressed. "Members of Cody who paid for Dana's content are still able to access it,” says the Alo spokesperson. “However, her content has been delisted from the Cody platform. We are pleased that we came to a resolution with Dana and wish her the very best.”

#sleep sounds #sleep music #white noise app #nature sounds #relaxing sounds #rain sounds for sleeping

0 notes

krisiunicornio · 6 years

Link

Social (Media) Justice?

MacGregor’s siding with Falsetti stemmed, in part, from her own negotiations with Alo. “For me, personally, it was reaching a stalemate,” Kino told YJ. “The line was drawn when they filed the lawsuit against Dana.” According to Alo, acquisition of Omstars was part of that negotiation. "Kino MacGregor was negotiating the sale of her yoga platform to Alo in late October for more than a million dollars," an Alo spokesperson told YJ. MacGregor, however, denies any intention to sell her company. “I never exchanged my company records. OMstars was never on the table,” she tells YJ. “They were interested in me as an individual and not my company. I wanted to keep an open mind and hear what Alo and Cody were creating. They made me a multi-million dollar offer and told me they would glorify me and make me their ‘special voice.’ I told Paul [Javid, co-founder of Cody] and Marco [deGeorge, co-founder of Alo] thank you for the offer, but no thanks. I didn’t like the direction they were going and how they think about yoga, and didn’t want to be affiliated with them. I told them that I am running OMstars and their offer didn’t take my channel into account.”

Tension between Alo and MacGregor may have been the catalyst for a blog post she wrote on her own site in December that discussed subliminal marketing and brand transparency. In the post, MacGregor encouraged consumers to “vote with your dollars and boycott their products” if they see big companies “monopolizing the message of yoga.” The post also mentioned the Instagram accounts @YogaInspiration, @YogaGoals, and @YogaChannel—all of which include images of yogis wearing Alo apparel. Alo does own all three accounts, but only @YogaInspiration’s profile mentioned Alo, and while @YogaGoals had an Apple app store link to the Alo Yoga Poses app, it did not mention Alo explicitly. After MacGregor posted the blog, Alo sent her a cease and desist letter. According to the Alo spokesperson, Kino had violated the terms of her contract with Cody.

After the lawsuits, the yoga community broke into unprecedented, sometimes crude and aggressive commentary regarding the true nature of yoga and yoga business.

Yogic Values Scrutinized: The Yoga Community Backlash On Social Media

The lesson we can all learn here is that trying to align the message of yoga with a single entity is counterproductive. “I would encourage yoga practitioners to think of yoga as a large system,” says Jain. “We are driven to respond impulsively [on social media]. When you see something that angers you, sit back and reflect and think critically before forming an opinion or stance. It’s not necessarily about this figure or that corporation, it’s about the system in which they are functioning—capitalism.”

‘Amicable Resolution’ Between Alo, Cody App and Dana Falsetti

#sleep sounds #sleep music #white noise app #nature sounds #relaxing sounds #rain sounds for sleeping

0 notes

kershmaru-blog · 6 years

Text

Rape culture as seen by a non- feminist

I have to preface this blog post by mentioning some caveats: rape and sexual harassment are very emotionally charged topics, and some victims and advocates may very well object to and reject my commentary as an outside observer. I would implore you first to read my post and then judge.

There is also an earlier blog post about feminism which can give you some additional insight into my thoughts.

Rape culture is the hypothesis that there is a culture of sexual harassment and worse that protects the perpetrators and continues to hassle and victimize the victims. Usually, it is assumed that the victims are female and the perpetrators are male. More on that later.

There is a problem with the terms used concerning sexual violations. One might think that sexual assault, rape, and sexual harassment are unambiguous. They are not.

Sexual harassment can be anything from inappropriate touching over such rather odd perversions as Louis C.K.’s masturbating in front of unwilling onlookers to catcalling. While I count catcalling as the least grievous of the three, I am of two minds about the other two. The grievousness of a sexual violation isn’t easily quantified and may ultimately lie in the eye of the beholder.

While all of these things are inappropriate, and even the least outrageous instance outs the perpetrators as idiots, it is counterproductive to count them as the same offense. They are not, and counting them as though they were devalues the more grievous cases. Similarly, The definition of rape is unnecessarily complicated, i.e., by counting every instance of sex under the influence of intoxicants as rape, as advocated by, for example, Laci Green in her consent 101 video. In it, she claims that if they are too drunk to drive, they are too drunk to consent, period. While I find her and her work admirable, I need to disagree vehemently. While I am of course of the opinion that intoxicants can impede the ability to consent and make rational decisions in general, that point is not reached with the legal driving limit. What I aim to say is that at least in my opinion, you aren’t too drunk to consent when you are merely too drunk to drive. We are talking nuance here. Though the legal driving limit varies widely depending on country and jurisdiction, It usually errs on the side of caution. Classifying drunken sex as rape in this way muddies the waters and relativizes the definition of the most heinous crime bar murder.

