| Its like this, Kris. We all have our viewpoints, our turf, our
emotional perspectives on everything. And we're all tired of being
pushed. We all resist change when it appears (to our emotional sides)
that that change may threaten us. Sure, we come up with 'logical'
arguments for our chosen way of looking at things; but I doubt very
much that there are any of us who argue our points without feeling
'right', too; that is, though we may cover ourselves up with reason, we
'feel' these issues from the gut, too. Sometimes we have excellent
reason on our side...but I think its usually after the emotional side
has spoken that our rational side justifies things and provides us with
all of those 'logical' arguments.
We seldom have the guts to admit our own chosen perspective is
incomplete. Your note points out the warlike nature of some of
the interchanges, and shows us all how futile and one-sided each
of those stereotypical biases really is. I hope we all have the guts
to embrace, or at least to consider, the perspectives our peers choose
to share with us.
DougO
|
|
I remember once reading an article by George Will (smart guy, that George)
where he stated, and I remember the quote exactly: "There is no affiliation
more easily affected, or in the end more meaningless, than membership in a
generation." His quote started me thinking about other affiliations that
are also instant, easy, and automatic: race, gender, nationality. All
determined at birth, all determining what our "natural" allegiances will be.
You can add religion to the list also, for 99% of the people in the world.
Yet how many of us actally go beyond these automatic "memberships" and use what
we do and have accomplished since birth as the primary identifiers of who we
are and how we see ourselves, rather than the default identifiers of race,
gender, nationality, and religion?
It's so easy to blame others for problems that we create ourselves. Thus
the name-calling, finger-pointing, and generall boo-hoo-hooing about how
our own problems are someone else's fault. How very simple to find a banner
to march under, a rallying cry to answer, a scapegoat to identify as the
source of all our problems that, if destroyed, would make everything right
again. March under the banner of feminism, destroy the male-dominated
particarchal oppression, and all problems in the world will be magically
solved. Just be born the correct gender, and you too can join, with no
obligation. March under the banner of civil rights and racial equality,
overthrow the racist power monopoly which is the source of all your troubles,
and the world will be just and fair and you will receive what is yours
by right and reason; again, membership is automatic if you're born the correct
race. Normally, it accomplishes nothing other than giving some people a
comforting sense of belonging and kinship, to identify with the cozy, close
and intimate group of 3 billion or so other women, or 250 million or so other
Americans, or however many billions of Christians or however many millions
or billions of homosexuals there are, and so on. Normally, it's just people
with an ax to grind and a group they want to belong to and be accepted by,
and a story to tell that maybe Ann Landers would be interested in, but not
me. Normally, I would ignore it all and just go about my business.
So why do I participate? In a word, balance and perspective, since I'm
a member (automatically) of the intersection of groups that gets blamed
the most: White, Male, American, Christian, hetero. When fingers get pointed,
it's usually at us, and it's up to someone to tell people that when you
point a finger, if you take a good look at your hand, you'll see three
other fingers pointing right back at yourself. When feminists argue that
women are often victims of violence (which they are) someone has to balance
the argument and point out that men are also victims of violence at the
hands of women (which I have been); when feminists whine that men control
and victimize and subjugate and exploit women, someone has to balance the
argument and point out that men can get pretty badly brutalized too,
and can have their families broken apart and their children taken away from
them and can get stuck with the bill for providing for a family that
they aren't part of any more. That's why I note sometimes here in
MENNOTES. In the absence of any sort of organized "masculist" movement
to speak for men collectively as a gender, someone has to point out that
when you make broad generalizations, you have to expect to hear from those
who are the exception to your convenient stereotypes.
|