By Mary Katharine Ham
Friday, August 04, 2017
This week, famous millennial journaler Lena Dunham was
strolling through an airport eavesdropping on a couple of flight attendants.
There she was, just a right-thinking individual with fluency in approved
language and a desire for a kind and compassionate society, when she heard a
conversation that violated her sense of an ideal society.
Then, as any individual principally interested in
kindness and empathy would do, she reported the flight attendants’ conversation
to their bosses at American Airlines.
Then, filled once more with the compassion and humility
that are her hallmarks, Dunham broadcast this conversation, and her reporting
of it, to her millions of social media followers. American Airlines is
reportedly looking into it.
Because how, pray tell, could the world be a good place
if middle-class flight attendants are allowed to talk to their friends at work
in any way that gives this rich, famous public emoter a sad? What have we
become, as a country, if millionaire, private-school progeny of Brooklyn
art-scene families can’t have their exact conception of acceptable conversation
reflected back to them during every minute of a flight delay?
Here’s What Lena
Dunham Had a Fit About This Time
Hearing this conversation, Dunham wrote, was the “worst
part” of her night.
This is the conversation Dunham alleges she heard. They
were “talking about how trans kids are a trend they’d never accept a trans
child and transness is gross.”
“Transness is gross” sounds like a very Dunham-esque
construction, so perhaps this is just her paraphrasing of the conversation, in
which case I’d like to have a better understanding of what these people
actually said. It is unclear, and ABC News notes in its reporting, “Dunham’s
Instagram Story appears to have shown the actress later on a Delta Air Lines
flight, which operates out of a different terminal than American Airlines.” It
wouldn’t be the first time hazy, unverifiable accusations from Dunham had
messed with someone’s life before falling apart on examination.
Also unclear for now, thank goodness, are the identities
of the attendants she targeted with her online crusade against oldspeak.
American Airlines released this statement in an attempt
to appease this piece of walking performance art and her followers and assure
all of us it does not condone thoughtcrime in its ranks and greatly appreciates
the efforts of Citizen Dunham to root it out.
“From the team members we hire to the customers we serve,
inclusion and diversity is a way of life at American Airlines. Every day, our
team members work to make American a place where people of all generations,
races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, religious affiliations and
backgrounds feel welcome and valued.”
Dunham, who claims she was animated by a desire for “love
and inclusivity,” could have actually spoken to the flight attendants in
question, but she did not. There are so many things that are creepy about this.
The initial eavesdropping, the immediate appeal to authority, the desire to
threaten livelihoods over snippets of conversation for which one has no
context.
Then there’s the ever-present Dunham show. Not only does
she want to be a minder of her fellow citizens, she wants everyone to know
she’s a proud minder of her fellow citizens and she wants to recruit more
minders. The message is clear: Someone is watching you and you’ll pay for being
out of line.
Don’t join her.
Nobody Likes the
Thought Police
This is the sinister side of the liberal “hamburger
problem” Josh Barro wrote about. His thesis is Democrats could win a lot
more elections if they stop insufferably hectoring everyone about everything—
for instance, insisting eating a hamburger is an inherently political act
because of the public health consequences and the carbon footprint and the
blah, blah, blah. He’s probably right about that, but many liberals go far
beyond hectoring (a subject I covered in depth in my book, “End of Discussion,”
which is out in paperback this week, by the way!).
In the worst cases, they equate speech that offends them
with violence and decide violence is therefore necessary and righteous to
oppose it, as on Middlebury’s or Berkeley’s campuses.
Dunham isn’t content to publicly lecture about trans
issues. She wants to punish people who disagree with her, going after their
jobs without so much as a conversation with them, and she expects to be thanked
and honored for her good works.
On the trans issue, in particular, the expectations of
liberal activists are ridiculous. The concept is a fairly new one to many
Americans, and one that upends a fundamental understanding of human life as
made up of biological men and women that up until a couple years ago was the
perfectly acceptable understanding of human life. The approved way of talking
about this issue changes seemingly weekly, and one is supposed to arrive at the
approved thoughts and words about a complex and confusing issue without ever
uttering anything deemed transgressive or transphobic by the likes of Lena
Dunham on the way there. This is an unreasonable standard.
And that’s just if you agree with everything liberal
activists want you to. God help you if you don’t. Never mind that the target is
so swiftly moving, I would not be at all surprised if you could find prose in
Dunham’s 2014 memoir, “Not That Kind of Girl,” that someone would call
transphobic. That was eons ago in social-justice-warrior years.
As she is wont to do, Dunham reflected on this experience
publicly.
“For those who followed my airport saga yesterday, here’s
my takeaway: these days it’s the little things. A smile. Offering a seat.
Respect,” she wrote.
The little things, like having a conversation with a
coworker on a break without a super-rich bully trying to get you fired.
No comments:
Post a Comment