top nav spacer
You Are Here: Home » Articles » 5 Big Problems With Compassion-Baiting

5 Big Problems With Compassion-Baiting

Unfortunately, we spiritual-progressive types, including but not limited to dharma heads, seem to be particularly prone to something I call compassion-baiting.

General compassion-baiting sounds something like:

Try having more compassion. If you did, you’d see things my way.
 

And in social justice situations, specifically, compassion-baiting often sounds like:

You’re more upset / loud / angry about social harm than I, arbiter, deem appropriate. You must therefore be lacking in wisdom or compassion.

F**k that noise, for real.

Why so touchy, you ask? Let’s break it down: 5 major fails associated with compassion-baiting.

1. Compassion-Baiting Enables Sexual Misconduct

distant since sexual
FX/e-cards, via Sexual Harassment In Comics: The Tipping Point.

It’s hard enough to come forward with an experience of sexual harassment — fearing you’ll be labeled uptight, slutty, attention-seeking, or worse.

Compassion-baiting saddles victims with the additional worry of seeming spiritually immature. After all, if we had enough compassion, we could simply, patiently, and lovingly settle any differences with our so-called harasser, right? We would practice upekkha — equanimity — and remain unruffled, uperturbed. We would do our utmost to empathize with our aggressor and assume their best intentions. We would scrutinize our own motives. We would seek harmony, not conflict.

My first experience with this was a case of internalized, self-inflicted compassion-baiting. It was back in high school. A boy in my class found it hilarious to come up next to me, standthisclose, and whisper with a grin, “Does this make you uncomfortable?”

Priding myself on an ability to stay calm (and also not wanting to give him the upper hand), I would shrug and reply, “No.”

The “joke” continued a handful of times, but I wasn’t too worried. I’m a patient, tolerant person, I thought. I can outlast this, rather than fanning the drama flames.

Then one day, a group of us were sitting in the grass near the baseball diamond. It was late spring, when the Sacramento weather starts heating up, and a lot of us, including me, were wearing shorts.

All of a sudden, I felt a hand on my upper, inner thigh. It was the boy.

“Does this make you uncomfortable?”

This time I lost it a little. “STOP IT,” I snapped, and pushed his hand away.

“Woah, woah, woah,” he taunted, half cowering in mock fear. “So angry. What are you gonna do? Sue me?”

And there it is. Even from school days, we’re taught that sexual harassment is less of a problem than our upset responses to it.

Compassion-baiting only magnifies this backwardness. Rather than seriously considering allegations of abuse, it subjects them to a litmus test of enlightened attitude.

Let’s stop this. For real.

2. It Puts a Rush Job On Forgiveness

forgiveness sets you freeAs the wise saying goes, “Forgiveness is a process, not an event.” But peace-loving Buddhists and spiritual types, bless our hearts, are sometimes in a big hurry to reach release — to get to the good part, already.

“If you tried having some compassion, we say to ourselves and others, you would be able to let this go.”

Not always helpful, people. Not always helpful. Sometimes, honestly, patronizing as hell. And I’ve been guilty of this, too! Toward myself as well as toward others.

Don’t get me wrong: forgiveness is wonderful. There are many uplifting stories about people who have managed to forgive those who have gravely harmed them, or harmed the people they love. This is amazing and important work. Many people describe it as immensely freeing, and I think that’s why we’re so eager to share it with others. But we can use it as inspiration, as an option, offered considerately — rather than a standard by which to judge (or hasten) spiritual maturity.

3. It Obscures Power Dynamics

can't we all just get along

A prime example of this pitfall comes from a recent dispute over a terribly transphobic article (seriously, trigger warning, it’s awful) posted on the culture & spirituality site Reality Sandwich.

When Be Scofield — author, transgender activist, and founder of Decolonizing Yoga — appealed to the site’s editors to remove the post, the response was classic compassion-baiting.

