Reflecting on Roles
By: Adam Segal
In my short time writing for this magazine, I have learned a lot about the Lehigh student body and faculty, and, from what I gather, Academia nationwide. My writings have touched on three sensitive subjects: one focused on race, one on American history and culture, and the final, probably most controversial, addressed gender roles. Needless to say, there were those who didn’t agree with my outlook on these issues, and they made that quite evident. Before I go on, and attempting to minimize any digression, I would like to point out that I understand some of the opposition to my article about gender roles, and I admit it strayed from its original focus: women serve an irreplaceable imperative role in child rearing and the family in general, and these roles certainly trump any other. Therefore, any mention of gender roles will center simply on this point, and I consider opposition to my view as those who contest this particular position and not my article in general. With that said, the purpose of this piece is to analyze the opposition to my perspectives, point out its dangers, and ultimately show just how one-sided and close-minded these so-called “tolerant” campuses have become.
My writing often represents a traditionally conservative, Republican perspective. Therefore, it is only natural that my strongest critics are those of the exact opposite philosophy: progressive, liberal Democrats. Each adjective pushes its subject further and further to the left. Consider the political, left-right spectrum; Democrat places you somewhat left of center, liberal Democrat sends you about halfway toward Barack Obama, and if you’re a progressive liberal Democrat, you either work for NBC or in a liberal arts department of a college or university. From here on out, the far, far left will simply be referred to as progressives, and, unfortunately, their views are heard louder, relative to their numbers, than any others on campuses. In relation to the three subjects of my articles, America, gender, and race, progressives tend to hold the following views: 1.) America is not necessarily a great country; we have an evil history; we use our brute force to pillage the world of its resources while controlling foreign peoples (most notably Africans, South Americans, and Middle Easterners); and finally, if you aren’t rich, America is a terrible place to live. 2.) America is inherently racist in every nook and cranny of society; our white-controlled prisons, economic system, school programs, and governments have been intentionally used to hold minorities down. 3.) Men look to “control” women; it was men who placed the emphasis on outward beauty in women; there are very few physiological differences between men and women; and gender roles were put in place by powerful men to hold women back. All three views are undeniably interconnected, have repetitive themes, and are mostly fabrications created with a foreseeable purpose.
Due to exaggerations of racism being so widely used by progressives to attack America, I will deal with these two issues, race and America, together. I would never suggest that there are no longer racist people (of all creeds) in our country; but to deny that America has made incredible strides on an almost yearly base of alleviating racism is just as preposterous a claim. After seeing the reaction to my article dealing with race, I began to understand just why progressives hold the views they do. I realized that they arrived at their stances over a long and self-deceiving process, and as with most malevolent final realities, they had just and worthy beginnings (Stalin thought he was helping the Soviet people). Many of these racial progressives probably idolized the great civil rights leaders and activists, and rightfully so. Human beings naturally look to emulate the people that we most admire. However, instead of focusing on the message of the great civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr., they focus on the life and actions of the man himself. What I mean is that instead of striving to achieve MLK Jr.’s ultimate goal, racial equality, they got caught up in the incredible acts of bravery and activism he performed over his lifetime. But progressives fail to understand just how different the times were during the civil rights era; and to truly imitate the lives of their heroes, they feel the need to overcome immense obstacles that the MLK’s, Malcolm X’s, and Rosa Parks’s had to. If there was never slavery, no one would know the name Frederick Douglas. If there was never racism, Martin Luther King Jr. would have been just another preacher. The incredible adversity these heroic figures conquered is what made them the legends they are today. Thankfully, because of men and women during the civil rights era, this adversity has been overcome; racism in America is a shadow of what it once was. This leaves racial progressives in a confusing state. They can acknowledge the truth: that the evil of our past has all but been eradicated; but that would make them warriors without an enemy. Therefore, they create their “obstacles,” and that is where people like me come in. (I strive to be the next Ronald Reagan, but I’m not rooting for a communist takeover of Russia).
Have you ever read a student newspaper dealing with racism, or heard multi-cultural organizations’ rhetoric and wondered, “Where’s the meat?” They preach of racism, and the heroic efforts of multicultural organizations, but concrete examples are never given. Even with progressives’ pitchfork and torch searches for racism on campuses, actual instances are extremely rare; so the next best thing is my article. Any mention of race, besides when talking of America’s racist ways, is like a drop of blood in the ocean, and the progressives come swimming like sharks. Unfortunately, like my article, there was only the scent of the meal; actual racism was nowhere to be found. To put this in perspective, people like me who claim America isn’t inherently racist are treated like the open racists during the civil rights movement.
