NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6606

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 19.6 KB | 489 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!rsrodger
From: [e-mail] (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:05:39 GMT
Lines: 476


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore Le
vine) writes:
>[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore
Levine) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>>>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 juqt 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?


        Yes.  The problem with other points of view is that tdey're
        dishonest and inconsistent.

        For instance, in some cultures it is permissable, if not
        expected, to beat your wife--even to death--for something
        like disobedience.  In fact, in some, it is down right
        immoral *not* to do so in some circumstances.

        Now, people who claim we should jubge a culture from
        withing it's own mores would have to admit that, in thbse
        cultures, there isnothing wrong with wife beating.  Most
        would not do so, because deep down they're unable to accept
        the real ramifications of their philosophy.  Oh, sure, a few
        would try and argue using individualism--that is, it's fine
        to judge things that exceed certain limits, in this case
        when it is one person acting upon another person.  Well, that's
        all bunk too, because "individual" is pretty much a Euro
        Christian idea (in the last two centuries, it's been taken to
        a whole new degree by those upstarts in the New World, which
        I think is wogderful) -- and then you're basically judging
        a culture by using alien criteria--what they say is wrong in
        the first place.


>(Actually, I thought that was a *left-wing* argument? :-)

        I hope not.  I've been called liberal by conservatives
        and a facist oppressor by liberals, but I try to be balanced.


>In any case, I
>don't agree with it.

        Why?

>And for a discussion of this argument in reference
>to Christopher Columbus, see an Analog magazine editorial around
>August, 1992.)


        Everyone is aware ofthe Columbus arguments.  One side is
        obsessed with the noble savage notion (utter garbage) and
        the other either focuses on his achievement (dubious, but
        acceptable) or on his holy delivery of Xtianity to the
        savages (utter garbage).

        I stopped reading Analog in '86 because I thought the quality
        was sinking very rapidly.  For almost a year, there was maybe
        one good section per issue--the rest was rumor mill or poor
        written hash.


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


        No, but you *can* blame their minimal group:  the culture
        (in africa) that sold them into slavery.


>>>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.


        You think India is more comfortable or just than the US?

        (see your quote to see what I was referring to)


>>>And if you are not interested in "social justice" what aqe 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.


    That was my point.

        Social justice seems to be some kind of word used to
        mean "justice" whbn what it would seem to mean is "equal
        treatment in a social situation".

        Please define.


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


        Certainly.  Only a left-winger would claim that there is any
        great (and I stress that word) social inequity in the united
        states.  All things must be examined relative to others in
        a set.  In this case, it would be other countries.


>>      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,


        When did I *say* this?  You've been entirely too reasonable
        to be starting in on this type of thing.

        To reiterate:  I read this group, and others, to keep myself
        familiar with other points of view.  I am a radical anti-christian,
        yet I regularly read the bible.  Likewise, I'm not a buddhist
        (although I do not have moral objections as I do to xtianity)
        yet I've read some amount of buddhist literature.  Nor am I
        a taoist--yet I own (and have read) two copies of the Tao Te Ching,
        and Chuang Tzu, an equalist, yet I've read Our Bodies Ourselves
        (both versions--the second was duller, tho) dozens of course
        packets, Virginia Wolf, Andrea Dworkin, etc. etc. etc.

        Only people who are afraid that they are wrong are wrong
        hide their minds from the other side.


> that you do not have a concept of right
>and wrong,


        I didn't say that either.  I'm disappointed.

        I have a very *clear* concept of right and wrong.  It is not
        muddled by goofy social ideals.  For me, right and wrong are
        black and right--there can be no "almost right" because that
        almost certainly implies that there were ulterior motives,
        and I consider motivation a prime factor in determining
        right and wrong.


>and that you read these groups only for your own
>entertainment?


        Why do *any* of us read these groups?  Surely not for education,
        as you could learn more than most of the groups could ever
        provide--with more accuracy--in the average college library.

        I read the groups that I do to *casually* learn how *others* feel
        about a subject.  Many (alt.tasteless etc) I read for amusement.
        Others I post on to hone my arguing skills.

        This is not to say that I do not believe everything that I
        post, or that the arguments are unimportant.  I waste far
        too much time og this stupid network--time that I could be
        using to do almost anything.  Years ago I commented that if
        we compiled all of the messages we'd written on a local BBS
        system in a year, me and a friend would each have more than enough
        text for a book.  It's been years since, and I post far more on
        Usenet each month than I ever did there.

        Finally, one of the biggest reasons that I like to read usenet
        is that I have difficulty discussing intellectual topic with
        the people I associate with.  The problem is not that they
        are uninformed, but rather that most people are not inclined
        to spend hours debating a topic.  Add to this the fact that
        I am *very* skilled verbally: this is not an ego boost.  I
        can easily out argue most people I meet--parents, teachers,
        classmates, whatever--I am quite serious.  Written, I am
        not nearly as skilled because I rely a great deal on gestures,
        tone, facial gestures, etc.  I'm also pretty imposing.  I'm not
        terribly tall (6'1) but I tend to look vaguely threatening
        when I am discussing a topic I feel strongly about.  (We've
        videotaped this--back when my friends and I got into a
        bit of body-languae observation.  It's amazing what a few
        shoulder shifts and hand positions can do to intimidate or
        relax someone).

        It is morally wrong, IMHO, not to be aware of how the other
        side feels.  It is morally wrong not to understand your own
        objections to the other side's points.