From Scofield’s post on the interaction:

It is quite evident that neither Dani Katz or Reality Sandwich co-founders and editors Ken Jordan and Faye Sakellaridis sought dialog with the trans or queer community before publishing this article. Interestingly, Jordan proposed a back and forth written dialog between myself and Katz that would then be turned into an article. I refused because saying transgender people are “freakish and scary” looking is not a reasonable viewpoint to dialog about. These are not ideas worth entertaining as doing so will only lend them more credibility. A wrong was done and Reality Sandwich should apologize and delete the article. It’s simple. (A good example to follow is what happened when Julie Burchill published her transphobic article, “Transexuals Should Cut it Out” on the Guardian/Observer and after a huge outcry ensued they deleted the piece, giving this editorial explanation.) Yet, in my refusal to “dialog” with Katz, Jordan ironically lectures me about the importance of dialog.

“Only through dialog and compassion can any real understanding and change take place…By refusing to engage in a dialog, your assumptions will never be tested….The value of dialog is that it helps us affirm that heart connection to one another, with the understanding that it’s always possible to reach another person so they can acknowledge and value our personal truth.”

Uh, no.

See, here’s the thing about internet dialog. There are many platforms for transphobic junk talk. You do not need to supply yet another of these platforms. Disseminating hateful writing (be it cheeky or fulminatory in mood) doesn’t make you more open-minded; it makes you someone with lousy publishing standards. You can do better!

Yes, there is a place for dialog across thorny differences in this world. Would I disown a friend of mine just because they have transphobic attitudes or beliefs? Not necessarily; depends on the situation. Maybe this person shows signs of learning and growing. But I sure as hell wouldn’t publish any transphobic writing of theirs — not unless I was pulling a Russell Brand v. Westboro Baptist Church, mocking the crap out of their views in order to undermine their influence. And something tells me that’s outside the style bounds of the Reality Sandwich spiritualists.

To ask someone to publicly defend their humanity through “dialog,” and then chastize them for refusing to do so, completely ignores and obscures the additional burden of oppressed people participating in “dialogs” that evaluate their own humanity.

[T]he reason that people may respond in a “harsh” manner to oppression: Living in a world that reminds you daily of your lesser worth as a human being can make a person very tired and emotional. When someone says something oppressive — that can be a racist slur, an ableist stereotype, a misogynist dismissal, an invalidation of identity/experiences, being asked invasive and entitled questions, and so on – it feels like being slapped in the face, to the person on the receiving end. The automatic response is emotion and pain. It’s quite exhausting and difficult to restrain the resulting anger. And, frankly, it’s cruel and ridiculous to expect a person to be calm and polite in response to an act of oppression. Marginalized people often do not have the luxury of emotionally distancing themselves from discussions on their rights and experiences.

Bottom line, my friend: just because someone refuses to engage with oppressive bullsh*t on your platform does not mean they are lacking in compassion or patience. It might mean they’re trying to increase the safety and well being of oppressed people.

To the editors of Reality Sandwich: I hope you’ll rethink your decision!

4. It Prioritizes Politeness Over Justice

if feminist tone argument

Meme via.

Is there a difference between being compassionate and being polite? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

Buddhist ethics advise us that Wise Speech, a.k.a. Right Speech, tends to lead to peace and well being. In a meticulous and moving account of her struggles exploring Right Speech with her adolescent son, Beth Roth writes for Tricycle:

The Buddha was precise in his description of Right Speech.  He defined it as “abstinence from false speech, abstinence from malicious speech, abstinence from harsh speech, and abstinence from idle chatter.”  In the vernacular this means not lying, not using speech in ways that create discord among people, not using swear words or a cynical, hostile or raised tone of voice, and not engaging in gossip.  Re-framed in the positive, these guidelines urge us to say only what is true, to speak in ways that promote harmony among people, to use a tone of voice that is pleasing, kind, and gentle, and to speak mindfully in order that our speech is useful and purposeful.

Roth also makes the crucial observation that Right Speech by itself don’t cut it:

[W]e had to more consciously create the conditions for Right Listening, for without the capacity to listen deeply, all the Right Speech in the world was of little use.

Do wholesome speech and deep listening support peace and well being?

I believe it. You probably do, too. Like me, you’ve probably experienced tastes of this practical wisdom — flashes of the Buddhist superpowers helping you navigate fraught communication. It’s a deep and joyful thing.

At the same time, there’s a shadow side. I’ve seen no small amount of compassion-baiting that uses the kindness or non-harshness element of Right Speech to shut down valid criticisms and dismiss demands for justice. And that can be incredibly frustrating.

