Too often do politicians create double standards. It seems as though certain people or groups of people are held to completely different standards than others are. Republicans are being judged more harshly because of Bush's *ahem* shortcomings, Middle Easterners are checked "randomly" much more than Americans, and government figures expect different rights than the promise to give the rest of us!
Example: Palin's daughter. As this political cartoon from http://politicalhumor.about.com shows, Palin is attempting to create a universal rule regarding pregnancy while keeping her own daughter's pregnancy "private". Outlawing abortions takes the privacy out of the entire country's reproductive lives. Besides the fact that many people are pro-abortion, it is outrageous that Palin expects to be able to keep her own life private while making the rest of the country public.
Bush's allegiance with the religious right has created a harsher view on their suggestions. As Patrick Hynes and Jeremy Lott point out in their article, Left, Right, and Religion: a Double Standard, the Left Wing religious activists get away with much more than the Right Wing activists do. He cites the example of Jim Wallis, a Reverend who wrote a book suggesting a God's-Will based solution to mending the economy. His proposal was read and taken seriously by many across the country, as opposed to religious Right-Wing activity which tends to be blatently labeled as against the country's best intrest or a confliction of State and Church. Regardless of actual policies, it isn't right that one group gets to be taken seriously while another is ignored. Thats not a very representative democracy, if you ask me.
Finally, there are the double standards of citizens. Middle-Easterners have been searched much more often in airports since 9/11. While it is true that the attackers were from the Middle East, people should be randomly searched at RANDOM, not based on their ethnicity. The government should not claim to be randomizing these searches if they aren't really doing it! They could call it something like a "Probability-Based Search", but that would definately cause dissent because they would be admiting to prejudice. I really don't know how else the government could get away with it, but I don't think they're doing a very good job with it right now.
Overall, I think that double-standards either need to be eliminated or admitted. If someone is going to be judged differently, they should be told the difference and given a good reason. I know that America is supposedly the land of equal opportunity, but it isn't. Not for citizens, not for political groups, not for anyone. There are always unfair advantages, but they can be lessened if they are acknowledged. I think that if an individual knows the challenges they face they will better be able to meet and overcome them. HERE are some comedians who knows about their challenges, and face them with humor. I think that, while it may not be "right", a Middle-Easterner who knew he would be searched because of how he looked could change his appearance to blend in better.
Un-admitted double standards are wrong. 'nuff said.
*Off topic - if anyone can show me how to embed video instead of linking it I will greatly appreciate it
8 comments:
Just a note on outlawing abortions:
Just like prostitution, people are going to get abortions whether the government tells them they can or cannot. Even if you believe that abortion is immoral, which I respect, you should realize the consequences of making it illegal.
If abortion were illegal, consider the many who seek abortion without means to pay off someone to do it properly: low-income women and teens who don't want to tell their parents. These women, still determined to have an abortion, will end up at back-alley centers or using dangerous techniques, such as wire hangers. Is this really what "family values" is? I'd prefer women in our society, whether it is unethical or not, to be treated by medical professionals in a regulated and clean environment.
What about those who are unfortunate enough to become pregnant as a result of incest or rape? It is not fair to put an oftentimes young women or teenager through the physical burdens and emotional toll of pregnancy and frequently adoption. Why should the victim of such a tragic event be further penalized for no wrongdoing on her part with such a disruption in her life (e.g. school, career, etc.)?
Lastly, consider mothers who know that they will not be good mothers. Granted, this is controversial of me to suggest, but if a woman wanted to have an abortion but couldn't, would it not suggest that she does not want to be a mother? Would "family values" really be furthered by a child being raised in a likely inhospitable environment by a mother who does not really want him or her in the first place? Many of these children often end up criminals and/or destitute. In one eastern European country, abortions were banned and the crime rate soared 16 years later. Coincidence? Well, this is anecdotal evidence, so causation cannot be proven, but it makes perfect sense.
Bottom line: whether you think abortion is right or wrong, outlawing it will only make things worse than they are now.
Thank you Ben! I find this post to be insightful and well thought out. I'm not just saying that to please, but I think that you are right about the hypocrisy of double standards in our society. Yet I believe that double standards is a part of human nature. It is natural for us to say one thing, but to say another when it applies to an opposing view. However, I disagree that your solution to this problem is for people to conform to each other. It is only through a better understanding of each other that we can truly eliminate this problem.
