As a heterosexual white man in his 30s, I often ask what I can do to help make the sorts of change that need to be made in the world. And time and time again, I'm told that bystander intervention is the key. I've written about street harassment; I've written about homophobia in sports; I've written about casual sexism... and over and over the message is clear: it's not enough to not be an active part of the problem.
Change will only happen when the silent majority speaks out.
But here's the thing - intervening can be hard. Not as hard as being subject to constant abuse or marginalization, admittedly, but it can be hard. Most people are naturally averse to confrontation. It's why the work of groups like White Ribbon Canada is so important; they don't just tell people that intervention is important, they provide tools to make it easier. Because it's not always easy.
And since I've started trying to call out casual sexism, racism, and all other forms of discrimination, I've paid a lot more attention to how interventions are received. Sometimes it sorta works, often times it doesn't. And other times? It goes amazingly well.
Earlier this week I saw one of those amazing interventions. And I think we can all learn a lot from exactly how it went down. The following is a paraphrased version:
Person A: "Hey, Person B, saw your latest blog post. Unfortunate that you used "crazy" so casually so soon after talking about the importance of mental health initiatives.
Person B: "Oh wow, you're right. Never even thought about it. I'll fix it right now. No harm intended."
Person A: "Good on you, thanks."
If it ended there it would've been a success. Person A recognized that Person B wasn't trying to be hurtful; there was no malice to the intervention. It was the deed that was called out, not the individual. Person B recognized that what they did was careless and hurtful - even if not intended to be - and made it right.
How To Handle Hurtful Comments
But it didn't end there.
Person C: "Oh wow. I've used "crazy" in my online screen names for years and never really thought about that. Do you guys think I should change it?"
Person D: "That's up to you but here are several reasons it could be hurtful to people, even if no ill will is intended."
Person C: "You're right. Thanks. I'm going to change it."
Once again, no attacks. No blame. Just objectively making the case for changing behaviour. Now, obviously, these exchanges were successful because Person B and Person C were open to criticism and willing to acknowledge that their actions could hurt regardless of the innocuous nature of those actions. Not everyone is so receptive to being called out.
How Would You Feel If Your Kids Read Your Facebook Posts?
But then again, isn't the whole idea to create change by tackling the casual and persistent discrimination that exists? Maybe if we all know when to adopt the "hate the game, not the player" approach of Person A and Person D this sort of exchange can indeed become the norm.
There's a time and a place for outrage and rhetoric. Some people won't listen unless you scream. But there's also a time and a place for a less antagonistic intervention. I guess if we want to change minds on the internet we just have to get good at knowing which is which.
Printer-friendly version