America has been splitting at the seams, and the divide in our country continually grows wider with each controversial issue that comes its way. The problem in our country between liberals and conservative, and like in most relationships, is our inability to communicate. It is much easier to attack a person than to formulate an actual counter argument to their point. The bigger the political issue, the less people want to deal with it; but the trouble then is it is never dealt with.
Colleen Clemens, a professor at Kutztown University and director of Women and Gender Studies, fell victim to these tactics recently after putting out an unpopular tweet. As someone who regularly expresses feminist ideals, it is not uncommon for her to receive backlash. However, in this particular instance, the retaliations were a lot more extreme than she ever imagined. Clemens published a tweet about toxic masculinity playing a role in the superfluity of mass shootings in America. Her exact tweet was, “Toxic masculinity is killing everyone REPEAT Toxic masculinity is killing everyone REPEAT Toxic masculinity is killing everyone REPEAT,” which is a tweet that a lot of people, particularly men, did not take kindly to. Before even taking the time to consider, or at the very least argue, her opinion, shots were fired at Clemens. However, she does not feel she is a victim in this scenario. In fact, she believes what happened to her exemplifies a much bigger issue. So for the sake of shedding light on that issue, Clemens will take the fall. She does not feel any remorse over her tweet.
Clemens’s tweet made national news. Fox even did a segment on her on the Tucker Carlson show, which was unflattering to say the least. Numerous publications, most not in favor of what she said, wrote articles about her. She was treated as a spectacle. Those publications used her to express their conservative agenda in saying she typified the liberal agenda. Their attacks were targeted at her person rather than even that “agenda,” which is likely because their argument could not compare. Shutting Clemens down is much easier than challenging her opinion. These tactics are something we see everyday. Take a look at the comment section of The New York Times, for instance. People shun the opinions of others with whom they disagree, and instead, insult the person. This maneuver is no different than the logistics of a middle schooler. Yet, grown adults take on the same approach regularly. The internet definitely plays a role in this as anonymity makes insulting another go without consequences.
The media is no better than the internet trolls. One of Clemens biggest frustrations is that the actual journalists that reported on her did not get nearly as much attention as publications such as Daily Wire and Breitbart, which reported about her. Those publications give real journalism a bad name. Clemens worries, “that true dialogue done in good faith is dead—or is easily bastardized and turned into something that fits into a narrative that neither participant in the dialogue offered.” This situation certainly offers a learning experience to all those involved as well as those following, and Clemens put it best in saying, “I don’t want people to learn that they should be quiet so as to avoid what happened to me. I want them to speak their minds, even if it means there’s a lot of trolling and upset that comes from speaking such important truths.” Unfortunately, to get any kind of message across in this country, one must endure having their character torn apart and their message contorted every which way. The act of simply starting a conversation should not come at such a cost as it is the only way to bring about change. Currently, withstanding so much antagonism requires a robust individual like Clemens, but it should not be this way.
While some people might find Clemens’s situation discouraging in combating social injustices, Clemens insists we must learn from this that, “courage and bravery and vulnerability all go together when fighting for social justice.” Some students and internet trolls have gone to all the trouble of attempting to have Clemens fired. Whereas colleagues and other students of hers have come to her defense. Clemens feels thankful for their solidarity, and appreciates their recognition of how easily a person words can be misconstrued.
A few of Clemens colleagues felt strongly about what happened to her and had a few things to say in regard to it. Kevin Mahoney, also a professor at Kutztown, felt troubled watching his friend and colleague undergo such adverse responses, but recognizes this behavior is not abnormal. People tend to shut down issues that are difficult to discuss. People like to use social media as a space to organize hate; Clemens ended up having to shut her twitter down to avoid accommodating the cesspool. Mahoney believes this pattern of moving away from ideas is perpetual as the country currently stands.
A lot of people have vilified Clemens being a teacher since many conservatives believe collegiate institutions are bent on pushing a liberal agenda. As a fellow educator, Mahoney defends Clemens in saying if teachers were to remain entirely neutral, it would be the same as having a robot teach. Viewpoints will always slip through, but Mahoney has faith that his students are capable of thinking for themselves in spite of his believes; perhaps Americans should too. The inability to have a discussion in which a person’s thinking is challenged in the classroom is the root of our problem, and pours over into the how the internet and the media handles differing opinions.
Mahoney finds Clemens’s stance on toxic masculinity in cohesion with mass shootings agreeable. Father to a nine year old boy, he thinks it is a shame we are not talking about Clemens interpretation of the surplus of mass shootings. He believes she has a point. Denying men the ability to feel emotion is dangerous. He says, how we teach boys to be men is toxic. Mahoney thinks not investigating Clemens’s explanation for tragedy is detrimental. Internet trolls and news “sources” have congealed a conversation that could be pivotal, and as a result, we all lose.
Clemens has said the following about why she thinks her tweet was so controversial, “I think my tweet played into a narrative that feminists hate men, and because a tweet is so easy to share, my tweet went viral. Also, I think people want easy answers to questions about violence, and my tweet felt like an easy target in the desire for an easy answer.” Mahoney made a point akin to hers. He thinks a lot of people clung onto her use of the word “masculinity” and took it as her blaming all men, which if anything, shows a severe lack of understanding on their part. It is unlikely these people will ever seek enlightenment as the internet and the tactics it allows them to use make it especially easy to jump to such conclusions and then attack on that presumption.
Jeffrey Voccola, another professor at Kutztown, had similar thoughts on the incident. He believes males feel threatened based on what they believe Clemens meant, regardless of their inference being inaccurate. He said people who are afraid of such conversations react with anger. They want the discussion to end before it begins so to avoid the risk of potentially learning anything from it. Voccola acknowledges the vast amount of changes our country is undergoing at once, and can understand people’s apprehensions. However, he expresses his anguish over people having even more fear to put out their ideas because what has happened. He says, without doing so, we cannot solve problems. Voccola believes the biggest problem our country currently faces is the inability to have positive and productive discourse.
All that has been said puts into question whether the problem really was Clemens tweet or the fact that our country is currently completely incapable of having a conversation. Americans should reconsider their approach to conducting a discussion, especially when using the internet as their medium. If one finds a point disagreeable, perhaps they should consider why they do and make their points known to the opposing party; thus creating an intellectual dialogue that actually has the potential for developing a solution. Americans need to discern there are more productive ways to decipher what troubles our country so to offer legitimate solutions. Clemens is not the problem. Feminists are not the problem. Liberals are not the problem nor are conservatives the problem. The problem lies in how Americans go about conducting a conversation.