It seems to me that many people have fallen into a comfortable space whereas they are starting to toss around these new buzz words, "tolerate" and "acceptance" like loose change rolling off their tongues.
But what does it buy? A hope for equality?
Tolerance is defined by Dictionary as:
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from an understanding
Acceptance is defined as:
2. favorable reception; approval; favor through understanding.
People need to realize that “tolerating” something or someone is not a particularly favorable stance.
You tolerate mosquitoes in Virginia during the summer.
You can learn to tolerate humidity if you live in the South.
We all tolerate the neighbor’s dog barking all hours of the night. The motorcycle driver who speeds through your neighborhood every morning.
If you live in an apartment like I do, then you to tolerate your neighbor’s love making on Saturday night.
We all seem to tolerate things that are unpleasant, but feel forced to endure.
So what is the point?
The point is that we need to stop "tolerating" things, and start to figure out how we can start to "accept" things.
Acceptance is quite different; it is an action word, as opposed to "tolerate", which is a paralyzing word, of inaction.
You (eventually) accept a terminal diagnosis.
You (eventually) accept the fact that your kid is in love with someone you hate.
You (eventually) accept the fact that you got fired, laid off, dumped, or rejected.
It drives me crazy when I hear people use the word "tolerate" as if in place of "acceptance".
For example, I was selling my car, and a gentleman and his brother came to check it out. While the brother was looking over the car with my mechanic, I had the pleasure of talking with the other. He asked where I was from, and so forth.
I'm not quite sure how the topic of my sexuality came about, but it did, and the guy said that
"I accept that what you do behind closed doors as your business, but I would try to persuade you in the other direction every chance I got."
I was offended to say the least. How could he possibly "accept" me, if he didn't have a true understanding of homosexuality; he was merely "tolerating" it.
If he had a true understanding, he wouldn't have been able to make that comment. He was insinuating that my lifestyle was wrong, and needed to be changed, but he would do me the favor by looking the other way.
That was the insult.
To accept, is to understand with no objection, or judgement.
How can someone accept something or someone if they have no understanding?
“I accept you — in spite of your sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic background, religion, pathetic bank account, unimpressive job, really bad hair.”
Acceptance should never come with a disclaimer.
Not to say "acceptance" doesn't come with it's own baggage. Not only that, but the whole idea of "acceptance" can often be accompanied by a notion of generosity and do-goodliness on the part of the acceptor, who can walk away feeling very self-satisfied that he or she was able to put prejudices aside and accept you for who you are.
This still leaves you in the subordinate position — the position of being the one who is accepted.
And for this, you are supposed to be grateful.
Let's say you have a conversation with someone, come to find out that s/he holds onto a belief that conflicts with your own.
You have three options:
Option number 1 is to not even make an attempt to be around this individual. Whether that is through exclusion, judgment, or distance, you have no intention of trying to understand where s/he is coming from. His/her beliefs are too far removed from your own that you don't even want to try.
Options number 2 & 3 are to tolerate or accept this individual. There is a reason why I want to talk about these two together. Whether you tolerate or accept this individual, you are making an effort to continue a relationship with him/her. Even if it's, at the basic level, keeping them as a civil acquaintance. But here is where the similarities come to an end.
Tolerance sounds like this:
"I don't understand your beliefs, but know they are different than mine, so I'll just put up with our differences."
Acceptance sounds like this:
"I understand that your beliefs are different than mine, and I still love and respect you."
I do not think anyone needs to "tolerate" anyone, or anything. I mean, why should I have to "tolerate" ignorance? Stupidity? Hate?
To "tolerate" someone is doing just that...."putting up" with the fact that they're different than you. You don't love them, you don't accept them, you don't even respect them. You just… "put up" with their presence.
Acceptance isn't the easiest to come by; it lends itself to change.
I don’t like the word tolerance.
And, acceptance, while a bit more favorable, is still a fine line.
Tolerance, with it’s inclusion of permissive, says “I’m allowing this to occur.” Acceptance, with its inclusion of approval, says “I approve of this.”
So it's impossible for someone to say they accept, and respect me if they have no understanding of homosexuality.
In my opinion, the huge effort our country has put into the use of the word, "tolerate", most likely has an agenda behind it.
In my opinion, the huge effort our country has put into the use of the word, "tolerate", most likely has an agenda behind it.
Tolerance is the mother of bigotry.
Related Articles
No comments:
Post a Comment