Good prejudice: a clear-cut, permanent oxymoron

By Adam Guliano

I just recently discovered--through reading the London Times--how lucky I was to be able to make this decision on my own. I am fortunate, not because I have safe British parks to jog in, but because I could decide whether or not to join my local health club. In many parts of America, this is often not an option if you happen to be of the wrong (most often, but not always, male) gender. This is troubling not only because it is being written into law, but also because it is symbolic of a malevolent form of discrimination: the "good" prejudice.

The article I read noted that a number of states are on the verge of enacting laws specifically excluding fitness clubs from certain sexual discrimination statutes. This wave was prompted by a lawsuit from a Bostonian who was denied entrance to the nearby health club because of his gender. Should he win his case, women-only gyms across the country--counting two million members--could be forced to open their doors to men.

There are very compelling arguments offered in favor of the legal exception. Supporters of the discriminatory laws believe that women who feel uncomfortable for a given reason--whether it is past experiences, marital trauma, or low self confidence--deserve the opportunity to exercise away from the eyes of men who might ogle or otherwise offend them. But the troubling suggestions of these laws are manifest. In fact, the National Organization for Women (NOW) opposes the laws precisely because of what they imply. They will codify segregation in the law books, and thus, regardless of their motivation, only offer up a future of greater separation between the sexes. The basic assumption inherent in the change--that it is right and good to lump all men into one suspicious mass in order to play to the genuine fears of another group of individuals--is not worth risking.

Unfortunately, the kind of logic that supports these new laws--that prejudice is acceptable when used to "do good"--has been accepted into the mainstream of American life. When it comes to dating, our views are too often a repackaged set of '50s assumptions. Many still believe that men are obligated to open doors for women and to pay for dates. But it is prejudicial to assume that a man wouldn't enjoy to have the door opened for him, or that a woman would not like to do so for someone else. It is prejudicial to assume that the man wants to pay or can pay, where the woman does not or cannot. In both these cases, roles are being typecast not by individual or unique criteria, but by stereotypes. And while we may cast these stereotypes in a romantic glow of chivalry--that they are positive because they involve pleasantries--their exercise remains predicated upon the hollow foundation of prejudicial thinking. What is so good about giving, or receiving, something not because of who you are but rather what you are?

Our world is full of such stereotypes because it is easier to use them than to face the alternative of evaluating people for who they are. When asked whether stereotypes and prejudice should be harbored, I venture to guess that most Americans would answer in the negative. And yet it seems that most people who I come in contact with use them often and without thought. It is easy to differentiate between good and bad prejudice without thinking of it as such, because it seems that no harm is done.

If you stand unconvinced, reflect on two blanket statements that I believe can be acknowledged as hurtful and wrong: that "Jews are good with money" and that "African-Americans are athletic." Ostensibly, it is a good thing to be financially wise or physically fit, yet these two beliefs are discriminatory and wrong in their assumptions. The fact is, no matter how "positive" the outcome or intent, stereotypes always harm because they fail to take account of individual realities and instead focus upon its perceived generalizations. What I write may seem an unnecessary plea or a politically correct diatribe, but it bears reflection; and upon reflection I venture to guess that many will find themselves, like myself, in need of more vigilance than expected.

Adam Giuliano is a junior in Pierson.

Related opinion piece by this staffwriter:
NOTE: SITE WILL APPEAR IN A NEW BROWSER WINDOW

• When 'he' could be a 'she'

Back to Opinion...