NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6490

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6490 soc.men:21750 soc.women:21874
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!ncar!uchinews!quads!mec6
From: [e-mail] (rini)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:39:30 GMT
Lines: 66

>[e-mail] writes:

>>So if I give money to an aid organization for Estonia, and don't write
>>a check of comparable magnitude to Care's program in Somalia, do you
>>think I'm implying that I don't give two hoots about starving Africans?
>>If I decide to tutor adults who can't read, do you think I'm implying
>>that all the other people in the world who can benefit from tutoring
>>are simply "worth less" to me than illiterate adults?  If I lobby for
>>air bags to be installed in all cars, does that imply that I'm against
>>seat belts and secretly working for their demise?

>I do not think it is as simple as that. Suppose you had $100 (or any
>amount for that matter) for aid, and you gave it -all- to Estonia and
>none to Somalia. This would indeed say something about the relative
>importance of the two countries/causes. One of the real world constraints
>is non-infinite supply. Limited resources are usually divided along
>prioritized lines, neither people nor aid orginizations give all (or
>even the largest share) to the least important cause or the less needy.

Well, I think it is a given that no one, no matter how rational, is
going to rationally evaluate all the worlds problems and quantify them
on a unidimensional scale, figure out how much money one is willing
to fork over in total, and then calculate the number of dollars you
are willing to donate to each and every cause in the world.  It just
doesn't work that way.

I think there a couple of elements at work when we choose charities.
There is of course an element of evaluating the severity of the problem.
But then there is also an undeniably important element of... empathy.

For example, I give a lot more money to educational funds in the US
than I give to starving folks in Africa.  Frankly, I really do believe
starvation is worse than not having a good education.  I also feel
that starving Africans have it a hell of a lot worse than uneducated
Americans.  But at the same time, education is close to my heart.
Education in America is something I know about, on an emotional
level.  I know it has helped me, and I want it to help others like me.

(Frankly, I think if there were a charity to help youngest daughters
from large families who grew up in small, uneducated towns in the
southwest and were having problems fitting in [insert other
autobiographic info here], I would be a major contributor...!)

>An interesting aspect of this is that unlike charity, we are all paying
>for the police/judicial system. We all deserve equal protection.

Agreed on that last point.  (Are you forgetting, though, that many
people who work on/talk about the problem of violence against women are
not supporting inequal protection?  In fact, I have never seen any
one here talk in favor of sexist laws.)

>To give
>one group priority is not only illegal, but some feminists have called
>this sort of thing wrong (at least when women were not the recipiants).

I think it is wrong to give one group special rights.

>Actually, every group seems to be like this, not just feminists. Our
>group <fill in whatever group you might be part of> has some problem,
>and we demand that something be done, -for- our group.

Yep.  It's really understandable, dontcha think?

rini