So, the other day I went to Blockbuster to rent the HBO series Rome (which is unsurprisingly not all that historically accurate but quite entertaining). As I was checking out, the well-intentioned Blockbuster employee very kindly decided to warn me about certain aspects of the show. His approximate words were "Now, before you watch it, you should know that it's really graphic. To be historically accurate, they show certain things...well, back in ancient Rome, it was acceptable to...it wasn't always a man and a woman, sometimes it was a man and a man or a woman and a woman...it was okay back then." I, of course, tried very hard not to laugh while he danced around the fact that there are scenes in Rome portraying homosexuality.
I share this story not so you can laugh along with me (although feel free, I was quite amused), but instead because it has brought up greater issues for me (well, at least it did when SteveG suggested I write a blog post). There are obvious moral issues with his bias against homosexuality, especially considering that there are extremely graphic heterosexual parts of the series that he neglected to warn me about. However, the information was meant as a friendly warning against something I might find shocking or distasteful, as he did, not a general condemnation. So how can we morally judge these types of acts, ones that are well-meant and generally innocuous but also potentially indicative of a larger and more dangerous prejudice? Are intentions important? Should we just laugh off these sort of incidents as amusing and sadly inevitable (and not waste time writing blog posts about them)? Are we all just a little bit bigoted, and to morally judge others for it is blind and pretentious?
*No, this post was not about racism, but I couldn't resist using an Avenue Q song for the title.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I realize that my name will most likely send up warning flags, probably something to the effect of "Oh great, some religious person here to rant about the sinfulness of homosexuality." Well, that's not really the case. But this realization, in conjunction with the theme of this post, does bring to mind another type of prejudice that I believe is often overlooked.
Because I openly call myself a Christian, I am continually branded with the label of "a Christian" (said with an exasperated sneer and rolling of eyes) and expectations of being an evangelical follower of Pat Robertson who generally damns the world to hell. I can't remember the last time I damned someone to hell. Actually, I don't believe I ever have. And yet, I am continually faced with people criticizing me and even questioning my intellectual abilities based on my religious beliefs, whether it stems from friends making offhand jokes or "open-minded" professors claiming to believe in equal opportunity, freedom of expression, and so on.
I realize that this prejudice I speak of does not limit my employment opportunities or marriage benefits as it might if I were homosexual, but it is a personally injurious issue that I believe deserves at least a small amount of attention. In response to your final question, I believe we all are bigoted in some way. I don’t now that it is anyone’s fault. Perhaps I’ll just take the easy way out and blame society. In any case, the importance of not labeling people based on arbitrary and often outdated stereotypes never ceases to amaze me. And yet, I must admit that I am probably guilty of this very offense. Once again, I believe I’ll blame society for this one.
My first thought in response to your "how can we morally judge these types of actions?" is "why do we have to morally judge them at all?" I may disagree with the clerk's read on sexuality, but this needn't entail moral condemnation of it--especially since his intentions seemed good, he didn't actually trash gays, etc. etc. I'm not completely satisfied with this, though. But I can't quite figure out why. Maybe other commentators here can help me out.
Deacon,
My initial reaction was indeed to skip any reasoned out moral or intellectual judgments because it was an attempt at a kind act. However, as resident christian's thoughtful post reveals, even well-intentioned or joking labeling or bias can be quite hurtful (if I were gay, for example, I imagine I would've had a rather different reaction). So, I suppose I'm attempting to find the line between opinion and bigotry, and whether it indeed is a moral matter when people reveal this sort of unintentional bias.
Resident Christian,
Welcome to our blog! Please try not to break anything.
Nah, resident can break whatever he wants, hopefully it'll be the size of copier's ego...
And to actually answer the question... I dunno. I took part in a bias awareness workshop about a month ago and we (the group) pretty much talked about how we're all going to have biases, even if we don't think we're biased at all. I think the question is: is there a moral issue with holding biases? If so, how do we reduce the bias which people hold?
It appears to me that we can only reduce bias through action on our parts to make the biases we perceive others hold apparent to the individuals which hold them, and to expect the same from other people regarding our own hidden biases.
So... how do we do that, effectively? And without conflict? That's much harder...
and I don't really have any answers.
Oh, my God. You are all out to lunch. Incompetent copier has incompetently addressed this issue. It would be odd if you found yourself not morally judging such a bigoted remark. But it is the remark you are judging, not the entire person who made the remark. We do not choose to judge, we find ourselves in judgment of others. Two questions come to mind. What does one do with one's judgment? And how does one help the bigot see the problem of his/her bigoted judgment against a group of people?
"It's the remark you're judging, not the entire person." Very nice indeed.
Hopefully our new resident will break quakerj's linguistic gender bias instead...(hint: resident is not actually male)
my bad, thanks for the confrontation!
Post a Comment