Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today. Ralph Waldo Emerson
( Read more... )
One thing the Tea Party movement has done is caused me to seriously ask how much dogma I have consumed, and whether or not I take things for granted. Unfortunately, analysis of an idea's weaknesses or problems can make them prey to those who care more about winning than about justice.
I'm a feminist, but that doesn't mean that I think women are justified in mistreating men just because some man somewhere in the past did them harm. That's transference: punishing a stand-in because you can't punish the one who actually did you the harm. Hard-core feminist dogma gloried in the idea that if women ruled the world, the world would automatically be a better place. I have to constantly hold up ideas and see if they are falling into this ideological trap when I'm considering issues.
For instance, I do think it was wrong of Chris Wallace to ask Michele Bachmann if she was a flake. It is a gender-encoded term. It would have been more appropriate if Wallace had been specific, and asked her about her standards for factual accuracy. She's not a flake. A flake can't set goals and meet them. That has not been a failing for Bachmann. She sets a goal and meets it regardless of the consequences to others. It's an entirely different thing, and trying to discredit Bachmann by labeling her a flake is disrespectful and unprofessional. On the other hand, what Charles Gibson did in his interview with Sarah Palin was completely appropriate. He asked her specific questions and her answers revealed her ignorance. That one's on her, not on him.
I generally agree with that. I think Palin and Bachmann are idiots, but that doesn't excuse gender-biased jibes and abusive stereotypes. In fact, I shouldn't even call them idiots - they're plenty smart, in their own ways. What they are is destructive to just about everything I value. Thinking we're right doesn't justify name-calling and acting like children. We have to stand our ground on real moral authority.
I'm a feminist, but that doesn't mean that I think women are justified in mistreating men just because some man somewhere in the past did them harm. That's transference: punishing a stand-in because you can't punish the one who actually did you the harm. Hard-core feminist dogma gloried in the idea that if women ruled the world, the world would automatically be a better place. I have to constantly hold up ideas and see if they are falling into this ideological trap when I'm considering issues.
For instance, I do think it was wrong of Chris Wallace to ask Michele Bachmann if she was a flake. It is a gender-encoded term. It would have been more appropriate if Wallace had been specific, and asked her about her standards for factual accuracy. She's not a flake. A flake can't set goals and meet them. That has not been a failing for Bachmann. She sets a goal and meets it regardless of the consequences to others. It's an entirely different thing, and trying to discredit Bachmann by labeling her a flake is disrespectful and unprofessional. On the other hand, what Charles Gibson did in his interview with Sarah Palin was completely appropriate. He asked her specific questions and her answers revealed her ignorance. That one's on her, not on him.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment