Bitch Ph.D.[Protected by-ps.anonymizer.com]
Send via SMS

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Fairness, not rights

Very good post, I think, from a very good new (to me) blog, now over in the blogroll for more procrastinating-through-thinking pleasure:

"Gays will not only never have the right to marry but never be taken seriously until it is no longer an issue of rights. . . . It has to be reframed as an issue of fairness and families. Which is what it is. . . . people need to stress the stories of how families were ruined because they couldn't legally protect their relationship. How unfair it was that other people could now make those decisions for you, when all you were doing was living your life. . . .

A lot of people deny this, but Americans hate to be seen as unfair. More than anything. Americans pride themselves on it. That's what you attack. Many of those same voters didn't see real people behind those iniatives, just something they don't quite understand. They didn't see any consequences behind it, any thing which would hurt them. Like a right to privacy in their lives. Too many gay politicians think it's a battle about being liked and understood. It isn't. People still dislike blacks, but they can't get away with discriminating against them. And the reason is that it became an issue of fairness, not of preference."


I think that this is absolutely key, both in terms of rhetoric and in terms of substance. Whether in teaching or in political argument or, really, in almost any interaction with someone who sees the world differently than you but who you want to get on your side, my experience is you can't win if it's not clear that you respect the other person. Which doesn't mean not engaging in sharp argument, depending on who you're arguing with. And part of the trick, of course, is figuring out what common ground you might have, how you can approach the other person with respect even if the things they are saying are really objectionable to you. I like this guy Steve Gilliard's post because it gives me kind of an "aha" moment that, yes, "fairness" might be one way to go about that.

I'm also thinking about this in light of the rhetoric, now, about how Dems/leftists/coastal types/intellectuals/pick-your-label lost the election because our rhetoric is so divisive, because we look down on Southerners/the heartland/Repubs/the working class/etc. I do not think that this is true, and I surely think that the right is far more culpable with the divisive labelling and rhetoric than the left. But nonetheless, it is said often enough by actual people (as opposed to Fox news, or whoever) that it must be expressing some feeling. (Even if it were only being said by Fox news, I don't think it would have any power if it didn't tap into something). Even without having to figure out the source of it, I think it makes sense to deal with it as a simple fact.

At the same time, though, as with teaching, sometimes one needs to vent, so of course "divisive" rhetoric comes up. Part of this is, I think, a problem of private vs. public rhetoric. What I'm liking about the post above is the way that, for me, it steps back from the problem by making it about rhetoric, rather than about private or public feelings.

I have no idea what my point is.

Comments are great; obnoxious comments get deleted. Deal.

Don't feel like commenting? Feel free to bitch at me directly.


14 Feb 2001 09:00:00 UTC-0400


What is this button for?

Need emergency contraception? Click here or here.


Some of my better bitching

Welcome New Readers
Ultimate Bra Post part I
Ultimate Bra Post part II
Abortion
Planned Parenthood
Do You Trust Women?
Feminisms (including my own)
Feminism 101 (why children are not a lifestyle choice)
Misogyny In Real Life (be sure and check out the comment thread)
Moms At Work--Over There
Professor Mama
My Other Mom
Moms in the Academy

Archives





br clear="all" />