This is really an extension, or a continuation of the last post, but I felt it was getting long and it would be nice to have these two thoughts stand alone.
I've only been through the first half of "Boom," but there were two thoughts that really stuck out to me. The first I believe was by Nora Ephron, and the idea was something along the lines of "As long as we characterize family issues as women's issues, nothing will ever change." Ephron is speaking from the feminist perspective, but I think, because I believe this to be true, that its very important for men. Our society, for all the progresses made in attempting to achieve gender equality, still has a ways to go. I think part of that is in our language and perception. When one hears the words housekeeping, cooking, child rearing; I bet the majority think of a women. Women have traditionally fulfilled these roles in our society, so to some extent, its only naturally. The problem though is that language, and the corresponding perceptions, allow many to fail to take responsibility. How many men fail to do anything in the home because its the "women's domain." Similarly, how many women won't let a man do anything in the house because they'd "just do it wrong."
Maybe it seems harmless, but I think it allows people to take themselves off the hook for any responsibility and not feel guilty about it. If a boy/man gets a girl/women pregnant, he can easily walk away thinking its not his responsibility. After all, child rearing is a women's issue, not a family issue. So the man feels no responsibility. I'm not suggesting that changing our language to reflect issues of home life and child rearing as a family issue will cure everything. Obviously not. But I do think that being more aware and conscious of these issues as being the responsibility of the family to address, rather than just a women's issue, could possibly make a difference in our society's attitudes. Maybe it will create the sense of responsibility in some men that they would not have otherwise. Maybe it will allow for a more balanced and ope viewpoint on the roles within a relationship. Anyway, its something that stuck out and I think carries much truth.
The other thought is directly related to politics. I am unsure if it comes from Brokaw himself or someone he interviews, but the gist of the thought is: The failure and downfall of the Left following the 60s was due to the fact that they were incapable of viewing anyone and any idea that disagreed with them with anything but hate. This became particularly evident in the Left's attitudes towards those who fought in Vietnam. I tend to look at as there are three distinct political groups in the country (an over-simplication, I know). There are those that are on the Right and will always be on the Right. There are those on the Left and will always be on the Left. And there are those in the middle, that kind of go back and forth, they tend to dislike extremes, and react to the political spectrum accordingly. In the 60s, the fringe, the extremes of the Left became the vocal part of the party. It was impossible to associate the Left with anything but the violent and extreme behavior shown by those fringe groups. Because of this, many believe the Left is still hurting and hasn't recovered, as many people in that middle group were turned off by the extreme behavior.
My own naive political observation wonders if the Right is not currently trending down the same path and failing to learn the lesson the Left suffered. For the most part, the most visible and vocal part of the Right is the fringe elements. That part is incapable of viewing anyone on the Left, and any idea on the Left with anything but hate. I believe part of the reason for the large victory by the Left in the last election is that the aforementioned middle group, similar to the group that was turned off by the extreme Left in the 1960s, was turned off by the extreme Right.
My curiousity is: if the Left is still in a bit of disarray, as they are nowhere near as united as the Right was in the 1960s to oppose the fractured and extreme Left, and the Right is now headed on a path where they are alienating people due to the vocal nature of their fringe and extreme segments, does that leave room for a third party to emerge; does the Left magically come together and end their own divide; or do we proceed as a nation we two deeply fractured parties and a middle group in the country with the inability to strongly identify with either.
I've only been through the first half of "Boom," but there were two thoughts that really stuck out to me. The first I believe was by Nora Ephron, and the idea was something along the lines of "As long as we characterize family issues as women's issues, nothing will ever change." Ephron is speaking from the feminist perspective, but I think, because I believe this to be true, that its very important for men. Our society, for all the progresses made in attempting to achieve gender equality, still has a ways to go. I think part of that is in our language and perception. When one hears the words housekeeping, cooking, child rearing; I bet the majority think of a women. Women have traditionally fulfilled these roles in our society, so to some extent, its only naturally. The problem though is that language, and the corresponding perceptions, allow many to fail to take responsibility. How many men fail to do anything in the home because its the "women's domain." Similarly, how many women won't let a man do anything in the house because they'd "just do it wrong."
Maybe it seems harmless, but I think it allows people to take themselves off the hook for any responsibility and not feel guilty about it. If a boy/man gets a girl/women pregnant, he can easily walk away thinking its not his responsibility. After all, child rearing is a women's issue, not a family issue. So the man feels no responsibility. I'm not suggesting that changing our language to reflect issues of home life and child rearing as a family issue will cure everything. Obviously not. But I do think that being more aware and conscious of these issues as being the responsibility of the family to address, rather than just a women's issue, could possibly make a difference in our society's attitudes. Maybe it will create the sense of responsibility in some men that they would not have otherwise. Maybe it will allow for a more balanced and ope viewpoint on the roles within a relationship. Anyway, its something that stuck out and I think carries much truth.
The other thought is directly related to politics. I am unsure if it comes from Brokaw himself or someone he interviews, but the gist of the thought is: The failure and downfall of the Left following the 60s was due to the fact that they were incapable of viewing anyone and any idea that disagreed with them with anything but hate. This became particularly evident in the Left's attitudes towards those who fought in Vietnam. I tend to look at as there are three distinct political groups in the country (an over-simplication, I know). There are those that are on the Right and will always be on the Right. There are those on the Left and will always be on the Left. And there are those in the middle, that kind of go back and forth, they tend to dislike extremes, and react to the political spectrum accordingly. In the 60s, the fringe, the extremes of the Left became the vocal part of the party. It was impossible to associate the Left with anything but the violent and extreme behavior shown by those fringe groups. Because of this, many believe the Left is still hurting and hasn't recovered, as many people in that middle group were turned off by the extreme behavior.
My own naive political observation wonders if the Right is not currently trending down the same path and failing to learn the lesson the Left suffered. For the most part, the most visible and vocal part of the Right is the fringe elements. That part is incapable of viewing anyone on the Left, and any idea on the Left with anything but hate. I believe part of the reason for the large victory by the Left in the last election is that the aforementioned middle group, similar to the group that was turned off by the extreme Left in the 1960s, was turned off by the extreme Right.
My curiousity is: if the Left is still in a bit of disarray, as they are nowhere near as united as the Right was in the 1960s to oppose the fractured and extreme Left, and the Right is now headed on a path where they are alienating people due to the vocal nature of their fringe and extreme segments, does that leave room for a third party to emerge; does the Left magically come together and end their own divide; or do we proceed as a nation we two deeply fractured parties and a middle group in the country with the inability to strongly identify with either.
No comments:
Post a Comment