Skip to main content
added 460 characters in body
Source Link
NotThatGuy
  • 1.1k
  • 7
  • 13

In general:

Objecting to change (Afghanistan) tends to be seen as more pressing and more justified than pushing for change (Saudi Arabia).

Whether or not it actually is either more pressing or more justified is beside the point. The point is just that people tend to see it as such.

It's "more justified"

Humans are rather strongly biased towards maintaining the status quo.

People will often make arguments like "it's just part of their/our culture" or possibly "they/we are happy with the way things are". It is at least true that some are happy with the way things are, which can make it much harder to change it.

It's "more pressing"

Change is a thing that's actively done.

If you push for change: You can try to push for change to happen at a specific point in time, but if you fail to cause change, or if you just try to push for change as soon as possible, then you're just left needing to continue pushing for change until change happens (or you give up). In some cases you may be able to put enough pressure on those who need to make changes to cause change quickly, but in other cases you may just be left needing to continue pushing for change indefinitely, often with little to no clear signs that you're making progress nor any indication of how long it will still take to achieve your goal. It can be a pretty frustrating and unproductive position.

Movements that push for change tend to benefit greatly from specific events. If something bad happens that supports the need for change (like a woman being treated poorly as a result of these laws, in a way that differentiates it from what commonly happens there), or if a step was taken towards making the change ultimately desired (like women being given the right to drive), this can draw a lot of media coverage and help motivate and grow the movement.

If you object to change: If someone else tries to change something, you can object to it when they try to change it. You've succeeded if they stop trying to change it for the moment. If they try again to change it later, you can object again. It's a much more reactive position, typically with a deadline of some sort, and not just something you have to continue doing indefinitely until you succeed. If they do successfully change it, and you continue objecting, then your position becomes one of pushing for change, in which case the point above applies.


All of this would still apply even if they're trying to change it back to the way it recently was.

In general:

Objecting to change (Afghanistan) tends to be seen as more pressing and more justified than pushing for change (Saudi Arabia).

Whether or not it actually is either more pressing or more justified is beside the point. The point is just that people tend to see it as such.

It's "more justified"

Humans are rather strongly biased towards maintaining the status quo.

People will often make arguments like "it's just part of their/our culture" or possibly "they/we are happy with the way things are". It is at least true that some are happy with the way things are, which can make it much harder to change it.

It's "more pressing"

Change is a thing that's actively done.

If you push for change: You can try to push for change to happen at a specific point in time, but if you fail to cause change, or if you just try to push for change as soon as possible, then you're just left needing to continue pushing for change until change happens (or you give up). In some cases you may be able to put enough pressure on those who need to make changes to cause change quickly, but in other cases you may just be left needing to continue pushing for change indefinitely, often with little to no clear signs that you're making progress nor any indication of how long it will still take to achieve your goal. It can be a pretty frustrating and unproductive position.

If you object to change: If someone else tries to change something, you can object to it when they try to change it. You've succeeded if they stop trying to change it for the moment. If they try again to change it later, you can object again. It's a much more reactive position, typically with a deadline of some sort, and not just something you have to continue doing indefinitely until you succeed. If they do successfully change it, and you continue objecting, then your position becomes one of pushing for change, in which case the point above applies.


All of this would still apply even if they're trying to change it back to the way it recently was.

In general:

Objecting to change (Afghanistan) tends to be seen as more pressing and more justified than pushing for change (Saudi Arabia).

Whether or not it actually is either more pressing or more justified is beside the point. The point is just that people tend to see it as such.

It's "more justified"

Humans are rather strongly biased towards maintaining the status quo.

People will often make arguments like "it's just part of their/our culture" or possibly "they/we are happy with the way things are". It is at least true that some are happy with the way things are, which can make it much harder to change it.

It's "more pressing"

Change is a thing that's actively done.

If you push for change: You can try to push for change to happen at a specific point in time, but if you fail to cause change, or if you just try to push for change as soon as possible, then you're just left needing to continue pushing for change until change happens (or you give up). In some cases you may be able to put enough pressure on those who need to make changes to cause change quickly, but in other cases you may just be left needing to continue pushing for change indefinitely, often with little to no clear signs that you're making progress nor any indication of how long it will still take to achieve your goal. It can be a pretty frustrating and unproductive position.

Movements that push for change tend to benefit greatly from specific events. If something bad happens that supports the need for change (like a woman being treated poorly as a result of these laws, in a way that differentiates it from what commonly happens there), or if a step was taken towards making the change ultimately desired (like women being given the right to drive), this can draw a lot of media coverage and help motivate and grow the movement.

If you object to change: If someone else tries to change something, you can object to it when they try to change it. You've succeeded if they stop trying to change it for the moment. If they try again to change it later, you can object again. It's a much more reactive position, typically with a deadline of some sort, and not just something you have to continue doing indefinitely until you succeed. If they do successfully change it, and you continue objecting, then your position becomes one of pushing for change, in which case the point above applies.


All of this would still apply even if they're trying to change it back to the way it recently was.

Source Link
NotThatGuy
  • 1.1k
  • 7
  • 13

In general:

Objecting to change (Afghanistan) tends to be seen as more pressing and more justified than pushing for change (Saudi Arabia).

Whether or not it actually is either more pressing or more justified is beside the point. The point is just that people tend to see it as such.

It's "more justified"

Humans are rather strongly biased towards maintaining the status quo.

People will often make arguments like "it's just part of their/our culture" or possibly "they/we are happy with the way things are". It is at least true that some are happy with the way things are, which can make it much harder to change it.

It's "more pressing"

Change is a thing that's actively done.

If you push for change: You can try to push for change to happen at a specific point in time, but if you fail to cause change, or if you just try to push for change as soon as possible, then you're just left needing to continue pushing for change until change happens (or you give up). In some cases you may be able to put enough pressure on those who need to make changes to cause change quickly, but in other cases you may just be left needing to continue pushing for change indefinitely, often with little to no clear signs that you're making progress nor any indication of how long it will still take to achieve your goal. It can be a pretty frustrating and unproductive position.

If you object to change: If someone else tries to change something, you can object to it when they try to change it. You've succeeded if they stop trying to change it for the moment. If they try again to change it later, you can object again. It's a much more reactive position, typically with a deadline of some sort, and not just something you have to continue doing indefinitely until you succeed. If they do successfully change it, and you continue objecting, then your position becomes one of pushing for change, in which case the point above applies.


All of this would still apply even if they're trying to change it back to the way it recently was.