Ever since viewing this ‘take a stand against bullying’ video, I have been troubled by it.
Not troubled in the expected way—outraged on behalf of the anchor because she had been the target of what she identified as bullying.
Troubled that what in fact she labeled as bullying, and called on viewers to rally against, did not, to my mind, qualify as ‘bullying.’
Which is not to say I condone it.
But the incident that she singles out and condemns as more than merely ‘inappropriate ’behavior bears closer scrutiny.
The egregious e-mail specifically focused on her ‘physical condition,’ and questioned whether she did not feel it her ‘responsibility,’ as a public role model, to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.’ This questioning was couched in a concern that her physique did not set a good example for our children, especially our girls—that, in fact, it promoted a ‘dangerous lifestyle.’
And the interesting thing is, the anchor did not disagree.
Instead, she responded to things the e-mail did not say, strongly asserting ‘you know nothing about me, or about my family.’ The author never pretended to know anything about her or her family, or to judge them in any capacity. Nor did s/he imply the anchor was a bad person for having excess weight, ridicule her for it through social media, called her unkind names, or in any way publicly mock her. Rather, s/he questioned her ‘choice’ to continue to be obese.
In re-reviewing the offending e-mail, several points stand out:
First, as public figures well know, their very visibility invites all manner of commentary from viewers—commentary and opinions their viewers are, frankly, entitled to. This is especially the case when those views—distasteful as they might be-- are ‘reasonably’ communicated, as were those contained in the e-mail in question. The e-mail’s author questioned the appropriateness of the anchor’s physical presentation, rather than nastily judging and condemning her. S/he did not post views on any variety of social media, spread malicious commentary about her adequacy as an anchor, or attempt to publicly humiliate her. Nor did s/he reach out on more than one occasion, or harass her in any ongoing capacity. It is the very repetitiveness of bad behavior that, most experts agree, comes to define it as bullying. Many also cite the public nature of the humiliation, another characteristic missing from this incident. The e-mail may be inappropriate, mean-spirited even, arguably attempting to shame its recipient.
But is it bullying? I am not sure.
Second, the responsibility this reporter assumed, to the community, was to chastise the author. She did not engage the content / refute the author on her (or his) own terms, using the opportunity to become a mythbuster on behalf of all those who tip the scales beyond what is deemed ‘healthy.’ She might have pointed out that such weight is often the side-effect of medication—and we are nothing if not a medicated society. She might have pointed out that obesity has a genetic component, and that many individuals who struggle with weight are very conscious of what they eat. She may have pointed out how difficult it is for many women to lose baby weight, given all the physiological changes that gestation / birth entail. Finally, she may have pointed out that a significant percentage of the population own their size, choice or not. (None of these options need to have been linked to her personal situation, which truly is no-one’s business.)
Instead, the anchor publicly calls out the author of the anonymous e-mail, ‘proving’ that she has a ‘thick skin. More instructive would have been an admission that even while she was standing strong, such targeting and judgments always hurt. Truly standing strong, she may have resisted hopping on the ‘bullying bandwagon’ over an incident that, while distasteful, falls short of the type of harassment that is driving young people to desperate, extreme behavior. Bullying is a serious social problem, and if we cry foul at every instance of cruelty that makes its way into our lives, or every comment that offends us, ‘bullying’ will become a meaningless term, a charge that has lost its teeth.
Third, although questions of intent are a slippery slope in objective definitions, it is still taken into consideration when outsiders attempt to sort out individual incidents. Intent to harass, publicly humiliate, derogate and reject are not clear objectives in this instance.
Finally, any student of social dynamics might assert that unfavorable feedback is the prerogative of all members of society. It is how the norms of any culture are policed. Over the past decades, there has been a push to change cultural norms surrounding weight, and our anorexic body ideals. This is yet another avenue of feedback the anchor may have resorted to.
We will never live in a world without people who are needy, immature, and/or cruel—on a regular basis, intentionally or unintentionally. To call single incidents of offensive behavior ‘bullying’ is to invite a backlash against this social issue, one that victims can ill-afford.
