My class was assigned a few reading for Tuesday that delt with homosexuality, marriage, and the morality surrounding both. It's a moral philosophy class and we cover a wide range of topics; cloning, abortions, capital punishment. The prof. is awesome and does a rather good job dealing with some tough topics in a calm, scholastic manner. We covered the paper against gay marriage and moved on to the paper arguing the morality of homosexual sex. After a short bio of the author she added, "and he's gay obviously." From someone else I would of skipped over this and assumed it was just part of the typical effects of a heteronormative culture but with her it was different. I expected much more and have come accustom to her picking her words very carefully. So I asked. "Why is it obvious?" I expected her to catch on to my joking tone. I figured she would notice her slip up but no. "Well if you read the paper it would be. Did you read?" Another student jumped in with some hostile tone toward her and I dropped the subject not wanting to make a big deal of it and get too far off topic. I do have some restraint you know.
The whole event stuck with me though. In no way has she made herself appear prejudice. The opposite is in fact true. This makes me think she's unaware of the implications of her words. Professors are educating future thinkers. They have a duty that falls above the average speaker to be aware of the words they choose.
The Alphabet Soup community has allies and support outside of the direct community. The only ones who see the illogical nature of arguments against us aren't only of the queer variety. The paper had no personal information on the author. The only way to glean he is a homosexual is outside information or if you assume only a homosexual would argue for the morality of homosexuality. This is a dangerous idea, if your aware of holding it or not, because it limits the possibility of action and change. Does supporting a group require membership of that group? If so, support for civil and human rights everywhere is going to fall sharply.
On a short side note:
Most of my blog is done on an IPhone. I type it up on a small screen
and try my best to get everything right. Sometimes I'll email the post
to myself first and save it to put up later, other times it goes
directly to my blog, doesn't pass go, doesn't collect $200. While I'm
happy for the editing of copy, you got to cut me some slack from time
to time guys. Anyone that knows me, knows spelling is not my strong
point. Also, the IPhone tends to correct words that dont need
correcting and adding contractions where I didnt want them. I do my
best; trying to keep thing up to date and working with text that can't
be more than 1/8 of an inch high. So keep the corrections coming but
don't be such asses about it all the time.
Most of my blog is done on an IPhone. I type it up on a small screen
and try my best to get everything right. Sometimes I'll email the post
to myself first and save it to put up later, other times it goes
directly to my blog, doesn't pass go, doesn't collect $200. While I'm
happy for the editing of copy, you got to cut me some slack from time
to time guys. Anyone that knows me, knows spelling is not my strong
point. Also, the IPhone tends to correct words that dont need
correcting and adding contractions where I didnt want them. I do my
best; trying to keep thing up to date and working with text that can't
be more than 1/8 of an inch high. So keep the corrections coming but
don't be such asses about it all the time.
Sent from my iPhone
3/24/10
My freshman year professor either coined or brought my attention to the idea he called "The Cult of the Child." It's probably not the most popular idea and runs directly against the values most hold, and possibly for these two reasons deserves some honest consideration. The most popular opinions deserve the most criticism and scrutiny.
In American society the child holds an almost sacred place; a position not all societies bestow on children. When a child dies or is killed there is an even greater sense of loss. So much potential and possibilities unable to be realized. An innocence stolen from the world. The memorial in Oklahoma city has a special area dedicated to the children killed there.
When viewed however from a rational, unemotional point of view this value is entirely misplaced. What is lost when a child dies? Possibilities and future actions of that individual. Other than that, society isn't out much. Children are a renewable resource that take less than a year to mature from conception. Their place above adults seems backward. An adult takes at least 21 years to mature, from a legal definition, and large amounts of funds to bring up before they are independent. In addition, adult hold positions and functions in society that require training even of the most remedial type. Even the most basic skills to function in society require years of learning. I don't wish to argue that children have no purpose or function, but rather that their value and role is more easily replaced or filled.
Think of all the social and structural networks an adult takes part in. The jobs and roles they must fulfill daily. Greatly outnumbering those of a child.
One pointed out that the fact I'm young and have no children of my own makes my observation and opinion irrelevant and that I couldn't possibly know the value of a child or how much pain losing one would cause. Both these arguments don't change the validity of my observation. Correct I don't have children. This fact however allows for a more unbiased opinion. A parent thinks of a child as part of them and often values them more than their self. I value my right arm rather highly and exponentially more than others value MY right arm. This fact however doesn't mean that society would be harmed greatly by the loss of my right arm. The second argument put forth by this statement confuses pain, suffering, and a sense of loss with societal value. While these can harm society, an individual's pain often does not have far reaching implications.
