Warning! Being true to yourself causes harm

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'If you ever meet a woman ... Just be yourself, Dougal. Be yourself, make them feel at ease and, the golden rule, always let them have their way. It's easiest in the long run.'

That was the advice proffered by Father Ted in an episode of the eponymous Irish-made, British-produced 1990s sitcom to his dimwit understudy Father Dougal.

Father Ted (c) & Father Dougal with the radical feminist Niamh Connolly (image from YouTube).

Self-harm

Acting on that advice later when left on his own in their parochial house, Dougal hands over the residence free of charge to a radical feminist singer — a character unquestionably based on Sinead O'Connor.

When Ted returns he is, unsurprisingly, aghast at what's happened. How could it have transpired?

Dougal tells him that he was just following his advice to 'be yourself'. Ted clarifies: 'Be yourself is just something people say. Never be yourself with women. Never, never, never!'

As for the golden rule mentioned previously, Ted downgrades that to the silver rule. The golden rule is, he says, 'if anyone is ever talking to you again, think about what you're saying and then don't say it. And then just run away somewhere.'

Comedy gold and, if I do say so myself, it has aged like a fine wine.

Of course, the idea of finding and being yourself, your true self, is one that has been parroted by the finest of philosophers and self-help gurus through the ages.

'In today's cancel-culture world dominated by those who perniciously call themselves liberals, many influential individuals appear more prepared to toe the line than to raise what should be considered as reasonable objections.'

Like many philosophical mantras, it sounds quite wonderful in theory yet its practical application can be rather troublesome — vide Father Dougal.

Public puppets

In the powerful, interconnected spheres of media and politics, where it could be said that being true to oneself would be beneficial not just personally but for society at large, we generally get anything but that.

It's more a case of, 'What can I do and say that matches the dominant narrative, that will keep me onside with those who shout the loudest?' This is what tends to drive public discourse and action, not any real conviction.

In my topsy-turvy, on-off 15-year media career, I've lost count of the times when I've spoken to interviewees or fellow colleagues off the record about certain topics only for them to say at the end, 'but we can't say that on-air.' There's a certain image that has to be maintained. In other words, 'I can't really be true to myself because I fear some people won't like it.'

The argument can be made that shooting from the hip — or from the fingertips, à la a certain Donald Trump — isn't very becoming of those in positions of power, that it often causes more harm than good. That's not the point. 

One can still display decorum yet speak one's mind. (I'm not, to refer to another comedy classic, calling for a be-like-the-boy approach from The Simpsons episode Bart's Inner Child, which resulted in a descent into chaos. I'm on about mature discussion.)

Yet, in today's cancel-culture world dominated by those who perniciously call themselves liberals, many influential individuals appear more prepared to toe the line than to raise what should be considered as reasonable objections.

Wisdom paradox

From gender issues and white privilege to climate change and coronavirus-containment measures, there is much we still don't know. Thus, those who aggressively proclaim, like religious zealots, that their path is the right one should not be given a free pass.

Going against our true selves out of fear or for career prospects or suchlike will only lead to frustration and even misery. 

Yes, there's every chance one may be wrong or burning bridges in pursuing a certain course but if one fundamentally believes in it, then it's best to stick with it.

This isn't to say that a person's opinions can't change when and if the circumstances dictate or irrefutable data suggest otherwise. 

Again, the idea of being true to yourself isn't about being right or wrong in the exact moment, it's more about congruence with the fundamentals of your character. In other words, don't try to be somebody else.

Many, however, for the mistaken belief that it will lead to a less stressful, easier life, often follow Father Ted's revised golden rule. They don't say anything. They let others do their thinking for them.

Indeed, the Catholic Church built its vast power on such indoctrination. That institution's force has been on the wane for decades. 

Yet, there are many, arguably more insidious types, stepping into the breach. Beware of those radicals, Dougal.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

 

Wonder women

I recently received a somewhat fitting, reassuring reminder from Twitter (see image below). It was a notification informing me that my report of behaviour unbecoming from a particular user was deemed to be a rule violation under "hateful conduct".

