Only when human sorrows are turned into a toy with glaring colors will baby people become interested—for a while at least. The people are a very fickle baby that must have new toys every day. – Emma Goldman
Schadenfreude is a German word which means “the act of taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others”. Generally it’s used to mean an openly-sadistic enjoyment such as that derived from watching gladiatorial combats or contemplating the downfall of one’s enemies and (as Conan expressed it) hearing the lamentation of their women. But I would argue that there is another, more subtle kind of schadenfreude, one which cloaks itself in empathy; it is the secret satisfaction felt by the haves while indulging themselves in Pharisean displays of pity for the have-nots or victims of disasters, sometimes while distributing petty largesse but usually while lugubriously expressing sympathy for them while shedding crocodile tears in their air-conditioned houses, wearing designer clothes and watching every possible moment of the spectacle on their big-screen plasma television sets.
This is not to say that there is no such thing as genuine, heartfelt sympathy, nor that all public appeals to charity are automatically insincere; in fact, I think it’s pretty easy to tell the difference. When the speaker calls more attention to the people than to the plight, to facts over feelings and to the cause rather than to himself, one can be reasonably certain one is looking upon sincere empathy. But when the speaker dwells lovingly upon lurid details, treats humans as passive objects to be done to (“rescued”, “saved”, kept from making their own choices, etc) instead of helped, arranges as many photo-ops with starving children/trafficking survivors/ disaster victims as possible and makes sure that his own name and image are always prominently associated with his crusade, one can be equally certain that one beholds a narcissistic “baby person” whose interest in tragedy is his own self-aggrandizement and a paternalistic satisfaction in controlling “lesser” (usually brown-skinned and/or female) people “for their own good”.
The “rescue” industry is stocked to the rafters with such people, middle-class white Westerners seeking to assuage their self-inflicted guilt by “getting involved”. If these organizations were to limit themselves to disaster aid, famine relief and other such clear-cut issues, providing whatever aid was specifically requested by the victims rather than trying to run the show, assign blame and pass judgment on the lives and morality of others (not to mention abducting their children), I honestly wouldn’t give a damn if they were doing it for their own selfish purposes; after all, the fact that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs aggressively promoted personal computing for the purpose of making themselves rich does not change the fact that they helped to make the internet as we know it possible. Motive is immaterial as long as the actions are wholly beneficent and remain that way, but when the self-appointed “rescuers” start to meddle in the lives of others, disrupting their cultures and governments, destroying the livelihoods of women and even abducting, confining and attempting to brainwash and enslave them in the name of “saving” them, that is another thing entirely. In such cases the selfish motives of the “rescuers” are very much the point.
As Laura Agustín points out, the mildest form of this self-interest is mere tourism (much like the “disaster tourism” after Hurricane Katrina), “Rescue Industry prurience rooted in racism and colonialism” designed to help comparatively-wealthy Westerners feel good about themselves. But if the “rescuer’s” desire to build his own ego, to feel as though he is part of something bigger than himself or to experience the visceral excitement of “saving” people (without actually having to endanger himself by being a fireman or a disaster rescue worker, of course) becomes so powerful that his own emotional needs supersede any of the needs of those he supposedly “helps”, it’s very easy for him to lose sight of what people actually need or want or to convince himself that he knows better than they do. Trafficking fanatics now claim that their campaign to deny agency to whores is the new civil rights movement, a conceit which would be hilarious if it weren’t so sick. It’s as though white people in the 1960s had cast their denial of black people’s rights as a way to “protect” them from the control of other, “evil” white people who were smarter, emotionally stronger and more sophisticated than poor, stupid, childlike colored folks.
