The Strange Dichotomy of the Multicultural Mindset
The Strange Dichotomy of the Multicultural Mindset
I am an individual. Yes, I am white. Yes, I am male. Yes, I am heterosexual. Yes, I believe there is a God. No, I don't base my likes or dislikes for other people on the color of their skin, the anatomical equipment with which they were born, how they prefer to use that equipment, or the belief system they follow. No, I am not a racist, sexist, homophobe, or beliefist. I am just another guy making his way through life.
So, why do I get the blame for all for the social ills in this country? In the multicultural orthodoxy, white people--males in particular--are the cause of racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-religious behavior, like church burnings. My problem is not with the accusatory nature of claims by the "victims", but with the belief that only me and people like me can be the perpetrators.
Let's compare.
Orthodoxy Claim #1: Only white people can be racist.
Orthodoxy Claim #2: People are all the same inside and deserve equal rights and privileges.
These two claims are contradictory because if #2 were true, then we should also expect that there would be racists of every color and ethnicity. If there are, then #1 is false.
Orthodoxy Claim #1: All white people are racists and succeed in life only because they oppress non-whites.
Orthodoxy Claim #2: The only reason people who are not White fail in life is because of white racism.
These two claims are also contradictory because it is based on the idea that 1)all white people have easy lives and are solely in a position of power over non-whites, 2)no white person ever failed in life or suffered from abuse/divorce/anything else bad, 3)life is fair.
Orthodoxy Claim #1: Diversity is the best thing since sliced bread. We all benefit from being inclusive and are stronger for it. We don't need racial barriers.
Orthodoxy Claim #2: We need to have a National Hispanic University in San Jose, California, black colleges, a Congressional Black Caucus, black police officer associations, community policing by officers of the predominant ethnic group, etc, to ensure that "our" people are represented.
Again, contradictory. If a white person wanted to create a "whites only" group or school to ensure "our" people are represented, there would be no end to the uproar and Jesse Jackson would drop everything to lead the media circus. Either we can all learn to work together or we all need to have our own special-interest groups.
Orthodoxy Claim #1: People are all the same regardless of sexual orientation.
Orthodoxy Claim #2: Any straight person who even has a stray thought that is different than the official gay agenda is a homophobe.
So, if a gay person has a disagreement with a straight person, does that make the gay person a "heterophobe"? There's a word you don't hear in the media.
Orthodoxy Claim #1: (using the military as an example) Male and female service people are exactly the same, so female service people should get to be assigned the same jobs as male service people.
Orthodoxy Claim #2: (using the military as an example) Women are not as strong as men, so we are going to have different physical readiness testing standards for women.
I don't have a problem with women in combat. I was in the Navy for ten years and served with many women who were every bit as capable as the men. The idea that men and women are not physically equal in strength and endurance is something that even the most ardent feminists won't address, even Patricia Schroeder who was in Congress from Colorado and who led the fight to open combat slots for women.
Along with this last set of claims, many of our rescue jobs are being opened to people who are not physically strong enough to do them well. Firefighters, who must endure tremendous physical stress to do their jobs, including carrying people out of burning buildings, have had to lower their standards. Instead of carrying a person out of a building, the new requirement is that the candidate just be able to drag a person out. If the floor was burning, how would that work out?
----------------------
The way to become a truly colorblind, gender-blind, sexual orientation-blind society is to recognize that each of us is an individual of different skills and attributes and learn how to find points of commonality. When we try and ignore facts in the name of political expediency or assign blame where there is no blame, we get the situation where we find ourselves today: a litigious, backbiting country where people are afraid to speak their minds.
Every time this group or that group goes to the federal government and demands that the government enact laws that favor that group at the expense of another, we all lose because we are just empowering the plutocracy and driving a wedge between ourselves. We have more in common with each other than we do with those politicians in Washington who claim to be our representatives.
We don't need isms to learn how to live and work together.
Submitted by Related Articles
- Login or register to post comments |
- 7 reads |
- Email this page |
- Printer-friendly version |
- jdubhub's Xombytes |
Everything, good or bad, has unforeseen consequences.
And, that can often be undesirable as well.
*sigh* So, we end up with "reverse racism", occasional double standards, and other such silliness. Still, I would argue that it's preferable to what we had before.
On a note about women in the military...
I was rather ticked that they wouldn't let me train for combat. They came to my high school, and I was seriously considering going for it. Then, they told me that I couldn't train for combat. To which my reply was, "So, you want me to go through boot camp, and sell my soul to the army/navy/whatever, so that I can do your paperwork? I can do that at community college and get to be lazy about it!"
He tried to argue his way out of it, but he didn't account for his audience. It was an entire classroom, filled with female students who were body building, or feminist, or sports fanatics, or what-have-you, and male students who were scrawny, nervous, stoners, whatever. Always take your audience into account people!
However, if they had allowed me to train for combat, I would have insisted that I be held to the same standards as the men. I don't think it's fair to either sex when you impose different standards. Besides, I was an army wife and I KNOW I could have done a heck of a lot better then half the guys in there. Fainting at the sight of blood? You're training for combat man! You can't be fainting when someone sticks a needle in your arm! Complaining about your back because you have to lift a crib from the back of your truck to the inside of the house? Are you kidding me?! I did that while pregnant without whining!
