It started with a kiss – but what does it mean?
Luis Rubiales' kiss on the lips of Spanish world-cup winning player Jenni Hermoso is the incident that just won't go away. For various parties, something more profound is happening here than just a kiss. It feels like this is a weighty cultural moment, but it's not entirely clear why?
On the surface, it looks like a middle-aged white male has missed the revolution that is happening around him. You can't kiss younger females (or anyone) on the lips anymore - especially if it is non-consensual. OK, so Rubiales got it wrong. But it was just an innocent peck, it was no great act of abuse, some will think. Rubiales has apologised; let's move on. But apparently an apology is not enough. Why not?
In part, it's because the Women's World Cup is about more than just football – it was a showpiece event for equality. Just at the moment when everyone was patting each other on the back for filling stadiums, orchestrating a world-stopping sporting event with women at the centre of it – some white male undermines the crowning moment with a stolen kiss that reeks of past patriarchy. The symbolic moment was hijacked, and the message must be reclaimed.
So Hermoso steps up to reclaim the podium, declaring the kiss non-consensual. "I felt vulnerable and a victim of aggression. I was simply not respected," she said in a statement posted on social media on Friday 25 August.
At this moment, Rubiales assumes he is in a conversation, where the aim is to clarify disputed perspectives. He responds, "Is a consensual peck going to take me out of here? I won't resign. I will fight until the end," – a response that drew applause from his predominately male audience.
Rubiales is as this point mistaken. Another social phenomenon has evolved – one that is clearly at the centre of this second round of interactions. When a less powerful person takes to social media, they are not necessarily seeking to communicate in the traditional sense of the word. This is not a back-and-forth exchange moving towards clarity and shared understanding. On the contrary.
Such statements tend to be broadcastings of perspective and identity, bound up in their experience – often involving (perceived) harm. When a victim pronounces their position – when they have been vulnerable and authentic, there is only one valid response – recognition and affirmation. Its check, then checkmate to Hermoso. Rubiales has no choice but to resign.
Except Rubiales is not playing by the same rulebook. He will not concede, because, in his mind, this is a disputed incident hijacked by identity politics. And he is not alone – there would be a number of males, and even a few females, including his mother, who think Rubiales may have been clumsy – but he is not evil, and now he is the victim.
Value clashes are not new. Civilisations have been navigating them for centuries. What is unsettling is our culture's inability to traverse them. Binary battle lines of powerful and powerless, leading to the conclusion that we must simply respect and listen to the voice of past and present victims do not serve us well.
I favour prioritising voices that are less heard. At times we have to be intentional about hearing other voices. When listening and agreeing with softer voices equals recognition, and anything else is considered rude and disrespectful, we have moved beyond helpful into dangerous territory. Genuine dialogue is undermined. Worse, so is genuine love. Love entails hearing the other, understanding their views at their best, agreeing (in part) and respectfully disagreeing (in other parts), and still choosing to be for the other despite any differences.
Am I advocating that we respectfully disagree with Rubiales, and simply move on? No. He has stepped over some line, and has failed to genuinely understand and repent. If leadership is about facilitating a diverse team, working together to 'kick' goals, Rubiales has failed, and there are consequences for that.
If I am advocating for anything, it is to rediscover the capacity to mutually and respectfully discuss, debate, agree, and even disagree – all while remaining committed to the good of the other.