building on the discussion i had here about women being inherently less violent, today's new york times had an interesting section with snippets from various graduation speeches across the nation the last month. this excerpt comes from barbara ehrenreich's speech to the graduates at barnard college in manhattan:
You saw them too, the photos of American soldiers humiliating and abusing detainees in Iraq. These photos turned my stomach -- yours too, I'm sure. But they did something else to me: they broke my heart. I had no illusions about the U.S. mission in Iraq, but it turns out that I did have some illusions about women.
All we had to do to make the world a better place -- kinder, less violent, more just -- was to assimilate into what had been, for so many centuries, the world of men. We would fight so that women could become the generals, the C.E.O.'s, the senators, the judges and opinion-makers and that was really the only fight we had to undertake. Because once they gained power and authority, once they had achieved a critical mass within the institutions of society, women would naturally work for change . . . What I have finally come to understand, sadly and irreversibly, is that the kind of feminism based on an assumption of female moral superiority is a lazy and self-indulgent form of feminism . . . It is not enough to be equal to men, when the men are acting like beasts. It is not enough to assimilate. We need to create a world worth assimilating into.
morality is not inherent. it is not fixed. it is not stable and somehow alligned within certain types. to believe that a sex has a certain moral advantage over another is no better than believing a race of people has that same advantage over another. it is faulty, elitist speak that can only lead to being blind to issues of importance, issues of change.
-
so the president i was born under is dead. to his family i am sure it is somewhat of a relief. in reality, they lost ronnie quite some time ago. alzheimers is a reckless and crushing disease. but there is hope in all of this, and it comes in the form of nancy reagan.
WASHINGTON -- In a rare appearance last month, former first lady Nancy Reagan spoke at an event to raise money for embryo stem cell research. She hoped, she said, that others would benefit from research on such diseases as Alzheimer's, which had afflicted her husband, Ronald.
"Ronnie's long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him," she said. "Because of this, I'm determined to do whatever I can to save other families from this pain."...
Reagan's recent public support of stem cell research, however, has put her at odds with other Republicans, including President George W. Bush, who opposes the research.
Still, Reagan, whose support carries much clout, is doing what she says she has to do. "I just don't see how we can turn our back on this," she said at the fund-raiser.
we are all human at our basic core. here's more proof. an issue that, no doubt, reagan, in his time in office, would have opposed vehemently, is supported by his wife. why? because basic human diginity is involved. nancy has seen the pain and ravages of alzheimers close up and now understands (and has for some time) why stem cell research and things of this nature are so important. it's the same reason dick cheney has refused to comment directly on gay rights issues, having a daughter who is a lesbian. when reality comes home, hearts and minds change. i can't say it's a bad thing.
