Everybody's different. It's true that all people born in the same general place at about the same time (decade, century, millennium) are influenced by many of the same prevailing trends, but it would be a mistake to assume that all of these people are in any sense the same, in their beliefs, for example.
So, here's an article: Women’s rights have gone ‘too far’, say majority of Gen Z and millennials, study shows (msn.com)
For your information (or perhaps for mine), "baby boomers" are considered to be people born from 1946 to 1964 (the "boom" in families and childbirth after WWII), "Generation X," whatever that's supposed to imply, is people born from 1965 to 1980, "Millennials" are people born from 1981 to 1996, and "Generation Z" is people born from 1997 to 2012. Most of these, except "baby boomers," are 15-year intervals. And these "majorities" were very small, and not consistent: men thought women's rights had gone too far by a little. Women though women's rights had not gone too far by significantly more.
There are two things of interest in this Pew poll. One is that it's just people's opinions, and it doesn't include much about why people feel this way. But the other thing, on the other hand, is that some people did reveal that they're now afraid to speak in favor of women's rights, because they're afraid of the response: "reprisals," for example. (Not because they don't really feel this way!) But none of this gives us any sense as to whether women's rights is a good thing or a bad thing, and if the latter, what's wrong with women's rights. Women's rights certainly shouldn't be a problem for women. If they have more/equal rights, they're now in a position to exercise them. If they have more rights than they want, they don't have to exercise them.
Of note, women's rights in Britain (that's where this poll was taken) are referred to as "progress." On the surface of it, this sounds like a good thing. And the only complaint specified is that "38% of [British people] feel that men are [now] expected to do too much to support equality." This is a very interesting complaint. The men were presumably not complaining when women had fewer rights, and less equality, but they're complaining once they're essentially asked to make equal room for women. The article doesn't say the men feel that they're at some sort of comparative disadvantage at the moment, but that could underlie their complaint. Why, in effect, should they have to work hard to provide rights and equality for women, when a woman's equal place in society could be seen as at a cost to the men? It's competition they didn't have before.
And this reflects precisely a complaint made by some Americans, regarding African-Americans. The way the complaining Caucasian Americans put it, they feel like there's racism against them, the Caucasian Americans, because of the elevation of African-Americans. They don't understand how wrong they are in how right they are. Yes, of course elevating African-Americans, sometimes at a preferential cost to Caucasian Americans, feels to them like a disadvantage, or like a form of prejudice. But none of them were complaining when the shoe was on the other foot, and African-Americans were (and in many respects still are) placed at every possible disadvantage, in favor of Caucasian Americans. If you take any situation that is badly out of balance, and you rebalance it, so it's fair, of course the former beneficiaries of the imbalance are going to think they've been treated unfairly.
A few years ago, GableStage put on a play called "Admissions." It was about two high school friends, one Caucasian American, and the other African-American, who apply for admission to the same college. I doubt any college or university is so unpopular that it can accept everyone who applies for admission, and this one couldn't, either. It seems to me it might have been Ivy League. So, they accepted the African-American and not his Caucasian American friend, because the African-American was...African-American. The punchline is pretty obvious. Caucasian Americans, or men, weren't complaining when African-Americans, or women, were boxed out for racial or gender reasons. And the correction is going to leave the Caucasian Americans, or men, feeling as if they've been treated unfairly. Which, in a sense, they have. But they haven't been treated badly. They just didn't get preferential treatment any more! The attempt to rebalance what was out of balance, which represents what one Briton called "progress," is going to withdraw from someone an unfair advantage they got accustomed to having. To rebalance what has long been imbalanced is going to give someone else preferential treatment. You kind of have to see the big picture, and realize that that's OK. It's at your expense this time, instead of being at the expense of women, or African-Americans? Yeah, it is. Were you complaining before? If you think you have a basis for complaint now --that not everyone is treated the same -- you should have complained before, right?
I forgot to mention (although it's obvious, for the purpose of the play) that the two high school friends in "Admissions" had essentially the same high school record. This play was purely thought-provoking about who gets what racial advantage, when.
ReplyDeleteI, personally, have at least two unfair advantages. I'm male, and I'm Caucasian. I'm fully aware of those advantages, and how unfair they are. I have no way to tell when they're being taken into account, and I would never "use" them. I feel badly for the people who don't have those advantages. I don't feel personally guilty, as if it's my fault, or some self-serving manipulation I made to be male and Caucasian. It's not that it's wrong of me to be male and Caucasian. As I said, I didn't choose that or arrange it, so that I would have a leg up. It's just that it's not right that I should benefit from those characteristics, over someone who happens not to have them. And I have to be very aware that people who do not have those unearned advantages are essentially mistreated because they don't have them. It's hard to characterize what I might in theory "owe" to people who, for no reason attributable to themselves, don't have the unearned advantages I have. I most certainly owe it to them to treat them as if they had the unearned advantages I have. Or not mistreat them because they don't. Do I owe it to them to step aside, and let them have limited resources, like, in "Admissions," college admission in my place? It's a hard question to answer, because I don't control those things. I didn't control who got admitted to the place where I went to college, and I didn't even know who else applied. I don't control who gets hired for a job for which I apply, and I don't know who else applied. But if I came to know that someone who was female, or African-American, was given something I wanted, just because the other person was female, or African-American, no, I wouldn't complain. It seems unfair, and in its way, it is, but it's a necessary and reasonable unfairness. That the unfairness of it fell on me? If not for that unfairness falling ON me, some other unfairness would fall TO me.