A virtual slap on the wrist. That'll surely teach her! 

This nasty episode happened quite some time ago that I can't fully remember exactly what the woman in question — @NanaMGNS is the handle, very much a former friend/acquaintance now — wrote but she basically went on a virtual tirade, calling me a misogynist (and then some) following a tweet I posted. (Unfortunately, Twitter doesn't provide the tweets in question when giving its response to complaints.)

"They say what they like about the other 'side' and this must go uncontested. This is their version of 'equality'."

From what I recall, my tweet was in relation to an incident I'd had with a Colombiana, in a dating sense I think. 

It was probably along the lines of previous blog posts where I've detailed what I see as some common traits in women I've encountered in these parts. See A prostitute by any other name or Ignoring is bliss for an idea of where I'm coming from in this regard.

Radical logic

The offending, nay offensive, woman, a radical feminist by all accounts, took umbrage at the line I was taking. 

Contrary to what she seemed to believe, however, I wasn't having a go at all woman. I was merely commenting on experiences with, on this occasion, one particular individual whose conduct I'd also witnessed in some other Latinas.

Again, not all that is to say, but some, and enough to notice a connection among such types. My bad luck that I keep meeting them. Or kept meeting them really; I'm largely managing to avoid them these days. 

So this was my perspective on real events that happened to me. I wasn't making it up or just trying to have a cheap, unsolicited shot.

I say this notification from Twitter labelling @NanaMGNS's comments as "hateful conduct" is reassuring because in terms of verbal or written attacks against men by women these days the general attitude is to laugh it off. To lap it up even. "Sure you're a man! Suck it up lad, grow a pair."

Fair enough, I guess we are the stronger sex. 

Oh no, wait, isn't that the thing these radical feminists are raging against? We're only the stronger sex when it suits their narrative to say so. 

And how dare a man comment about women in the first place. How discriminatory and sexist. Only women can talk about women. What's more, they can say what they like about men and it must go uncontested.

This is equality for 21st-century radicals, of all shapes and sizes. 'Careful now, don't nonchalantly refer to their shape or size. You might get yourself into trouble.'

"I do more practical stuff to help feminism than most feminists."

The thing is, I'm more on the side of the feminists and the quest for gender equality than the campaigners might care to imagine. 

For example, I pretty much demand 50-50 when it comes to paying bills. Or, on the rare occasion where my earnings are more than the woman I'm sharing time with, I suggest we pay the appropriate percentage based on our income.

For the first couple of dates I don't bother bringing assets and the like into it, I'm happy to let that slide at the start. One wouldn't want to over-complicate things.

'Equality on our terms'

I also don't go out of my way to be extra special with women on a day-to-day basis, that is to say, treat them any differently to men when it comes to engagements in the office or in public life (if a woman, um, takes advantage of me in a private setting, things could play out differently, closer to the way Mother [and Father et al., for equality's sake] Nature intended).

Unlike a lot of other men, especially here in the Latino world, I don't condescend or patronise.

Yet, in the female-dominated advertising/marketing job I'm currently engaged in, I've been talked down to, indeed screamed at on one occasion for simply explaining, calmly, why the use of one English word worked better in a certain context over another, by a colleague who is of the not-so-fair sex, so to put it.

It's safe to assume that had it been the other way around, a man carrying on that way towards a woman, disciplinary procedures would have been instigated. But we're men, we're meant to take all of this on the chin whilst constantly being told how everything is fixed to our advantage.

For these radical feminists, it's a case of, 'be careful what you wish for'. Equality, "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities" to give it its dictionary definition, is just that.

What some women appear to be looking for is the complete subjugation of men. They might just find that the status quo in many liberal democracies is already tipped in their favour. If it goes any further, we could all tumble over the edge.
_____________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.