Thank you, melissa, for applying to the will smith—chris rock clash the concepts and language used…

Thank you, Melissa, for applying to the Will Smith—Chris Rock clash the concepts and language used to describe abusive aka bullying behavior. In response: _[1] JADA PINKETT-SMITH &

HEROISM_ Jada Pinkett-Smith has behaved heroically re her condition: female baldness, which is outside the aesthetic norm for women. You can’t hide baldness except, should you so choose,

with a wig. Grieving and courage are demanded of a woman who loses her hair. She is then left with two choices: to publicly hide or expose her condition. The consequences (played out on the

Oscars stage) of Pinkett-Smith’s choice to publicly share her vulnerability can be filtered through an understanding of the relationship among: *TABOO: This strategy is used by society at

large to publicly silence or render invisible anyone whose appearance or life experience or suffering falls outside social norms. *PUBLIC SHAMING: This strategy is used to punish any

non-normie who breaks a taboo by daring to resist socially coerced silence or invisibility. *PERSONAL EMBARRASSMENT: This is the price that social punishment (via public shaming) of

taboo-breaking non-normies is intended to exact. Any sufferer risks public shaming if s/he breaks the taboo by announcing “this happened to me.” The risk—and it’s real, and

widespread—includes: *IGNORANT people not understanding or, worse, blaming you for your misfortune *CONFORMISTS not being able to override, or hide, their own discomfort with your misfortune

*CRUEL people insulting you for your misfortune (as Chris Rock did to Jada Pinkett-Smith) Pinkett-Smith has bravely chosen not to hide her disease under a wig or scarf. Given the social

taboo against female baldness, she has displayed great courage, but Chris Rock made her pay the price. He did exactly what bullies do: publicly shamed her for the personal vulnerability that

she has chosen to share. _[2] CHRIS ROCK & VERBAL BULLYING_ I love “politically incorrect” comedy and even cringe-worthy comedy but not when a comic punches down and targets a

vulnerable individual, which is what Chris Rock did. Rock targeted a woman for personal humiliation regarding her unconventional appearance due to her disease. He targeted her in person and

in public and—to add further insult and injury—on an international stage and caught on film forever. For Rock’s target, there was no escaping the spotlight. _[3] WILL SMITH & REACTIVE

ABUSE?_ Presumably, what we saw on the Oscars stage was not a case of chronic abuse within an ongoing relationship; in such scenarios, a bully will push a target for months or years until

the target reaches a breaking point and pushes back (the FIGHT RESPONSE). However, one of VERBAL BULLYING’s linchpin elements—PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY aka the “it was just a joke” abuser

tactic—was clearly present. I’m not excusing Will Smith’s hitting Chris Rock although, honestly, I understand Smith in the moment and have even wondered if Rock’s insulting Pinkett-Smith on

that international stage goaded Will Smith into “REACTIVE ABUSE.” Someone who wins the Academy Award has the world at their feet for a magical instant in time. Fame and adulation are

fleetingly theirs, and everyone is listening. Had Smith not lashed out physically, he could have used his spotlight as a teaching moment in which to call out Rock’s public shaming of

Pinkett-Smith’s appearance and, more importantly, her bravery and leadership re her disease. Had Smith not won the award, he could have had his say the next day via an op-ed that any of the

most read international news sources would have been honored to publish. Smith wasted his teaching moment because how can you call for other people to behave in a dignified, empathic way

after you yourself have hit _even _someone who has bullied your loved one?—your actions have preemptively undermined your words. _[4] THE AUDIENCE & FLYING MONKEYS_ In my lived

experience, social circles usually choose to side with bullies because bullies have more power (money or status) than targets. FLYING MONKEYS (enablers) choose to swaddle bullies and protect

them from accountability for violence—verbal, physical, or other—against targets. Go explain why flying monkeys choose to behave as they do. The short version is that they are the world’s

worst cowards and choose the path of least resistance. AGAIN, I DO NOT THINK WILL SMITH IS THE BULLY IN THIS CASE—THAT WOULD BE CHRIS ROCK—but that same audience applauded Rock, too, instead

of calling that particular “joke” to account by booing it for intentional, targeted cruelty against a woman with an unconventional appearance due to disease. By laughing at Rock’s joke, the

 FLYING MONKEYS (the audience) joined him in mocking Jada Pinkett-Smith’s appearance (thus amplifying the mockery) and minimized (GASLIGHTED) any hurt caused to her. Sick. Moreover, in that

moment when Hollywood gave Will Smith a standing ovation for some other, wonderful thing that he did (a great performance) and is (a great actor), they shielded him from social

accountability for hitting another guy. The audience chose to forgive or minimize—to GASLIGHT—Smith’s use of physical violence on their stage because he is so loveable and admirable in other

ways. This is society’s way of enabling violence (verbal or physical or other) by high-status individuals—and it is one of FLYING MONKEYS’ classic moves. [5] CHRIS ROCK: PUT YOUR MONEY

WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS This is what comes up first on the Web: https://nationalhealthcouncil.org/member/national-alopecia-areata-foundation/. It’s a link to the National Alopecia Areata

Foundation (NAAF), whose intro states: “Alopecia areata is a common autoimmune skin disease, causing hair loss on the scalp, face and sometimes on other areas of the body. It affects as many

as 6.8 million people in the U.S. NAAF supports research to find a cure or acceptable treatment for alopecia areata, supports those with the disease, and educates the public about alopecia

areata.” If I were Jada Pinkett-Smith, I would tell Chris Rock that his sending the NAAF a generous donation earmarked for research and public education would be the only apology that I

would find acceptable.