Hooray for the Decline in Sexist Language

Posted on November 19, 2012 by zoeweil
Image courtesy Antony Pranata via
Creative Commons.

For thirty years I’ve been committed to both using and promoting nonsexist language in writing and speaking. I was criticized for using “he or she” on my papers in law school in 1984, instead of the accepted “he,” meaning “people.” When my son was in fourth grade and I sat in on a day of classes, I was dismayed that the teacher used “man” instead of humanity or humankind to refer to homo sapiens, but when I spoke to her about considering using nonsexist language she looked at me quizzically, truly perplexed by my comment, unable to comprehend my concerns.

In our graduate programs at the Institute for Humane Education the faculty all point out to students when they are using non-inclusive language, explaining that “he” used to refer to all people perpetuates assumptions in our culture and fosters continued sexist thinking, and sometimes sexist behaviors.

Because the English language doesn’t have a word to describe a male or female in the singular (we have “they” to describe both in the plural), we are constantly faced with the challenges of using language that is not discriminatory. As a writer, I often turn statements about a generalized person in the singular into a statement about generalized persons in the plural simply to avoid “he or she,” which I admit is awkward.

This is particularly challenging when trying to avoid speciesist language as well as sexist language by not referring to an animal as “it.” It can’t be done without resorting to “he or she,” and so I often choose to subvert our assumptions and challenge the default “he” by referring to a wild animal whose gender I don’t know as “she,” simply to shake things up and get us all thinking. Recently, walking with a group of teenagers in the woods we came upon a snake. I chose to refer to the snake as “she,” and one of the students asked how I knew the snake was female. I explained that I didn’t and why I used the female pronoun, but I knew that none of the students would have asked how I knew the snake was male if I’d referred to “him or her” as “he.”

And so I was delighted to read this article in The Atlantic about the decline in sexist language. It’s about time.

~ Zoe

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDxConejo talk: “Solutionaries”
My TEDxDirigo talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“
My TEDxYouth@BFS “Educating for Freedom”

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to our RSS feed.

Filed under: language, MOGO (Most Good) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Reclaiming Mainstream Media: Eschewing Tom Cruise’s Divorce for Meaningful News

Posted on July 16, 2012 by zoeweil

A couple of weeks ago I met a wonderful, brilliant, soft-spoken, powerful man: Sailesh Rao. We were both leading workshops simultaneously at the Voyager’s Peace Conference, and as luck would have it, another speaker scheduled to present that day cancelled at the last minute. Because there was an empty slot, Sailesh repeated his presentation, and I was able to hear him. I was captivated by this man, who had spent his career as a high-powered computer engineer and who, after learning about global warming, became committed to teaching about and promoting solutions through the organization he founded, Climate Healers.

Sailesh and I had some time to talk and connect, and we agreed to give each other a copy of our respective books. I’ve been devouring his book Carbon Dharma: The Occupation of Butterflies, and I wanted to share some sections in this and other blog posts. He says:

“Here’s what’s amazing: the greatest story to ever unfold on the planet, our imminent march over a cliff following an invisible Pied Piper, is playing out in slow motion while the mainstream media seems to be strangely apathetic, especially in the United States. As if it has also been drugged into a state of stupor.”

How often I have thought the same thing. How is it possible that in the midst of grave problems and looming catastrophes the media can be focusing on Tom Cruise’s marital problems and child custody issues? I recently met with a group of students from the University of Richmond and asked them to list what they considered the biggest problems in the world. One of the issues that came up was the absurdity of the mainstream media’s focus.

What is OUR responsibility in relation to this strange paradox of our time? I believe it’s our obligation to contact those media we follow and ask them to cover the issues that truly matter and to promulgate the important information of our time. We can also eschew what is petty, gossipy, and unimportant, and commit ourselves to be purveyors of what is of meaning, value, and importance for generations to come.

It is our job to ensure that we do not personally fall into a state of drugged stupor, no easy task in a culture that constantly feeds us messages of instant gratification, the pursuit of happiness through materialism, and satisfaction of our immediate desires over our true yearnings for joy, health, peace, and kindness. But we can be vigilant and diligent in our efforts. The world and all the species on Earth depend upon those of us committed to solving the challenges ahead.

