Focus On One Or Two Social Issues To Stay Involved Without Losing Your Mind

Since the US election, a lot of people have turned to activism as a productive outlet for their outrage. Outrage can be overwhelming, though: You often feel like opting out just to keep from losing your mind. Focus your attention on one or two issues to keep this from happening.

Photo by Life of Pix

Over at Medium, lawyer Mirah Curzer suggests a few tactics for staying engaged with social issues without losing your mind. Curzer suggests:

You can't show up to every march and donate to every cause... If you want to be effective on anything, pick an issue or two that matter most to you and fight for them... Important caveat: I'm not saying we collectively should pick a few issues and let everything else fall by the wayside... This is advice to individuals, not the party or the movement as a whole.

It's also not to say other issues are less important or that you should turn a blind eye to them. Curzer's point is that, just like anything else, too many options can lead to analysis paralysis. As she puts it, "Sure, retweet and share on Facebook about your peripheral issues, but focus your real energy on the things you care about most."

Make sure to head to Curzer's post at the link below -- the full post is definitely worth the read.

How to #StayOutraged Without Losing Your Mind [Medium]


Comments

    Social activism is fascinating when you analyse it.

    I've talked numerous times about domestic violence and how every media outlet refuses to identify female aggressors and male victims (even Spandas Lui got in on the act. Link to stats were here http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0~2014~Main%20Features~Experimental%20Family%20and%20Domestic%20Violence%20Statistics~10000).

    Or when the media has aggressively and personally attacked Donald Trump. In a school yard, that would be called bullying and would be disciplined. However, the media and social activists like Madonna proudly (selectively) endorse it! The rest of the media turn a blind eye. For example, "[Trump] lonely and crazy in his bunker" (Daily Kos, Feb 17), "Donald Trump is a lunatic" (Hollywood Life, Aug 16), "Is Trump a psychopath? I'd call him a narcissist" (theguardian.com, Aug 16), "Send in the clowns, Donald Trump, Julian Assange..", (salon.com, Jan 17). No equivalents were found for Hillary in any media outlet and "clown" is reserved on Salon.com for males only (check their history if you doubt me). I spent the same amount of time on searching both Trump and Clinton.

    Now, Donald is big enough to look after himself. However, what we can say is the following,

    * The media and social activism is happy to bully, but, when it gets aggressive it will call it "social activism".
    * The media and social activism is consistent in its hypocrisy and sexism. For example, SMH ran an article stating that "women leaders face harsher critics" (evidence missing, naturally, but search for Hillary then Trump and compare yourself). The reality is almost the opposite. Also compare Ballmer (Microsoft) vs Mayer (Yahoo). One of these people was successful financially and was also bullied by the media significantly (Ballmer). The other was not successful, nor bullied and received very little criticism (Mayer). 10 points if you can spot the trend (hint, media: false, male: criticised).
    * The media is dishonest. The media has repeatedly said that mostly Hillary was criticised and Donald was not (a bit like "domestic violence is something only males do"), when, simple fact checking shows the diametrically opposite.
    * not one single media outlet will correct this fallacy because activism and media is not about truth or fairness. The truth is irrelevant and 2016 was the pinnacle of media and social activism extremism (unless the media ups the ante, of course).
    * sexism is the new black in media and social activism, and yet, the media and social activism says the opposite. Look for spin terms like misogyny (avoids female sexism), social activism (bullying), equality (must have 50% female representation) and my personal favourite false equivalence (when a woman hits a man/boy he deserved it, or even better, it's not as bad as when a male hits a female).

    I'm still wondering when the media last stooped so low that it resorted to personal attacks of presidents (not bloggers, high profile media) and why all of the other "reputable" outlets have failed to condemn the media in the slightest. This is the real truth about the media and social activism, you simply need to step back to see it.

    What today's activism (and media) tells us is that personal attacks are fine (preferably male), truth is irrelevant, me me me movements are to be admired and heavily promoted, gender wars and sexism are normal and acceptable (as long as the target is male).

    You will hear hollow words like respect, inclusiveness, empathy, without prejudice and equal opportunity, but, they are merely echoes of a past that the media and social activism have whittled away. If these words had meaning today, the media and social activism would say a very different story.

    When I see one major media outlet willing to run a major headline like "the truth about domestic violence and female aggressors" (that actually tells the truth and makes no excuses) or "how the media have become the most sexist they ever have been" (that analyses gendered prejudice truthfully and doesn't make excuses), I'll know that the media has started on the road to re-establishing integrity.

    Until then, social activism and the media should mostly be thought of as manipulative, bullying, untrustworthy, sexist. In fact, I'd go as far to say they represent the worst socially accepted behaviour that humanity has seen since segregation and lynching. The media used to proudly support (and ignore when it suited) those topics too.

    #SocialActivismFail

Join the discussion!