NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6620

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 11.2 KB | 321 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!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: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:38:04 GMT
Lines: 308

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore Levine) writes:
>[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>
>(About judging other cultures by 20th-century standards.)

    1.5 page rant on culture judging deleted.  Those who are going to
    email flame me willbe bounced unlessthey go back and read the thread.


>>        a culture by using alien criteria--what they say is wrong in
>>        the first place.
>
>Please read what I said carefully. I am *not* saying that people
>should *only* be judged by the standards of their culture. I just
>said that the standards of their culture need to be taken into
>consideration.


    Fair.


>In particular, I suspect that George Washington was *not* an
>inordinately wicked man.


    Perhaps not a particularly evil man, no, but definately
    someone who chose to ignore the possibility that what he
    was doing was wrong.

    OTOH, he may very well have repented later in his life,but
    realized what would have happened to his slaves ifhe
    set them free.  This is not to say that he did, only that
    I really haven't read on him.  In fact, since he didn't
    write much himself, there's not much wayto find out.


>Also, in particular, I note that people of different cultures
>may not have had the scientific facts available to them that are
>available today;


    Fair.  However, everyone in the US has plenty of access
    to scientific material if not training, and yet you
    see morons pushing creationism in Louisiana.


>and that their lack of scientific knowledge may have
>meant that they believed that certain actions, which for someone
>with our knowledge would be wicked, were ethical and sensible.
>For example, if you really believe that there is a hell located
>a mile under the earth, and that children who masturbate are going
>to suffer everlasting torment there when they die, it is sensible
>to use severe measures to make sure your child does not masturbate.


    Religion has pretty much shown itself to be pretty
    tenacious even in the eyes of scientists.  For instance,
    Hawkings is not an athiest, and neither was Einstein.
    I had a physics professor (his specialty was quantum theory)
    who was aJewish rabbi.

    As an aside, it is useful to consider that religion is
    very strong in the US as compared to much of Europe, yet the
    US is also clearly more science-centric than Europe.

    What you say is true--you must _consider_ their cultural
    beliefs, but if you're going to do that, you better
    consider every one of them, and not just those that
    are palatable.


>>>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.
>
>But I thought you said that societies, that is, groups of humans
>as opposed to individual humans, could not be blamed.


    The minimal group being african slavers.  Oh, sure, you
    could try and pin it on the tribal warefare culture that
    created lots of prisoners (==slaves) but this does not
    take the guilt for selling these people into slavery
    offthe backs of the slavers.

    <yes, you caught me, but I was using culture here to refer
    to the slavers who lived in each villiage, and not culture
    as the war culture [as described above].  I'llbe more precise.>


>>        You think India is more comfortable or just than the US?
>
>On the contrary. It seems quite obvious that the US is more just
>and comfortable than India.


    Oops.  I misunderstood you.  We agree on this one, then,.


>Let me give you a better example. It seems that Communism was a
>big mistake; that those countries which did embrace it became worse off
>than if they did not. Therefore, one very simple prescription for
>*minimizing* human misery would be, "Don't go Communist."


    Communism was a mistake because it was trying to force
    a square peg into a round hole.  Communism itself
    has never existed except in a few cults (and most
    of those are better described as monarchies or
    facist states--Jim Jones) because it collapses faster
    than it can be installed.  What held on inthe soviet union,
    and continues to hold on in China, is a 1984-style oligarchy.

>>        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".
>
>That is not the sense in which I use it.


    My point is, "Social justice" is redundant.  Justice is
    the word people are looking for when they talk about
    "social justice".


>>        Please define.
>
>I can't. I am not even sure that one rigid definition would always
>be appropriate.


    Um, you can have a rigid definition of Justice without
    specifying criteria for determining justice.  A concept:

    God's judement.

    Might suit many christians.  Itis concise, but it does not
    say exactly how god judges.  <Because God, knowing all,
    is believed to be inherently fair>

    OTOH, I am not a Christian.  Thus, I prefer:

    Equal treatment--punishment when deserved, reward when deserved.

    I can't think of one much better than that, but my Random House
    says:

    1.  Rightfulness or wrongfulness, as a claim.
    2.  the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
    3.  the administration of what is just, according to the law.

    So mine is pretty close.

    How do these differe from what you mean when you say "social
    justice"?


>>>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.
>
>I don't know what "great" means. But the fact that conditions are
>better in this country, on the whole, than many others, does not
>mean they cannot be improved.


    True. Although I would change "cannot be improved" to
    "will not improve" since you and I do not agree on the
    ability of individuals to change social mores.


>>        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.
>
>If you do consider motivation a prime factor, then please, use
>respectful language to sincere posters. And *assume* people are
>sincere until they give you *individual* evidence otherwise.


    I always do.


>>        text for a book.  It's been years since, and I post far more on
>>        Usenet each month than I ever did there.
>
>I post too much too. Maybe we should cut down our exchanges a little?


    Perhaps.  Don't expect me to do it, though.  I'm a compulsive
    last-word-getter.


>>>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>
>
>It's a very good book.


    Most of Heinlein (that is, everything but I Will Fear No Evil
    and his last few books) is pretty good.


    [Date rape stuff deleted--see first disclaimer]

>>    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 people are raped in situations which they should have been
>able to know was dangerous;


    Typical date rape.


>others in situations that they could
>not imagine were dangerous.


    Typical out of the shadow rape.

    Which kind do people make more noise about?


>In any case, the "penalty" of being raped
>is much higher now than it was a generation ago, because of AIDS.

    Then again, much of the stigma attached to rape victims has
    gone the way of the dodo.

    Not all rape victims are exposed to AIDS.  I'd be surprised
    if even a large minority are.  This does not mean it is not
     a legitimate danger, but the penalty in most rapes isn't
    even a violent assault.

    This does not fit my policy of let the punishment fit the crime
    because there was no crime committed--but there is responsibility
    that comes with self-reliance.



>And I don't think this "penalty" is appropriate, for, for example,
>a 14-year-old girl (a true example). Much too much punishment for their crime!


    Agreed.  I find rape repulsive.  One of the things I find
    equally repulsive is the way feminists are so unwilling to admit
    that women need to be self-responsible.  Clothing, manner,
    where you go, alcohol and drugs, appearance--all of these
    things ARE factors in rape.  Feminists can claim that old women
    and unattractive women get raped all they want--they make up
    such an insignificant part of the total number of rapes that you
    can easily explain those away as fetishism or severe mental
    illness.  (In particular, the man in New York about 5
    years ago who was raping women in their late 60's or early
    70's was reenacting the incest he had as a child with his mother
    and grandmother--certainly not a typical rapist)


>By the way, what do you think of the idea of giving a rapist who
>doesn't use a rubber a much higher penalty? Of charging them
>with attempted murder rather than rape?


    That's like banning guns.  Criminals are not obeying the law
    anyway--if these guys thought they were going to get caught they
    wouldn't be raping.

    OTOH, I feel that a rapist on trial should, *after* conviction
    (AIDS status would definately subvert the due process due to
    biases against AIDS) be tested for AIDS.  If he tests positive,
    I think that the sentencing should be able to assign a stiffer
    punishment.

>Lenore Levine


--
    Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
             ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
    Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
    those of my employer, institution or relations?