From Civil Rights to Selfishness

My nap was ruined today because I made the mistake of visiting a website devoted to "feminist blogs." And, these ladies weren't just discussing how to tell off your bigoted boss or the best way to light bras on fire. No, they were talking about politics--specifically the "inequality" which still exists and "reproductive rights" (read: freedom to kill babies) which they deserve.

By the time I had read two or three headlines, I was too worked up to sleep. I tried to relax, but I kept daydreaming about slapping a self-absorbed feminist--right in the middle of her speech about empowerment of anyone fortunate enough to be born with ovaries.

What bugs me is the mindset behind this particular brand of feminism, which also plays a role in Black Power struggles and the political demands coming from lower-and-middle class folk. All of them have the same mantra: "I deserve________." The philosophy stemmed from the Civil Rights Movement, when the blacks of this nation were correct in saying, "I deserve equality." But, the mindset has been polluted badly since then. Now, simple pride in your race, gender, or sexual orientation has become an elaborate form of selfishness.

I wrote along these lines for a class once. And, since I don't have time for a lengthy post today, you get to read that recycled piece.

_______

***I'm writing an essay on the African American response to 'failed policy' from 1970 to the present for my black history class. So far, I've enjoyed the class, and the way the black culture evolved and thrived despite oppression is pretty remarkable. However, now that we're looking at the contemporary era, I'm getting frusterated. It's becoming more clear to me how the entire nation shifted from support of EQUAL rights toward the self-absorbed "My Rights" mess we're in now. Here's what I'd LIKE to say in my paper:

The Civil Rights movement was a beautiful point in history because a group of oppressed people banded together and slowly helped abolish unjust laws which had been keeping them from pursuing happiness. This process is what the forefathers intended when they proposed “a government run by the people,” and blacks—along with other minority groups who caught the movement's spirit—proved U.S. citizens COULD change policies that didn't work.

But, I'm afraid much of what has been labeled “unjust” and “failed policy” since then has resulted from Americans of all colors mistaking the right to pursue happiness for the right to have a government which makes them happy.

I don't think most people understand that the Civil Rights movement is inspirational because of how unfair America's laws were at the time. The Movement was necessary because segregation and discrimination were legal, which clearly unleveled the playing field and contradicted the Constitution's guarantee that all men have the same shot at being happy. However, much of the dissatisfaction and controversy today comes from people with that same Civil Rights Spirit, carrying a very different message. The groups are just as angry at the government and just as determined to get results, but instead of saying, “I want my fair chance at a good life,” they're complaining, “Washington hasn't made my life good yet!”

It was during the seventies that oppressed people started coming out of the woodwork and--here's what gets me--ARGUING over whose troubles were worse! Feminism began to flourish, but when white women appealed to black women as "sisters," black women said whites didn't really know suffering because of their priveledged race. Then, black feminists created the NBFO to discuss the issues specifically affecting their race and gender. But, less than a year later, the poor members were unhappy, saying the organization only dealt with middle class trouble. AND the black lesbians claimed the organization ignored gay rights.

So, who needed more advocacy? Blacks? Women? The poor? Gays? When reading this part of the textbook, I'm really confused about who to feel sorry for. Usually the "heros" are much more clear, such as Martin Luther King Jr. who encouraged his race to endure hardships peacefully, always asking for the same simple thing over and over and over, until blacks couldn't be ignored. But when it comes to the 70's, I've just decided not to feel sorry for anybody.

The fact is, it's much easier to support a group like MLK's which has a clear strategy and is willing to die for the cause than it is to support several groups of whiners. I guess the biggest question I have is, what else did they want the government to do? If everyone is being oppressed, isn't no one being oppressed? Doesn't that mean the playing field is level, which gives everyone the same chances? Do these groups really believe that straight, white men have ZERO troubles and are single-handedly responsible for the problems of every body else?

The only solution would be passing laws which intentionally held white men down and gave a special boost to anyone who felt unfairly treated. (Then again, I guess we call that "affirmative action"). And, I suppose the government could give loads of money to places where the Church should be stepping in. (We could call it 'Welfare.') And, maybe it would appease the people who just need recognition if we establish holidays like Gay Awareness Week or Black History Month.

Please excuse my sarcasm, Dr. Kneeland, but you see, I believe very strongly that laws do not change people's hearts and minds. So, if feminists, gays, African-Americans, and even straight, white men are asking the government to force "equal" treatment on a national level, if they're asking the government to hand them jobs and guarantee housing, if they're asking the government to keep making laws and setting up programs until oppressed people are happy, every policy will be a failed policy. _____