Topic: The Aligator River Story
This tale of love gone awry, adapted from Joseph Fleicher's Situation Ethics, appears on the surface like an episode of the "Jerry Springer Show" on location in the swamps of Louisiana. While this particular assignment does ask to rate these characters on who commands my respect from highest to lowest, I would like to speculate more on the motivations of the characters presented.
Gregory: Now here's a gentleman who is the paramour of the protagonist, Abigail. One would wonder if this man truly cared for her and why he was so quick to judge her for her actions. One could ask whether Gregory could have made the choice to cross the river to be with Abigail. Did he make an attempt to do so but was refused or even propositioned by Captain Sinbad? Was he suspicious of Abigail and work out an arrangement with Captain Sinbad to test Abigail's sense of virtue. Was he just too lazy or too proud to take the boat to meet her instead of having her cross the river?
The reader is presented with the outcome, however; Gregory spurns Abigail and gets beaten up by Slug. Was Gregory wrong for snubbing a woman whose lack of self respect clouded her judgement? Did he make the correct decision to turn her away since her actions were based on desperation and vindictiveness? If I were to rate Gregory ( between 1 being highest and 5 being the lowest) based upon whom I had the most respect for, I would give him a "2", simply because there are too many unknowns concerning his reasoning.
Ivan: He is the noncommittal friend. Perhaps he is even the rejected suitor of Abigail's affection. Who is Ivan indeed and why would he refuse to help Abigail? Was he too busy to get involved? Did he have problems of his own? Was he a rival of Gregory? Was he already familiar with the dysfunctional pattern by which Abigail approached situations? It is hard to know why he refused to help if he was a friend of Abigail's but if he knew her well, then he probably made the correct decision not to interfere. Ivan would get my most respect if that was the case. I give him a "1".
Slug: He is the foolish champion of Abigail. A tough guy with a bleeding heart, he jumps at the opportunity to do the "honorable" thing and beat sense into Gregory, literally. Is this man a better choice for Abigail because he accepted her after hearing her version of the events that transpired? It takes character to be nonjudgmental of people but if a person sees manure lying in the road, he shouldn't go to great pains to step in it. Note also that Slug didn't go beat up Sinbad for placing Abigail in the compromising position in which she found herself. Slug gets a "3".
Sinbad: He is the opportunist and the catalyst for the tragedy that transpired. His motivations are easy to comprehend. Although he cared not for Abigail's plight, he did honor the agreement and did not have sexual intercourse and summarily leave her on her side of the shore. All things considered, I would have to give Sinbad a "4".
Abigail: The woman who created her own peril and went cackling in glee into the sunset. This woman receives my lowest score of "5" simply because it was her intention to go to Gregory and she couldn't be bothered to drive 50 miles away to cross the river. Why is it that she couldn't pick a more convenient time to visit him since she did have work the next day? Why was she unable to take someone like Ivan or Slug with her when Sinbad made his offer? Why was it that she blamed Gregory and not herself for the trouble in which she found herself? She spent the better part of the day running around asking people for help, having sex with Sinbad, and then going to see Gregory twice when she could have driven the 50 miles back and forth and visited her paramour. It seems strange when she sought out the straight line from A to B, she placed so many zigzagging lines in the midst of it. Abigail was not only selfish in her actions, but reckless also. Why did she have to tell Gregory that she slept with Sinbad to get to him? Did her reason for going to see Gregory in the first place then get replaced by her wanting Greg to exact retribution upon Sinbad? Her desperation and vindictiveness led to the beating of Gregory in which she laughed at his plight as if the culmination of events had somehow redeemed her. Sorry, Abigail, you're no heroine in this tale; you get my least amount of respect.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
My Kink, My Business
Topic: Human Rights vs. Majority Rule
It's interesting that even now in 2007, people in the US are still worried about what happens behind closed doors. In our media, America is represented as a cultural beacon of tolerance and freedom. This is the view of our liberal bicoastal elite. In mainstream America, things are different.
However, in spite of all the hype of what America represents, the cold hard truth is, this is a Christian nation based upon traditional values. Christian morality and intolerance supercedes the will of the freaks: the homosexual, the body art afficianado, the pain freak, et al. Where human rights comes into play is that these so-called "wretches of society" have a right to employment, freedom of expression, the freedom to vote, etc. However, those people aren't allowed in traditional areas of influence. They must be relegated to stereotypical roles in order to appease traditional mores: the effeminate gay man should be in interior decorating, the person covered in body art should be working in a tattoo parlor or as a bouncer, etc. This is the informal compromise that has been worked out between the liberal and conservative camps: the "freaks" can be employed but in more "traditional" roles suited to their lifestyles. Thus, it became the responsibilty of the liberal media to provide roles for these people and it has failed miserably because it has stifled the contributions of people of particular tastes by placing them into roles that mainstream America will tolerate. Those that do live a particular lifestyle in order to get better employment have to live a life of deceit in order to appease society.
This is not to say that there is not an ettiquette to be followed. In my former job as a therapist in a local cardiologist's office, we had a male nurse practitioner that did an excellent job as per his duties. In the workplace, he was somber and thoroughly professional. It wasn't until the Christmas office party that he decided to "come out" and he did in a pretty dramatic way: wearing women's clothes and makeup. He was a crossdresser and a bisexual. Nothing is wrong with that. It cerrtainly did add for shock value that night and it didn't help much that he was horribly drunk at the time. Later he was apologetic about his behavior but think about it: having to fit yourself into a stifling role where you cannot express your individuality for so long can be extremely stressful and I believe it was the case for this particular gentleman also. He later confessed that he was afraid that he would not have a job the following day, but his work stood for itself, depite his coworkers' opinions and gossip mongering. This isn't to say that one should throw established decorum to the wind. A professional should dress as a professional. If a person goes for an interview, the standard dark navy or black suit is worn. These are established and generally accepted as far as being considered for employment along with a good CV. If a person has tattoos or body piercings underneath that suit, that's his/ her business and he/ she can display them in the appropriate setting.
