.jpeg)
.jpeg?picon=2659)
This has been festering for a long time. This frustration that I feel when institutions try to police individual behaviour. It might work in elementary school, when children need the guidance for right and wrong, but not in adults! When governments begin to tell people what they should do with themselves, or not do, it is the worst kind of dictatorship there can be, for one does not need a dictator per se to oppress a people. It can happen in a democracy if we let it. We see the far-right Republicans forcing their morals and beliefs on everyone else. (Morals that, I might add, they do not generally possess themselves!) I believe forcing everyone else to follow what I believe to be right is just so.... well, wrong. Freedom only exists when people have the freedom to choose both right and wrong where their own selves are concerned, as long it does not hurt anyone else.
I see very little difference between Republicans asking for repeal of a woman's right on her own body and the draconian Saudi 'moral' police. The Saudi excuse that tightening official control will result in better individual behaviour is ridiculous. The way to enable moral rectitude is not by removing opportunities for imagined offences, but by enlightenment; by educating minds and opening dialogue. Bad will do bad whatever and whenever the chance comes up. And in trying to avoid giving a chance for 'bad' to happen, we curtail the space even for good. Women are not allowed to drive in Saudi, presumably to avoid giving them the opportunity to 'sin' (very Republican, I think). This simplistic form of control probably only stopped the flowering of women scientists, entrepreneurs, writers. And it certainly prevented a whole lot of mothers going out with daughters, or friends meeting over coffee. It saddens me to imagine the things that may have been. Because by eliminating chances for exploration we eliminate chances of progress. And frankly, the women who want to march to a different moral beat, do so even now! The tangential topic of men and their freedom and what they do with it would need a book, not a blog.
Of course I believe in government. We need law and order, we need the structure of bureaucracy, we need the infrastructure government provides, and I am very appreciative of social security. But that is what government should be doing: governing the civil and financial aspect of society. Period. Not dictating morality, or biology, or sexuality, or religion.
Speaking of unnecessary moral policing, where do people get the idea that social networking is a step towards the breakdown of society? I have heard people say 'they divorced because of Facebook' - apparently that is where the unfaithful husband met his new love interest. Seriously? He would have been a gem of a guy if there was no Facebook? Why do people blame something so abstract for an act that is based entirely on individual will? Can we really believe that the woman who had an extramarital affair with someone she met in an online chat room would not do it with someone she met in the supermarket? or at the PTO meeting? The child who got lured by the abuser actually physically went to meet the pervert. Simply keeping the contact online would be safer.There are a whole lot of other, more important dimensions at work here. Let us not belittle those dangers by blaming it all on the Internet.
All I am saying is that behavior is always an individual choice, dictated by personal situations and choices. It is predicated on personal principles not societal laws. Propriety that needs legal props is neither proper nor stable. It is pompous officiousness to try and have it regulated.
All I am saying is that behavior is always an individual choice, dictated by personal situations and choices. It is predicated on personal principles not societal laws. Propriety that needs legal props is neither proper nor stable. It is pompous officiousness to try and have it regulated.
0 Comments on Propriety and props as of 1/1/1900
Add a Comment