Agree to disagree
Jesse Daniel Schomer
law student
I am tragically male. Worry ye not because I do not intend to lament about reverse discrimination or any such nonsense. I am a white male, meaning that social amenities are more readily available to me than to any other segment of the general population. I am tragic because, as a male, a blueprint has been submitted to me, and I am expected to live in pursuance thereof. That means that I am expected to live a life filled with violence of all kinds. I am, you know, one of those whom, if necessary, will be called to defend this country of ours.
I recognize the capacity for violence which has been conditioned into my personality and I work everyday to effect its atrophy. What being male also means is that I am expected to objectify women. Do not mistake me, I do not mean objectification as blatant as some kind of rapper schtick. It is more subtle than that. It means that I grow up reading women only when I do so by my own endeavor, and it translates into my inability to think of one woman whom I admire intellectually. Try it, men — it is harder than you would think.
I am writing because I just returned from an Ani Difranco concert, and I realized that only four years ago, I would never have done such a thing. I would never have allowed myself to witness such a strong, articulate, sensitive and charismatic figure of femininity that defies objectification in her very demeanour. My blueprint tells me to fear and decry her and so I ignore what it tells me.
Four years ago, I was Catholic. I am recovered now, thank you. I do not mean to single out Catholics, but I will say that it warps your outlook. Skimming editorials concerning "The Vagina Monologues" for a few days makes that abundantly clear to me. At the very availability (nobody is forced to watch the show) of a program based on discovering feminine identity and overcoming the male dominated climate of our world (admittedly conveyed through a medium that some understandably find to be objectionable), some benighted nouveau riche kid has to start in with the generalizations and improperly formed conclusions.
Of course, the enraged feminists write responses to the knee-jerk conservatives and the polemic goes back and forth. What people seem to forget here is that neither side possesses the only moral compass on the issue. It is permissible to allow others to express their ethos and not to descend to petty bickering, without succumbing to pitiable moral relativism. The frustrating thing is that the people who generally start these diatribes are usually disgorging some kind of institutional rhetoric (probably incorrectly) without having experienced that which they criticize. Thus, they have no validity in their criticism.
What I would like to see is Catholics trying to understand those other viewpoints before they start into the dogmatic criticism. Let's face facts, Catholicism is not exactly the most plausible system of faith that one can embrace. If you want my honest opinion, I find it pretty silly, but that is because I also gave up ghost stories, cootie shots and swingsets when I was a child.
I am also, however, looking in from the outside. What that means is that Catholics have a considerable responsibility to act amenably to contrary viewpoints, because we non-believers certainly accommodate you and your cultish beliefs. And, my bottom line to Catholics principally and to all verily — respect other viewpoints and understand them before you start in with your officious commentary. It is possible to agree to disagree.
Jesse Daniel Schomer
law student
O'Hara-Grace Hall
Feb. 19, 2002
All Viewpoint Stories for Friday, February 22, 2002