Allegations of sexism are probably even more absurd than many allegations of racism. The root of most racism is lack of interaction between different cultures, when the only opinions of a different race are generated from common stereotypes and what we see on T.V. Normal interaction among races in schools is probably the greatest attribute toward integrating races, which makes it seem counterproductive for multi-cultural organizations to segregate themselves from the rest of the college community in any way, shape, or form. This leads me to the progressive obsession with male-domination. Every single one of us has a mother and many of us have sisters (I won’t be able to say this in a few months, when the transgender man/woman on the Oprah show gives birth). Is it really feasible that we could build up actual contempt for the woman we came from, who we shared a body with for 9 months? If you’ve read my articles, you surely understand my view on the importance of the family; I want nothing more than my own sister to live a happy and fulfilled life, which is why I never shy away from expressing my opinions on how I can help her, and all girls, achieve this. If I truly was a chauvinist, and cared nothing for women except to fulfill my own personal needs, I would gladly join hands with progressive feminists in their mission to pull women down from the pedestal on which men have traditionally placed the fairer sex. The thing with radical feminists is that they have an easier time recruiting from their ranks than radical minority activists. Whereas almost all minorities simply ignore radicals who happen to share their skin color and develop their views on other races from the men and women they live, work, and play with, radical progressive feminists have successfully manipulated many non-progressives to join their causes. Even more so than other progressive causes, progressive feminists have succeeded in convincing generations of perfectly happy, family-oriented women that they were, indeed, miserable. As the saying goes, misery loves company.
Just as with the civil rights movement, feminism had incredibly honorable beginnings. The first wave of feminism attacked the law, whereas the next waves attacked the mind. What I mean by this is that early feminist leaders, like Susan B. Anthony, attacked actual inequality under the law (it was no surprise she would do this, prior to her feminist fight she fought for abolition). While people like Anthony fought for justice, progressive feminists that came much later attacked anyone, like me, who understood there were clear physiological differences between men and women, and that any drastic change to our gender roles would have to be done over time, so as to not offset the delicate balance of our family structures.
Another distinct feature of the progressive feminist movement is that it has actually recently regressed, and I say this in a good way. The movement has picked up upon the fact that earlier feminist progress had been quite detrimental to women as a whole. Feminists fought to have women looked at and treated exactly as men do each other; and they’re starting to realize that, well, men don’t treat each other that well. Who is responsible for the objectification of women? Men are the people doing it, but it was undeniably the progressive feminists who enabled them. Now, very modern feminists are fighting to stop this trend, and it is unknown how exactly they can do this without going back on some of their earlier stances.
Imagine how you would feel after listening to a lecture on the negatives of DVD technology, once you found out it was given by a person specializing in VHS sales. Obviously, knowing the source would change the way you perceived the information. Quite possibly, by the end of the lecture, you were thoroughly convinced that DVD players were, in fact, inferior to VHS. This is true with almost all topics in society; given very limited information, hand selected to suggest one particular view, we can be convinced of almost anything. Many times, radical feminists and race hustlers are presented in front of a class (as Ewuare X. Osayande unfortunately was here at Lehigh), and are given free reign to convince students of their message. Students need to understand that these people are salesmen, who stay in business preaching VHS to a DVD world. (Osayande literally was a salesman. After his lecture, which included bashing capitalism, was over, he pitched his books to the class and actually brought copies to sell right there in that very room.)
This is why a one-sided perspective is so dangerous, and I felt it my duty to explain just how preposterous his theories were, and, more importantly, let the student body know what kind of guest lecturers our tuition dollars were going towards. Just as race hustlers want anything but eradication of racism, radical progressive feminists hate to see women happy (when everyone is happy, no one buys tickets to see people explain why we aren’t). These are not the voices that should be overpowering here at Lehigh and at campuses in general. Students need to speak up to offer both sides of every argument. If you are in the majority of minorities (no pun intended) who doesn’t feel that Lehigh is a racist institution, make sure your voice is heard, because the other side most definitely is. If you fit into the overwhelming majority of women who don’t feel oppressed, then let that be known as well. And finally, can we please get over the strategy of labeling our opposition. I was immediately called racist, nativist, and sexist after the release of each of my articles. I listen to the other side, I disagree, but I don’t resort to slander. If we differ in perspectives, it is certainly not because I have some preconception or innate dislike of you, your race, or your gender; what you say violates a principle or belief of mine (which is open to change), so I disagree. I would encourage you to write a letter to the editor if you strongly disagree with something I’ve said.