One resource I found illuminating for this riddle is The Revolution Will Not Be Polite: The Issue of Nice versus Good

Social justice is about destroying systematic marginalisation and privilege. Wishing to live in a more just, more equal world is simply not the same thing as wishing to live in a “nicer” world. I am not suggesting niceness is bad or that we should not behave in a nice way towards others if we want to! I also do not equate niceness with cooperation or collaboration with others. Here’s all I am saying: the conflation of ethical or just conduct (goodness), and polite conduct (niceness) is a big problem.

Plenty of oppressive bullshit goes down under the guise of nice. Every day, nice, caring, friendly people try to take our bodily autonomy away from us (women, queers, trans people, nonbinaries, fat people, POC…you name it, they just don’t think we know what’s good for us!). These people would hold a door for us if they saw us coming. Our enemies are not only the people holding “Fags Die God Laughs” signs, they are the nice people who just feel like marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense, it’s just how they feel!

To be clear, I’m not big on casting people as forever-enemies. Who knows — they may change their ways. But if we allow niceness to carry more weight than goodness or wholesomeness, we may have difficulty identifying people whose actions are causing major harm.

On the flip side, if we close our ears, minds, and hearts to people who seem angry, who seem enraged, who seem less than compassionate, we risk closing ourselves off from key information about the ways in which a system hurts people. About the ways in which we may be hurting people.

Which leads to the fifth fail of compassion-baiting:

5. It Disconnects Us From The Pain of Others

i trust a heart awakening

I love Susan Piver’s recent description, in the Huffington Post, of the purpose of mindfulness — a practice constantly being sexed up these days in popular advertisements.

To practice mindfulness, neither scientific proof nor magnetizing boobage will help you to meet the joys and sorrows of your life. The truth is, the point of mindfulness is not peace, nor is it bliss or transcendence. It does not make you permanently calm or inure you to pain and it does not even give you perky breasts, much to my dissatisfaction. Rather, it shows you where your heart is hard. It reminds you of your dreams. It shows you where you are afraid. It unlocks all the tears you have been holding back and in so doing breaks your heart to the preciousness of your life, the uniqueness of your genius, the unending grief of your losses, and your immeasurable capacity to love. It goes one better than to make you into a supermodel CEO — it shows you how to be who you really are and you discover gentleness, authenticity, and fearlessness.

I think when we engage in compassion-baiting, we re-harden our hearts. Maybe it’s because we fear being touched by the raw pain of others, so we ask them to temper it for us.

I hope and truly believe that dharma can help us respond to harm and hurt without demanding that everyone conform to our own ideas of enlightened manner. While taking responsibility for our own actions, for our own aspirations to inner freedom, can we also soften and make room for the outcry of others?

What a beautiful expression of compassion that would be.

 

katie headshotKatie Loncke is a Co-Director of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship.

Born in Sacramento, California, and now living in Oakland, she is the curly granddaughter of Negros and Jewish refugees. She believes in the possibility of enough food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, and education for everyone. She started organizing in high school as a straight ally with a Lesbian Gay Straight Alliance, and currently organizes around social and economic issues with a group led by Latin American immigrant socialists. Following her graduation from Harvard, the Cambridge Insight Meditation Center offered Katie a warm, life-altering introduction to Buddhism. Her writing on Buddhism and politics has appeared in The Jizo Chronicles, The Buddhist Channel, make/shift magazine, Flip Flopping Joy, and Feministe, as well as here on Turning Wheel Media.

Comments (45)

  • Judith Lipton

    Katie, I LOVE this post. You really captured something that has troubled me for decades about our practice. For me, the most crucial issue had to do with Thich Nhat Hanh’s directive, in Being Peace, to have compassion for the Sea Pirate who had just raped a little girl who subsequently committed suicide. OK, I get that the Sea Pirate had a hard life, and maybe he had Sea Pirate parents, bad schools, abuse or whatnot. I can look deeply and have sorrow for the Sea Pirate nature. But I will never support Sea Pirates! I will not give him my daughter to rape, nor send money to the Sea Pirate Fund, nor loan him a boat or a rope. I think Sea Pirates must be stopped from inflicting further harm, just as rabid dogs must be stopped from spreading rabies. The Buddha was clear, rabid dogs must be stopped. But what, then, are we to do about Sea Pirates and their Avatars? I will not sit quietly with compassion for Sea Pirates. The First Precept says, “I will not kill. I will not allow others to killl.” Does this not imply that we must act to stop the bullies, the oppressors, the Sea Pirates? Calmly, perhaps, but insistently. Thanks so much for this post, the topic has troubled me for many years.

