Sure, “Do You”
Today’s movements claim to hate social norms, even though they rely on them to function
Groups who claim to oppose any sort of norms or customs are those who also require them, as the existence of norms is what allows such groups to appear rebellious, edgy, or “different”. In an iconic moment on August 28th, 2003, we witnessed Britney Spears and Madonna make out on stage at the MTV Video Music Awards. Are they lesbians? I thought Madonna was dating Dennis Rodman? And what about Britney, wasn’t she in love with Justin Timberlake?! Tying tongues with a same-sex individual pushed the general boundaries of what society and live TV considered acceptable at the time. It shocked the world, outraging some and delighting others, remaining worldwide news week after week. Our culture ate it up, as mildly violating what we believed to be true about relationships and sexuality arrested our attention in a way we hadn’t perhaps experienced. In 2023, two women making out with one another is about as vanilla as a woman and a man holding hands in public, or an individual with a penis claiming to be a person with a vagina. To be a straight woman with an kink for women, then, is not rebellious, edgy, or different. Culture has evolved to register such foreplay as benign and expected.
Our current culture relies on the violation of social norms for digital attention. With this said, today’s activists do not seem to have the capacity to move on from their complaints, nor do they show any interest in doing so. For the same reason they’re campaigning, they’re also succeeding; without a problem, their identity would be null and void. Fight the patriarchy! But don’t fight it too much, because then we won’t have anything to pride ourselves on. Make mental illness normal! But not too normal, because then I won’t be noticed as being mentally ill. It’s similar to stories I’ve written about regarding the demand for therapeutic services: revenue is entirely dependent upon the presence of a problem. No illness equals no revenue.
Youngsters are advised to “dare to be different” and to “be our authentic selves” and “do you boo-boo”. Quite honestly, I can appreciate the premise of these claims, even if I’d use entirely different language to convey the message. What confuses and mildly infuriates me about such platitudes, though, is that they their intention isn’t to encourage uniqueness. Their aim is to be different, but to be different in a manner that is fashionable and socially acceptable. The movements’ loyal constituents oppose only certain narratives so offenders can conform to a set of others. They want you to fight injustice by substituting it with more injustice. They want you to fight stereotyping by proceeding to stereotype. Such tendencies are evident in most any societal issue since 2020: the best way to fight past racism of Black people is to discriminate against White people; disability activists scorn the use of “compliance” as torture yet demand their dissenters comply with their perception of society; women hate to be characterized as damsels in distress who belong in the kitchen yet stereotype men as aggressive, toxic, and inherently destructive “takers”. Ah yes, that’s sure to help.
Individuals whose identities rest on the permanence of a problem are uninterested in true change. They require conformity. Knowing there will likely never be 100% consensus on any nuanced societal issue, they are chronically ripe for the next pandemic, the next moral dilemma, the next world war. Any one of us could find a problem if we look hard enough for it. And today’s culture has refashioned most everything into a problem.
The Neurodiversity Movement, for example, relies on 1) negatively stereotyping “neurotypicals”, as “neurodiverse” can only exist if compared to some basic understanding and acknowledgement of norms, and 2) would be a moot point if true and thorough acceptance of differences were attained. We’ve long since accepted mental illness and disability, as we have for quite some time. Side-eyeing an grown adult who drops to the floor in public is not emblematic of “neurotypical supremacy”, but is a normal reaction to behavior we’d consider inappropriate. Glancing at a person arguing with themselves under the subway while carrying an open bottle of their own urine is not a public display of bigotry, but another normal reaction to behavior we don’t see as common.
While I do understand that some individuals continuously face harassment, unfair treatment, and discrimination because of their differences, we cannot continue to use isolated instances or our own experiences as exceptions to general rules. This logical tendency is used quite commonly in conversation: should I claim that stigma no longer exists as it relates to mental illness, the “normalization” advocate might claim “Well I wasn’t hired because I’m bipolar.” There’s not only several explanations for someone not being hired because of mental illness, but this one instance alone does not speak for the millions of mentally ill individuals who have secured employment (myself included). Additionally, there are unfortunately some mental illnesses that reach a severity in which sustained employment, or even day-to-day functioning, is not possible. This does not imply they’re being discriminated against. It means they’re people who do not demonstrate the ability to handle the demands of work or everyday life independently.