Not troubled in the expected way—outraged on behalf of the anchor because she had been the target of what she identified as bullying.
Troubled that what in fact she labeled as bullying, and called on viewers to rally against, did not, to my mind, qualify as ‘bullying.’
Which is not to say I condone it.
But the incident that she singles out and condemns as more than merely ‘inappropriate ’behavior bears closer scrutiny.
The egregious e-mail specifically focused on her ‘physical condition,’ and questioned whether she did not feel it her ‘responsibility,’ as a public role model, to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.’ This questioning was couched in a concern that her physique did not set a good example for our children, especially our girls—that, in fact, it promoted a ‘dangerous lifestyle.’
And the interesting thing is, the anchor did not disagree.
Instead, she responded to things the e-mail did not say, strongly asserting ‘you know nothing about me, or about my family.’ The author never pretended to know anything about her or her family, or to judge them in any capacity. Nor did s/he imply the anchor was a bad person for having excess weight, ridicule her for it through social media, called her unkind names, or in any way publicly mock her. Rather, s/he questioned her ‘choice’ to continue to be obese.
In re-reviewing the offending e-mail, several points stand out:
First, as public figures well know, their very visibility invites all manner of commentary from viewers—commentary and opinions their viewers are, frankly, entitled to. This is especially the case when those views—distasteful as they might be-- are ‘reasonably’ communicated, as were those contained in the e-mail in question. The e-mail’s author questioned the appropriateness of the anchor’s physical presentation, rather than nastily judging and condemning her. S/he did not post views on any variety of social media, spread malicious commentary about her adequacy as an anchor, or attempt to publicly humiliate her. Nor did s/he reach out on more than one occasion, or harass her in any ongoing capacity. It is the very repetitiveness of bad behavior that, most experts agree, comes to define it as bullying. Many also cite the public nature of the humiliation, another characteristic missing from this incident. The e-mail may be inappropriate, mean-spirited even, arguably attempting to shame its recipient.
But is it bullying? I am not sure.
Second, the responsibility this reporter assumed, to the community, was to chastise the author. She did not engage the content / refute the author on her (or his) own terms, using the opportunity to become a mythbuster on behalf of all those who tip the scales beyond what is deemed ‘healthy.’ She might have pointed out that such weight is often the side-effect of medication—and we are nothing if not a medicated society. She might have pointed out that obesity has a genetic component, and that many individuals who struggle with weight are very conscious of what they eat. She may have pointed out how difficult it is for many women to lose baby weight, given all the physiological changes that gestation / birth entail. Finally, she may have pointed out that a significant percentage of the population own their size, choice or not. (None of these options need to have been linked to her personal situation, which truly is no-one’s business.)
Instead, the anchor publicly calls out the author of the anonymous e-mail, ‘proving’ that she has a ‘thick skin. More instructive would have been an admission that even while she was standing strong, such targeting and judgments always hurt. Truly standing strong, she may have resisted hopping on the ‘bullying bandwagon’ over an incident that, while distasteful, falls short of the type of harassment that is driving young people to desperate, extreme behavior. Bullying is a serious social problem, and if we cry foul at every instance of cruelty that makes its way into our lives, or every comment that offends us, ‘bullying’ will become a meaningless term, a charge that has lost its teeth.
Third, although questions of intent are a slippery slope in objective definitions, it is still taken into consideration when outsiders attempt to sort out individual incidents. Intent to harass, publicly humiliate, derogate and reject are not clear objectives in this instance.
Finally, any student of social dynamics might assert that unfavorable feedback is the prerogative of all members of society. It is how the norms of any culture are policed. Over the past decades, there has been a push to change cultural norms surrounding weight, and our anorexic body ideals. This is yet another avenue of feedback the anchor may have resorted to.
We will never live in a world without people who are needy, immature, and/or cruel—on a regular basis, intentionally or unintentionally. To call single incidents of offensive behavior ‘bullying’ is to invite a backlash against this social issue, one that victims can ill-afford.