  • David P. Barash

    Brilliant piece, Katie! It speaks with wonderful clarity to one of the deep problems with living compassionately: how to practice metta without being a wimp. Thank you!

  • Kogen 古 元

    Katie,

    Thank you for naming that un-nameable sensation of, “That’s not right!”

    Deep bow,
    Kogen

  • Katie Loncke

    Thank you, Judith, David, Kogen! I’m glad it’s resonating…

    Judith, your Sea Pirate example is so on point. Yes, we strive to have compassion for all beings, and to believe in the possibility of transformation. AND, can we be real about the fact that our society culturally and structurally enables and supports Sea Pirate harmful behavior??? And that we have a responsibility to use the minimum force necessary to stop Sea Pirate rapists (or any rapists) from harming people?

    One recent real-life example that just makes my blood boil is that in the aftermath of the Steubenville rape scandal (where high school football players were convicted of raping a young woman, and school officials have been convicted of obstructing justice by covering it up), one of the hackers who brought the story to light faces the possibility of more jail time than the convicted rapists.

    http://www.alternet.org/hacker-who-exposed-steubenville-rape-case-could-spend-more-time-behind-bars-rapists

    Now, I don’t necessarily think that more jail time = more justice. But the whole idea of justice in this case just seems horribly skewed to me. Our compassion for the football players should not contradict, let alone outweigh, our *support* for people who confront rape culture.

  • michelle

    esp the line about marginalized people…Thank U so much!!! for decades now when someone mocks or makes light of my disability, i am told to ‘get over it’ and have been forced to harbor a toxic amount of “tolerance” about being treated this way’.
    once i realized Buddhism was about being able to stand up for what was happening in an ‘unideal’ situation, it was a huge relief~i, too, cld at least say something about de-humanizing “compassion” standards!!
    Bless U, Katie

  • Katie Loncke

    michelle, what a great story about naming the dehumanizing compassion-baiting! yesss!!! You’re an inspiration. :)

  • Joseph Chinnock

    I think its funny when people list things like, “Latin American Immigrant Socialists” and “Jewish and Negro refugees” like race, ethnicity, and progressive politics are some kind of fashion accessories.

    Oh. And that guy in the example? He’s an asshole. Simple as that. You don’t need a 1,000 word article to deconstruct that. There is actual injustice in the world beyond having someone grope you so focus on that perhaps. There’s 100,000 children in sex trafficking in this country and they don’t have Harvard degrees so perhaps get out of your own little world and pain and victimhood and help them.

  • Katie Loncke

    Hi Joseph,

    I’m sorry that most of what you got from the post revolves around the bio and the anecdote… if you follow the link underneath the sexual harassment illustration, you’ll see one well-written example of how the problem of focusing on outraged response rather than the harassment itself extends into professional settings, too. Do you really think that sexual harassment is just a random problem of personalities?

    http://comicsalliance.com/sexual-harassment-women-in-comics/

    As for the fashion accessory descriptors, I mean, I generally find it useful and positive when people try to name some of our ancestry and influences. Obviously it’s not a comprehensive description of my political position, but hey. That’s what my essays are for.

    Not sure why you think I’m in my own little world of pain and victimhood, not helping people with real problems? Can you clarify?

    Thanks, hope you’re well.

  • Andrew Cooper

    Great essay. Thanks, Katie.