I’ve had a few students with disabilities in the past with varying views on society’s conception of able-bodied versus disabled. Does being deaf in a society that largely uses verbal speech as its primary form of communication make life more challenging? I’m assuming so. Does it mean that we pander to the very small population of deaf individuals, while completely dismissing the needs of verbally-speaking people? For a more common example, think about the TV show “Little People, Big World.” Individuals with dwarfism cannot possibly expect that grocery stores, schools, restaurants, cars, busses, houses, and skyscrapers would entirely refashion their structure to accommodate the 2.5% of the population with dwarfism; they can reach a compromise by building their house to their preferences and their height and their comfort, and perhaps find environments in which physical mobility is easier.
Although my views are quite strong as it relates to normalization, I do try to understand the “accept me and don’t criticize my quirks or judge my actions in accordance with arbitrary social rules” through personal experience with being ousted. Professionally, I tend to share views that many women find offensive, brusque, or largely difficult to digest. One can imagine, then, that working in fields almost entirely dominated by women (i.e., education or therapy) can feel isolating in that it’s hard for me to find others with similar worldviews or even compatible demeanors. While I actively try to prove my ideas incorrect or faulty, I’m also afflicted with the very human tendency to find people with similar but not identical perspectives. Doing so tends to make conversations more smooth, and everyday life more tolerable. I love a lively debate, but not 100% of the time. My assumption is that such constant deliberation would exhaust even the most mentally acute of debaters.
With my general worldview and beliefs being the minority opinion in some circles, especially in recent years, there have been moments when I fantasize about shaking people and furiously demanding to know how they can be so delusional in their thinking. What helps to quell this desire is the recognition that they likely feel similarly about my ideas. With this in mind, and with the world moving towards a doctrine that most sane people consider completely divorced from reality, maybe I do empathize with those who scorn social norms.
Some norms are challenging to keep up with: do I stare at a person’s eyebrows when we’re speaking, or do I lock into the left pupil of their left eye? How frequently do I avert my eyes before returning them to the other person’s gaze? Others are arbitrarily stupid and unnecessarily complex: Do I take the last piece of cake, even though I’ve already had a slice? If everyone else has had a slice and claims to be full, would it be rude to snag what’s left? An episode of Larry David’s Curb Your Enthusiasm uses shared appetizers as an example: there’s a tacit agreement that everyone eats their “ratio” of the dip, even though such rules aren’t written or even discussed. While we’re largely in charge of which norms we abide by and which ones we choose to rebel against, there is some degree of human decency and normalcy that I believe many of us generally agree with and are appreciative of. If you eat 2/3 of the hummus and four others are seated at the table with you, you’re an asshole.
I had a student a few years ago who self-identified as “woke”. We’ll call her Mia. Mia came replete with fashionable pronouns, rainbow shirts flashing “Love Is Love”, a clunky septum piercing, and faded streaks of blue hair. In sum, she perfectly fit what the mainstream media has crafted as the “activist archetype”. In talking with her, though, she still aligned her behavior with very common and accepted social norms while also pledging allegiance to the woke doctrine. As an example, she has stated the following beliefs (and I’m paraphrasing): ‘Yes, we need to show more compassion and care for people who are “harmed”, but no, not everybody that has been harmed is traumatized.’ ‘Yes, we live in a patriarchy and the White dudes in my business class are gross alpha males hard for innocent women, and also yes, women in America are nowhere near as discriminated against as the hijab-wearing and beaten women in Afghanistan’. Unsurprisingly, Mia received side glances and glares quite frequently, likely because of her flamboyant outfits and outspoken views during class discussion in a largely Conservative university setting. But never once did she demand that others bend to her will simply because she believed so strongly in it. I admire Mia.
