jj@alice.UUCP (11/07/85)
> From allegra!oliveb!Glacier!cdp!scott Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > > > What is important is that both sexes suffer from imbecillic rules, > > societal pressures and the like. Most people here don't > > disagree, but some clearly do. > > I don't disagree that that both men and women suffer, I just find > it irrelevant. Why's that? The system that locks BOTH MEN AND WOMEN INTO AN UNDESIRABLE SITUATION is irrevelant? OK. If that's what you think, then you clearly don't want anything to ever happen. (no :-) > It's just as irrelevant as saying that whites and > blacks both suffer from racism. Your statement, in the comparative, is utterly true. Of course, what it really means is that neither is a whit irrelevant. > You can't reduce sexism or racism to such > simple logic; they're not the same as, say, discrimination based on black > hair vs brown hair. OH? If I put you on the bus according to hair color, put you in the labor pool according to hair color, and so on, it's different? *Enter sarcastic mode* SURE SCOTT, you're exactly right. *exit sarcasm mode* (I think, Scott, either you assume that everyone discriminates against sex and race and nothing else, or you want to make people think that. In any case, people discriminate just as injuriously on many different bases, only two of which you mention. Racism exists in many forms other than black/white, of course, too. <your position on that isn't clear>) > They're wrapped up in very major societal power > imbalances that cause significantly more damage to members of one group. > Scott Weikart > Lookie here, people, we're ALL in this together, every man, woman and child of us. Pointing the finger at any one group is simpleminded discrimination, no matter who you point the finger at. If you want equality, bring everyone UP to the same level. Life, economies, and happiness are not zero-sum games where I must loose if you gain. If I gain the ability to wear comfortable clothing to business meetings, I can clearly extend the argument to women (and anyone else). When the business clothing rules no longer make women look like scrawny misshapen men, we'll all benefit, not just the woman who has to wear uncomfortable, poorly designed and manufactured clothing. Likewise, when I'm not irritible and in pain from a shirt-collar, you'll gain. (Suggesting that I wear something else is asking me to ASK people to discriminate against me because of my clothing, now isn't it?) When you do your best to tear people down, they'll fight you. It's called 'survival'. Hence, Scott, when one tells me that my HALF <yes, Scott, it's an entire half > of the problem is irrelevant, well, then, one is telling me that I don't matter, that I'm unimportant, and that I or any reasonable individual, should probably reciprocate and not care about one's problems. The "radical woman's lib'er" who attacks men, the "male supremicist" who attacks women, the "clan member" that puts down blacks, the black man who puts down whites, the amerind who puts down the rest of the world, and other divisive folks are all working toward a world of greater unhappiness, greater stress, and less common good. What they all fail to realize is that they are making their own life harder. If you work with someone, that reasonable person will work with you within the limits of good sense and common welfare. Attack them, they will necessarily defend themselves. When you take the extreme view, you automatically cut yourself off from each and all of the reasonable individuals in the world. If you want or expect help, you MUST work with, instead of against. If you want to have a lasting impact, you must have the reasonable individual on your side. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE SHY, SAVE A POWDERMILK BISCUIT FOR YOURS! "When Eddie said he didn't like his Teddy, you knew he was a no good kid!" (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj