IceDemeter
Posts: 84
Status: offline
|
Actually, that's a great example of what I had in mind - and thank you for expanding my thinking on it. In our North American society, we started with the extreme that women weren't people, and so were not deserving of rights to vote, hold property, etc., along with the idea that they shouldn't be employed outside the home, and that they certainly were not worth equal wages to men. At that time, the other extreme was that women were people and so should have all of the above. At that time, it came out as a middle ground: women got the vote and could hold property, but they still surely weren't considered worthy of equal wages (if they should HAVE to be employed). You are absolutely correct that the extremes changed as time went on - it was many years later that the new extremists said that not only should women have the right to be employed, but that they SHOULD be. There was a lot of publicity of the views of extremists who felt that a woman who chose to be a homemaker was somehow "less than", and was somehow an insult to womanhood. Again, we came out more in a middle ground, with women having the right to choose whether to be employed or a homemaker, without it being considered a reflection on all of woman-kind. When I stated that I rarely (not never) hold an extremist view, I'm not actually looking at it from a linear perspective. I am looking at it from the knowledge and input that I have right now. Looked at by someone in the past, I'm sure I'm a dangerous radical - looked at by someone in the future, I'm sure I'll be considered a frighteningly closed-minded conservative. Some time in the near future I'm sure I'll gain some knowledge and insight that I don't have now and some of my opinions will change. I find that, for myself, when I think of an "extreme" opinion, I contextualize it in the present moment without worrying about whether it would be considered extreme or moderate in the past or the future.
|