shirenomad: (mixed)
shirenomad ([personal profile] shirenomad) wrote2009-09-20 01:39 pm
Entry tags:

More seriously this time:

There were some flyers up this past week on campus for a "Women's Law" event. My first instinct, on seeing those words as the headline, was that I would be unwelcome if I attended. It's for women. I am not a woman.

The event, upon closer investigation of the flyer, was about sexual assault law. Which is just as important for men. Some men (hopefully no one on campus) assault. Some men are even assaulted. Men are sometimes the one prosecuting or defending the assaulters, or sitting in judgment over them on the bench. And it's unlikely that men will ever drop below 50% of the legislators that could improve the law on the subject. In short, it's something men have an influence on and need to hear about. Why would you want to label such an important and universal topic with an exclusive label? Why would you dismiss, even subconsciously, 50% of the population from learning more on the subject? They could have led with "Law of Sexual Assault." Or "How Our Law Fails to Prevent Sexual Assault" if they wanted to be challenging. They didn't. Why?

It's for reasons like these that I want to strike this category of terms from the English language: "Feminist." "Gay Rights." "Black Pride." All of these name a specific group, and the instinctive reaction is that the members of that group are the only ones who are welcome to contribute their voice to the cause. We have groups for all of them on campus; am I going to sign up for any of them? No. Am I going to attend any of their events? If they lead their advertisements with the group name instead of the topic, very unlikely. I'll grant that the groups also serve the social purpose of letting people with similar social upbringings meet and network -- especially true for the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish orgs who can debate the more personal issue of how their faith will influence their career. But when it comes to subjects and causes that everyone should be thinking about, why be exclusive?

I'm for Equality. I'm for Equal Justice. I'm for Human Rights, Sentient Pride. Give me a group for that. Don't isolate yourself from me. Don't talk like your particular brand of equality can somehow be divided off from the others, or that only you can appreciate it. What's important is that everyone treat everyone with respect.

[identity profile] pretzelcoatl.livejournal.com 2009-09-21 01:07 am (UTC)(link)
So yes, very much I would like to diminish the supposed differences we have.

But that's my point. These people keep on hearing those comments, and they get sick of them. Even when they tell someone "Hey, that's offensive," they get told in return "Oh, that's just how so and so is." or "You need to stop being offended so easily."

...but I have the easiest time respecting someone when I think of them not as another race, not as female, not as gay, but as a human being.

Then think of them as both?

[identity profile] pretzelcoatl.livejournal.com 2009-09-22 09:03 pm (UTC)(link)
No, I think we're on the same page, but the thing is this: Just because a person is different in some way (be it gender, race, sexuality, physical/mental capability, etc.), they should not be treated as if their difference makes them a more worthy human being than someone who is "normal." Groups like the ones we've been discussing meet together to basically say "I am a woman, and I have experienced people treating me in a disrespectful way because I am a woman."

It's a way to feel some type of solidarity after feeling like an outsider for most of your life, and a way to empower yourself to not let the people who use your differences as a way to make you feel inferior to them.