  • Katie Loncke

    Thank you, Andrew! Means a lot. :)

  • Judith Lipton

    I walked today along the Pacific Ocean, and watched the Frigate Birds and Pelicans. Frigate Birds are often called “Pirate Birds” because they harass other smaller birds, forcing them to either drop their prey or even regurgitate their stomach contents. The Frigate Birds can make a living snatching prey like baby turtles off the surface of the ocean, but they cannot swim or even get their feathers wet. Thus – they are Sea Pirates! And they make life miserable for the little terns who are good fishers, but cannot outfly the Pirates.
    Meanwhile, the Pelicans are dive-bombers. They are fish killers. No doubt about it.
    I neither blame the Frigate Bird for stealing, nor the Pelican for fishing. I can feel compassion for all of them – the terns, the fish, the Pirates and the Pelicans. But Frigate Birds and Pelicans live in complex ecosystems, where stealing and killing and eating are part of their natural evolution.
    I do not believe that human Sea Pirates – people who hurt others – are “born that way.” I do not think we should look aside, or fail to intervene because “sea pirates are natural.” Rather – we must intervene. But how? This is what confuses and mystifies me.

  • Katie Loncke

    Beautiful question, Judith, and wonderful imagery as I’m sitting at my computer for the day (smile).

    One of our BPF Board members, Michaela O’Connor-Bono, is a young Zen priest doing reconciliation and transformative justice work inside New Orleans prisons… I have a feeling she might have some helpful stories. She’s not online often but let me see if she might want to join this convo.

    joining you in confusion and mystification, and also the possibility for positive change,

    katie

  • michelle

    (would like to have my post removed~Thanks! didn’t know it would appear in a Tagging in public.)

  • Katie Loncke

    hi michelle, i gotchu. so sorry about the tagging! <3

  • Laurence Cox

    Brilliant post. Sadhu! And thanks.

    On #4 in the article: I think the Beth Roth piece smooths over Buddhist recommendations on speech (which is not to suggest that her point on right listening is a bad one). Not that the Pali canon always gets it right, but it is good on this: the Buddha is said to say things which are “unendearing and disagreeable to others” if they are not only true but also beneficial; and “he has a sense of the proper time for saying them”. (MN 58).

    In other words there is no suggestion that the Buddha only says what people want to hear. Conversely there is no particular value to saying things for the sake of saying them (so much for Internet polemic): if something will not make a difference to the person we are speaking to, or if saying them now will mean they aren’t heard, why do it?

    Of course sometimes we have to say things out of metta for ourselves (to be true to who we are): but it is sound activist advice to say the disruptive things strategically, when they will make a difference – which of course implies the kind of listening that Roth talks about (noticing the people we are talking with, and the other people who are following the conversation).

    #2 on forgiveness: often emotionally effective forgiveness is impossible before the action, and the harm done, have been acknowledged by the perpetrator: it is a relationship (or a process like you say), not a unilateral act of Being Holy. I’m thinking not only of the individual level but also of collective (historical / political) actions.

    Maybe particularly at the collective level, forgiving people who do not recognise the damage caused by their actions is often neither very meaningful nor particularly constructive. I think too “premature forgiveness” (ie not only without justice but without acknowledgement) is often about infantilising the perpetrator, making them into something less than a moral agent or our emotional equal. Sometimes that can work (eg in the case of the very elderly) but rarely in the political sphere – it does not build different relationships.

    I think both from a political point of view and a Buddhist one “compassion-baiting” is plain wrong: it reduces social change, or spiritual change, to the performance of a particular “saintly” way of being to display to others (or for others to try and catch us out on). Glad to read someone saying all this!

  • Rick Heller

    Yes, among Buddhists there can perhaps be too much of a social expectation to be nice and not enough willingness to be confrontational and engaged with social problems.

    However, in American society as a whole, and on the Internet in particular, I see the opposite problem at work. There is an “outrage industry” that seeks to find something new each day to be angry about and to bait clicks and TV viewing. This outrage industry makes money by escalating molehills into mountains.

    What we should be trying to do is to de-escalate without giving up entirely. When a wrong is done, not to hit back harder, and not to let it go, but to confront it in a way that is less wrong, and that signals to the other person that if they also pursue the path of de-escalation, a resolution can be reached.

    Right now, we’re becoming increasingly polarized in this country, and we need more Compassionate Speech, not less in general. But if you’re being ignored, sometimes you do have to shout a bit to get people’s attention.

