Differences And Humility

     This morning, two tweets about the paucity of fiction written for boys have my attention. First:

     We are going to have a fundamental difference of opinion if you think the answer to boys not reading is to write about “boy stuff” and not rethink how we engage with boys in general let alone as readers. No specific interest or taste should be placed on a gender binary!!!

     Second, the response:

     This kind of retardation is why you cannot write, and thus why, in 14 years on this platform, you have only accumulated an audience of 2000.
     You don't understand what the basic task of fiction writing even is.
     It's empathizing in two directions at once.
     You have to empathize with the characters, to know what they are thinking and feeling, what they want and why, so you know what happens in the story. And you have to empathize with the audience, so you know how to tell it.
     Except you cannot empathize with half the human race, because your overt ideology prevents you from admitting its very existence.
     You cannot make the effort to understand how men and boys see the world, what men and boys want, what men and boys believe, what men and boys are interested in, or what men and boys will do, if you cannot acknowledge that “men and boys” is an distinct category of people that exist, and therefore is possible to know things about.
     Of course, you do not actually believe that boys are indistinct from girls. No one believes that.
     If you believed that, you would not be able to engage with the question “Why are boys not reading?” because the very question is an admission that there is something distinct about certain children that makes them boys and not girls.
     No, what you actually believe is “If I acknowledge the differences between boys and girls, I will be punished by my social group.”
     This belief is true.
     But so what? It's entirely your fault that you chose a social group which makes such ridiculous demands.
     MY social group doesn't demand I pretend to believe silly things.
     You don't actually have to play this game anymore, you know. You can just stop. Sure, some people you know will say mean things to you, but you and I both know they kinda do a lot of that already just because of the kind of people they are.
     You and I also both know they would throw you under a bus in microsecond if some innovation in the mandatory belief system rewarded them for doing so.
     So, in addition to not having an audience, you don't even have all that many friends, for much the same reason.
     You may wish to reconsider whether the juice is actually worth the squeeze.

     Now, that second tweet is about as unsparing as it could get. It expresses open contempt of the previous one’s position, convictions, and personal integrity. The author, Devon Eriksen, is rather outspoken about his convictions, which he often goes on about at great length. That’s his right, but I think he’s a nasty son of a bitch more likely to evoke anger, resentment, and hatred than any positive reaction… even though in fact, his statement is largely correct.

     The facts are on Eriksen’s side. Facts are about differences. All information is rooted in the perception of a difference. The difference between boys and girls is the one at issue.

     The first tweeter, Kate Campione, refuses to acknowledge that difference. It would concede the “gender binary,” which she refuses to do. She’s actually rather militant about it; note the exclamation points. That’s the consequence of her adoption of a particular contemporary nostrum. That nostrum makes it impossible for her to respect the consequent fact that boys take little interest in fiction that centers on female tastes and aspirations. So factually, Eriksen’s demolition of Campione’s tweet is accurate.

     But a little humility would have served Eriksen well. Indeed, it would serve him in more fora and on more subjects than this one. The readiness to slather contempt on others is not a winning personality trait. Most people, including most who would agree with Eriksen’s statements of fact, are drawn more to kindness and civility than to brutality and contempt.

     X / Twitter isn’t Speakers’ Square. It isn’t a Sunday morning talking heads’ broadcast, whose participants are paid to slag one another off. (Yes, this is a Sunday morning. Don’t press the matter.) It’s particularly tawdry to try to humiliate another participant on the grounds of her low follower count. What can you purchase with that?

     You can be dead right on the facts and still be destructive in manner when you assert them. There’s no need for it, ever. And that’s all I have to say on the matter, except for this:

     Chapter 6 in the Book of Wisdom personifies Wisdom as female. Have a few verses:

     Wisdom is glorious, and never fadeth away, and is easily seen by them that love her, and is found by them that seek her.
     She preventeth them that covet her, so that she first sheweth herself unto them.
     He that awaketh early to seek her, shall not labour: for he shall find her sitting at his door.
     To think, therefore, upon her, is perfect understanding: and he that watcheth for her, shall quickly be secure.
     For she goeth about seeking such as are worthy of her, and she sheweth herself to them cheerfully in the ways, and meeteth them with all providence.
     For the beginning of her is the most true desire of discipline.
     And the care of discipline is love: and love is the keeping of her laws: and the keeping of her laws is the firm foundation of incorruption:
     And incorruption bringeth near to God.

     Wisdom does not inhere in facts. It inheres in the recognition of fundamental things. Among those are the recognition of one’s own limitations and fallibility.

     May God bless and keep you all.