It's been a couple of years since I last posted. I'm writing tonight because I can't sleep. And I thought about just writing in my personal journal, but this is something that needs to be shared. (I'll apologize in advance for not giving names or details, but you'll understand why I avoid this and hopefully still take something away from this post even without all the context.)

There's this awful quotation I ran across once:

“Heroes. Idols. They're never who you think they are. Shorter. Nastier. Smellier. And when you finally meet them, there's something that makes you want to choke the shit out of them” (attributed to Paul Beatty). 

I never really understood this sentiment until tonight - what could someone labelled a "hero" (especially in your own eyes) do to make you want to choke them? Well, all they have to do is disappoint you.

In my current job I've been fortunate to meet a number of my personal "heroes". I put heroes in quotation marks because these people are not widely known or sitting on laurels or running into burning buildings. But they became heroes to me because of what they thought, what they wrote, and what they advocated for. To me they were gamechangers. Rethinking the way society functions. Challenging the status quo.

It's one thing to watch your heroes from a distance. It's another thing to get onto the playing field with them. Up close I now see the seams in the "do-gooder" image of these people that I spent years cultivating in my mind. They're humans and (shocker) amongst all of their good qualities they also have less appealing qualities like fear, greed, ignorance, jealousy, deceptiveness... the list goes on. 

Tonight I'm trying to work through being angry at my heroes for their actions and human traits. For pursuing things not because they're the best option or the right things to pursue, but because it's safer. For trying to stop things they believe are not possible, before even giving these things a chance to get started. For speaking about half-truths as full truths. For advocating selectively. For putting on blinders and assuming their experience is the only experience. The right experience. The experience everyone should be listening to.

You know, if I didn't have my own experience I wouldn't be so worked up. But the truth is, my experience challenges what some of my heroes are saying. My experience tells me they aren't painting a fair picture. There is some truth to what they say, yes, but it's being generalized as the whole truth. And I disagree. Heck, I know some of the people they're speaking on behalf of disagree! Of course, these people haven't been asked what their opinion of the situation is. And I can almost guarantee that if they were, and if they answered honestly going against what my heroes have said, my heroes would argue they were being coached, or didn't understand the question, or didn't understand what they "really" wanted (even though personal choice is a human right). If their choice didn't jive with the "truth" my heroes would probably reject it.

 Why are my heroes doing this? I keep asking myself this question. The conclusions I come to are equally upsetting:

1. They are innocently ignorant. They simply haven't seen the areas of grey that exist in the topic they're addressing, and as result they honestly believe the situation is black and white. This is upsetting because a) most older, intellectual, well-adjusted people understand that situations are rarely black and white (have I been idolizing people who don't?!) and b) missing out on these experiences of "grey areas" means they've missed out on a wonderful opportunity to better understand human diversity (which makes me sad for them). 
2. They are willfully ignorant. They understand that their stance on the issue is one-sided and does not acknowledge a diversity of realities and experiences. This is upsetting because a) it discredits lived experiences (of those they claim to advocate on behalf of, no less), b) it advocates for a "one-size-fits-all" solution (even though we know this doesn't work in practice EVER), and c) it could result in the destruction of a multiplicity of approaches in favour of a single approach based on a singular (and arguably flawed) "truth". The worst part is that if what they're advocating for happens, it would specifically support the growth of the organizations they run. I'm not against their organizations. They do great work. I would love to see them grow. But not at the expense of other organizations that offer value as well, just using a different approach. That's selfish. And it's the worst part because I never, ever wanted to view my heroes as selfish. 

I can't totally blame them if either of the above situations (or some combination of the two) is true. I'm realizing that as an advocate you're expected to pick a side. Fence-sitting is not okay, because people expect a straightforward "this is wrong, this is how we right it" response. I don't know if I'll ever be a great advocate, because I'm getting worse and worse at generalizing. I don't think this is a bad thing inherently (I'm learning to appreciate that there are a diversity of experiences, perceptions, truths, etc.) but it makes delivering a hardline message really difficult. It makes delivering clear messaging difficult. What's right for one person is wrong for another, so I can't stand up and say "this one thing is right" - because it's only right in a certain context. How will people ever follow what the heck I'm actually advocating for? 

I guess what I advocate for is options. For choice. For creating spaces in which a variety of options can be talked about and realized. Not to the detriment of anyone else, but so that every person can choose the most "right" thing for them. Sometimes this might mean having support to make those choices, but the important thing is that the choices are there and presented to the person in a way that makes sense to them. In our current social and economic environment, what I advocate for is unpopular (to put it mildly). Creating multiple options costs money (and our economy is not doing well) and it also demands that people stop forcing their values onto others to allow room for choice (the ongoing pro-life/pro-choice debate illustrates how difficult this is to overcome). 

So after getting all this off of my chest, where does this leave me? I'm less angry than I was. My heroes are people, not flawless idols - they're bound to do things I disagree with or that make me uncomfortable. I don't value their former contributions any less, but I will absolutely look more critically at the things they say and do in the future. 

It's also a bit of a red flag. Every time I choose to be an advocate I'll have to make choices about messaging. My messages will not always represent everyone. I will likely make some people extremely angry. I'm just hoping I remember to listen to the multiple truths out there when they are raised, and don't jump to telling anyone they're absolutely wrong. If someone is part of a group I'm advocating with or for, their experience is imperative to informed and considerate advocacy. 

Lastly, if anyone ever looks to me as a "hero" I hope I remember to remind myself of my humanity and to forgive myself for it. Before they get close enough to see my seams. And after I disappoint them.