  • Mushim

    Fantastic essay, Katie! Thank you.

    I am a survivor (and I have also benefited from) hardcore, old school Zen training. There were many teachings on “wisdom and compassion,” and it was always understood that compassion did not mean niceness, did not mean always being soft, gentle, polite, and pleasing others, unless those were effective liberatory strategies according to specific situations.

    I am firm in my belief that it’s not good to deliberately humiliate or demean others, which was one tactic in my original Zen teacher’s toolbox. He could also be kind, gentle and loving, or stern or annoying. He was a Korean monk, so cultural elements were present. (Another, different, Korean Zen master who was a Korean national said, after some years in California, “I have discovered that if I shout at Zen students here in America, they go away and never come back. So I have had to change.”) That having been said, I think it’s too bad if we lose the transmission of Dharma teachings about fierce compassion or a motherly sort of very tough love. If we look at traditional Buddhist iconography, there are many wrathful looking Buddhist deities. In fact, I’d say that the Chinese Kwan Yin type of image of a gentle-looking, slender, stereotypically feminine looking figure pouring divine nectar from a little vase, is probably in the minority — but has gotten good press in the West and has therefore received disproportionate fan mail, so to speak.

    I’ve been doing some reading in translations of the Pali suttas, and in my understanding, the historical Buddha was not a nicey nice person. He lived in a tough world and he could be as hardass as was needed — not cruel, but direct, unvarnished, and forceful in his delivery of the Dharma. I feel a very strong need for the word “compassion” in Buddhist contexts to be reclaimed and healed in order to incorporate the breadth and depth of its original meanings.

  • Katie Loncke

    Kind of in awe of all the wisdom and great writing on this thread. :) A few quick thoughts:

    Laurence, there are so many gems in what you’re saying!

    –saying the disruptive things strategically

    –the perils of premature forgiveness

    –forgiveness politically and socially as well as individually

    –infantilizing others with premature forgiveness

    thank you for these very helpful articulations. sadhu, sadhu. :)

    Hi Rick, I completely agree that the middle way of de-escalation without giving up, or what i like to call “compassionate confrontation,” is sadly rare in our society, partly because the fireworks of flamewars and click bait feed into our craving and aversion so effectively. From where I sit in both political and spiritual communities, it is definitely a restorative balancing process depending on what a situation or community culture calls for. If the culture is super polemical and attack oriented, maybe some more gentleness. If the culture is passive-aggressive and conflict avoidant, maybe some fire and loud talk. All middle way, though, I agree with you (if I’m understanding you correctly).

    Mushim, as usual, your insights and stories are gold. Your description of the Korean Zen master who found he couldn’t shout at Californians and expect them to say had me literally LOL’ing, as did the take on Kwan Yin’s disproportionate fan mail. I find different cultural expectations on what compassion can look like between West Coast and East Coast styles, too. (Midwest and South U.S. I know less about…)

    Thank you for supporting the healing and reclaiming of compassion, toward realizing its greatest potential to benefit all beings!

    <3

    katie

  • Marianna Tubman

    thanks for this very clear explanation (and reminder of how this is used against women and girls who are more often expected to be “nice”).

    It seems to me that one aspect is to keep in mind, whether the person who is baiting you is using “right speech”, and that you don’t have to go along with it.

    Another thought on the matter I have considering lately is the matter of when right speech might be a question, or raising an issue that others don’t want to raise. “Would you like it if someone talked to you that way?” “Do you think all blacks have the same desires, interests, views?” “Is there another way you could phrase that comment which would be less offensive?” “Did you bring condoms?” “I don’t mean to offend, but before I get intimate with you, I need to ask – have you had unprotected sex in the last 2 months with anyone?”

  • bezi

    true dat. I don’t suspect that “candor is the ‘only’ kindness” (like that terrible quote from X), but with the Leviathan levels of falsehood in circulation now, I think we need massive and repetitive doses of the real… preferably with a coating of authentic compassion.

    I don’t know that I could add much original to what’s already said ~ outside of making the point that I wonder about the soul-state of one who could use such scandalizing language about other human beings and then hella defend it…

    but I’m also now wondering enough about Reality Sandwich to make an inquiry of it. I dig that site. Lot of useful, engaging, provocative stuff on there. But as of late I’ve been feeling like I sense… something not unlike the same kind of, I don’t know – elitism? Unexamined privilege? – that I’ve been experiencing so far in the sangha scene. I’m not 100% but… does RS seem a little biased toward rosy, gauzy spirituality devoid of sufficient social (and spiritual) critique? Be interested to hear opinions from others who are familiar with the site.

    I mean it may be me. I could be, I suppose, a bit – not “Angry Guy” but… umm, mildly exasperated guy (i.e. walking stiffly past the ballpark)?

  • Katie Loncke

    Marianna, I love your Right Speech questions! What great examples… There is a fearlessness (or courage despite fear) that helps us ask such questions, I think… Thanks for the reminder.

    bezi, this was the first I heard of Reality Sandwich, so I’d be interested in other people’s thoughts, too…

    and “candor is the only kindness” may be a misleading proverb, but it sound nice, don’t it?! that’s some good writing. :)

  • michelle

    great tips, Marianna!!

  • charles

    hot damn. great piece, katie!

  • Karen

    Katie, thank you so much for your honesty and direct intelligent responses….I too struggle with right view and “unconditional compassion’. I put someone in jail for 25 yrs after I was raped at 23 yrs…it still haunts me to this day at 63 yrs old…he told me would kill the next person…….

    Thank you for your great article…..

  • Katie Loncke

    Oh, Karen. I’m so sorry you had to go through that…

    And yes, I think that’s exactly the crux. What does unconditional compassion actually mean in the complex, no-easy-answers realm of life in which we live?

    All I can say is I hope we do not have to feel alone in these struggles. By sharing your story I think you’re helping others feel less alone, and I really thank you for that.

    so much warmth and gratitude to you…

    and charles, thanks much! i saw you working at a cafe not too long ago and wanted to say hi but you looked single-pointed in your laptop focus and i didn’t want to interrupt! so, belated hi and hugs. :)

  • Breeze Harper

    Thanks Katie for posting. I appreciate what you have said and hope you don’t spend too much time responding to people who just come online to be hateful, mean trolls, telling you that you shouldn’t be writing about this.

  • cesar

    Wow, great article Katie.

    Thank you for these wonderful reminders. I found myself getting caught up in this web recently. I was very grateful that, very instinctively now, the Dharma came to mind in the form of a Lojong, Mind-training slogan.

    Don’t make Gods into a Demon.

    Basically telling me not to turn something virtuous into something for my selfish needs. Thank you Katie. :)

  • Nargess

    Thank you for a great post! As a novice seeker, I appreciate you sharing these warning signs of likely “mirages” along the path. Namaste!

  • Constant Illumination

    Thanks, Katie.
    Learning not to be a victim helps not to be an oppressor.
    (Two sides of the same problem).
    Dealing with conflict, with clashing desires, we need bravery to be open.
    Victim or oppressor is someone who has a barrier around self.
    Clinging at something to defend makes us to be against, instead of working over the solution together.

  • Breeze Harper

    Katie,

    Some people will come onto here and make comments that reflect deep issues of fear, resentment, and anger. For example, some people have already displayed envy because you went to Harvard and they did not. So, instead of reflecting on that for themselves, they project this outwardly. They may also be upset that highly educated women such as yourself, who went to Harvard, are still complaining about people like them who want to get away with sexually assaulting and harassing them. They may detract from their own anger, fear, and envy by making statements that tell you that “real” sexual harassment and violence is child sex trafficking and NOT an Ivy league peer touching your body in the way you did not invite. Really sad…

  • Katie Loncke

    Thank you Breeze, cesar, Nargess, and Constant Illumination — always relieving to feel less alone in these concerns. Breeze, I know you’ve dealt with dismissive or critical commentary on your online work, and I appreciate the support from someone who’s been through it.

    Hope you’re all well!

    deep bows,

    katie

  • Susmita

    Hi Katie, I liked your essay a great deal, but I was a bit taken aback with the provocative image, not something you expect in a Buddhist Circle ;-)

    There is a saying in Christianity (if I am not wrong) like, hate the sin, not the sinner. So I too was puzzled when I read about having compassion for the ‘Pirate’. Then I reflected on it, now I see that compassion for the Pirate is to protect our own heart and bodhicitta from solidifying deep hatred and anger and the realization how the pirate is impacting his own karma and bodhicitta. But our first action need to be to protect the injured and prevent injury. We can do that best without anger/hatred consuming us in that moment.

