Micro theory for dogs

It’s been quite a while since I have posted about my dog Coco, but that last post about microaggressions has made me feel particularly remiss, and I’ll have to explain why.

Coco is now 11 years old (almost as old as this blog) making her a little old lady in canine terms. She still has plenty of energy, but in the past year she has been more and more hesitant to go on walks. I like to joke that the problem started over what most people would call a microaggression, and let me pause for a moment to examine something about that word. Every time I type “microaggression” (such as at this very moment), the damn spell check thingie makes it red. Ditto Microsoft Word! I mean really! If even the politically-correct, Seattle-based Microsoft has it in for microaggressions, then there’s a lot of education to be done, especially because once you understand the doctrine, you will realize that any expression of doubt over a microaggression — whether real or perceived — is itself a microaggression, just as taking issue with the concept of microaggression theory is of course a major microaggression. I realize that I could add “microaggression” to my “dictionary,” but then the word would not make me see red, so I’m torn. I’d like to just ignore my predicament and move on, and claim disinterest but may I?

I wonder. If I may be permitted to paraphrase Trotsky’s aphorism about the dialectic: “You may not be interested in microaggression, but microaggression is interested in you.” Yes it is. By definition.

By any measure, microaggression is a growth industry. If you doubt me, consider that the domain name microaggression.com is listed with a $2295 price tag.

I’m tempted to think the whole thing is funny.

Others aren’t:

If you are not sure that you have been microaggressive, here’s a very good piece indeed by Brendan O’Neill which delineates the sort of thing that might be considered microaggressive by some third-rate academic or the sort of people who run student unions in our universities.

Laugh now. Later microaggression will be an everyday part of our lives. These people are winning.

They may be winning, but their victory may ultimately come back to haunt them, because what they are doing consists of promoting a theory that aims at disempowering people for allegedly disempowering, marginalizing or delegitimizing people. Negating negating, if you will. If I say that someone of a different race/sex/gender/ethnicity looks good or speaks or dresses well, I need to be put in my place.  And if I was merely making an honest remark intended as a compliment,  turning that into an insult then in turn disempowers, marginalizes, and delegitimizes me.  So what we can expect are endless cycles of disempowering, marginalizing, and delegitimizing.

Saying that I am not allowed to complain does not end the inquiry. As Megan McArdle puts it in her brilliant discussion of microaggressions against conservatives:

Deciding who is eligible to complain about microaggressions is itself an act by which the majority imposes its will, and it is felt as alienating by the minorities who are effectively told that they don’t have the same right to ask for decent treatment as other groups.

[…]

Complaints about microaggressions can be used to stop complaints about microaggressions. There is no logical resting place for these disputes; it’s microaggressions all the way down.

In the name of safe spaces, no one’s space will be safe.

To return to poor Coco, and how her struggle with microaggressions began, it all started last May 5. (I’d say “Cinco de Mayo” but those who claim legitimate ownership of the term might see that as an act of cultural appropriation). I took her for a walk past a row of heavily student occupied houses when suddenly an intoxicated-looking young man wearing a gigantic sombrero (along with a week-old beard and sunglasses) appeared in the front yard near the sidewalk. Coco almost never has problems with strangers, but the giant hat terrified her completely, and I had never seen her act like that. Even after we were blocks away, she kept turning around, looking, and growling. It was as if she had seen the worst monster imaginable. I figured she just didn’t like large hats on humans, but ever since it happened, she has been fearful of walking on that patch of that street, as she is convinced that “the Sombrero Man” might still be lurking somewhere.

Or is my analysis faulty? Might it be that Coco was actually outraged by what she perceived as a gratuitous act of cultural appropriation by that young man?

Before you laugh, let me point out that over the years poor Coco has been subjected to a long litany of what are clearly microaggressions by any standard. What happens is that Coco is a nice dog with a charming little personality who gets along well not only with people, but with other dogs. So people who stop to pet her are constantly saying things like, “I can’t believe how nice and sweet she is, especially for a pit bull.” I used to think that was a compliment (just as I used to take it as a compliment when lefties would say “I can’t believe” that I’m actually a Republican/libertarian/NRA member), but I now know better! Such remarks are classic microaggressions, implying that pit bulls* are mean, ugly and vicious and thus disempowering, invalidating, marginalizing, and delegitimizing Coco’s ancestry.

So, while it is certain in my mind that Coco has been the victim of microaggressions, the question remains whether she is herself aware of it. But that may not matter. Because, according to the experts on the subject, is it often the case that victims of microaggression are unaware of it!

*Ditto are the implications for pit bull owners.

It’s nice to know that I’m a victim too!  

MORE: As if to further illustrate the absurdity of microaggression theory, Harvard recently decided to do away with Israeli-made soda machines:

Harvard University Dining Services has decided stop buying water machines from the Israeli company SodaStream due to concerns that their very presence might be a microaggression against Palestinian students.

“These machines can be seen as a microaggression to Palestinian students and their families and like the University doesn’t care about Palestinian human rights,” Rachel J. Sandalow-Ash, sophomore and member of the Harvard College Progressive Jewish Alliance, told the Harvard Crimson. In the meantime, the school will also be removing the “SodaStream” stickers from any of the existing water machines, just to make sure no student has to see one and have a traumatic experience or something.

Think about that for a moment. Wouldn’t it be just as reasonable to see the removal of the machines as a microaggression against Israeli students? Or Jewish students?

And if products are not to be served lest people perceive them as microaggressions, where does it end? Is the presence of pork a microaggression against Muslims? Should university cafeterias ban pork?  And what about meat? There are many vegans who feel terribly aggrieved by seeing people eat meat of any kind, and are deeply offended by seeing it sold, because they consider it to be murder.  You think I’m kidding? Read this. By any standard, the public consumption of meat is a microaggression against vegans.

As to where all of this is ultimately headed, I can’t say. I’m hoping that common sense will prevail, at least among the majority of people. The problem is, this madness emanates from an increasingly loud (and increasingly insane, imo) minority.

UPDATE: Many thanks to Sarah Hoyt at Instapundit for the link, and a warm welcome to all. I had not given much thought to the idea of cats being microaggressions, though.

However, before I had Coco (this was back in the days before microaggressions) I had an old named Puff who didn’t especially care for cats, but he was such a gentleman that he learned to tolerate them, much as it pained him. Once when we spent the night at some friends’ farm, their cat decided to get right on Puff’s bed (at least, the bed that was supposed to be for us). As you can see from his expression, Puff felt marginalized, disempowered, invalidated.

Obviously, Sarah is right!

Perhaps taking her cue from Puff’s experiences, Coco also tried the liberal approach, only to be marginalized in return:

Notwithstanding her obvious superiority, Coco wants to let it be known that she favors a policy of civility in these matters, and is against fueling any sort of climate of hate. She considers the traditional animosity between cats and dogs to be grounded in unfortunate stereotypes often promulgated by unthinking humans. In fact, she has many times gone out of her way to try to get to know cats better, but they often arch their backs at her, spit, snarl, and run rapidly away — obviously because they have failed to overcome the residual legacy of the bigotry from the past.

That was five years ago, and how things have changed! Cats would today declare Coco’s attitude to be a microaggression!

Am I allowed to say it’s the pot calling the kettle black?