Today’s Springfield News-Leader ran an Opinion by James Eden, in which he writes an essay from the pro-life viewpoint. Former News-Leader reporter, Ron Davis, made a rather harsh comment about Eden on his blog, Chatter: “Another white man rants about abortion. Maybe James Eden wouldn't be so quick to type if women were in charge of his testicles.”
There is something much larger at work here and it doesn’t involve Eden or Davis specifically. However, Davis’ comment is a product of the frustration involved in the ever-growing polarization of our nation. This dichotomy is a bizarre creature, as it serves to entertain and disgust evenly. We are increasingly mesmerized by the train-wreck that has become our political, electoral, campaign machine. We want our side to win so badly that we are willing to accept the swift-boating of our opponent for the greater good, yet citizens are disenfranchised by the process and becoming apathetic to the one thing that symbolizes our freedom to live in a free democracy -- voting.
We celebrate the divide-and-conquer method of our extremist politicians and we use a person’s (politician or citizen) viewpoint on one single issue to define the whole individual’s belief system. The schism is furthered by the insistence on using minority status (in this case race) as a tool.
Minority populations such as those defined by race or disability have endured years of abuse and oppression and those populations deserve to be specifically protected those who seek to oppress them. However, the misuse of that status is just another category of the swift-boat phenomenon that leads to more oppression not freedom. (According to the 2000 Census Bureau, persons with disabilities are the largest minority population in the United States.)
Eden’s essay refrained from any swift-boat labeling of the pro-choice liberal opposition such as: “abortion-loving,” “baby-killing” “God-hating,” “Lesbo feminazi” rhetoric that can often occur during an abortion debate. Eden simply put forth some purposefully extremist scenerios to prove his thought. Davis’ response was to negatively label him as “another white man rants about abortion.” There was nothing ranting nor raving about Eden’s essay.
To be fair to Davis, he did respond later stating that his use of race was wrong. He didn’t apologize, mind you, but he did take ownership of his mistake. However I take issue with the fact that, in my opinion, he continued his swift-boat labeling by insisting that men who are pro-life should not really have an argument because they cannot become pregnant. Said Davis: “My problem with men arguing against abortion is rooted in one fact: Men can't get pregnant. Why do men (legislatures are almost all male-ruled) insist on trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies?”
I wonder, are there any other issues that I, being born an unfortunate white male, cannot have an opinion on?
It would be mighty white of ya’, Mr. Davis, if you could send me your list of systemic issues facing our nation, in which you feel one particular group or another (minority or majority) should not be able to argue?
(FAT JACK'S NOTE: It should be noted that when I attempted to read Eden's Opinion piece on the News-Leader web site, only half of the article was viewable. I was able to read the entire piece once I clicked on the "Printer-Friendly". I alerted the News-Leader to this error, so hopefully they will fix it.)
There is something much larger at work here and it doesn’t involve Eden or Davis specifically. However, Davis’ comment is a product of the frustration involved in the ever-growing polarization of our nation. This dichotomy is a bizarre creature, as it serves to entertain and disgust evenly. We are increasingly mesmerized by the train-wreck that has become our political, electoral, campaign machine. We want our side to win so badly that we are willing to accept the swift-boating of our opponent for the greater good, yet citizens are disenfranchised by the process and becoming apathetic to the one thing that symbolizes our freedom to live in a free democracy -- voting.
We celebrate the divide-and-conquer method of our extremist politicians and we use a person’s (politician or citizen) viewpoint on one single issue to define the whole individual’s belief system. The schism is furthered by the insistence on using minority status (in this case race) as a tool.
Minority populations such as those defined by race or disability have endured years of abuse and oppression and those populations deserve to be specifically protected those who seek to oppress them. However, the misuse of that status is just another category of the swift-boat phenomenon that leads to more oppression not freedom. (According to the 2000 Census Bureau, persons with disabilities are the largest minority population in the United States.)
Eden’s essay refrained from any swift-boat labeling of the pro-choice liberal opposition such as: “abortion-loving,” “baby-killing” “God-hating,” “Lesbo feminazi” rhetoric that can often occur during an abortion debate. Eden simply put forth some purposefully extremist scenerios to prove his thought. Davis’ response was to negatively label him as “another white man rants about abortion.” There was nothing ranting nor raving about Eden’s essay.
To be fair to Davis, he did respond later stating that his use of race was wrong. He didn’t apologize, mind you, but he did take ownership of his mistake. However I take issue with the fact that, in my opinion, he continued his swift-boat labeling by insisting that men who are pro-life should not really have an argument because they cannot become pregnant. Said Davis: “My problem with men arguing against abortion is rooted in one fact: Men can't get pregnant. Why do men (legislatures are almost all male-ruled) insist on trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies?”
I wonder, are there any other issues that I, being born an unfortunate white male, cannot have an opinion on?
It would be mighty white of ya’, Mr. Davis, if you could send me your list of systemic issues facing our nation, in which you feel one particular group or another (minority or majority) should not be able to argue?
(FAT JACK'S NOTE: It should be noted that when I attempted to read Eden's Opinion piece on the News-Leader web site, only half of the article was viewable. I was able to read the entire piece once I clicked on the "Printer-Friendly". I alerted the News-Leader to this error, so hopefully they will fix it.)
Posts
1 comment:
Great post. It does get to the heart of the issue. I took Ron's comments and ran a different direction but I think your address the heart of the issue. Good job as always.
Post a Comment