home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6682 soc.men:21960 soc.women:21986
- Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!mont!mizzou1.missouri.edu!SURGDM
- From: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
- Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
- Message-ID: <168CED207.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: mizzou1.missouri.edu
- Organization: University of Missouri
- References: <168C1CB92.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> <1992Dec23.014026.23136@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <168C692F9.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> <1992Dec31.060738.7301@netcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 14:56:03 CST
- Lines: 59
-
- In article <1992Dec31.060738.7301@netcom.com>
- payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
-
- (about my assertion that everyone has some measure of self-determination)
-
- >Children do not. And if you argue from the biological standpoint, there
- >is no such thing as self-determination. Heck, if you argue from the
- >social "brainwashing" standpoint, most have no choice either. Unless
- >they recieve the -proper- brainwashing.
-
- Whether or not we were socialized or 'bred' for the tendency to be violent,
- that certainly doesn't mean that there is nothing that a person can do
- to 'overcome' this conditioning. No choice? Hardly. You make choices
- everyday. Biological *and* social theories allow for evolution (obviously).
-
- >It's really strange how enviornmental factors are claimed to be -major-
- >limiting factors in womens lives, but it is unforgivable heresay to
- >consider enviornmental factors when men are involved.
-
- Could you come up with a few good examples? Assertion is not proof.
-
- >>I'm sorry if I'm just not co-dependent enough to make (or accept) lame
- >>excuses like "mommy made me do it".
-
- >Women are not innocent, and they are not guilty, but there are clearly
- >-part- of the situation. Perhaps if women took responsibility for raising
- >their children as non-violent there would be less.
-
- Who do you *know* that raises their children to be violent? Avoid them!!!!
- Honestly, Rich, what do you suggest? Taking Junior out of Little League?
- Leave him home the next time I knock off a bank or rob an old lady? ;) By
- most estimates a child develops a sense of right and wrong by age seven.
- Would it be too much to ask a grown person (man or woman) who is well past
- the age of seven (like maybe 18?) to take responsibility for their own actions?
-
- >>>>If you're not part of the cure, you're part of the problem. [ ]
- >>Maybe you would prefer "if you're part of the problem, blame mommy"?
-
- >Naaa, safer and perfectly PC to blame daddy exclusively. How is it that
- >you decry taking responsibility in the same post in which you deny all
- >responsibilty?
-
- Show me where I denied *all* responsibility. At this point I take
- responsibility for both *my* actions *and* the actions of my minor children.
- If my children get into trouble when they are adults, I will still love and
- support them. Will I take personal responsibilty for *their* actions as adults?
- No. I have never raped, murdered, or robbed and I teach my children that these
- are not acceptable behaviors. If my son (or daughter) robs a bank one day, as a
- adult, he will go to jail, because *he* will have committed the crime.
-
- How far back do we take this? If my child goes wrong because I was a 'bad'
- mother, can I blame *my* parents? Can they blame their parents? How many
- generations do we go back to find the original responsibilty? Isn't
- it just a little *easier* for each of us to stop whining and take
- responsibilty for ourselves? Do this make too much sense to be understandable?
-
- It's getting a little cliche' to invoke the demon PC when what little logic
- you seem to have fails. Blame it on mommy *or* PC, huh? Pretty sad.
- Diane
-