Most of the articles we publish on OpEdNews are fairly "comfortable" to publish. They point out corruption, dishonesty, clear cases of abuse of the system, of democracy, of fairness. They report good news-- progress being made. But today, the first article I hit in our article "queue" was one that on first glance, just the title, made me uncomfortable.
Duke Rape Case: The Feminist Klan Exposed
This article is an odd one for OpEdNews. The idea of discussing the "feminist klan" challenges our regular approach, which is to advocate FOR women's rights and against discrimination. But within any system, one must consider the idea of homeostasis-- evaluating the varying elements which contribute to maintaining balance. Balance. It is LIKELY, that in the effort to change a system, any system, some energy, some force, will not be enough, will fall short (we see that all the time with limp-spined Democrats) and some will go too far. Some people, some groups may go too far, even when the intention is good, right and fair. When that happens, injustice can occur and ammunition may be provided for those who oppose the good, right and fair change that really IS needed. In medicine, you "titrate" dosage to determine how much is just right. But how do you titrate how much is just right when it comes to activism, to protest, to prosecution? In medicine, it is possible, by prescribing too much, to overdose. Then, you must do something to reverse the overdose-- the imbalance you've created. This is called "iatrogenic illness" and it is one of the biggest causes of death in the USA. Once you realize that an "overdose"condition exists, what do you do to reverse it? Then, can the "treatment" to reverse the "overdose" be too extreme, even toxic? And will it actually do what it is intended to do-- reverse the imbalance and bring about a healthier condition? These were the considerations I evaluated in publishing this article, which, at first glance, I found repugnant. But, having been in a custody battle (which I won) I know that in my county, 80% of custody battles are won by women-- and that 20% win rate for men is unusually high. While there is still a long way to go for women to receive full equality with men, and we have a lot of work to do to get to that point, there are still some areas and will be situations where things go too far. This article makes me uncomfortable. I don't like the tone. But it raises some points which, even if you don't agree with them, are worth thinking about. And we can go further with this. Substitute the word White people" for feminist, and replace "black men" for the "men" referred to as abused in this article, and it takes on a useful perspective. We still have sooo much work to do to get our culture right. We don't want to make mistakes of excess that hand arguing and talking points to the other side. I'm hoping the "feminist Klan" article will raise some useful discussion and that this article, which started as a comment on the "klan" article, will also get some conversation going. Should we publish articles that attack aspects of the activism most of our readers support? I believe this can be healthy, because I see articles on OpEdNEws as only half finished when first published. They are part of an interactive system that starts with one author, but is only completed when readers/members add their perspectives, information and arguments. I believe that, by taking this "contrarian" approach, it enlivens and vivifies the discussion, sometimes pushing people to talk about uncomfortable aspects of the issues and activism we do put our hearts behind. What do you think?
