Rampant Tone Policing in The Horse World

Let’s talk about tone policing and why it’s so damaging to the horse welfare movement.

First and foremost, from everything I’ve seen online, in any industry; women and people of marginalized groups are overwhelmingly more tone policed than anyone else.

So, at its core, there is an aspect of oppression behind shutting down the voices of certain people unless they phrase them in the “perfect” way.

Secondly, it seeks to protect the abuser above all else.

It completely negates the compassion fatigue, frustration and overwhelm people actively involved in welfare reform encounter and how hard it is to maintain positivity and never become frustrated or hit a breaking point when they’re perpetually listening to people defending abusive practice.

It carries the notion that those who are speaking out against harmful behaviour must construct their responses in the most perfect manner, never setting a foot wrong or having a statement land differently.

It also carries the assumption that how people react to said statements is the responsibility of the person making the statement, not something that at its core is triggered within the person reacting.

Lastly, it is also inherently discriminatory to people who are neurodivergent and tend to speak more directly and not respond to the same social cues and signals that neurotypical might be, effectively punishing them for making the choice to communicate at all.

It’s already exhausting enough trying to interact in a world that doesn’t serve us, constantly being picked apart for having a voice in controversial topics at all is something that results in many making the choice to simply say nothing.

Imperfect advocacy is better than no advocacy.

From my perspective, those tone policing the most aren’t the ones engaging in any activism at all.

It’s easy to critique from the sidelines when you haven’t been privy to just how many ways people can take what you say out of context, no matter how clear you try to make it.

We also have to be careful to recognize that many people don’t actually fully read online posts before responding emotionally.

And that is not the responsibility of the poster, in any capacity.

It’s the reader’s job to read what they’re reacting to and react to what is actually being said. If they make the choice not to do this, it isn’t fair to blame the author for how they took what was said out of context.

People aren’t mind readers. We can’t preemptively consider and address every which way people could misread what we are actually trying to say.

We are all also operating from our own perspectives and might not even be aware of how people may misconstrue words until it happens.

There is definitely room for constructive criticism in the welfare advocacy world, or any world at that, but tone policing comes from a place where the issue is with the person speaking out in the first place and the focus is placed entirely on their tone and essentially requesting them to perfect it or shut up.

This deflects the focus away from the abuse at hand, which is beneficial to abusers, because they essentially are allowed to operate unchecked while the voices of those concerned about their behaviour are drowned out by the standard they are held to.

Tone policing involves putting a spotlight on how people respond to harmful issues and taking that spotlight away from the issue itself.

It is rampant in the horse world.

So often I see people actively causing harm to horses and humans left to continue doing as they want to, meanwhile, those outraged by their conduct are bombarded with remarks about how they should’ve responded instead.

Seldom do you ever see those who tone police directing the same type of criticism at the abuse being discussed.

If it were a more balanced perspective, it would be less of a problem, but instead, the response to abuse is hyper inflated to being more damaging than the abuse itself.

There is a reason why the abuse in the industry inflicted on BOTH horses and humans is still so rampant.

Abusers know they have certain protections and that people in this industry operate with an “out of sight, out of mind” ideology.

They know that even if exposed, odds are it’ll blow over at some point, especially if they’re famous enough.

They know victims are terrified to speak out because of victim blaming, tone policing and harsh judgment of them for choosing to out their abuser.

Judgment that often times is much harsher towards the abused than it is towards the abuser.

And so, the cycle continues.

We must ask ourselves who we care about protecting more.

The victims or the perpetrators?

Who needs our help more, the loud voices or the voiceless?

Imperfect advocacy will always be better than no advocacy at all.

While it’s important that we all look at how we respond in debates and refrain from mean spirited personal attacks and instead focus on behaviour, actions and conduct; we also must recognize that we are all human.

Imperfect tone during a heated discussion about ethics is much less damaging than abusive and harmful behaviours.

It’s something that is far less insidious and easier to correct.

All of that aside — it does hit a point where we also need to consider why we think abusers should be afforded more patience, “niceness” and empathy than what is often given to victims.

Kindness doesn’t necessarily equate to being nice.

Sometimes the kindness thing that can be done is checking someone on their harmful behaviour.

Exposing these issues comes with the assumption that they are fixable.

That people can and will change with new information.

That better welfare policy and protection will hold people more accountable and bring change.

Behaviour is something we can all change and work on and while it may be hard to hear when we are harming our horses without intending to, it does come from a place of love and empathy for the horse and for the people in the industry.

The vast majority of us do not operate with malice.

We learn to hurt our horses unwittingly.

We believe our mentors and normalize what we’re doing to such an extent that it’s painful and hard to accept where we might be going wrong.

Criticism of such wrongs isn’t coming from a place of calling someone an irreparably bad person, it’s coming from a place of trying to appeal to logic and empathy and encourage needed change.

Everyone is capable of becoming a better person.

Our behaviour on our worst days doesn’t need to stay that way forever, it’s changeable. It doesn’t have to be who we are.

When we identify so heavily with our behaviour and how we handle our horses, it can feel highly personal, but these things are all subject to change with greater knowledge.

And so, we must consider where we put the most focus and energy when it comes to advocacy.

If it is perpetually directed at people who are trying to make positive change because they don’t go about doing so in a perfect way, this is effectively taking the focus off of the actual problem.

It’s also implying that we shouldn’t speak out on any issue unless we can do so without ever making mistake.

This quiets a lot of voices that would be extremely valuable in enacting mass change.

Everyone is learning and growing.

Changing policy is new territory and involves going against the status quo, which tends to cause discomfort and resulting upset no matter how you structure your argument.

Dismantling traditional structures and exposing the harm it causes is not something that can be done while being “nice” to everyone if being nice is to never cause any discomfort or upset.

We can’t accurately target and expose problems needing change without talking about why they’re harmful.

And in exposing that harm, we upset those who engage in it unintentionally, with the belief that they aren’t causing harm.

But, intent doesn’t change the outcome for horses or people who are subjected to such treatment.

Ultimately, when we are engaging online, we have a lot more escapes from content that makes us uncomfortable than horses do from harsh training or people do from abusive trainers.

Also, much is lost in translation in writing versus speaking where tone of voice and facial expressions can be seen.

We ultimately read posts with the internal voice in our head, influenced by how we are feeling.

This can lead to having a much more negative perspective and feeling personally attacked if what is being criticized is something we do.

We feel that criticism of the training method is an attack on our humanity and the entirety of us as human, when really it’s just about the training tactic.

And ultimately, we are in the drivers seat when it comes to changing with new information, ignoring the information and moving on if we don’t believe in it or keeping it in the back of our minds to consider as time goes on.

That’s why advocacy is needed and so valuable.

Because, even if imperfect, it can plant seeds that bring needed change.

It can also encourage people with better, stronger and more clear voices to join the cause in ways that may be closer to “perfect advocacy” than others.

So, as a community, let’s please consider where we place the most energy and focus. If it’s on those speaking out against abuse and not on the abuse itself, there may just be a problem.