Sorry for the tangent, I think I'm done now. :) +1
Losing Weight and Feeling Great!
A Day in the Life of a Pagan Parent
The Funtabulous Stuff of the 80's
I don't doubt you were qualified
When I was in the Navy and they were talking about opening up combat slots to women, one group found that the strongest 20% of women in the service were just about on par with the weakest 20% of men. While I would agree that there are individual cases where certain women would place higher if graded by the same standards, the politicians who claimed "equality" while maintaining two different standards of readiness and still voted to open combat slots did a disservice to our military readiness.
Further, a series of interviews by David Hackworth, a retired Army colonel, proved that the push for women in combat was done by feminist politicians, like the aforementioned Patricia Schroeder, and female career officers, who saw combat slots as a means to more rapid advancement. Nobody asked the rank-and-file female servicemembers what they wanted.
When it comes down to it, the mission of the military should be to fight wars so victory gets achieved quickly and efficiently. Anything that interferes with that mission, including politicization of combat, should be removed from consideration. With the current war in Iraq, we got to see the politicization of women in combat with Jessica Lynch, whose story was grossly manipulated in the media by the Pentagon.
DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?
I think part of the problem too...
Is that we've been raised to believe that women should be weaker, rather then raised to embrace the biological strengths we're given and the differences that make us equally valuable, while still different.
For instance, a man's upper body is biologically designed to be stronger, while a woman's lower body is biologically designed to be stronger. This makes sense, considering that women who are giving birth naturally will need a stronger lower body in order to accomplish such a feet. Men have no natural need for a stronger lower body.
Sure, there are individual cases where this is different. I'm certainly not built like Chyna, but I can lift more then many of the men I know. My ex-husband actually uses me as a way to motivate the men in his martial arts classes (he's an instructor). He says things like, "My ex-wife has had no training and SHE can at least throw me across a room!" It's that whole emasculate them in an effort to get them to push themselves harder type stuff. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it apparently works for him and his students.
I think that if men and women were bombarded with the message that they should embrace their individual strengths, rather then bombarded with the message that there's a certain way they should be (and if they don't fall in line with that "norm" they're a "freak"), this wouldn't be so big an issue. Women would realize that they don't have to be able to lift a zillion pounds in order to be "equal", nor do they have to lift their pinkies and have their only strength be shopping in order to be women. Men would realize that they don't have to be smarter or stronger then their lady in order to be considered valuable masculine human beings.
Again, it wouldn't be perfect. But, I'd think it would be preferable. I'm frankly tired of being told that my uncle, who stays home with his children while his wife works outside the home, is not masculine. And, I'm tired of being told that I'm not feminine enough simply because I can move the couch by myself and open jars without assistance. I think both areas of thought are kind of ridiculous. I would like my uncle to be considered man enough to have realized his strengths and run with them. And, I'd like to be acknowledged as feminine enough for having done the same.
No double standards, and no discrimination simultaneously would be awesome! Don't deny women the right to train for combat if they wish, but don't cut them any slack that you wouldn't cut the men. And, the same goes for all the other areas. Don't deny minorities the right to do everything the majority can do, but don't cut them the slack that you wouldn't cut the majority. I think double standards are an insult. I genuinely feel just as insulted when I'm denied something because I have the incorrect genitalia, as I do when I'm given something ONLY because I have that genitalia. I want to be given the same opportunities, with the same requirements as everyone else. If I couldn't have earned it as a man, I don't want it as a woman and vice versa.
Losing Weight and Feeling Great!
A Day in the Life of a Pagan Parent
The Funtabulous Stuff of the 80's
Indeed. A level playing field should be just that...
If the politicians and mouthpieces for various groups really want a level playing field, then they should be given just that. Trouble is, they say they want one thing when they really want to have the board tilted solely in their favor. Once that happens, one group is being given unfair advantages at the expense of others.
If a group has a specific area where they are not competing well, then it should be incumbent on their best and brightest to figure out a way to be more competitive. Raise the bar, in other words. By the federal government getting involved, the easiest way for them to score political points was to lower the bar and every single one of us has suffered for the laziness of others.
Another part of the equation, as you illustrated, is that men and women are being told what to think and how to act instead of each individual doing what is best according to his or her standards. I refer to it as "government being the hammer that drives the nails." When government is being used to drive nails that need not be driven or that a truly free society should be driving, we the people run the risk of not getting the hammer back. This is exactly what has happened since, really, 1865, but more egregiously so since 1964.
As a stay-at-home dad myself, I know what you mean about the acceptance of the father as the primary caregiver. When people ask me what I do for a living and I tell them, I get that look on their face and the "Oh." in reply (my own brother does this or he constantly overemphasizes his support, which just belies his true feelings on the subject). My wife and I had this discussion before our son was born and we both agreed that it is important for our son to be raised by us and not a total stranger, so we decided to forgo my job because she has better job benefits. I don't regret being here for my son and I don't need society telling me that they do or do not approve of my doing this. All that counts is what my wife and I believe and that is our son will be better off for it.
Society would be better off if individualism were honored and men and women allowed to figure things out for themselves. There is little reason to have dozens of special interest groups standing in line to demand that we behave a certain way. There is NO reason to have the government doing it.
DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?