But the worst of the “rescuers” go far, far beyond merely ignoring the needs of others and/or unconsciously buying into self-serving mythology; they consciously and calculatedly blur the lines between consensual adult prostitution and slavery, deny that sex workers are capable of adult decision-making, inflate statistics, attempt to hide evidence which contradicts their claims and invent incredible justifications for their own outrageous behavior. For some of them, this is done in order to win public and governmental support for their Christian or neofeminist religious crusade against all prostitution; for governments in East Asia, it’s done to secure funding from the United States, and for people like Somaly Mam, it’s done as a way to exorcise personal demons while controlling others and making themselves feel important. Since it passed draconian anti-prostitute laws three years ago in order to please its masters in Washington, Cambodia has become a particularly nasty nexus for all three of these types: Cambodian police, aided and abetted by Somaly Mam (who is herself financed by money from neofeminists, religious fanatics, trafficking alarmists and the garment industry), have conducted a series of high-profile brothel raids and streetwalker sweeps, often accompanied by Western journalists like Nicholas Kristof who are interested in advancing their careers and reputations by pandering to “trafficking” hysteria.
None of these people care one iota about the lives, needs and desires of women; “rescuing” whores is to them nothing but a means to their own personal ends, and after the cameras stop rolling or Kristof stops “tweeting” they are no more interested in these women’s welfare than they would be in the container which held a portion of recently-consumed food. The “rescued victims” are thrown into filthy, crowded cells at Somaly Mam’s “rehabilitation centers” where they are beaten, robbed, gang-raped and starved while their “savior” hobnobs with celebrities and receives accolades from anti-whore fanatics. Young girls who submit to brainwashing become Somaly Mam’s “poster children” and older ones are sent as slaves to sweatshops, while those who refuse are simply left to rot unless they can escape. Groups like Human Rights Watch have repeatedly protested this horrific abuse, and sex worker rights groups have released short documentaries like “Caught Between the Tiger and the Crocodile” or videos like “Somaly Uh Uh” in order to alert Westerners to the atrocities their ignorant and ill-considered jihad against harlotry has enabled. But they’re shouting into a hurricane; the credulous masses refuse to listen while they’re eagerly licking up the lurid, near-pedophiliac accounts Kristof and others like him serve up for their schadenfreude.
One Year Ago Today
“What a Week!” reported on a number of whore-related stories including police persecution of a severely-disabled man seeking a prostitute, a sex worker safety column on Jezebel, Charlie Sheen’s meltdown, cops admitting their total impotence in halting online hooker ads, the opening of a mega-brothel in Spain and the advent of new advertising restrictions on Backpage.
“Trafficking fanatics now claim that their campaign to deny agency to prostitutes is the new civil rights movement, a conceit which would be hilarious if it weren’t so sick.”
Let’s hope THIS “civil rights movement” of theirs is not as successful as the other civil rights movements.
Its funny how we have gotten MORE ignorant about prostitution as the years have gone on….I wish I was around centuries ago when they weren’t in everybody’s business about what they did in their sex life.
Another thing they forget is that their “rescuing” of whores will completely backfire. When you take a way the one thing(whores) that certain guys like myself count on because they have difficulties with getting together with other civilians…..then your repressing them more and more.
This is exactly one of the reasons why it makes it so easy for many of those psychopathic serial killers to maim/kill whores.
I don’t think people realize JUST HOW MUCH sex crimes will go down if our “leaders” stop trying to save and “rescue ” whores
God this country is primitive
I don’t think people realize JUST HOW MUCH sex crimes will go down if our “leaders” stop trying to save and “rescue ” whores
Spain decriminalized prostitution in 1995, and in the period from 1995 to 2000, rape decreased by 29.3%.
Total crime in general decreased by 1.2% – despite the population increasing by about a million people in that time period. If the Spanish government ever decriminalized drugs, an even greater rate of crime reduction could be achieved.
Yeah but …
According to my Dworkin / MacKinnon calculator … the very fact that the population increased by one million is physical proof that the number of rapes increased by the same amount. All sex is violent and therefore rape unless you do it a certain way that no man will do it. Sooo … in actuality, since no one gets pregnant on the first try – and there are unfertile men and women out there who never can fertilize / become pregnant – then this increase in population could represent an astronomical increase in the instance of rape to the tune of TRILLIONS!