She’s also the epitome of my general views on acceptance and norms. I am a firm believer in “live and let live”; I could give a damn in you’re a man wearing a dress with prosthetic boobs, or if you’re a throuple who all rotate playing adult-baby in bed. That is entirely the preference and business of the individual, and I am in no place to determine how others choose to live their own lives. What I take particular issue with is the concept that because these individuals accept themselves, the world must also accept them. Sure, in the privacy of your own home or on your own time, flash your plastic hard nipples to whoever you’d like. But presenting in this way to teach high school students, for example? This is inappropriate, as most sane people would agree. And while we’re on the topic of “gender norms”, more specifically the “burning down” of them… have you noticed that all of the male-to-female trans “activists” transform into only the most bimbo-esque version of women? How often might we see male-to-female individuals wear oversized sweatpants, a grungy trucker hat, and a T-Shirt, all without makeup? They’re secretly and perhaps subconsciously abiding by the widely known and accepted concept of gender norms, all while simultaneously believing they’re dismantling them. J.K. Rowling said it best: “The emperor may be wearing lipstick, but his balls are swinging in plain sight.” If a penis or a vagina doesn’t define gender, what makes people think a purse, lipstick, a weave, and a miniskirt will? Just some food for thought. And, again… do you. Just don’t be surprised when you get some looks.
Similar hypocrisy is obvious in the realm of mental health and “normalization”. Individuals who have grown insta-famous for their views on “normalization” must recognize that, should all mental illness be normalized, they would no longer be seen as an exclusive group suffering a hyper-special illness that makes them more enlightened than stupid normies. If everyone is a normie, the plausibility of “neurodivergence” ceases to exist. If everyone is special, nobody can be special. In that regard, what sort of ideal would such groups endorse if they lost the ability to complain about how the world doesn’t accept them? It’s perhaps that the world does accept them that they take issue with; an individual who only sees themselves as important because of their victimhood will of course denounce those who don’t see them as such. Such blatant hypocrisy doesn’t put them in a position of “enlightened” so much as it does monotonously common; we’ve all fallen “victim” to wanting to be seen as the victim. But it’s this annoyingly-habitual tendency that has resulted in our population rolling our eyes when we hear someone speak of their “traumas” or their “issues with anxiety and depression”. Oh, so you’re a person with feelings? How fascinating.
Sadly, being a person with feelings isn’t an upscale badge of chic. It’s just the norm. And it’s because of the norm that the screechy fringe is even capable of gaining any form of recognition, affirmation, or notoriety. Perhaps we can reflect on the statement-turned-advice, “any publicity is good publicity”. This could easily be applied to individuals hellbent on the “dismantling” of norms. I’d wonder if, just for shits and giggles considering our society can’t decide on what a woman is or if we should assign a “little b” or “Big B” to “brown people”, we told everyone “Sure, babe! Do you!” By simply turning the cheek and refusing to give attention to such idiocy, the activists and insecure advocates would be stunned by their audience’s complete nonchalance in regard to their issues. In other words, giving them the normalization they claim to be robbed of may be the antidote to the hypocrisy of it all.
With this sentiment comes the understanding that planned ignoring is not possible or even beneficial as it relates to issues causing legitimate harm to others. I’m certainly not making the argument that we ignore every problem and take the “live and let live” approach to society’s most dangerous issues. But we do need to decide what problems are truly worth addressing. Arguing on national TV about what a woman is, which pronoun is which, and whether or not to use “disabled” or “differently abled” seems to be a stand-in for actual problem-solving, or merely admitting we’re unsure where to start.
So you too want to physically shake people, and get side eyed because people expect your views to be one way, but they aren't? 😆 I'm annoyed daily by people and that's why I interact via a screen. The "you do you, but I don't have to" doesn't seem to be a principal many understand. It's like with the influencer Elyse Meyers. I don't get it, I don't really care, and I live 30 mins from her and don't dream of running into her in a store. All of her videos underlying tone is about her anxiety, adhd, or "neurodivergent awkwardness." But if you tell the cult followers, then you're a "hater," ableist, or just don't understand. Nevermind the fact that I have the same dx and more, all verified and not self diagnosed, I'm an army wife with more stress than my brain can handle, and both of my kids have disabilities. I just want to go back to "good fences, make good neighbors" or move to 5 acres. (OH and the draft probably coming and I can't wait to see the videos because retention is so low.)