So let's say you randomly woke up as a different race, class, gender, religion in a context in which your wellbeing and concerns were systematically treated as invalid, or worse, actively undermined by a dominant group. Would you be better at handling this than an average member of this demographic themselves?
I say yes. Granted my only experience is with being in a dominant social position, but I think I can make a reasonable argument based on purely abstract considerations. For example, I know that I am a very disciplined and awesome person. I also know that things like race, class, and gender have no inherent meaning. Anything that lacks inherent meaning clearly can't effect a person unless they let it. That's why I'm never effected by anything like disease, economic downturn, or natural disaster. These are all largely random and therefore meaningless events, and as such I rise above them because I have character and integrity.
Therefore, looking at the widespread difficulties of these groups, I can only conclude that they want to be disenfranchised. Probably because it's fun and trendy, and gives them an excuse to accomplish far less than real people and still claim equivalent worth as human beings. The idea of "special difficulties" or "context" is just a mythos invented to try and make this difference in worth seem acceptable by validating a culture of victimization.
I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I just don't understand this phenomenon of pseudo-disenfranchisement and want to learn more. I mean, race, gender etc. don't mean anything, so I'm just curious as to why certain races, genders etc let these things effect them in some sort of central way. I know I don't define myself by my race or gender. I don't see why everyone else can't be like me.
In conclusion, I'm pretty sure I've proven through logic that I'm better than all these people, whose challenges I will never face. This makes me feel better about my life and restores my faith in a just world, since everyone who experiences bad things deserves them for putting so much focus on the superficial.
I say yes. Granted my only experience is with being in a dominant social position, but I think I can make a reasonable argument based on purely abstract considerations. For example, I know that I am a very disciplined and awesome person. I also know that things like race, class, and gender have no inherent meaning. Anything that lacks inherent meaning clearly can't effect a person unless they let it. That's why I'm never effected by anything like disease, economic downturn, or natural disaster. These are all largely random and therefore meaningless events, and as such I rise above them because I have character and integrity.
Therefore, looking at the widespread difficulties of these groups, I can only conclude that they want to be disenfranchised. Probably because it's fun and trendy, and gives them an excuse to accomplish far less than real people and still claim equivalent worth as human beings. The idea of "special difficulties" or "context" is just a mythos invented to try and make this difference in worth seem acceptable by validating a culture of victimization.
I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I just don't understand this phenomenon of pseudo-disenfranchisement and want to learn more. I mean, race, gender etc. don't mean anything, so I'm just curious as to why certain races, genders etc let these things effect them in some sort of central way. I know I don't define myself by my race or gender. I don't see why everyone else can't be like me.
In conclusion, I'm pretty sure I've proven through logic that I'm better than all these people, whose challenges I will never face. This makes me feel better about my life and restores my faith in a just world, since everyone who experiences bad things deserves them for putting so much focus on the superficial.
Comment