so, in the post below, a long time reader advises me of the value of the 'conversation' between those who believe different things. and i value that advice. i even value the belief in the need for dialogue between disparate ideas and people in political discourse.
(goodness knows one wouldn't want to be seen as an obstructionist, in any way.)
but i disagree about some of the 'conversations' we're having.
there are just some conversations that aren't open to ... conversing.
or conversion.
things like combating sexism and misogyny. things like anti-racism. or things like civil rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
at the beginning of the 21st century i am not prepared to 'converse' with anyone re: how important it is for people to be on the empowering and progressive side of these issues. frankly, it shouldn't be up for debate. logical, reasonable, civil, civilized people aren't sexist, racist or homophobic.
(it's the same way i don't waste my time arguing with people about the existence of God.)
jimmy carter just ended his 'conversation' with the southern baptist convention over their centuries-long, continued sexist treatment of women and the social impact that treatment continues to have. why shouldn't he?
(and no, i have no opinions on whatever this Elders thing is, which sounds like something from a comic book.)
2 comments:
Seriously. I find I am impatient with people who are living in the 19-and-a-halfth century.
Carter's a good man. So is Obama. He burned a lot of political capital with his "stupid" remark, but I think he did it very much on purpose. A well-calibrated slap at people who need to be slapped, even if it costs the one doing the slapping.
Post a Comment