My history class on Gandhi and King is offering a service-learning component. The class is all about perspectives, breaking the habit of passing judgement on other cultures, etc...basically what I'm working on personally.
So two women in our class wanted to work with reproductive rights, except, on two ends of the spectrum. One wanted to work with NOW (National Organization for Women), which supports pro-choice (which is not pro-abortion, by the way) and another wanted to work with Birthright, which is anti-choice or pro-life (whichever perspective you want to use). Ultimately the professor decided against both, because of all the intense political ties that can be associated with both organizations.
Now, the people I usually associate with, use the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice," avoiding the term "pro-life," because I'm pretty sure there aren't many people who are "pro-abortion." I've only heard negative things about Birthright, and the limited options they provide women.
Point being, I worked dilligently today to not judge this woman for wanting to work with Birthright, and most likely being anti-choice. Ultimately, what I'm coming to realize, is that it is nearly impossible to leave your personal perspective, feelings, experiences, etc. out of situations when looking at the viewpoints of other people. I think the most important thing is to realize that they are also coming to the table with their personal perspective, feelings, experiences, etc, and being aware of your biases can help prevent judgement and false assumptions
1 comment:
BINGO! i gotta talk to you about my personal experience with this same thing sometime having to do with the clinci defense. hey I wish that professor had either let both of them do what they wanted or asked them to switch places instead of just saying no.
Post a Comment