Having thought longer about this, I can now look upon Australia with an appropriately detached perspective.
I'm the first child of a hippie and a surfer, who both were more socially progressive than most, I guess. Growing up, my dad generally worked upwards of 70 hours a week, so the greatest influence on my worldview - by far - was my mother. It would also be fair to say that I was a bit of a goody two-shoes until I was 14 or 15 :) Add to that, I'm a bit of a loner - put it all together, and I'm going to have a self-selected sample of society against which to check my moral compass, just without conscious recognition of the fact.
When I've run across racist/sexist points of view in the past, I've quite often said something about it. but I've always pushed away those people as repulsive, and not part of my society. This doesn't mean I'll continue dealing with them while politely overlooking the repugnant element - I'll take my business/association/whatever elsewhere.
So I have believed that there's a fair segment of society - both men and women - who hold and live appropriately enlightened views. I'm fully aware that that's not true of society as a whole, but I feel that the world I move in generally does not contain those elements.
I believe libellum would hold this up as mail privilege and naivety. On reflection, I largely agree. It hadn't occurred to me to link the experience and the issue. There are plenty of times where I've been struck by how uncomfortable the moment would be if I was a woman, or cringed for the women present. Far moreso here than in Aus, but then I feel more uncomfortable here as a bloke too.
Helen is right that there's a distinction between the way we look at it. I disagree, though, that it's because I'm unaffected - I most certainly am, and I do have a visceral reaction. Nonetheless, It remains a reaction to an abstract train of thought. The rebuttal is that it;'s also true that I'm not affected in any concrete way, and that's true. Which makes my reaction a knee-jerk against the implication that enlightened men remain unfeeling, that the most we can manage is an academic acceptance of the female perspective.
I think that's rubbish. If the only acceptance each party can have of the other's perspective is academic, then we're talking about tolerance of arbitrary beliefs, NOT a visceral recognition of natural human rights. I might only be able to have an academic appreciation for the pain of giving birth, but I can most certainly hold a full and thorough understanding of what it feels like to be treated differently on account of some arbitrary distinction.
In any event, thankyou for giving me pause to reflect on the bigger picture.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
Thankyou...
on 2006-05-01 03:42 pm (UTC)I'm the first child of a hippie and a surfer, who both were more socially progressive than most, I guess. Growing up, my dad generally worked upwards of 70 hours a week, so the greatest influence on my worldview - by far - was my mother. It would also be fair to say that I was a bit of a goody two-shoes until I was 14 or 15 :) Add to that, I'm a bit of a loner - put it all together, and I'm going to have a self-selected sample of society against which to check my moral compass, just without conscious recognition of the fact.
When I've run across racist/sexist points of view in the past, I've quite often said something about it. but I've always pushed away those people as repulsive, and not part of my society. This doesn't mean I'll continue dealing with them while politely overlooking the repugnant element - I'll take my business/association/whatever elsewhere.
So I have believed that there's a fair segment of society - both men and women - who hold and live appropriately enlightened views. I'm fully aware that that's not true of society as a whole, but I feel that the world I move in generally does not contain those elements.
I believe
Helen is right that there's a distinction between the way we look at it. I disagree, though, that it's because I'm unaffected - I most certainly am, and I do have a visceral reaction. Nonetheless, It remains a reaction to an abstract train of thought. The rebuttal is that it;'s also true that I'm not affected in any concrete way, and that's true. Which makes my reaction a knee-jerk against the implication that enlightened men remain unfeeling, that the most we can manage is an academic acceptance of the female perspective.
I think that's rubbish. If the only acceptance each party can have of the other's perspective is academic, then we're talking about tolerance of arbitrary beliefs, NOT a visceral recognition of natural human rights. I might only be able to have an academic appreciation for the pain of giving birth, but I can most certainly hold a full and thorough understanding of what it feels like to be treated differently on account of some arbitrary distinction.
In any event, thankyou for giving me pause to reflect on the bigger picture.