    I do agree though there are a lot of ‘idiot compassion’ that uses different kinds of emotional hooks based on unspoken social customs and cultural acceptance of violence, misconduct and injustice, particularly towards women and minorities. Wouldn’t it be compassionate to rock the boat and throw the Pirates off the boat this time?

  • FoaF

    What do you make of concern bullies? People who adopt a position by personal affinity, and then proceed to go after people who are “bad” and who somehow “violate” a given community’s standards?

    Considering this happens pretty much non-stop in the Bay, among the beautiful, wealthy, enlightened, ostensibly compassionate, maybe it’s worth discussing.

    Using real problems in the world to justify personally abusive behavior is endemic. If I am poor, and living in the Bay constantly have to serve the rich, quite literally, while they talk about how they (in their wealth!) are “oppressed” — because they aren’t a white christian male that means they are entitled to dump on women. Or dump on any given white person.

    I’ve seen plenty of awfulness dressed up in politics. When it’s pretty much just entitled assholes using social justice language and finger pointing to get over. It works like a charm.

    If that’s what you are about, good luck to whatever “lifestyle” you have adopted. The judgmental activist who never has to actually work is where the action is at here. So forgive me while I go back to “oppressing” the Bay Area elite by pouring their coffee.

  • Katie Loncke

    Susmita, yep, can be such a tough balance between practicing compassion for our own sake, and giving in to cultural conditioning that tells us we don’t deserve to stand up for ourselves – to insist on respect. Rocking the boat can be so necessary, yes!

    FoaF, I definitely hear you that the experience of being oppressed or discriminated against doesn’t mean we can’t turn around and abuse others. (Though that abuse may be interpersonal, structural, or some of both, depending on the situation.) And I also agree that in the SF Bay Area there can be a certain holier-than-thou political culture among some activists, where it’s more important to be seen as “down” than to be materially contributing to social justice struggles… Seems like this happens in many social justice communities, far as I can tell. (I’ve appreciated Andrea Smith and Catherine Jones as resources on this line of thinking…)

    http://andrea366.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/the-problem-with-privilege-by-andrea-smith/

    http://katrinareader.org/work-not-workshop-talking-and-doing-visibility-and-accountability-white-anti-racist-community

    I guess I’m not sure what’s bringing up these frustrations within this particular post? Maybe you’re drawing from different but related experiences you’ve had? Would like to know more if you’d care to share.

  • McKay Savage

    To add to many of the others, thanks Katie for such clarity on all 5 points. I’ve noticed and experienced all 5 at various points and have been building this sense of something not always on with how compassion or forgiveness or “namaste” can be thrown as daggers or raised as walls, but have never managed to put voice internally or externally to them so well. I’m saving this to my re-read often list. It is a conversation any of us in the broad spiritual-progressive circles need to have.

    You’ve a gift of clarity, thanks for offering it!

  • resa

    Great article! This issue comes up again and again. I think that your article only reinforces the fact that compassion begins at home, with ourselves.

    So does forgiveness. It’s my opinion that people misunderstand forgiveness – it’s not about doing something for someone else, it’s about doing something for yourself..letting go of your resentments for your own sake…in other words, being compassionate to yourself because. Frequently (not always) our inability to forgive is rooted in anger towards ourselves for being treated badly.

  • raine

    thank you for this post, for putting into words the myriad complexities ~being nice~ carries with it. i am definitely sharing this.

  • Joule Psyche

    Fantastic observation x

  • John Brodie

    Great post.

  • John Brodie

    (Just ticked the notify me of new posts box, forgot to do that)

  • Ellen

    Really nice piece. I’m so tired of being told that I’m not being treated well because I didn’t ask nicely, a brilliant deflection that completely ignores the ludicrousness of my being required to ask at all, as if I’m the one behaving badly.

Leave a Comment

© 2012 Buddhist Peace Fellowship

Scroll to top