~ Zoe

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDxConejo talk: “Solutionaries”
My TEDxDirigo talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed. 

Filed under: humane education, MOGO (Most Good) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Are We Moving Toward an Empathic Civilization?

Posted on December 24, 2010 by zoeweil

Take a look at this (10 minute) YouTube video, narrated by Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Empathic Civilization:

Is such an expansion of our empathy a likely evolutionary outcome? It would be easy to point to examples of entrenchment and tribal-like attachment to our self-identified group. Genocide still persists across the globe; jingoism is commonplace; and to this day U.S. news reports consistently tell us how many Americans were killed in natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and plane crashes when they happen outside of our borders, as if American lives are more important than other lives; as if we Americans all care more about American lives.

As someone who has always found this news reporting bizarre, even as a child; who was just as dismayed by people starving in Ethiopia as by homeless people on the streets of New York where I grew up; and who could not understand why so many people thought it was fine to abuse (and then eat) pigs but not dogs and cows but not cats, Rifkin’s Empathic Civilization made perfect sense to me. I watched with that proverbial “aha” when someone articulates what has felt like an unspoken truth one has held for decades.

But I’m well aware that not everyone feels as I do. Will the empathic civilization be the direction we head, or will such potentially looming dangers as growing human population and limited food, water, and other necessary resources; peak oil; climate change refugees, and so on, cause us to become more identified with the “in group,” more tribal, more hostile to the perceived “other”?

At the same time as so many people in so many nations are expanding their empathy in an interconnected world; as racism, jingoism, sexism, classism, and homophobia diminish in pockets across the globe, we still talk about competing with other nations for power and still watch as age-old hatreds seem never to be resolved.

But I believe that we are indeed moving toward the empathic civilization Rifkin describes, and that one day we might actually create the Star Trek world I’ve yearned for every since I watched my first Star Trek episode at age 13 — a world in which our nations are at peace, prejudices have vanished, and we are explorers rather than conquerors.

Zoe Weil, author of Most Good, Least Harm

Like our blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to our RSS feed.

Filed under: compassion, Cultural Issues, global warming, social psychology, systemic change, third side thinking, videos | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

School Pride – Let’s Focus on the Big Challenges Instead

Posted on June 4, 2010 by zoeweil

Take a look at this short clip from NBC.

Why do we so valorize sports? How have we as a society equated school pride and desire to go to school with the conditions of school athletic fields? Why aren’t we revamping school science labs before improving school gyms? Why are students told they can miss academic subjects for a doctor’s appointment, but if they miss a basketball practice for the same appointment, they’ll be penalized on the bench during the next game? Why do the sirens blare when a high school sports team makes State, but not when the chess team or jazz band does?

For the most part, I think sports are a good thing. Children learn teamwork and discipline and sportsmanship. They stay fit and agile. But something is way out of kilter when our first approach to improving a failing school and an apathetic student body is to create a better athletic field or build a basketball court. Yes, our children need places to go outdoors, but not primarily or just for team sports. Our children need inspired and inspiring teachers who believe in them and help them to learn what is most important for their lives and futures; who call upon them to be true citizens of their communities, their nation, and their world; who nurture their students’ dreams and hold them to the highest standards for their achievement.

Watching this clip depressed and angered me. How often we miss the great opportunities we have for truly making a difference because we focus on the less important goals instead of meeting the truly big challenges we and our children face?

Zoe Weil
Author of The Power and Promise of Humane Education, Most Good, Least Harm, and Above All, Be Kind

Image courtesy of chris.ptacek via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: Cultural Issues, education, systemic change, values | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Dyeing One’s Hair…Gray?

Posted on April 23, 2010 by zoeweil

When I was younger I was certain I would never dye my hair when I began to gray. After all, I already eschewed shaving and managed to stand tall (well, as tall as I could at 5’1”) even in a bathing suit surrounded by women who shaved every bit of hair they were told to through our culture. But it wasn ’t easy. And eventually, I reluctantly decided to shave when I worried that my appearance might interfere with my message as a humane educator. If students found my hairy legs disgusting, they might reject my message out of hand, or so I concluded. Ironically, years later, one of my students told me that she was really inspired by the fact that I didn ’t shave my legs and that it empowered her to make her own choices in life, based on her own values, rather than to succumb to peer and societal pressures. (Take a look at this recent New York Times article about celebrities who aren’t shaving and the flack they’re receiving.)

Now back to gray hair. As my hair began to gray, I girded myself with all my will to resist the pressure to dye it. For the most part I’ve resisted successfully, although I occasionally put henna in it, which rinses out after about a month. I get all sorts of compliments on my graying hair, but I always think they’re backhanded compliments, and that what the person who’s praising my hair is really thinking is something like, “Wow, you are courageous to not dye your hair! And it’s not so bad-looking either! Sure, you’d look a lot younger if you dyed it, but good for you!” I may be wrong about this, or just paranoid, but it’s hard to believe that people actually mean it when they say they like my gray hair. I always joke and say that I think my gray looks like highlights.

Well, guess what? Young celebrities are now highlighting their hair … gray. Here’s an article from the New York Times for your viewing pleasure, with photos of young women with dyed gray hair.

Most dyes aren’t good for our bodies. We absorb them into our skin through our scalp. Many of them are tested on animals, force-fed to rabbits, mice, guinea pigs, and so on in quantities that kill and put into the eyes of bunnies who receive no pain relief or anesthesia. They create waste, some of which is toxic, in every portion of their brief lifecycle. Dyeing our hair is a costly and time-consuming habit. Yet I understand why so many women believe that it’s MOGO (most good) to dye their hair. I sympathize. As women age, we become more and more invisible within a culture that so valorizes youth, so dyeing one’s hair feels like an easy way to gain visibility and maintain attention, not to mention self-esteem.

But perhaps now we middle aged and elderly women can let our gray hair shine. After all, young women are paying lots of money to look like us.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind and Claude and Medea

Image courtesy of kevindooley via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: consumerism, Cultural Issues, habits, MOGO (Most Good) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Driving a Nissan Cube – Assumptions & Judgments Revisited

Posted on April 12, 2010 by zoeweil

When I travel and need to rent a vehicle, I always opt for the economy car. I do this for two reasons. The economy car is normally small and relatively fuel efficient, and I want to keep costs low and have never seen a reason for anything but the least expensive rental.

So it was when I was in Detroit at the end of March. I’d been waiting for awhile at the rental office to get my car, and when I finally did, I was a bit dismayed that the car they’d given me was a Nissan Cube (see photo). The car looked like it belonged in a Dr. Seuss book, not on the road in the 21st century. It didn’t look very fuel efficient either (it wasn’t), but having been waiting for a long time and not wanting to be a high maintenance renter, I went with it.

It began to occur to me, as I drove the Cube between Ann Arbor and Detroit, that people would think I had chosen this car and that it was a reflection of me. I began to feel a bit embarrassed and wanted to wear dark glasses and a big hat behind the wheel. Sure enough, when I was stopped at a light in Royal Oak, a family walked by with two middle school-aged boys, and the father and boys stared at my car, and then at ME through the window. Then they began laughing. Laughing! I was just about to roll down the window and explain that the ridiculous thing I was driving was a rental car when the light changed.

Funny the assumptions we make. We assume so much about people based on how they look, what they’re wearing, carrying, driving, and so on. And along with our assumptions come judgments, even though we know next to nothing about those we so quickly judge based on outward appearances.

Years ago, my husband needed to borrow his boss’s Hummer, and he drove it home and into our parking area at the Institute for Humane Education where I work and we live. I was aghast. I told him he had to get that Hummer out of our driveway as soon as possible. After all, what would people think?!

These examples remind me that I need to rein in my assumptions and judgments. While outward choices and appearances may tell us something about people, our assumptions may often be wrong and our judgments misplaced and potentially destructive. I believe that it’s best, as far as we are able, to bring a “beginner’s eye” to all situations and assume nothing. That way, we allow the unfolding of real relationships based on real interactions to eclipse the myriad fantasies that follow our snap judgments and prevent us from connecting, understanding, and communicating.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: Cultural Issues, MOGO (Most Good), social psychology, values | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Must We Struggle, Part 3: Human Nature? Culture? Or a Bit of Both?

Posted on February 26, 2010 by zoeweil

There are a number of organizations that assess national happiness. There’s even a book, The Geography of Bliss, which examines different cultures and the general contentment of their population. Often the U.S. doesn’t score very high on happiness indexes, despite the fact that we’re the richest country in the world and so many people want to emigrate here. And often poorer countries score surprisingly high. What’s up with this?

I wonder how much U.S. culture, with its restlessness, its relentless focus on achievement, competition, keeping up with the Joneses, and the pursuit of success, diminishes our ability to be content. Despite what I wrote in part 1 and part 2 of these “Must we struggle” posts, I wonder whether this quintessential American quality – to strive for success – leads us to be perennially discontented. I don’t assume this quality is unique to Americans, as competition and striving for achievement are human characteristics. But in the U.S. we’ve turned them into an art form, and they have been cultivated by waves of courageous and achievement-oriented immigrants who chose to brave uncertain futures and grave difficulties to come to these shores and make a go at a new life. These immigrants then raised children to embody these qualities, too. Is it any wonder we are a striving, competitive, independent-minded nation?

As one of those people who has to do something to be content and can’t bear to laze around doing “nothing” I marvel and wonder at the joy and generosity among many who have little. Often the richest, most indulged people give, proportionally, the least, while those with few material possessions and no cushion for the future give, proportionally, the most. The strivers can become hoarders, living in seemingly unwarranted fear.

While I believe that we humans evolved to struggle for life and happiness to some degree, something has become skewed and out of sorts, and this last post serves to question the previous ones. Sometimes there does seem to be a level of serenity among those who have enough without a pernicious obsession with gaining more and more to keep up with an ever-escalating standard of success. Rather than complacency, does this serenity come from living more often in the present moment, pursuing needs instead of endless wants, and having time to live, play, and interact within loving communities?

But I wonder, would I be content with such a life? Would those of you raised, as I was, with hyper-competitive, success-oriented ideals, be content with such a life?

Please share your thoughts.

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Claude and Medea, and Above All, Be Kind

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: Cultural Issues, MOGO (Most Good), third side thinking | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Must We Struggle, Part 2: My Cat, My Dogs and Me

Posted on February 24, 2010 by zoeweil

In my last post, I wrote about William James, Star Trek, and the curious need to struggle toward achievement. I live with a cat named Sir Simon. He is content to sleep most of the day, move from one sunny spot to another as the day progresses, eat at designated times, and get petted as his mood dictates.

Periodically, I observe him and wish I could be content with such a life. I can’t even nap, let alone sleep 20 hours in the day, and I feel guilty lazing in bed on the weekend past a certain hour. It seems to me that my cat has never once experienced guilt and has barely a worry, yet I feel guilt daily and worry incessantly. I envy Sir Simon. I envy his ease of being, his lack of angst, his serenity.

In my last post, I left off wondering aloud what we would struggle to achieve were we to eradicate the great problems that afflict our world and were to live without greed, violence, oppression and cruelty toward others. I suspect many people reading this blog find this question perplexing. Plenty of people have no interest in “struggle” or “productivity,” per se , but rather pursue a livelihood in order to live comfortably and are content with the fruits of modern society. So perhaps it’s just me.

But I don’t think so. It seems that it’s at least partially in our nature – though not solely, as different cultural norms across the globe reveal – to seek and pursue goals and to find the sort of rest that makes my cat content dull, enervating, and ultimately depressing. Beyond our need to work to buy the products that keep us alive, I believe we need to work for our contentment and sense of accomplishment, just like my dog Elsie. Unlike Sir Simon, Elsie would go berserk without things to do, like train for treats, run after Ruby (another one of our dogs), and find smelly things to roll in and share. She delights in a job. Resting is fine, but only after a good workout.