ReplyDeleteI started college in the Boston area in 1968. That was in the midst of the civil rights movement. Or at least THAT civil rights movement. I remember a small group of African-American students who had been admitted (without question at the expense of applicants who were not African-American), and they were sort of conspicuously angry. I don't know where they roomed, but they used to sit together at a table in the dining hall. One day, I tried to sit with them, to get to know them. Boy, talk about glares and cold shoulders. Maybe one of them made it past the first year. I suppose they were either too angry to be adaptive, or they were not well enough prepared in their schooling and academic attitudes before that to thrive at that college. But I do remember one of them who graduated from that college. (Although I never personally met him.) He was a very smart guy, and he was not one millimeter behind anyone else. I think he majored in political science or something, and I majored in biology, so I never shared classes with him. But the point is that he, and the others, got the unfair advantage people like me typically used to get. And I get it. I have no complaint. It was part of rebalancing, or righting, a very longstanding wrong. Would I complain if they'd all gotten in, I hadn't, and they bombed out? I hope I wouldn't. I didn't get into every college to which I applied. Was that, perhaps, because they preferentially accepted African-American applicants, who didn't or did bomb out? It's not for me to know. But if that happened, I'm OK with it. I'm sorry they were too angry to function as college students, or not well enough prepared, and I wish I could help them, but I certainly have no complaints.
Dr., is it necessary to write all these rambling blogs? What do you think you get out of it? No one is following you but the for anonymous strictly entertainment only.
DeleteYou keep talking about African Americans be very careful you’re rambling could be understood as being racist that brings lots of trouble for you I suggest you find a different subject to write about
Delete"Anonymous," when you become a real adult with actual self-respect, you'll sign your comments.
DeleteIs it necessary for you to write those rambling, not infrequently incoherent, poorly constructed, frankly largely asinine, and more commonly than not insulting to one person or another, comments?
One thing that turns people off from this blog, and participating in discussions about things here, is you. That has been mentioned to me on a number of occasions. You add nothing, you take away a lot, you don't have enough self-control to leave this blog alone, and you don't have enough self-respect to sign your idiotic comments. I'd suggest you grow up, but my best guess is that you're old enough that it's too late for any further meaningful maturity.
There are several anonymous writers on this blog it’s four in total
DeleteThat might or might not be true. All of them, except Mike O and Rafael Ciordia, sound like they have limited intellect. But regardless of how many commenters are listed at "Anonymous," you can distinguish yourself by signing your comment. And you should. In theory, you live here, and your interests are the same as everyone else's. That doesn't mean you agree with everyone else, or that everyone else agrees with you. But if you want to be part of a conversation, which the fact that you bother to comment suggests you do, then just type your name at the bottom of the comment. I've told you this several or many times, it's self-evident, and if you were a big boy or girl, you wouldn't need me to tell it to you. One person who's listed as "Anonymous" has already admitted to being Luigi DiRaimondo. My guess is that's you. If it is, just type or dictate "Luigi" at the end of your comment. If you're one of the "Anonymous" commenters you allege is not Luigi, then type or dictate your name. If you're not going to do it, then really, I promise you, I've heard it several or more times, no one wants to hear from you. (You honestly don't realize what a fool you make of yourself, right?) Regardless of who you are, I will reassure you that the content of your comments is nonsensical, irrelevant, poorly thought out, and contributes nothing to the topics at hand. One "Anonymous" commenter -- very possibly you -- announced with seeming knowledge that there would be resignations or some other shake-up at last week's Commission meeting. Did that happen? I have heard not another word about it.
DeleteThe village of Biscaynpark commission is preparing for a transition management positions some employees are leaving. Commission is now evaluating how to handle the transition of new management coming in watch the video and tells the story.
DeleteYou still do not know how to spell Biscayne Park. You, or someone (no doubt you), previously claimed the manager would resign last week. You still fail to have the nerve and confidence to sign your comments. I know you're not man enough. Everyone knows that. And that's OK. Just butt out, and go back to watching cartoons.
DeleteI have said this before, and I'll say it again. This blog is not the place for you. You're not adult enough for it. Please stop leaving comments here. No one is interested in your dribble. Really, they're not.