Female. Canadian. Skeptic. Writer.
All accurate, relevant labels I could apply to myself. They offer a basic description, answer a standard question. But what about:
Pro-choice. Relativist. Anarchist. Agnostic.
Are these relevant labels, or do they bring up more questions than they answer? It seems that, more and more, we are expected to take on heavier labels - to reduce our grandest philosophies down to a single word. To take ideas it has taken us a lifetime to hone, ideas that are slightly altered by every new experience and every new piece of information, and squeeze them into box a, b, or c. And I believe this to be a way bigger deal than we may realize.
When one looks at the longest standing debate topics: abortion, religion, government, etc., we are quickly introduced to the dichotomies present therein: pro-choice vs. pro-life, theist vs. atheist, left wing vs. right wing, and so on. We are immediately expected and encouraged to choose our side, to choose our label. Lost within the swarm of labels, however, is independent thought, collective brainstorming, and progressive action. Saying I am pro-choice doesn't allow for the conveyance of concern for our sexual education system, thoughts on how healthcare can be improved to reduce unwanted pregnancies, or the ethical questions attached to both the taking of life and granting the government additional control over one's body. Calling myself agnostic doesn't express my thoughts on the spiritual journeys humans often undertake or explain my own personal position on the likelihood that a deity exists in some form, nor does it bring us any closer to coexisting peacefully regardless of religious affiliation, or lack thereof.
These labels do not define us, they divide us. They subtly force us to take a side, to be someone else's opposition, and many of us don't even realize it. We dig our heels in on whatever issue, and quietly accept that we're in some sort of battle, but few of us step back and ask why. Does being pro-choice or pro-life actually reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, or increase awareness about sexual issues? No. Does berating people for being religious, or threatening non-believers with eternal damnation contribute positively to our coexistence? No. Does our almost religious worship of Liberalism or Conservatism put food on anyone's table, or address anyone's day-to-day concerns? No. These positions, these arbitrary labels we apply to ourselves are, in a word, counterproductive. We get so caught up on which "side" of the debate we're on that we eventually completely lose sight of the issue we were debating. We all fail to make any progress, to make any improvements, as proving we are morally superior to our opposition becomes our one and only goal. In 40+ years of debating abortion, have we reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies? Nope. And I think we really need to start thinking about that - are we content shouting clever slogans at one another, or do we actually want to improve the state of sexual education? All of these issues we debate have real world implications, and, the way I see it, we have two options:
1. Get up and actually do something
2. Shut the fuck up
If the idea of abortion, or religiously motivated homophobia, or...whatever your cause happens to be, really bothers you, DO something about it. Shouting "baby-killer!" or "bigot!" from the rooftops may make you feel better, but it doesn't actually address the issue. You cannot, in good conscience, claim to be pro-life if you are not doing anything to improve sexual education, to improve the adoption and foster care systems, or reduce the stigma and shame associated with unwanted pregnancy. You cannot claim to care about gay-rights if your only contribution to the movement is telling Christians they are bigots. All you are doing in that case is widening the divide between people, and putting anti-gay individuals on the defensive, which encourages them to take action. You cannot really claim to care about the plight of the common man while kissing the feet of a government that bails out the rich and cuts programs for the poor. Whether Liberal or Conservative, if that party's actions are making it harder for the average person to make ends meet, anyone that boasts national pride has a duty to oppose those actions. If these issues do not concern you enough to motivate you to act upon them, you should perhaps just shut up about them. You can't really be that concerned about abortion if you aren't willing to help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, can you? You can't really claim to support gay-rights if you've never done anything to make them a reality, can you?
Now, don't get me wrong. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and is free to express it. That's not my issue. My issue is with people claiming to feel really passionately, behaving militantly, digging their heels in on one side of the line or the other, but not ever making any attempt to improve whatever situation they claim concern for. My issue is with an imbalance of rhetoric and action. My issue is with the philosophy becoming more important than the people. If we were sincerely concerned about these issues, we would be willing to set our differences aside, and work together to find solutions. If these problems truly mattered to us, which side of the debate one falls on would be secondary to what we're all doing to improve things. I believe these labels we apply to ourselves have become a distraction, an excuse, an opportunity to shift blame. It is easier for us to point fingers than it is for us to take action - but until we are willing to act, those fingers should be pointed directly at ourselves.