An old friend once had a philosophy professor in college tell him not to “confuse complacency with serenity.” I wonder, is serenity more often a byproduct of work well done, goals achieved, and values embodied? Must we ultimately struggle to find serenity?

I welcome your thoughts.

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Claude and Medea, and Above All, Be Kind

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: Cultural Issues, MOGO (Most Good), third side thinking | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Must We Struggle, Part 1: William James & Star Trek

Posted on February 22, 2010 by zoeweil

I was reading an excerpt from philosopher and psychologist William James’ Talks to Teachers on Psychology: And to Students on Some of Life’s Ideals reprinted in the February 2010 issue of The Sun magazine. I was not in the best of moods at the time, feeling down about the state of the world and about U.S. politics in particular.

James’ sunny description of a happy week he spent at Chautauqua in the company of “intelligence and goodness, orderliness and ideality, prosperity and cheerfulness” surprisingly didn’t lift my mood. As I read about the wonderful Chautauqua where people gathered in community, peacefully and industriously, I felt strangely uneasy. Perhaps that was because behind the positive description lay the seeds of what James would go on to write:

“I stayed for a week, held spellbound by the charm and ease of everything, by the middle-class paradise, without a sin, without a victim, without a blot, without a tear.

“And yet what was my own astonishment, on emerging into the dark and wicked world again, to catch myself quite unexpectedly and involuntarily saying: ‘Ouf! What a relief! Now for something primordial and savage…to set the balance straight again. This order is too tame, this culture too second-rate, this goodness too uninspiring.”

Reading this, I, too, felt relief.

How strange. I spend my days trying to promote “goodness.” (Two of my books are titled, Above All, Be Kind and Most Good, Least Harm for crying out loud.) Yet I understood what James’ meant, and suddenly, I also understood what Captain Kirk meant in the Star Trek episode, “This Side of Paradise,” when he tried to convince his crew and a colony on an Eden-like planet (where a certain plant conferred bliss upon the inhabitants who lived harmoniously and happily) that humans are meant to struggle and “claw our way to the top.” As a young teenager, I balked at this. I yearned for such happiness myself, and seeing my idol, Mr. Spock, happy (for the first time in his life, as he says at the end of the episode) was deeply satisfying. In “This Side of Paradise,” Kirk managed to incite a riot among the blissed out crew and colonists (by blasting an irritating sound on the planet) that counteracted the effect of the plants. At once, the leader of the colony realized that they had “done nothing here.” He was seemingly grateful to be freed from bliss so that they could be productive.

In my teenage years, watching this episode many times, I neither understood nor agreed with the message. I mourned the loss of bliss. Now in my late forties, I understand the bland boredom that comes without a bit of struggle, without drive toward achievement and productivity. I understand what William James meant when he went on to write:

“The ideal was so completely victorious already that no sign of any previous battle remained, the place just resting on its oars. But what our human emotions seem to require is the sight of the struggle going on. The moment the fruits are merely eaten, things become ignoble. Sweat and effort, human nature strained to its uttermost and on the rack, yet getting through alive, and then turning its back on its success to pursue another more rare and arduous still – this is the sort of things the presence of which inspires us….”

But although I understand this now, I find it both perplexing and disconcerting. I have often said that I would like to put myself out of business; would like a world that did not have any need for my and others’ efforts at promoting compassion, peace, restoration and solutions to grave challenges. But if we achieve such a world, I do sometimes wonder what humanity will be like. Will we finally be content? Will we find paradise? Will we create the Eden we believe we fell from? What will a peaceful, sustainable world in which everyone’s basic needs are met and there is no more exploitation and oppression of others – human and nonhuman – look like in practice? What will we choose as our hurdles to jump, our heights to scale? Where will our drive to strive find its home? Can contentment exist with a lack of struggle?

In my next post, I’ll continue musing upon these questions, and in the meantime, I welcome your thoughts.