Also, here is the help page on Embedding a YouTube Video
HAHA Jason Bade you used to coat hanger abortion thing that Mcglashan said!! ANYway, what really angers me is just how stupid and irratating Pallin is by saying that only abstinence should be taught at schools. I mean how can you expect that to work when it clearly didn't work for your daughter? I mean, if she maybe learned a little about contraceptives then maybe this wouldn't be a problem. Anyway, i just hate it when people refuse to change their ideas when major events occur. I mean, if Pallin does become a VP, what is going to happen? What if other during the war, something completly unexpected occurs? WHat's going to happen then if our leaders are unable to adjust their motives and decisions to suit the new situation? It is going to be a terrible catastrophe that could ruin the US. WEll, that is all i have to say to see ya later
Going back to the topic of abortion - I agree with all of Jason's points, but personally, I think the most important point on the subject of allowing abortion is a woman's right to choose. Ever since the creation of our government, we (as a people) have been fighting for protection of our rights and freedoms. Questioning the legality of abortions is essentially questioning the right for a woman to make a choice. What gives the government the right to force a women to go through with a pregnancy if she does not want to?
I definitely agree with micaela that it is the woman's right too choose whether to get an abortion not. She is the one who is pregnant, and if she wants an abortion, she obviously is showing that she cannot commit to having and raising a child. For example, if a teen girl gets raped and becomes pregnant, I think it is right to give her the option.
About the hypocrisy in our society, I think it was in English class last year that we read an article called something like "my abortion is the only moral abortion." It talked about women who, before getting pregnant, were strictly against abortion. Then, after getting pregnant and also in the abortion clinic to get an abortion, they were still "strictly" against abortion. hmmmmm.. Their reasons were all similar; people said things like "women who get abortions are murderers, but my situation is an exception!" These kinds of people do not realize that the other women probably had similar reasons. Also, they were rude to those doing the actual abortions, but without them, they would have had to either have a baby or possibly resort to dangerous methods, of which neither were obviously their preferred choice because they chose for an abortion.
The pluralistic society of America is inevitable so we can't really get rid of it,; I guess we just have to be more open and listen to other opinions. But I'm not quite sure I'm agreeing with that " blending in" idea...it's like people should be who they're not?
But anyway, cool post Ben!
Nicely done, Ben! I too found this article to verbalize a lot of my thoughts in recent weeks, especially since Bristol Palin's "special" announcement.
However, I would like to respond to you idea that random searches be renamed to be called "Probablity-based searches." Everyone knows that people of Middle-Eastern descent are more likely to get stopped, searched, questioned, whatever. But do you really think admitting that such actions are intentional would decrease the resentment towards the government? I think not. If the government were to outrightly state that they are going to search, say 50% more Middle-Easterners than Caucasians, the government would be swamped with lawsuits faster than they could say "Civil Rights Act." This is a deliberate violation of Civil Rights, but people are still under the illusion that the searches might possible be random. If the government were to blatantly state that they are searching anyone who physically resembles Al-Queda, let's just say there would be more serious problems than the country is already facing.
On the topic of abortion, I think that it is unfair for the government to have the authority to force a woman into motherhood. In class we talked about how the government encourages marriages because it prevents rebellion/arguements among civilians, but at the same time marriage creates a healthy environment in which children can be raised. However, limiting a woman's access to an abortion is counteracting the government's efforts to create healthy environments for children. For example, many mothers whose pregnancy is not planned will not end up marrying their baby's father. Instead, young children will have to fend for themselves as their mother works a double shift to pay the rent. It seems as though the government would be fighting a battle against itself if it limited a woman's access to an abortion because they encourage raising children in healthy environment and would at the same be putting kids in the exact environment they are trying to
eliminate.
Also, I disagree with Doria's statement saying that some people are still under the impression that "random" security checks are truly random. I don't think airport security has been stealth/sly at all when it comes to trying to convince travelers that Middle Easterners do not deliberatley get checked more often than Caucasians
While I do think double standards are wrong, especially when it comes to the high-stake level of policy-making, I also believe that this is a part of human nature. I'm sure that practically every person can admit to having some sort of double standard concerning some issue in their life. However, as a possible VP to our country, I think that Palin should watch what she's saying. Although average citizens could argue that lives and problems should be kept private, I think it is unreasonable that Palin expects her daughter's pregnancy to be kept private, especially considering her daugher's young age and her own views on abortion. It's a political race, and she should expect that things are going to get nasty.
I do believe that this supposed "random" airport searching is getting out of hand. But I would have to agree with Doria on this one. It's fairly evident that people of a certain physical mold are being searched a lot more than others. The government isn't fooling anyone. And if the government were to admit to their so-called double standard, I highly doubt that the situation would settle better in anyone's stomach. That would probably give people more of a reason to criticize the the admittance to prejudice. So though theoretically, it seems to be a better solution to admit to these double standards, I don't think that it will solve much: people are still going to find faults with the truth and will still hold resentment. If people keep their eyes and ears open, they should be able to identify these double-standards and figure out the truth for themselves, without having the government admit the obvious.
Post a Comment