NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6596

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 8.4 KB | 199 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!levine
From: [e-mail] (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:23:13 GMT
Lines: 187

[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>>(Re the importance of not blaming society.)
>>OK. I thought of a better example. When I was a teenager my family
>>took me to visit Mt. Vernon. The building really upset me, because
>>of the slave cabins. Yes, that's right, George Washington owned slaves!


>    I've been there.  In fact, one of the nice things about living
>    in this area is that a lot of actual history--well, what America
>    has of it--is within a reasonable distance--visitable.


>>Was this right? Hell, no! Did the slaves have any reasonable chance to
>>get out of slavery? Did they have decent options for their life,
>>even under a good master? Of course not! Was this the fault of the
>>slaves? No. Was this the fault of George Washington, who I am
>>postulating was a good man? Not particularly.


>    Sure it was.  There were plenty of people opposed to slavery
>    even then.

>    Parallel:  Lots of people will pick up money off the street and
>    not turn it in.  This is because they profit from this action.
>    Is it wrong?  Yes.  Who's *fault* are we observing?  Their own.

>    If slave owners saw profit in their actions and did not bother
>    to discover--or denied--the pain that slavery may or may not
>    have caused to the slaves, they were at fault--not society.


>>That is, sometimes injustices occur that are not caused by the
>>moral faults of individuals.


>    This was *clearly* the fault of individuals.  Look at other
>    people in the time.  Many of these people knew that slavery was
>    wrong--and others thought it was right for some morally just
>    reason (the inferiority of the blacks--"We whites must take
>    the burden of helping them survive", religious arguments much
>    the same).  Those who thought it morally just were under the
>    influence of a group, not "society" because large numbers felt
>    quite otherwise about the issue.

So you're saying that individuals of other cultures can *completely* be
judged by 20th-century standards?

(Actually, I thought that was a *left-wing* argument? :-) In any case, I
don't agree with it. And for a discussion of this argument in reference
to Christopher Columbus, see an Analog magazine editorial around
August, 1992.)

In any case, *can you blame the slaves* for what happened to them?

>>2) I do not think *any* society is perfect. But I do think some are
>>more just and comfortable than others. That is, there are no
>>utopias, but there are a lot of horror stories.

>    Please give examples.  Most of my feminist friends like to
>    give me some shtick about the glorious civilizations in
>    pre-Eurocontact africa, but historians have pretty much
>    debunked that nonsense.

Once again, and please pay attention. I am not talking about
glorious civilizations, or Utopia. I've said this about
five times. Just the difference between, for example, the
United States and India.

>>And if you are not interested in "social justice" what are you doing
>>on this group? I don't see what *practical* benefit there is to you in
>>it.

>    The is no "social justice".  It is an interesting buzzword,
>    but I can't think of any useful definition for it.  There
>    is justice, or there is nothing at all.

I don't see the difference between social justice and justice.

Also, you seem to associate wanting "social justice" with advocating the
standard left-wing prescriptions for it.

>    As for why I'm bothering to read this group--it helps keep
>    me balanced to see the other side.  I also read .christian
>    .athiest, .islam, .men, .feminism, .motts, etc.

Let me get you right. You are saying that there is no personal moral
meaning to the things you say, that you do not have a concept of right
and wrong, and that you read these groups only for your own
entertainment?

>>3) About the "Women's Studies" classes. I still think a detailed posting
>>about some of these classes would be of interest to everyone.

>    I think I've been pretty detailed.  I could give example after
>    example, but they all sound pretty much the same.  Male asks
>    a question, teacher ignores or snaps some "You just don't
>    understand" answer.  Male late for class the teacher ridicules,
>    while ignoring the two girls who follow.  Male answers essays
>    with a well-thought out but dissenting answer, teacher X's
>    it but gives credit to thew bimbo chowderheads who parrot
>    everything lil' adolf preaches.

>    It gets boring, because it's all the same thing: raw, unashamed
>    bigotry.

It would be less boring if you gave the details, instead of raw opinion.

Sometimes a deadpan style conveys a message much more effectively.

>>By the way, I don't think that unwise actions justify the penalty they
>>incur.

>    I'm sorry?  How can people learn otherwise?
>    Positive reinforcement is all well and good, but negative
>    is just as important.  "Good doggy, used the litterbox, good
>    doggy--have a treat."  "Ohh, you bad doggy!  No treat for you!"

>    With very, very few exceptions, I believe that you get
>    [on a personal, individual interaction level] *exactly*
>    what you deserve.

Abused children? Starving children?

>I do not believe people have a
>    "right" to something or "deserve" something for free
>    that others have had to work and sweat to earn.  Anything
>    you get other than what you work for is a *kindness*--
>    a charity--and people should be ashamed that they have
>    to take advantage of others that way.

Shouldn't the penalty be in proportion to the actions?

See "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," by Robert Heinlein. A tourist on the
moon is captured by a mob, who he unwittingly offended by
violating local customs (doing something that's an extreme insult
in -- and only in -- the context of the culture). Our hero, Manuel,
is asked to serve as judge. He tells the gang that roughing up the
guy a little was OK, because it would make him learn faster. But causing
him serious injury would be quite out of line...

>>Nevertheless, I must say that attending a "warm and fuzzy studies"
>>class, when the instructor doesn't seem to be on your side, and then
>>not dropping the class, is quite unwise. I would hope that one or two bad
>>grades is a lesson not to do this again.

>    There's a great response.  "Treated unfairly?  Well, no one is
>    FORCING you to try and listen to both sides of the story.  Why
>    don't you just stop causing waves and stay out.  That's why
>    we're treating you unfairly, you know, to drive you out."

I am not saying the "warm and fuzzy" tyrants were right. Most definitely
not!!!! But, by your philosophy, you are just incurring a penalty that
some wisdom might have prevented.

I was going to talk to you, in another context, about date rape.
But then I realized that you'd just say the woman was responsible for
that, by her foolishness in getting into an unprotected situation with a
person she should have known was a creep. (My apologies if those are not
your views.) And you would say this, knowing of course that what the
rapist did was morally wrong, and of course not justifying his actions
in any way.

I fail to see the difference between her situation and the women's
studies class, except that the penalty you incurred for your unwisdom
was a lot less severe.

Note, I am not necessarily advocating such an opnion, about either
you or the date raped woman. I am merely pointing out the general
thrust of your philosophy.

Also, what do you propose to do about the essentially arbitrary nature
of "fuzzy studies?" (I suspect you might have gotten into just as
much trouble by causing waves in a conservative class.) How can
you prevent favoritism, when there are no objective standards?

Should history, English or philosophy be taught at the college level at
all?

I'm not saying there are no solutions to this problem. I am saying, I
don't know what they are.

Lenore Levine

P.S. Auditing the class might have been more wise.