The skewed picture caused by unheard majority

donfers

great article here, brave and full of integrity

http://www.grumpyhatlady.com/2011/i-am-not-a-feminist-there-i-said-it/

once you have had a read of that you probably don't want to read anymore, regardless here's what I think

unfortunately issues tend to polarise, or more precisely, give the impression that they are polarising people

i.e. we remember the opinions of the more radical/extreme types, the crazed rant will stay long in the memory whereas the well-reasoned and measured argument (regardless of if you agree or disagree with points made) will be overlooked

I think the vast majority of us are moderates but usually you will fall on one side of an issue or another unless you take the easy option and merely fence-sit and critique all views held

however the really unfortunate thing is when we do fall on one side of an issue or the other we are associated with the extreme or radical elements on our side of that issue

however it must be acknowledged that some of who consider ourselves to be moderates are indeed perceived as radicals by others, it all depends on our frame of reference, how subjective our perception is and it is difficult to quantify but i think we can say this much, it is not in your interests to remain quiet when someone who is ostensibly on your side of the debate spouts off radical or extreme opinions that you disagree with as the reality of debate is you will be thrown into the same crazybox as they are, and they are damaging the credibility of your cause with their extreme and sometimes hate-filled views, regardless of if they are on your side of the debate if they resort to cheap and snide personal insults or hate-filled generalisations you should disassociate yourself from them in my view

the article linked is about a woman who doesn't want to be railroaded into declaring she is a feminist, she also doesn't want to be made feel guilty for not doing so.....as I do, she has sympathy for many so-called feminist causes but she objects to it's inherent AND UNNECESSARY polarising affect

I think the reality is a lot of us may have a perception that a person who describes themself as a feminist or a nationalist or a christian or whoever, may hold more extreme views that they actually do in reality.

There is the large unseen, unheard, voiceless majority who may fall on one or other side of an issue and may describe themselves as an -ist or a follower of an -ism if pushed but are nowhere near the extreme and radical views of the more active wing of their particular -ism.

Thus I believe, on so many issues, the picture is skewed as we don't hear from this large and silent majority whose views are more diluted and thus, in their opinions, probably not worthy of the soap-box. This is the real tragedy as their views are essential in terms of reaching some kind of compromise developing a shared understanding and mutual respect.

Like the gang of lads in the pub, there may be one of them who is quite vocal and assertive as he tells his dirty joke or aggressively puts forth his political view of the day and is unchallenged by others who don't have the energy or will to question him, so they yield and it is assumed perhaps that he is somehow representative of the group.

This is the price we pay for silence, our "can't be bothered" attitude, we become associated with morons or idealogues or zealots or loonies.

But no matter how many opinionated columnists or media whores are out there trolling for a reaction (or even worse, sadly believing of their own bile), no matter how many times the extreme fringe of some -ism gets the headlines, no matter how often the far-fetched words and destructive poisionous deeds of the radicals stick in your head as they seek to represent their idea right to it's bloodstained edge.....i think we should always remember there is a voiceless majority who don't want to go there but dare not speak out against their polarising representatives for fear perhaps of being labelled is against that issue, that -ism (when they are only against the contamination of it with hate) or for fear of the radicals themselves.

The picture is skewed I think, especially nowadays when any bitter old spoofer can voice their opinions on forums like this - but as I said even though the extreme opinion is highlighted more in the media, is remembered more during debates, is felt more when you are against it, it is just the polarising edge and there is a whole world of views contained by the polarising edge but not so far out. This, to me is both reassuring and at the same time sad as for some reason we poor directionless humans do not gather around these more moderate types, do not hear them.


The woman who wrote the linked article believes in human rights, she doesn't want to be polarised as a feminist regardless of the fact she believes in woman's rights (as if any right-minded person doesn't). The polarising effect of -isms usually divide us, sure a guy can fall in under the feminism umbrella, sure there are many many more moderate feminists (although you don't hear or remember hearing them so much). It's sad in a way that we have all these -isms and ideologies, all these special interest groups and campaigning groups. The focus is on what polarises us, what makes us different, how we can prioritise our own needs, the ethos is born out of self-interest and becomes prejudicial and sometimes hypocritical.

In some cases the emergence of polarising groups is understandable when there is state-sponsored persecution of a particular ethnic group or ethnic cleansing. But I would like to think that for the vast vast majority of us right-minded people out there that if we were aware that some person was being persecuted we would disapprove of the persecution and do what we could to prevent it regardless of if the person belonged to out ethnic group or not - the polarising groups begin to ape those institutions that the once were oppressed and persecuted by, they become an "old boys club", motivated only by self-interest and indifferent to the suffering of others.

The reality is a small superclass of what is estimated to be about 5,000 people make most of the key decisions in the world, ceo's, politicians, bankers, etc etc - most of them happen to be white men, that doesn't mean the white man is the enemy for these 5,000 people "oppress" us all in their own way and are not motivated by gender or religion or colour.........just money, however they use the gender/religion/colour stuff to polarise us and prevent us from becoming a powerful unifying group all operating under the same umbrella of human rights - in a way though we need to controlled, we require some authoritative decision-making facility above us (anarchy is hardly a solution) but we must realise all these -isms are just a way of dividing us into pawns as a greater game is played above our heads.

I just wish the tendency was to swing towards the moderate rather than the extreme but that's not the case, and instead they have taught us to folow the hate

Is this overly simplistic idealistic garbage?

Do you believe the moderates within -isms are a significant majority?

Why don't they speak out more and how can they be encouraged to do so?

Why so we veer towards the extremists?


for tomorrow's lesson we'll discuss which disney character is most sexually attractive