That's a lot of change, my friends. That change has also re-written what we know about the truth. Four out of five dentists in 1900 knew man would never fly. Four out of five dentists in 1950 knew man would never get to the moon. Four out of five dentists in 1970 thought the vinyl LP was the best way to get high fidelity sound. And so it goes.
If truth is so fluid, what's the harm in re-examining it from time to time? If anything, to my mind, the article by David Usher was an attempt to get people to re-examine their core belief when it comes to feminism. It is clear by many of the comments that few people were willing to read the entirety of the article. Fewer still were those who were willing to accept that there might be just a grain of truth contained in the article. Rob saw it. I saw it. A few others did. However, most couldn't see beyond the idea that anyone who dares to question one of the sacred cows of "progressive" thought is automatically doing a bad thing. Why is that?
Because it takes people out of their comfort zones.
The reality is, we only really learn; we only really examine our ideas, our ideals and ourselves when we are driven out of our comfort zones. Staying comfortable promotes intellectual stagnation and complacency. Staying comfortable challenges nothing, changes nothing, and insures the mind will remain closed to new ideas. That, my friends, is completely counter to the definition of progress, the root of the word "progressive". To be progressive, to my mind, is to welcome the removal of comfort, especially if that removal promotes intellectual stimulation. There is more to calling one's self progressive than working to rid the country of the evil that is the DUBYA regime.
Talking points aren't the exclusive property of the right:
The "discussion" of Mr. Usher's article brought up numerous talking points. By that, I mean ideas, words and phrases that are at best unfounded, ambiguous, or without any meaning at all. Here are a few: The fact that this article is written by an author involved in an association of fathers should also incite the editor to caution. Why is that? Aren't fathers a part of the nuclear family equation? Why shouldn't someone who contributed half the genetic material have some interest in the child in question?
Poor parenting skills know no gender or socioeconomic background. Just look at the picture of Britney Spears driving with he baby on her lap. Would you call endangering a child like that good mothering? I sure wouldn't. Would you call Britney Spears a good mother? Oh, hell no! She's barely beyond a child herself. And while I doubt that "K-Fed" is much better, the point remains that just because Britney is a woman DOES NOT automatically mean she's a good mother. The fact she can't remain sober should pretty much point that truth out to all who have eyes to see. The fact that she would ignorantly risk her baby's life makes that point even clearer!
Feminism is fighting for a freedom and equality between the genders -- not for supreme power for women. Is it, really? Do you personally know any true feminists? By true, I mean the man-hating variety. While I don't doubt there are some moderate or even "liberal" feminists who don't advocate the eradication of the male gender, I know for a fact there are many mainstream feminists who do just that. I have known one or two, and had to listen to their drivel on more than one occasion. I wish I could say my experience wasn't what it is, but I can't say that.
If feminism were actually working towards true sexual equality, it would be called something else. If feminism were working towards true sexual equality, they wouldn't be such active man haters. If feminism were working towards true sexual equality, they wouldn't go so far out of their way to slap men down at every turn.
Perhaps the worst talking point brought up was the you should pay for the sins of your progenitors argument. This is the old, "men owned slaves, men held all the property, men held women down, in the past, so you deserve derision," bullshit argument.
I really didn't think it was up to me to answer for the sins of my forefathers. Even if it were, none of my family was even in America before the 1900's. No one in my past, as far as I know, owned slaves, owned property, or whatnot. Why should I be held in contempt for the actions of my forefathers when they weren't even here to hold slaves or property? Oh yeah, that's right. I'm a white male, so it's my fault that the world is all fucked up. Gee, and all I ever wanted out of this life was a place of my own and a man with whom I could share it. I didn't know I wanted to destroy everything I touched.
The list could grow, but I think I've made my point. If we are here to discuss and debate issues, then let's discuss and debate issues. Answer points with other points. Cite evidence, be it empirical data, anecdote, or personal experience. I have watched debates here. When it comes to issues that fly in the face of accepted "progressive" dogma, true debate stops, and out come the talking points.
That's really sad. Once again, no one here, including myself, has a lock on the truth. To close your mind because something you read flies in the face of your sacred cows can do nothing but keep you ignorant of another person's reality. If you can't walk a mile in someone else's shoes, how can you even consider yourself to be liberal, progressive, or even open-minded?
While it is clear that there are issues that are far outside the realm of the progressive mindset, there are other issues which only appear to be that way. I have learned things from debate and discussion. I have questioned my reasons why I believe something, and that has given me a new perspective, not only on my beliefs, but also on the mindset behind them. Life is for learning, and we don't learn if we actively make the choice to remain ignorant. We don't learn if we cling to talking points instead of discussing and debating controversial issues.
Nobody's perfect. We all have our sacred cows. However, if we expect to keep growing and learning, there comes a time when we have to admit that, and at least try to see the other person's point of view. Not everyone who comes here with a contrary view is trying to smash progressive thought. If our truth is true, it will win out every time! If it isn't true, then that "truth" needs to be shed to allow room for the new truth.
Sacred cows are bad things when they are ideologies:
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