Krulac, I appreciate your tongue in cheek post, but let’s get one thing clear: Catherine MacKinnon has never said that “all sex is violent”. MacKinnon said, paraphrased closely, “Heterosexual sex often happens under conditions of power inequalities that make the concept of consent problematic.” MacKinnon pretends that homosexual and lesbian sex partners have less power inequality than heterosexual ones. MacKinnon also had a male fiance at one point, so she was apparently an active heterosexual. Andrea Dworkin was more overt in almost explicitly equating heterosexual sex with assault.
Quote from Dworkin – “Penetrative intercourse is, by it’s nature, violent”
I wonder, does Dworkin the Hutt count being fisted by her girlfriend as penetrative sex?
Apparently not, because her violently pornographic novel Ice and Fire contains lovingly-detailed passages of lesbian dildo rape, which Dworkin insisted were not pornographic because a woman wrote them for a female audience and none of the characters were male. Dworkin was mentally ill, and anyone who accepts her dogma is equally sick…which is to say the entire neofeminist movement. Future cultural historians will consider it a cult or a species of mass hysteria.
Andrea Dworkin was a fake lesbian. Dworkin never acknowledged any female partner, and after her death, a friend of hers said that in 30 years of friendship with Dworkin, she had never heard a word about Dworkin having a relationship with a woman.
Dworkin was, or may have been, what feminists call a “political lesbian”, a woman who abstains from heterosexual sex because she considers it patriarchal, without having lesbian sex.
I suspect Andrea Dworkin was a repressed heterosexual; I’ve read that there are many steamy heterosexual sex scenes in her writings, whereas her lesbian scenes are few and mostly dull.
There’s a lot of parallels between the prohibition of prostitution and Prohibition. The testimony before Congress that ended Prohibition recounts the negative effects — it made the crime rate go up and increased underaged drinking (since no-one bothered to comply with age restrictions).
Of course, most politicians and law enforcement officials do not want to see the parallels between Prohibition and the prohibition of prostitution or drugs.
Well, on some issues – we just don’t have the time to debate them. This is kind of one of those issues. It’s best to just listen to, and trust the anti-traffickers. Why spend a lot of time debating this since the US Government and the United Nations has declared this a problem? I mean, you can’t really get any more “unbiased” than that now can you? The US Government and the United Nations?
Add Demi Moore and Ashton Kucher’s opinions to this subject and you have all the solid “intellectual” basis you need to declare “victory” for the anti-trafficking cause!
“Dude – Who Stole My Argument?”
And besides – even if we had the time to debate this – look at how solidly the “anti-traffickers” have locked down this issue. In order to pry the lid off this jar of mental voodoo – you have to first stand up and assert the differences between consensual prostitution and non-consensual sexual slavery. To do that – you’d have to assert that some hookers actually HAVE intelligence and MAY NOT be mentally deranged to the point they can’t make decisions for themselves.
Heh – good luck with trying that! Maybe the reason you take a stand for whores is because you’re such a little man you can’t get it for free like the rest of us? Or maybe worse – maybe you like the little girls … hmmm, I wonder if your passport has a stamp from India or Thailand?
Or maybe you’re a Penn State Football fan?
Pretty ingenious and … the hookers themselves can’t even stand up and talk about it because it’s talk about an illegal activity and, besides – most of them are engaged in prostitution on the “down low” and their families don’t know about it – so they won’t stand up and provide an opposing view.
Pure ingenious … not only are the whores demonized – but anyone who stands up for them has their motives for doing so questioned.
In battlefield terms, when you are outflanked on the left and the right – you can only surrender … so just freakin’ surrender already.
It’s debate by “emotional saturation” … first, turn off their “ears” to the truth with gruesome images of a six year old girl chained to a cot in Thailand.
You can then lead them around by the nose anywhere you want to take them.
In regard to Dworkin and Mackinnon, I think Alice says it best. You’ll have to look past the end of the poem for that.
I’m thinking that Carroll, in his whimsical way, addresses in poetry what Maggie has just explicated in prose.
‘The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright—
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.
The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done—
“It’s very rude of him,” she said,
“To come and spoil the fun!”
The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying over head—
There were no birds to fly.
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
“If this were only cleared away,”
They said, “it WOULD be grand!”
“If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year,
Do you suppose,” the Walrus said,
“That they could get it clear?”
