Shame Is Not a Hate Crime. Let’s Bring It Back in 2017
In our modern culture of political “correctness,” one of the easiest ways to silence criticism is to smear a person’s character by accusing them of “shaming.” The “sin” of shaming comes in many varieties: slut shaming, fat shaming, or body shaming, mom shaming, gender shaming, race shaming, victim shaming, etc., etc. All of these accusations, however, boil down to the single worst indictment of our day: intolerance.
There was once a time when shame played a vital role in civil society. It was a tool that incentivized good, moral behavior by creating social consequences for immoral behavior. Today — in America, at least — shame has not so much disappeared as it has been blacklisted.
Bad Santa
Consider the recent high-profile shaming incident of the young North Carolina boy who accused Santa of fat shaming.
Earlier this month, a family’s trip to go see Santa took a turn for the worse. After having his picture taken with the jolly old elf, 9-year-old Anthony Mayse of Forest City, N.C., says Santa told him to “lay off the hamburgers and French fries.”
“It affected me so bad that I was crying until I went to bed that night,” Anthony told the local News 13. “And I want to say to him, ‘You don’t want to disrespect a 9-year-old. Even though what shape and size you are, it doesn’t matter.'”
The story went viral, sparking international outrage and widespread calls for the fat-shaming Santa (real name: Earl Crowder) to be fired. He eventually resigned and apologized to the family, but the viral coverage of the incident sealed Crowder’s fate as “bad Santa.”
Was Earl Crowder wrong to tell 9-year-old Anthony Mayse to cut back on the junk food? Probably. But the problem in this case wasn’t so much what was said, as who said it. In general, random strangers shouldn’t try to parent other people’s kids. But this doesn’t take away from the fact that Anthony’s mother, Ashley Mayse, who is also considerably overweight, should be encouraging healthier eating habits for the sake of her son’s health.
“You do you”
Today, there are no longer social norms that aim to secure a degree of common morality and propriety in America. For example, there is no commonly held belief that gluttony is a sin … or even a health threat, for that matter. Because of this, we see social justice groups like Healthy at Every Size, which teaches that “obesity” is a term of oppression used to unjustly shame individuals who are simply “different.”
Our “you do you” culture has redefined “shame” to mean any comment or action that does not “validate” an individual. The only people deemed worthy of such judgement, the thinking goes, are the so-called bigots who hold permanent, transcendent values (e.g. conservatives and the religious).
A stranger telling an overweight kid that he should exercise some self-discipline is not OK, because the statement calls that child’s choices into question. But it’s fine — nay, just — to shame Christian (and only Christian) business owners who won’t service a gay wedding against their conscience. What’s the difference here? The business owners’ belief in traditional marriage implies that the gay couple’s lifestyle and decision to marry are misguided. And who are these business owners to judge what is right or wrong for other people?
Shame on who?
One could argue, as many do, that forcing Christian business owners to service a gay wedding violates their personal choice to honor biblical teaching. But as we’ve seen in the many court cases leading up to and following the Obergefell gay marriage decision, the judicial consensus has been that deeply held religious beliefs are secondary to political correctness and the personal choices of others. When relativism and autonomy rule the day, anything the smacks of objective moral judgement is marked as bigotry.
Shame was once an effective and extralegal way to maintain order in society. It didn’t outlaw certain decisions so much as it made those actions lose their appeal. Shame caused many young people to be weary of having children out of wedlock. It discouraged thoughtless and obnoxious behavior in public spaces like grocery stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. It discouraged people from overeating, and deterred spouses from cheating. Like real civil laws, shame was originally a tool used to preserve public health, safety, and morals.
When the act of discerning right from wrong, good from bad, healthy from unhealthy, becomes a matter of personal choice and feelings, the end result can only be chaos and confusion. Each person is free to make his or her own decisions in this country, but to assert that all choices are equally good, correct, or acceptable is to deny the societal benefits of right action. If the end result of shame is a happier, healthier, better-behaved society, perhaps we should stop treating it like a hate crime. (For more from the author of “Shame Is Not a Hate Crime. Let’s Bring It Back in 2017” please click HERE)
Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.
