Two points of view

--
Them: Have you noticed that there seem to be an awful lot more women presenting the news these days.

Me: I never really thought about it but I guess so.

Them: The thing is, they're always presenting the headlines and the more important stories. The inudstry is polarised - you have women cleaning the floors and women presenting the headlines, but they're not doing the middle-sized jobs.

Me: Well, that's a big generalisation, but suppose you're right I think I know why that would be....

Them: I know! It's because women always want to be in the spotlight! They work their ways up to the top by bei--

Me: Well, that's not actually what I was going to say...

Them: They sleep their ways up to the head presenter's chair...

Me: Uh... Ever thought about it being something to do with the news networks only offering women those kinds of jobs? To make people believe they're providing equal opportunities to women?

Them: (not listening for a second) It's disgusting, it really is... etc.
--

This thread is not about the issue we were discussing here. I'm merely observing that often enough two people will jump to a conclusion when they see something happening. Incidentally, my relative is still recovering from a particularly tough seperation and this may have instilled this kind of attitude in him.

The point is, we both saw the same thing - more women in the top news jobs on television. As a libertarian crackpot I instantly assume that this is down to large manipulative powers (the media networks) who are creating a false sense of equality on their screens by showing only a few women in the top spots. On the other hand, my relation instantly sees this the other way - that it is the women manipulating inside the corporation by using conniving techniques.

We agree (to some extent): There are seemingly more women presenting the news; A lot of them seem to be on during the primetime slots and few in the less major jobs; And that there is something afoot.

This brought me round to thinking that once someone has sided with a political train of thought, it is very hard to switch track, even temporarily. Therefore one's conclusion can differ wildly depending on one's political inclination.

My instant, and perhaps knee-jerk reaction was to find something wrong within the system - it has to be the big corporations that are doing this as they are the reason for all the evil in the world. The fatcats are evil and are always out for personal gain. Plus it is very difficult to trick or manipulate them, therefore they MUST be the problem. But what if this is wrong?

What if someone did manage to infiltrate the media structure, like my relation said? He understands, nay - he KNOWS that the "little people" are also resourceful and sometimes conniving enough to get away with, for instance, sleeping their ways up to the frontline - it's been done before to some of the most powerful men in the world, and it can happen again.

Similarly I was talking to an American friend who said she had had to protest alongside a number of young Conservatives at an anti student fees rally. She cited that the Conservatives were against paying fees for minorities and for schemes they didn't want. The Liberal side were protesting the fees because they felt it morally unfair to put such high prices on education. I found this strange too.

So really what I'm wondering is - because we're so inclined to "knee-jerk" when we see something, does this mean that any strand of social thinking is right? When we see something happen which is hard to figure out, our natural consistancy tells our brain to think "Okay, what do your socio-political beliefs believe?" and usually our gut reaction is correct (to ourselves anyway). I KNEW I was right in my conclusion, and my relation KNEW he was right - because it fit in with our regular adherence.

Is this a good thing? Should we learn to step back and stop thinking about things in our own terms? I guess this is what makes a good detective, politician or pragmatist, although it's a rare quality for someone to see a whole picture and derive the truth from that rather than jump to their own personal big book of rules and beliefs.

I think that well before I started getting interested in current affairs my beliefs were not fully formed. I took great pride in my ignorance claiming that as an apolitical citizen I was able to make my own choices regardless of which party I voted for or what books or newspapers I'd read. I think in some ways this could be true.