Don't Hate On Tucker Too Much
I grew up in a family of four; arguments were common. As children, most of us-especially those who come from large families-had to fight hard for attention. We had to utilize all of the tools at our limited disposal. Among these was the pure, unadulterated power of volume: we discovered at an early age that it was possible to win arguments by virtue of being the only kid left screaming. Sheer loudness represented the blunt force of a stubborn opinion; endurance succeeded over elegance. Caution, nuance, shade-these elements merely undermined the strength of our beliefs, tripping us up while other, louder voices crowded in. The results literally spoke for themselves. If you wanted to say something, you had to yell it.
Last week made clear to me that after fifteen years not much has changed. Granted, we don't yell in quite the same way-the methods with which people peddle their dogmatic attitudes have evolved, grown subtler. Instead of commanding the loudest voice we try to adopt the most cajoling, the least forgiving, the easiest to sell. But the basic principle remains: the last person standing can dictate the terms of discussion.
What bothered me most about Tucker Max's visit to Hopkins was not the hostility that he met but the hostility that I met, and the HOP met, and many of my peers met-essentially anyone who wanted to hear this guy talk. I have no interest in defending Max as an entertainer or a decent human being; on that front, I think the consensus has been delivered, and the conversation has moved on, and who cares anyway? Tucker Max is no more or less than some harsh words on a page or at a podium. What we're really talking about is the perceived notion that some fundamental atrocity has been committed here; that the propagation of misogyny was given direct or indirect clearance on our campus. Last week a group of protestors, spearheaded by a few domineering students, made the case that it was, and that (through attendance or apathy) we were all complicit, and that we should be ashamed. They made a lot of noise but I'm not sure the argument was won.
Last week made clear to me that after fifteen years not much has changed. Granted, we don't yell in quite the same way-the methods with which people peddle their dogmatic attitudes have evolved, grown subtler. Instead of commanding the loudest voice we try to adopt the most cajoling, the least forgiving, the easiest to sell. But the basic principle remains: the last person standing can dictate the terms of discussion.
What bothered me most about Tucker Max's visit to Hopkins was not the hostility that he met but the hostility that I met, and the HOP met, and many of my peers met-essentially anyone who wanted to hear this guy talk. I have no interest in defending Max as an entertainer or a decent human being; on that front, I think the consensus has been delivered, and the conversation has moved on, and who cares anyway? Tucker Max is no more or less than some harsh words on a page or at a podium. What we're really talking about is the perceived notion that some fundamental atrocity has been committed here; that the propagation of misogyny was given direct or indirect clearance on our campus. Last week a group of protestors, spearheaded by a few domineering students, made the case that it was, and that (through attendance or apathy) we were all complicit, and that we should be ashamed. They made a lot of noise but I'm not sure the argument was won.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 3
why do you hate
posted 11/21/09 @ 12:38 PM EST
http://tuckermaxdoucebag.blogspot.com/
why do you and tucker hate on women so much?
2011
posted 11/23/09 @ 9:27 AM EST
You can't condemn the student group of protesters for making some people uncomfortable without also acknowledging that the HOP, another student group, made a lot of people uncomfortable. (Continued…)
Post a Comment