All accurate, relevant labels I could apply to myself. They offer a basic description, answer a standard question. But what about:
Pro-choice. Relativist. Anarchist. Agnostic.
Are these relevant labels, or do they bring up more questions than they answer? It seems that, more and more, we are expected to take on heavier labels - to reduce our grandest philosophies down to a single word. To take ideas it has taken us a lifetime to hone, ideas that are slightly altered by every new experience and every new piece of information, and squeeze them into box a, b, or c. And I believe this to be a way bigger deal than we may realize.
When one looks at the longest standing debate topics: abortion, religion, government, etc., we are quickly introduced to the dichotomies present therein: pro-choice vs. pro-life, theist vs. atheist, left wing vs. right wing, and so on. We are immediately expected and encouraged to choose our side, to choose our label. Lost within the swarm of labels, however, is independent thought, collective brainstorming, and progressive action. Saying I am pro-choice doesn't allow for the conveyance of concern for our sexual education system, thoughts on how healthcare can be improved to reduce unwanted pregnancies, or the ethical questions attached to both the taking of life and granting the government additional control over one's body. Calling myself agnostic doesn't express my thoughts on the spiritual journeys humans often undertake or explain my own personal position on the likelihood that a deity exists in some form, nor does it bring us any closer to coexisting peacefully regardless of religious affiliation, or lack thereof.
These labels do not define us, they divide us. They subtly force us to take a side, to be someone else's opposition, and many of us don't even realize it. We dig our heels in on whatever issue, and quietly accept that we're in some sort of battle, but few of us step back and ask why. Does being pro-choice or pro-life actually reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, or increase awareness about sexual issues? No. Does berating people for being religious, or threatening non-believers with eternal damnation contribute positively to our coexistence? No. Does our almost religious worship of Liberalism or Conservatism put food on anyone's table, or address anyone's day-to-day concerns? No. These positions, these arbitrary labels we apply to ourselves are, in a word, counterproductive. We get so caught up on which "side" of the debate we're on that we eventually completely lose sight of the issue we were debating. We all fail to make any progress, to make any improvements, as proving we are morally superior to our opposition becomes our one and only goal. In 40+ years of debating abortion, have we reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies? Nope. And I think we really need to start thinking about that - are we content shouting clever slogans at one another, or do we actually want to improve the state of sexual education? All of these issues we debate have real world implications, and, the way I see it, we have two options:
1. Get up and actually do something
2. Shut the fuck up
If the idea of abortion, or religiously motivated homophobia, or...whatever your cause happens to be, really bothers you, DO something about it. Shouting "baby-killer!" or "bigot!" from the rooftops may make you feel better, but it doesn't actually address the issue. You cannot, in good conscience, claim to be pro-life if you are not doing anything to improve sexual education, to improve the adoption and foster care systems, or reduce the stigma and shame associated with unwanted pregnancy. You cannot claim to care about gay-rights if your only contribution to the movement is telling Christians they are bigots. All you are doing in that case is widening the divide between people, and putting anti-gay individuals on the defensive, which encourages them to take action. You cannot really claim to care about the plight of the common man while kissing the feet of a government that bails out the rich and cuts programs for the poor. Whether Liberal or Conservative, if that party's actions are making it harder for the average person to make ends meet, anyone that boasts national pride has a duty to oppose those actions. If these issues do not concern you enough to motivate you to act upon them, you should perhaps just shut up about them. You can't really be that concerned about abortion if you aren't willing to help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, can you? You can't really claim to support gay-rights if you've never done anything to make them a reality, can you?
Now, don't get me wrong. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and is free to express it. That's not my issue. My issue is with people claiming to feel really passionately, behaving militantly, digging their heels in on one side of the line or the other, but not ever making any attempt to improve whatever situation they claim concern for. My issue is with an imbalance of rhetoric and action. My issue is with the philosophy becoming more important than the people. If we were sincerely concerned about these issues, we would be willing to set our differences aside, and work together to find solutions. If these problems truly mattered to us, which side of the debate one falls on would be secondary to what we're all doing to improve things. I believe these labels we apply to ourselves have become a distraction, an excuse, an opportunity to shift blame. It is easier for us to point fingers than it is for us to take action - but until we are willing to act, those fingers should be pointed directly at ourselves.