Zoe Weil
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Claude and Medea

Image courtesy of eflon via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: Cultural Issues, MOGO (Most Good), systemic change, third side thinking | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Who Benefits From Roman Polanski’s Arrest?

Posted on October 2, 2009 by zoeweil

I’ve been reading many opinions about Roman Polanski’s recent arrest for his admitted statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl, Samantha Geimer , over thirty years ago and his fleeing the country when his plea bargain seemed it might fall through. So many people have come to Polanski’s defense. One op-ed in particular, written by Robert Harris, friend of Polanski and author of the book, The Ghost, for which Polanski directed the movie version, offers unequivocal support of the director and ends his op-ed with this:

“But Ms. Geimer wants it dropped, to shield her family from distress, and Mr. Polanski’s own young children, to whom he is a doting father, want him home. He is no threat to the public. The original judicial procedure was undeniably murky. So cui bono, as the Romans used to say — who benefits?”

Great question. Let’s look at it through the lens that asks: ‘What does the most good and the least harm to ourselves and others?’ At first glance, Robert Harris has a point. The victim doesn’t want Polanski arrested, tried, and brought to justice; Polanski certainly doesn’t want to be arrested and face the legal consequences of his actions and nor do his fans, fellow directors, and myriad supporters. From a cursory view, it could seem so overblown at this point, which is probably why so many are saying things like, “It was so long ago.” and “He’s not a danger to society.” and “Even the victim doesn’t want him punished.”

But this is a dangerous way to answer the question “Who benefits?” If Roman Polanski were never arrested, these are some of the societal implications:

  • People in positions of fame, power, and wealth can successfully evade justice and garner international support at the same time. As Geraldine Ferraro wrote in a “Room for Debate” in the New York Times: “Too bad for Bernie Madoff that he wasn’t as smart as Polanski. He would have taken his wife, brother, nephew, sons and their families and a billion or two and gone to France to help their economy. Then when the Ponzi scheme was exposed, the French would have, if consistent, refused extradition. He could have stayed for the rest of his life in luxury. Just imagine.”
  • People who are raped, but who don’t want to go through the ordeal of confronting their rapists, can absolve them legally. While Polanski may never have raped again and may not be a danger to society, the precedent of leaving the trial of rapists solely up to the victim endangers all of us and shouldn’t be the criteria for whether to prosecute a rapist. For years, rape victims rarely spoke out because defense attorneys often eviscerated them, and juries let their rapists go free. The commitment of the state to prosecute rape despite the wishes of rape survivors provides greater protection to potential future victims.
  • There’s a time limit on justice. That would mean we shouldn’t bring to justice war criminals when we finally catch them decades after their atrocities. That means that if you can just flee long enough, you’re off the hook.
  • Fleeing is a reasonable and good option (provided you have the wherewithal to do so) and there are no consequences.

Who benefits from Roman Polanski’s arrest? We all do. We all benefit from a judicial system that prosecutes rape and ensures that those who evade justice are not successful. We all benefit when our legal system treats the wealthy and famous no differently than the poor and disenfranchised.

True, Polanski and his family don’t benefit directly from his arrest. Most of the time the families of people facing justice don’t benefit from the trial and potential incarceration or punishment of loved ones, but that’s a ridiculous criteria for bringing someone to justice, and even Polanski’s family ultimately benefits from the umbrella of a justice system that serves to protect us all.

If Ms. Geimer were glad to have her rapist arrested, I suspect that most of those supporting Polanski would be holding their tongues, even if they were secretly still dismayed at his arrest. They would likely realize that Polanski perpetrated a terrible crime against a girl and then used his privilege to flee and live a charmed life in France, and that if that girl, now woman, wanted her opportunity to see justice done, she should have it. That she doesn’t want this doesn’t change the fact that Roman Polanski committed a terrible crime against a girl and then used his privilege to flee and live a charmed life in France.

We benefit from living in a country in which those who perpetrate terrible crimes must face the consequences and those who flee justice can still be caught decades later.

~ Zoe

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: Cultural Issues, justice, MOGO (Most Good), privilege, third side thinking | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 438 other followers