In light of the recent wave of allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment against influential people, I think it would be wise to introduce a new term into this blog: the existent notion of sexual coercion, distinct from sexual assault and harassment, but depending on the exact situation varied in its severity. There are no clear-cut distinctions here, being forced into a sexual situation may well be perceived as being more violating than forceful rape. It depends on the individual victim and their emotional response. It indeed isn’t enough to merely classify the amount of force involved. There is an interesting debate to be had whether relationships with an uneven power dynamic can ever be ethical.

But if there is an explicit quid pro quo stipulation, as there was in the case of Roger Ailes and others, it certainly is a horrendous abuse of power. It should also be noted that unfortunately, one of Harvey Weinstein’s excuses for an excuse, rings true: “It was a different time.”

I am not one of the people who deny rape culture ever existed or exists in certain circles and cultures. However, it is undoubtedly true that times have changed and that sexual harassment and sexual coercion are less socially acceptable than they have been in ages past. Past but not forgotten.

There are still people in positions of power who act as “gatekeepers” and explicitly demand sexual favors for career advancements. Ultimately it may be necessary to let time pass and let these relics of the past die off.

Why am I saying this? Because sexual coercion and quid pro quo deals are, though scandalous and unethical, in and on itself not explicitly illegal. We only see the tip of the iceberg, where a legal or moral line was crossed, not the cases in which the “offer” was accepted. Of course, here again, we need to distinguish. I set offer in quotations for a reason. If the situation is one with a wildly uneven power dynamic it isn’t an offer, or in the worst case, an offer one can’t refuse.

All of this, and especially the width of the ongoing scandals may be taken as proof that we indeed live in a rape culture. I ultimately need to leave the subjective determination to the reader. Because yes, this is not an objective matter.

Do I believe we still live in a rape culture? No, and I consider the notion to be potentially harmful. Why? As shocking as the recent allegations and the # #metoo is, it shows one thing: that the mighty can, and should, fall. By reinforcing in victims that our society will turn against them when they speak up, they are less likely to, and the abuse can continue unchecked.

I am not saying your effort will necessarily be rewarded with a conviction; that would be a lie. The statistics show that without proof the chances aren’t all that great. But, one thing they will do is they will shine a spotlight which in turn can make it much harder for a predator to prey on yourself and others. And there is also catharsis in bringing these matters into the light of day I’m told. Ask yourself: If you don’t speak up, will you ever be over what happened? Will you ever stop wishing you spoke up? It might be considered presumptuous as somebody who didn’t share your experience, but I am confident I couldn’t.

Here I need to address the case for a change in the justice system concerning the burden of proof: I am unequivocally and absolutely opposed. We, as a society took a long time to transition from mob justice to innocent till proven guilty. I am well aware that a trial puts more strain on victims than speaking up anonymously does; the same is true for the victims of any crime.

By shifting the burden of proof, we would create a system ripe for abuse. Contrary to the hypothesis of rape culture, the mere anonymous accusation of rape or sexual misconduct can destroy a person’s livelihood and send a mob of self-righteous vigilantes after them. Though it seems unfair, victims must go through the process and prove their case in court.

Yes, there will be doubters and people demanding proof, myself amongst them, but there will also be people on your side, people who will unconditionally support you.

Lastly, there will be people thankful for your struggle, because it exposes and thus renders inert another potential monster. I count myself also amongst this third group of people.

To anybody in the “listen and believe” crowd, the very vigilantes I mentioned, I recommend careful and pensive lecture of Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

I am not a victim of any kind of sexual infringement, and though I can and do sympathize, I ultimately do not know what it feels like. If you feel that disqualifies me from speaking out on this matter, this is your prerogative. But this kind of “argument” is to me highly suspect since it seeks to bar anybody speaking up against a potential course of action, leaving the political playing field to understandably distraught victims and their advocates.

