Victim-Schmictim

Smacking the victim ball out of the range

Have you heard of the ‘Dartmouth Scar’ project: a psychologist experiment investigating the impact of a victim mindset on self-perception, behaviour and well-being?  A fake scar was applied to participants’ faces and then secretly removed before an interview to create a scenario where the participants believed they had a visible scar in order to foster a victim mindset.  Nearly all displayed heightened feelings of powerlessness, self pity and a tendency to blame others for failures proving that regardless of whether there's actual discrimination, when we believe ourselves to be a victim, it results in negative consequences.

Stumbling across it, it reminded me of one of the things I got criticised for in my TedX - pushing back on the victim mentality that I fear modern Feminism has been partly responsible for inducing in women.

It was a nascent idea I threw in to generate debate (✔️) borne out of frustrating conversations with younger women I mentored. I'd frequently hear them say ‘I didn’t get that job/ funding/ opportunity because I’m a woman’ despite me being privy to deliberations (often including other women) and knowing that not to be the case. They simply weren’t as good on the day and this presumption proved hugely unhelpful as it closed them to questions of what they could have done better.  Heresy! 

What damage are we doing when we tell people they’re victims or paint them with broad-brushes of disadvantage when in reality, the world is much more complex plus more accepting of ‘difference’ than ever before (and on any measure e.g. here and here).   Are we ok with potentially patronising people through affirmative action in a ‘you-can’t-be-what-you-can’t-see’ world, with its potential to set people up to fail?  Or with creating a climate of fear around criticising or passing-over anyone on the victimhood hierarchy pyramid?  

But of course, the concept of ‘meritocracy’ is now distinctly unfashionable given the modern belief that it is inherently unfair due to identity groups’ different starting points. 

And there’s something to this when we look at data for different groups in population-wide terms but… a) is this primarily due to discrimination or might it also reflect many other complicated factors e.g. immigration patterns, cultural norms or a majority of fatherless families within certain identities - which we ignore at our (and the affected’s) peril? and b) how might it be a problem when applied simplistically to convince people of their disadvantage? Anyone who’s repeatedly told they are a victim will see it in every negative interaction, disempowering them in the process.  Is it a real scar, or an imaginary one?  

To take just one statistic: individuals of Indian heritage in the UK out-perform the white British average educationally and earnings-wise, whereas those of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage under-perform, despite a similar narrative of disadvantage ascribed to all.   As a result, some of the most privileged in society can often be the beneficiaries of skin-deep, positive discrimination. 

Attempts to combat can cause more harm than good. A famous study which claimed that blind orchestra auditions increased female representation by 50% is still widely cited despite having been discredited (non-replicable, tiny sample and with non-blind orchestras witnessing similar growth in female representation over the same time period due to rapidly changing conventions).  In fact, blind applications have since been proven to harm not improve minority representation levels.  Turns out that affirmative action is hard to practise if you don’t know who you’re evaluating.  Who knew? 

Victimhood is power.  Hierarchies are evidenced in every big socio-political issue with different groups vying to be considered oppressed vs oppressor.  As a result, we’ve had a few high-profile hoaxes of people fabricating victimhood from Jussie Smollet (claiming to be a victim of a racist/ homophobic attack, since proven false); to Rachel Dolzeal, (the white BLM activist who pretended to be black); and Hasan Minhaj (the comedian forced to admit to making up stand-up stories of racial discrimination).

Whilst we may assume these to be rare outliers, Professor Wilfred Reilly a political scientist found that the fewer that 1 in 3 ‘hate crimes’ reported were genuine and that they are more common than we might think.  According to a Wall Street Journal review of his 2019 book:  

The author’s bigger concern, and rightly so, is the growing politicization of hate crimes, especially when they are directed at underrepresented groups and regardless of whether they in fact happened. The sad reality is that there is no shortage of individuals and entities with a vested interest in exaggerating racial tensions in the U.S.—from civil-rights organizations to corporate diversity officers to professors of race and gender studies.

These alleged incidents are invariably seized upon by politicians and activists looking to feed a sacrosanct belief among liberals that discrimination and oppression are the main drivers of inequality. “In the mainstream media we hear almost constant talk about scary new forms of racism: ‘white privilege,’ ‘cultural appropriation,’ and ‘subtle bigotry,’ ” Mr. Reilly writes, yet “a huge percentage of the horrific hate crimes cited as evidence of contemporary bigotry are fakes.”

… But Mr. Reilly has a larger point to make. The Smollett case isn’t an outlier. Increasingly, it’s the norm. And the media’s relative lack of interest in exposing hoaxes that don’t involve famous figures is a big part of the problem.

Hate crimes are ‘up’ - and very topically recently legislated against in Scotland.  (Although in its first week of over 7000 filed complaints, police have revealed that only 3.8% of them are ‘genuine’). !??  So is this really ‘hate’ or is it actually our perception of the-impossible-to-prove motivation behind crimes that has been so acutely honed through recent narratives?  What they also do, of course, is damage the case of genuine victims by providing fuel to deniers and inflaming tensions between groups.  One of the criticisms of ‘me too’ was that by expanding the definition of male-abuse into the realm of microagressions we diverted the spotlight from those suffering at the sharp, traumatic end - and as discussed last week - potentially contributing to increased polarisation between the sexes.

Whilst evidently low on the victim-scale, my advantages have elevated my potential way over the fortunes of most white men so I won’t accept any placement on a pyramid above them.  Brought up a ‘meritocrat’, it rarely crosses my mind that any setback might be due to my sex.  I assume it’s more likely to be down to me (‘you can be a little ‘Marmite’.. Mother, husband, best mate… many times) and I believe this outlook is to my advantage.  

If ever encountering discrimination (hard to identify but possibly once or twice) I’ve always been more bemused than offended, seeking to call it out with humour, a raised eyebrow or by demonstrating my status another way ie. prove the f*ckers wrong!   I personally don’t want any shadow of doubt as to whether I got an opportunity (or customer) ‘because I’m a woman’ - buy me because I’m worth it.  As Kristen Scott-Thomas’s character so cuttingly quipped in ‘Fleabag’ when referring to a woman-in-business award she had won:  

“it’s infantilising bollocks… It’s ghettoising. It’s a subsection of success. It’s the fucking children’s table of awards.”

To showcase the point still further, there was a video of a female pro-golfer doing the rounds recently who was mansplained-to about her swing and just politely thanked him and silently smacked her next ball out of the range.  The female crowd erupts… a way more effective put-down than wounded insecurity or anger.   That brings out the feminist in me.   

To be clear - no, I don’t think we should stop protecting the vulnerable in society and I will always believe that awareness of disproportionate outcomes remains very important. But maybe we might want to pause and think a little on the impact of the current cult of victimhood, it’s crude and over-simplistic interpretations and most importantly, how it might undermine the confidence, wellbeing and prospects of those we decide should feel vulnerable…

Whether you think you can or think you can’t, you’re right  - Henry Ford