I have read a recent piece by Jen Caron with great intent after many readers found its content risible. Please read it in its entirety and form your own opinion.
I feel that this is another in a long line of examples of the power of a single voice and mistimed comment to enrage the internet and turn many seemingly right-thinking people into embittered trolls.
The gist of the piece is that the writer, a seasoned yoga practitioner, comes across a new recruit next to her in class. The new girl seems to find the class difficult and sits through most of it. This has a profound effect on the writer, who breaks down afterwards re: the injustice of the lack of diversity in classes (and the effect it has on her own practice). The crux of the internet hatred for the piece is that the writer is a self-proclaimed ‘skinny, white girl,’ while the new girl is ‘a fairly heavy black woman’. This creates a racial tension within the piece, masking the majority of its content. The writer later says that she felt the new girl staring at her throughout the class and, further,“… I could feel her hostility…”
This piece has generated nearly 300 comments so far, many hostile themselves. I do not think this article is about racial hostility, it is about body dysmorphism and diplomacy. The writer seeks happiness in her weight and appearance and presumes that someone who has not obtained her personal standards would be feeling low and unfriendly. We have no idea what the new girl actually felt, as the writer did not ask her. A failing she acknowledges. I feel that the writer needs empathy and perspective, not hatred.
Part of the issue here is responsibility. The writer has tried hard not to demean, but seems to have failed. She makes good points about the lack of inclusivity in western yoga classes, but the majority of the below-the-line comments focus on her narrow definition of distinction between the two girls, based on race, weight and even what each of them was wearing. Was the writer to know that this would be how the piece was itself defined?
The level of reproach feels significantly out of kilter with the purpose of the article. I wonder if the publisher — website XOJane — (a website I had never previously logged on to) banked on this article causing controversy. Did they facilitate the trolling?
Lastly, the value of a piece in the internet age can also derive from its ability to be parodied. Gawker quickly cottoned on to to virality of this article and drafted their own pastiche here. It includes veiled comments on the original article, calling it ‘a lengthy piece’ which they attempt to ‘dramatise’. Gawker’s remit is to project a niche form of caustic humour, but I found their parody particularly callous and potentially harmful.
I do not agree with any damning critique of someone based on their colour, ethnicity, fitness levels, weight or ability. But I do believe that one person’s ill-explored descriptions are not deserving of such disproportionate online abuse. Fighting fire with fire is unlikely to help matters. I advocate publishers to educate writers on the perils of crude distinctions and to discourage trolls, while still enabling freedom of speech — an approach less damaging for all.