So what happens when, for example, a homo-/bisexual teaching children in school? What is the real fear? Is the fear that those teachers might teach children that it's okay to be gay? Is the fear based upon the safety of the child eg child molestation? Is it the fear that the child will reject traditional gender roles and become gay? I don't think any responsible adult in that position of authority would abuse that power. Sure, there are those in every proffession that do, straight or gay, but it's not based upon sexual identity. That falls under pathopsychology.
The will of the majority sets the course of society. It is the responsibility of the majority to protect the rights of the minority. Likewise it is the responsibility of the minority to respect the views of the majority. A person goes to work to earn a living; not to hook up. Whether you are straight, gay, or asexual, it isn't a person's responsibility to declare his/her sexual preference and it isn't the responsibility of the employer or employees to know anyone else's sexual preference. Homosexuals may fear that they are being underrepresented and have to express themselves colorfully to make a statement or to be generally accepted but to use provocative means is not the manner of gaining acceptance. It is counterproductive. The potential problems that do arise are that an employer has to work harder to prove that his/her rejection of an applicant is not based upon arbitrary descriptions such as gender, race, color, creed, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. A possible solution is having a criteria for eligibility for employment at the place of business or a national standard for employment based upon merit and experience. Otherwise what happens is that the rights of one group are trampled upon the rights of another and vice versa and that further deepens the intolerance.
It's interesting that even now in 2007, people in the US are still worried about what happens behind closed doors. In our media, America is represented as a cultural beacon of tolerance and freedom. This is the view of our liberal bicoastal elite. In mainstream America, things are different.
However, in spite of all the hype of what America represents, the cold hard truth is, this is a Christian nation based upon traditional values. Christian morality and intolerance supercedes the will of the freaks: the homosexual, the body art afficianado, the pain freak, et al. Where human rights comes into play is that these so-called "wretches of society" have a right to employment, freedom of expression, the freedom to vote, etc. However, those people aren't allowed in traditional areas of influence. They must be relegated to stereotypical roles in order to appease traditional mores: the effeminate gay man should be in interior decorating, the person covered in body art should be working in a tattoo parlor or as a bouncer, etc. This is the informal compromise that has been worked out between the liberal and conservative camps: the "freaks" can be employed but in more "traditional" roles suited to their lifestyles. Thus, it became the responsibilty of the liberal media to provide roles for these people and it has failed miserably because it has stifled the contributions of people of particular tastes by placing them into roles that mainstream America will tolerate. Those that do live a particular lifestyle in order to get better employment have to live a life of deceit in order to appease society.
This is not to say that there is not an ettiquette to be followed. In my former job as a therapist in a local cardiologist's office, we had a male nurse practitioner that did an excellent job as per his duties. In the workplace, he was somber and thoroughly professional. It wasn't until the Christmas office party that he decided to "come out" and he did in a pretty dramatic way: wearing women's clothes and makeup. He was a crossdresser and a bisexual. Nothing is wrong with that. It cerrtainly did add for shock value that night and it didn't help much that he was horribly drunk at the time. Later he was apologetic about his behavior but think about it: having to fit yourself into a stifling role where you cannot express your individuality for so long can be extremely stressful and I believe it was the case for this particular gentleman also. He later confessed that he was afraid that he would not have a job the following day, but his work stood for itself, depite his coworkers' opinions and gossip mongering. This isn't to say that one should throw established decorum to the wind. A professional should dress as a professional. If a person goes for an interview, the standard dark navy or black suit is worn. These are established and generally accepted as far as being considered for employment along with a good CV. If a person has tattoos or body piercings underneath that suit, that's his/ her business and he/ she can display them in the appropriate setting.
So what happens when, for example, a homo-/bisexual teaching children in school? What is the real fear? Is the fear that those teachers might teach children that it's okay to be gay? Is the fear based upon the safety of the child eg child molestation? Is it the fear that the child will reject traditional gender roles and become gay? I don't think any responsible adult in that position of authority would abuse that power. Sure, there are those in every proffession that do, straight or gay, but it's not based upon sexual identity. That falls under pathopsychology.
The will of the majority sets the course of society. It is the responsibility of the majority to protect the rights of the minority. Likewise it is the responsibility of the minority to respect the views of the majority. A person goes to work to earn a living; not to hook up. Whether you are straight, gay, or asexual, it isn't a person's responsibility to declare his/her sexual preference and it isn't the responsibility of the employer or employees to know anyone else's sexual preference. Homosexuals may fear that they are being underrepresented and have to express themselves colorfully to make a statement or to be generally accepted but to use provocative means is not the manner of gaining acceptance. It is counterproductive. The potential problems that do arise are that an employer has to work harder to prove that his/her rejection of an applicant is not based upon arbitrary descriptions such as gender, race, color, creed, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. A possible solution is having a criteria for eligibility for employment at the place of business or a national standard for employment based upon merit and experience. Otherwise what happens is that the rights of one group are trampled upon the rights of another and vice versa and that further deepens the intolerance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)