“I doubt it,” said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.
“O Oysters, come and walk with us!”
The Walrus did beseech.
“A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each.”
The eldest Oyster looked at him.
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head—
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.
But four young oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat—
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn’t any feet.
Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more—
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.
The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings.”
“But wait a bit,” the Oysters cried,
“Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!”
“No hurry!” said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.
“A loaf of bread,” the Walrus said,
“Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed—
Now if you’re ready Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed.”
“But not on us!” the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue,
“After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!”
“The night is fine,” the Walrus said
“Do you admire the view?
“It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!”
The Carpenter said nothing but
“Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf—
I’ve had to ask you twice!”
“It seems a shame,” the Walrus said,
“To play them such a trick,
After we’ve brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!”
The Carpenter said nothing but
“The butter’s spread too thick!”
“I weep for you,” the Walrus said.
“I deeply sympathize.”
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size.
Holding his pocket handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
“O Oysters,” said the Carpenter.
“You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?”
But answer came there none—
And that was scarcely odd, because
They’d eaten every one.’
‘I like the Walrus best,’ said Alice: ‘because you see he was a LITTLE sorry for the poor oysters.’
‘He ate more than the Carpenter, though,’ said Tweedledee. ‘You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn’t count how many he took: contrariwise.’
‘That was mean!’ Alice said indignantly. ‘Then I like the Carpenter best—if he didn’t eat so many as the Walrus.’
‘But he ate as many as he could get,’ said Tweedledum.
This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, ‘Well! They were BOTH very unpleasant characters—’
Maggie, I may have made this comment before but the rescuers remind me an awful lot of those who campaign to shut down sweatshops without the faintest clue about what they’re getting involved in. They get to preen about how good they are while the workers lose jobs that may have been bad by our standards but were good by theirs. In Bangladesh, child sweatshop workers simply went back to child prostitution.
And to be frank, their attitude — on sweat shops, on sex work — is borderline racist. Sweatshops in America managed to disappear without intervention from wise people in other countries. Tens of millions of American women decide not to go into prostitution without any rescuing. But foreigners need white Americans to tell them they’re being exploited and save them.
I wouldn’t call it only borderline racist…
Has anyone ever noticed how the only time that the government interferes with anything is when people can capitalize on opportunities that do not benefit the government in any way, shape, or form? I don’t think anyone can cite an example of positive legislation towards the people in the last 20 years. Every step made to regulate or control anything has always been taken to gain control of the profiteering of said commodity. There is never a philanthropic or humanitarian reason behind government influence, simply a hope to either curtail others amassing wealth, or cut themselves in for a slice through regulation, tariff, or destruction.
Richie, you need to read up on Public Choice Economics and the ideas of Rent Seeking and Regulatory Capture.
LOVE the Kristoff Adoption Opportunity pic, Maggie! Where do you find them?
I devote considerable effort to finding good pictures, but sometimes they fall into my lap; that one in particular comes courtesy of Laura Agustin’s September 29th column. 🙂
One of my co-workers at the tutoring center where I worked was reading that Kristof book once in the break room. We had a nice long discussion about him and the points he raised and I presented counterpoints and gave her a long list of more objective resources from the viewpoint of sex workers themselves. I daresay I rescued her!
Amazingly, I was able to do this without outing myself.
Oh, and The Body Shop is also a HUGE supporter of Somaly Mam and ECPAT. I still shop there on occasion and they were hawking some bag a while ago whose proceeds go to her “charity”. I refused to buy it and told the sales associate exactly why I was refusing to buy it, in a nice way. She’s just trying to make her quota and as a former TBS employee, I respect that completely. But she was shocked to hear the counterclaims against Somaly Mam, so hopefully I opened another pair of eyes. I guess I could call this “direct activism”.
As per usual, I choke on The Body Shop and its hypocrisy. By focusing on child sex trafficking, it diverts attention from questions about just how “fair trade” their products are. They also treat their employees like crap, even going so far as to refuse to promote people so that they could “save money” (which is what prompted my leaving). For all their concern about women, they pay their primarily young, female staff barely over minimum wage, with managers taking home only a little more than that. I knew of one co-worker who was in an abusive and manipulative relationship with a boyfriend. But she couldn’t find a job anywhere else that would pay more because she didn’t finish college and the work schedule left precious little time to do much else to improve her lot in life.