One thing I need to mention is assumptions about the gender of the victims and perpetrators. It is commonly assumed that only men are perpetrators and women victims. That is a potentially dangerous false conclusion. Not only can men be victims – as cases like Kevin Spacey prove, but women can be and are perpetrators. If they abuse an uneven power balance, i.e., in a teacher-pupil relationship than it is every bit as amoral as in the opposite case. Growing up, the first adult woman I had sexual fantasies about was a teacher of mine. Now nothing ever happened, she was never anything but professional and I also never told her about my feelings. But had I and had she reciprocated than the resulting relationship would have been one with an uneven power balance and abusing what should have been an inherently professional relationship, and thus unethical. And relationships like that are seen much more leniently by society and the legal system than between men and young girls. There are also societal tendencies to belittle and relativize male victimhood and female guilt. This matter, the matter of the differing societal dynamics based on gender is a very complex one and deserving of its own blog post, which it might get in the future. But back to the victims.

If you have been the victim of a crime, I feel for you. As mentioned before, I believe leaving you with the mindset that you need to fear repercussions if you speak up is counterproductive. I will now presume to give hopefully helpful tips to you. Hate me for it if you must, but listen.

Never forget you are not alone, not without support, but perhaps even more important, in your pain. And while I can emphasize with the wish to retreat and cry - I have felt this myself numerous times for different reasons – doing so will leave your attacker free to continue victimizing you and others.

Never seek the fault with yourself. You are not responsible for what happened. Even if you navigated into a potentially dangerous situation, your attacker has agency. They can choose to do the right or wrong thing.

If there is any physical evidence of a crime, try to preserve it. Your first impulse may well be to wash yourself clean of them. I know from my own, unrelated trauma that only time, support and potentially therapy make you better. And it will destroy evidence that could be used against your victimizer. It will make it that much more difficult to persecute them and put them where they belong.

Speak out! If not to police, to somebody else you trust. I know how hard that must be, but if there are witnesses not of the act itself, but of your outcry, then they can be used once you find the inner strength to expose them in front of the world. If that is too hard or if there is no one you trust, preserve a written record.

I was told by someone who read this blog before it was published that this last point isn’t as clear-cut as I might have thought. They deserve credit that this blog post is as good as it is, no matter how bad you think it is, it was worse before. Based on their criticism, I made changes here and there, but here I wish to clarify that the following was not something that I came up with on my own.

Sometimes victims need years to process and understand what happened to them - especially if they are very young I imagine. That too is an understandable and natural reaction. My above tips are of course not meant as rebukes for these victims, but as a hopefully helpful pointer for those who realized they have been violated and are capable of acting. They are intended to facilitate the prosecution of the perpetrator, and thus to protect yourself and others.

Lastly, even though I know I will incur the notion of victim blaming, here are some tips to prevent being victimized in the first place. This is not to shame or make victims blame themselves, but merely to protect others. It is true that in a perfect world your actions won’t endanger you. We do not live in a perfect world.

Do not fall into the trap that if you do everything right, you cannot be victimized, that it had to have been something you did. As the Bill Cosby situation proves, there are veritable predators amongst us, wolves in sheep's clothing. And I am well aware that many perpetrators are people we trust. My tips can only help protect you. They won’t keep you safe in every situation. That being said, they certainly may help.

Listen to your instincts. Do not let societal norms and manners make you enter a situation you are not comfortable with. Better to hurt some feelings than being victimized. If you later find out that you were overly cautious, you can always make amends. But you can’t un-rape yourself.

Imbibe or otherwise consume legal and illegal intoxicants only in settings you feel safe in, and try to stay vigilant. You should also avoid drinking from a glass you haven't had in your sight or given to you by a stranger.

Avoid being alone in settings or around people you are uncomfortable with. As in the above tip, your instincts are your best friend. Listen to yourself.

Prepare for a physical confrontation! Predators target those they think are defenseless or physically weak. Bearing in mind the principles of self-defense may protect you when everything else fails. Taking a course to teach you is time well invested.

Finally, do not presume that you cannot be victimized. There is no “victim look” or societal victim status. You owe it to yourself to be vigilant and take care of yourself, no matter who you are.

Of course, there is much more to say about this matter, but I, as a writer need to balance brevity and conciseness with detail in order to not lose the attention of my reader. I find that it is the hardest thing to express deep emotion in writing, and balance empathy with objectivity. As mentioned in my prior blog post, these blogs constitute an effort to get feminists & social justice advocates on one side and antis on the other back to the table. Here is a question: Do you consider such a dialogue to be worthwhile? I openly welcome your thoughts and criticisms, as well as personal narratives if you wish to share them.

#feminism #rape #rapeculture #anti feminism #discussion

0 notes