As stated above, what is lost is possibilities when a child dies. "What if the little girl grew up to cure cancer?" This argument assumes the validity of fate or destiny. Only through these explanations could one assume only one individual in all time could achieve a certain goal or purpose.
I am not proposing that children aren't valuable or necessary. They hold important structural and emotional positions in the health of a society. While gifts, the almost holy status they enjoy in our society needs to be questioned. What values have lead to this current state and what in America's history and ideals places the value of a child over the life of an adult? Is it simply that they have not lived a "full" life or been able to experience as much as an adult? Are we prepared to evaluate a life based on experience and live with the implications of such criteria?
In American society the child holds an almost sacred place; a position not all societies bestow on children. When a child dies or is killed there is an even greater sense of loss. So much potential and possibilities unable to be realized. An innocence stolen from the world. The memorial in Oklahoma city has a special area dedicated to the children killed there.
When viewed however from a rational, unemotional point of view this value is entirely misplaced. What is lost when a child dies? Possibilities and future actions of that individual. Other than that, society isn't out much. Children are a renewable resource that take less than a year to mature from conception. Their place above adults seems backward. An adult takes at least 21 years to mature, from a legal definition, and large amounts of funds to bring up before they are independent. In addition, adult hold positions and functions in society that require training even of the most remedial type. Even the most basic skills to function in society require years of learning. I don't wish to argue that children have no purpose or function, but rather that their value and role is more easily replaced or filled.
Think of all the social and structural networks an adult takes part in. The jobs and roles they must fulfill daily. Greatly outnumbering those of a child.
One pointed out that the fact I'm young and have no children of my own makes my observation and opinion irrelevant and that I couldn't possibly know the value of a child or how much pain losing one would cause. Both these arguments don't change the validity of my observation. Correct I don't have children. This fact however allows for a more unbiased opinion. A parent thinks of a child as part of them and often values them more than their self. I value my right arm rather highly and exponentially more than others value MY right arm. This fact however doesn't mean that society would be harmed greatly by the loss of my right arm. The second argument put forth by this statement confuses pain, suffering, and a sense of loss with societal value. While these can harm society, an individual's pain often does not have far reaching implications.
As stated above, what is lost is possibilities when a child dies. "What if the little girl grew up to cure cancer?" This argument assumes the validity of fate or destiny. Only through these explanations could one assume only one individual in all time could achieve a certain goal or purpose.
I am not proposing that children aren't valuable or necessary. They hold important structural and emotional positions in the health of a society. While gifts, the almost holy status they enjoy in our society needs to be questioned. What values have lead to this current state and what in America's history and ideals places the value of a child over the life of an adult? Is it simply that they have not lived a "full" life or been able to experience as much as an adult? Are we prepared to evaluate a life based on experience and live with the implications of such criteria?
3/12/10
While this might upset a few of my friends, this has got to stop. No more setting up your phone to add a signature at the end of every text. This is fine on emails, not on texts. Texting is pretty much like instant messaging. Most likely there is a whole back and forth conversation going on through the texts. I do not need to be reminded who you are after each message. Your in my phone, your name shows up at the top of the screen or after your number. What if I called you and said my name after every sentence I said? Stone This would get pretty annoying huh? Stone After awhile you would either tell me to stop or hang up on me. Stone So why would you do this on your phone? Stone Oh and to those of you who add little emoticons for your signature... not cute. I'm having a serious conversation about the pros and cons of using symbolic interactionism to describe medical disparities in America and after every comment you send a little :) shows up. What happens when your fighting over text message. It happens. "I can't believe you slept with me sister :)" "What did you do with my dog? I'm gunna call the cops :)"
I'm sure you don't relize how annoying this is. Your little signature doesn't show up on your end of the conversation. Well let this be a notice to you. It is annoying. I want to end the conversation as soon as possible just so I don't have to see it any more. No I'm not over reacting. Cut it out.
I'm sure you don't relize how annoying this is. Your little signature doesn't show up on your end of the conversation. Well let this be a notice to you. It is annoying. I want to end the conversation as soon as possible just so I don't have to see it any more. No I'm not over reacting. Cut it out.
3/10/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