And before anyone asks why the hell I still shop there, unfortunately The Body Shop is one of few stores where I can afford products that do not make my skin break out in rashes everywhere. Believe me, if I could afford Kiehl’s and L’Occitane all the time, I’d shop there.
I have a similar attitude toward the Salvation Army. I used to buy from their stores and put money in their Santa-kettles at Christmas until I learned that they almost singlehandedly invented the “white slavery” panic, are still among the biggest authors and disseminators of anti-whore propaganda and “sex trafficking” lies, teach that prostitution is inherently degrading and donate large sums which should be going to the poor to efforts to persecute hookers instead. I urge everyone who reads this to boycott them, and to spend your charity dollars on organizations that care more about helping the unfortunate than about fighting sex.
One way to enjoy schadenfreude is to make sure that the suffering one enjoys is only suffered by Very Bad People. Thus, one may grow ecstatic over the idea of men being gang-raped by other men… because it’s happening to child molesters in prison. And after all, don’t they deserve it? Or perhaps one may prefer to wax all warm and glowing to the thought of Muslims accused of terrorism (sort of, never charged) being water boarded, or forced to strip in front of women. Ah, forced stripping! Sexual humiliation at gunpoint! Getting me hard already, woohoo!! Damn, that’s almost as hot as the six-year-old having her cookie sewn up.
I don’t know. Seems to me that this makes for fine fantasy, if that’s what floats your boat, but can we please stop advocating for it in real life?
Or I guess I could just say: Maggie, I agree.
In one of those lovely moments of synchronicity which causes us to marvel at the mystery of life, today I encountered this recipe: “How To Make a Schadenfreude Pie“.
Added to list of pies to make. I’m particularly interested in the variation using ancho chili powder. I’ve added diced chili peppers to chocolate brownies, and it’s good stuff.
Jason,
Public choice theory is what I was speaking of basically in lay terms while at the same time adding my own viewpoint on the matter. I have read about all 3 topics, and although economics isn’t my primary field of study or interest, I don’t find any of the theories compellingly fresh. I also feel that public choice theory is great, but both impractical and never going to happen in the US. Unfortunately, US citizens are neither motivated to participate in the guiding of their fates or freedoms on a whole. But thanks for the input.
I just looked up ‘schadenfreude’ this morning. It was used 3 times in comments from The Agitator recently. You must have a lot of Agitatortot followers. I love how well these two sites parallel even though the blogs are about pretty different topics.
It’s funny how as soon as one first encounters a new word one suddenly seems to see it all over! I first learned it from one of my cousins in the mid-’90s, and it seemed as though I heard it everywhere after that!
I know that I have a number of readers who came over from The Agitator, ever since Radley Balko gave me a link in January. And you’re certainly right about the parallels; Radley and I are both concerned with personal freedom and the way governments oppress individuals, and though we usually look at it from slightly different angles I often find good stories on his blog.
Being in the lucky position to actually know German, I find your discussion about the meaning of Schadenfreude somewhat peculiar. It has as much to do with gladiatorial fights, crying women, gang rape (!?) or phariseanism as a mouse with a dinosaur. Matter-of-factly schadenfreude is pretty much laughing when someone slips on a banana peel, nothing more.
German might sound harsh and Germans did horrible things, especially in the first half of the 20th century, but freely associating word meaning on this basis seems out of place.
Completely off-topic and forgive me for ranting, but please get your facts right before using foreign words.
Catsy, schadenfreude is actually a loan word now (i.e. it’s considered part of English). And while in German it may indeed be limited in scope as you state (I’m afraid my German is far too limited to judge for myself), in English its use is much broader.
[…] source: http://lovebound.org/savioursyndrome.html comment on the article written by Sarah Woolley: http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/guest-columnist-sarah-woolley/ Related post: https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/schadenfreude/ […]