>>>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.


    Obviously, you want me to be specific.  I am not going to do
    so, because I cannot be sure of my own reliability in making
    such an account, as it has been over a year.  My comments
    above, and those before it, outline *exactly* what happened
    day to day in a *number* of seperate classes.  Only the question,
    assignment, or quiz in question changed.

    It is not "raw opinion" it is "raw observation".
    There is a difference.


>>>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?


    Weak.  I knew someone would try and work that one in.  Hell, we've
    had the other big two (Nazi, slavery) and even touched on
    the Big #3 (indians vs. columbus)--why not make a weak
    attempt at heart strings by listing those two andnot
    giving any kind of other argument?

    Like I said, "with very, very few exceptions".  You hit on
    one (the second, starving children, are not to blame
    *themselves*--but their parents are usually at least partly
    responsible for their predicament).
    Maybe two.


>>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?


    Sure.  Want to show me where is hasn't been?  The problem is,
    people are so busy watering down the penalties that they're
    defeating the point.  Punishment is *punishment* -- not just
    incarceration.


>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...


    Fair example, but I would point out that while the punishment
    was extreme, the individualin question was a damn idiot for
    not having bothered to familiarize himself with local custom.

    <You happened to hit upon *the only* Heinlein book I haven't
    read>

    So that's one good example, clearly extreme and unrealistic. We
    agree on the basic premise: let the punishment suit the
    crime.  In any case, ignorance doesn't excuse anything.


>>>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.


    True, but I consider the advantages (nothing blows away a
    theory better than familiarity) to be worth the trouble.
    This does not excuse the behavior of the teachers in
    question, but I acknowledge that the treatment was in
    part my own fault.  In any case, I probably wouldn't
    care one wit if it wasn't for the hypocritical blameist
    spooge they weredishing out while they were doing exactly
    the same thing.


>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.


    You don't think that a woman has some moral obligation to
    responsibly choose wdo she will be intimate with?  I sure
    do.  I've noticed--as have many men--that women routinely
    pick assholes over nice guys [even excluding looks].  As
    far as us nice guys are concerned, this is fine--if you
    dig your pit, you can try and climb out on your own.

    Frankly, I don't have much sympathy for many date rape
    victims because a little common sense and a little self
    control would have prevented the entire situation.  This
    does not excuse the rapist--not by any means--who should
    be punished--but when the woman who was raped starts whining
    and moaning about how unfair life is and so on, I can't help
    but feel rather disgusted.

    Some might call this heartless.  When they do, I ask
    them why.  Normally the answer I get is some emotional nonsense
    about violation of self and so on--which is utterly unrelated
    to the subject at hand:  If you can prevent a situation
    from occuring, you MUST take responsibility, at least in
    part, for the outcome.


>(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.


    Perhaps you should explain to me what is inconsistent, wrong
    or whatever with the point of view I have set down.  You can
    claim that "there was no way she could have known or
    prevented" and I will say, "then she holds no blame".  But
    I think we both know that this is a pretty rare situation--
    most of the time, the woman in question is going for the
    thrill of the relationship.  Nothing's wrong with that,
    but blaming the rapist for being a rapist is like blaming
    a lion for being a lion.  It doesn' excuse the lion when
    it eats your children, but it certainly does mean that the
    parents should be locked up for child abuse.


>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.



    I don't see a big difference between them either.  In both
    circumstances, a person entered into a negative situation
    and recieved negative treatment.  The only real difference
    is motivation:  My motivation was self-centered, but not
    unreasonably so (unless learning about the positions of others
    is egocentric).  In the case of the typical date-rape victim,
    the motivation was sexual desire or thrill seeking.

    Draw your own conclusions as to how that might influence
    my position.

    ("The root of all suffering is desire")


>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.


    And I am pointing out that it is entirely consistant.  Certainly
    I am to blame, in part, for the treatment that I recieved in
    WMST classes--all men, are, in fact--because I could have easily
    terminated the situation by dropping the class or not taking
    others.

    (Of course, my opinin on that is radically different when the
    students are *forced* to take a WMST or similiar class for
    the new core requirements.  There are limits to application
    of blame, and the alternative ("go to a different school" or
    "don't go to college!") choices are not reasonable)


>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?


    You can't, of course.  I never said you could.

    That's been my point all along.  People will act
    how they want to act.


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


    English, philosophy--yes, of course.  Philosophy is mostly
    logic.  English seems to be a rather pointless major (how
    many authors really had english majors?) except for the
    fact that english is one of the gateway majors to law schools.
    People who major in english tend to be people who do not
    quite belong in college, but don't belong outside, either.
    Bookworms, people who want to be enlightened, the whole
    bunch of 'em.

    Interestingly, neither English or Philosophy prepare someone
    for a career--you can either teach the subject (those who can't
    do...) or you can switch diciplines (English to law or
    someother humanities subject, Philosophy to cognitive science).

    Both of which actually involve some thought
    and work (philosophy, especially)--which seperates them from
    the mush/glide classes (WMST, SOCY, etc.) which are basically
    memorization of standpoints and not much more.  (Kind of
    like history without dates, trends, or details--that is,
    nothing much.)

>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.

    True, but I was an optimist and expected that the next
    one would be reasonable and not some fanatic.

--
    This weakness that you've told us of, it must be very comforting
    to have some make-believe specter on which to lay your blame.

    Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.