What option do we have? Silence or arrogance

In 1993, a female friend shared the experience she had earlier that day in her third-year university class.  The discussion was between a couple of middle-aged male and female students.  The conversation evolved from generalities to particularities and got very personal and heated.  They were discussing the tension between the law and the human rights and should the law be interpreted and evaluated regularly to ensure that it recognises and thus remains impartial to every member of the society.  Interestingly, the males argued that interpretation and evaluation of the law will make it ineffective and irrelevant while females held their ground and spoke with great passion and clarity about the importance for the law to reflect societal and cultural evolution. 

During lunch in the common room, a male student, from another year, chastised the female students as they had argued with the men.  He talked about their voice and demeanour while completely absolving the men from their discriminatory statements and attitude towards women, children and visible minorities.  The advocate wanted the women to apologise to the men for their arrogance and attitude towards men.  The disgusting aspect, according to my friend, was women were expected to apologise and to take the responsibility for invoking the racist, misogynist and discriminatory attitude of these men.  In other words, she continued, her existence, attitude, intelligence or mere presence, as a woman, invokes misogyny and her silence and unconditional agreement are the only acceptable and respectful behaviours.     

Unfortunately, women, indigenous people of Canada, people living with disabilities, person of colour (visible minority), and members of LGBTQ community can relate to this incident because of their own experience of subjugation and discrimination. 

I am certain that if asked male students will vehemently argue that they are not racist, sexist or misogynist and they believe in equal rights for every person in the world. Sadly, they are, in my opinion, absolutely right because of the societal and cultural expectations and norms.  Our society has concentrated not only the power in white men but has also defined and normalised our attitudes towards everyone who is not a white man.  This attitude is so ingrained in us that we do not even realise it.  How many times have you crossed the road when you saw an indigenous or a man of colour walking towards you at night or have been surprised and commented on your safety when you saw that it is a female pilot flying the aircraft or a female surgeon operating on you or your loved one?  Finally, Archbishop Linda Nicholls shattered the glass ceiling when she became the first female bishop to be elected Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada. 

I face prejudice and racism on a regular basis because of my heritage. I have been asked if I am loyal to Canada.   I have been questioned about my attitude towards Christians and if it is ok to be wished Merry Christmas (as it was assumed, I might be Muslim).   I have been asked if I am a wife beater and have consistently been subjected to extra scrutiny at the airport.  In the church world, a cleric told me in 2012, after my impassioned speech to the synod of the diocese to accept the motion  to offer blessing to married same sex couple, that she was nervous when I walked to the microphone as I am a logical and persuasive speaker and debater and I would convince the synod to defeat the motion.  But to her surprise, I spoke for the motion.  The most frequent comment I hear, from white middle-aged men, is that I am arrogant as I speak with passion and forthrightly and it makes them uncomfortable and that they feel slighted and insulted by me.  In every incident, the speaker has assured me that they are not racist and they are not suppressing my voice.  In fact, they have argued, that they are doing this for my benefit.  When asked, if they have spoken to other equally arrogant (white men) the answer is, ‘you know it’s them, they do not intend any harm and you should accept them’.  So, I am arrogant for speaking passionately and unless I quieten down, cool down or be silent I can expect to be shunned or shuffled to the side-line where I will hopefully remain silent.  When I am asked to the table, I now question the motive.  Is my input really wanted or does it make the table look more diverse?

Is arrogance an asset or liability?  Apparently, it is both depending on the ethnic origin and the gender of the speaker.  And it will remain this way until we challenge the psyche of our culture and start seeing and accepting people for who they are instead of their gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity.  Until that day, what option do I have?  I am torn between the choice to be silent or to be deemed arrogant, forthright and passionate.