so watch me separate myself from what i've separated everything else from

well recent events in singapore seem to affirm an idea that i have (which i think i stole from the framing literature): people find it so easy to latch on to world views that are not their own when it's couched in combative terms. this whole entire issue with AWARE in singapore and the conflict between "feminism" and "fundementalism" has really inspired a lot of debate.

setting aside the actual specifics of what's going on, i'm really really suspicious of all "-isms". i really don't care what the agenda is, and how universal you believe your cause to be. it's at most an institutionalized set of opinions, but just because it now has a convenient name to reference it by doesn't make it any less of a set of beliefs.

and i don't really have anything against beliefs. people should be free to believe whatever they want. but there are two problems: 1) when people use their beliefs to define who they are, 2) when people assume their beliefs make them somehow better than others. all these "-isms" make that so easy to do. it's easy to say i'm a "feminist" and somehow that means my views about a certain issue are more valid than yours. likewise with "fundementalists".

i prefer a world where people just stated their opinions, instead of hiding behind some sort of institutionalized construct. all these "-isms" make good relaying cries, but is that really what this world needs? more sources of conflict? as long as people stay behind these combative stances, the only thing we're going to get is conflict, not consensus. it's so much easier to coexist when we choose to engage each other on the same level, as humans, rather than by drawing imaginary lines in the sand to constantly subdivide what little we have into mutually exclusive units.

i don't believe in either feminism and fundementalism. women in the workplace is a reality, but so is the belief that women should stay home. homosexuality (which i also feel is somewhat unfairly tacked onto this whole thing) is also a reality, but so is the belief that it is wrong. what is there to be gained by having a shouting match over something like this? do we honestly expect someone to "win"? that's the problem with all these "-isms": like all institutions, they tend to stick around.

i accept that there is something simultaneously naive and cynical (if that's even possible) about what i'm saying. am i expousing a "why can't we be friends" philosophy? no, i don't really thing so. what i'm saying really is this: don't hide behind what you believe. don't let that fool you into thinking you know exactly what's right or wrong. all of the world is in shades of grey, and we would do so much better if we stopped trying to make things black and white.

as an aside, and to tear apart any credibility i might have: i sometimes feel that my resentment towards people who are exceedingly sure about themselves is simply a means of deflecting what i feel about my own life, which is that i've consistently failed to figure out what i want and what i should be doing, and have let all of that cause me to feel failure at every step.