london@oddjob.UUCP (David London) (05/29/85)
<> Recently, there have been numerous articles by men discussing the idea that they want to be treated as individuals. On 'discrimination against white men' we had the argument that "I didn't do these horrible things to blacks and women", or "I haven't reaped the benefits that you claim I have". We have also had the objections to the phrase 'Men do ...', in which some men would prefer the phrase "Some men do...". I'd like to address this idea (yes I know it's net.WOMEN, but bear with me). I used to object to the "Men do..." phrase too, resenting the idea that I was lumped in with all these horrible people who do terrible things which I don't believe in and have never done. I wanted to be treated and addressed as an individual. But recently I've come to the realization that I am NOT an individual; although my friends and family treat me as such, society does not. Whether I like it or not (or know it or not), society treats me as a (white) man. This has lots of effects. I'm given the wine list at restaurants; I'm given preference for certain jobs; I'm expected to be interested in sports, etc. etc. Whether for good or for bad, I am not an individual - I live, work and interact with other people - I do *NOT* live on an island. Consequently, just as I have to accept (to a certain degree, at least) the way society treats me just because I am a man, I have to take responsibility for being a member of that group of individuals called men. So now I no longer object to the phrase "Men do...". One *can* describe a large group of people by a number of characteristics, some good and bad. What I really was doing before was accepting the "good" characteristics, but refusing to acknowledge the bad characteristics (the way men treat women, blacks, etc..). And you can't do that. So now I accept the fact that, in society's eyes, I am a man, and thus am also responsible for the actions of other men (in the sense that I have to fight against the "bad" things other members of my group do to other people). So I have no objections to the phrase "Men do ..."; I also recognize that, whether I personally have or not, men have benefited for years at the expense of blacks and women, and I have to work to change this. So, I say to you men: you are *not* individuals. Society treats you as men, which, in most cases, has benefited you. Be willing to accept (in part) the blame for what other members of the group "men" do. And work to change men's attitudes towards women, blacks, etc. David London ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/29/85)
> But recently I've come to the realization that I am NOT an > individual; although my friends and family treat me as such, society does not. > Whether I like it or not (or know it or not), society treats me as a (white) > man. This has lots of effects. I'm given the wine list at restaurants; I'm > given preference for certain jobs; I'm expected to be interested in sports, > etc. etc. Whether for good or for bad, I am not an individual - I live, work > and interact with other people - I do *NOT* live on an island. Consequently, > just as I have to accept (to a certain degree, at least) the way society > treats me just because I am a man, I have to take responsibility for being > a member of that group of individuals called men. So now I no longer object > to the phrase "Men do...". One *can* describe a large group of people by a > number of characteristics, some good and bad. Certainly, one *can*. Once can say: 'Women are no good at engineering', or 'Blacks are shiftless and lazy.' or 'Jews have big noses.' Of course, if one *does* say these things, then one is guilty of incorrect generalizations, racism, and sexism. Why do you think it should be different when the group being generalized is 'men'? > So, I say to you men: you are *not* individuals. Society treats you as men, > which, in most cases, has benefited you. Be willing to accept (in part) the > blame for what other members of the group "men" do. Society also treats me as an engineer, which, in most cases, has benefited me. But I'm not willing to accept (in any part) the blame for what other members of the group "engineer" have done. I will never accept the blame for someone else's actions, nor allow anyone to accept the blame for mine. People are individuals, and they must be treated as such. Treating them as groups of faceless automata fullfilling societally defined roles is cruel, unfair, and exactly the kind of behavior which the feminist movement has been trying to change. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "You can be in my dream if I can be in yours." - Dylan
wfl@maxvax.UUCP (w linke) (05/30/85)
<> >So, I say to you men: you are *not* individuals. Society treats you as men, >which, in most cases, has benefited you. Be willing to accept (in part) the >blame for what other members of the group "men" do. And work to change men's >attitudes towards women, blacks, etc. > > David London > ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london I am surprised to find that I am actually incapable of expressing in words my contempt for this posting. Speak for yourself, London. If you want to define your existence by what other people think of you, that's your business. But the fact that I AM an individual can not be changed by what you or anyone else may think.
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (05/30/85)
[] > From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) > I will never accept the blame for someone else's actions, > nor allow anyone to accept the blame for mine. > People are individuals, and they must be treated as such. Treating them > as groups of faceless automata fullfilling societally defined roles is cruel, > unfair, and exactly the kind of behavior which the feminist movement has been > trying to change. Yes and no. The original point was that none of us lives in a vacuum (no, not even engineers :-)). I won't take responsibility for the actions of another, but I'm certainly going to recognize that what someone else does can have an effect on my situation. The fact remains that for much of this country's history, several groups (classes, you might say) of residents were not allowed to participate socially, economically, or politically. The effects of this are still being felt at the individual level, even though most individuals weren't participants. And the question remains -- what are *you*, as an *individual*, going to do about it? Are you going to say "Gosh yes, lots of people were treated badly for unacceptable reasons and I'm going to do what I can to treat every individual the best that I can," or are you going to say "Hey, it's not my fault. I'm pulling down big bucks as an engineer, so the system works for me. I think I'll just ignore all this equal opportunity nonsense." As a feminist, I'm not asking for privileges. I'm asking for parity. Too bad that we can't get even that without complaints from those who *are* privileged. -- Melinda Shore University of Chicago Computation Center uucp: ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor Mailnet: Staff.Melinda@UChicago.Mailnet Bitnet: shor%sphinx@UChicago.Bitnet ARPA: Staff.Melinda%UChicago.Mailnet@Mit-Multics.ARPA
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (05/30/85)
In article <756@oddjob.UUCP>, london@oddjob.UUCP (David London) writes: > > So, I say to you men: you are *not* individuals. Society treats you as men, > which, in most cases, has benefited you. Be willing to accept (in part) the > blame for what other members of the group "men" do. And work to change men's > attitudes towards women, blacks, etc. > > David London > ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london I love it! It's *VERY* important, when you want to screw over a whole class of people, to be able to condemn the innocent along with the guilty. David London's exercise in sophistry is a masterful way of arriving at a plausible excuse. As a man, I'm guilty of the crimes of other men -- not because of *MY* actions or *MY* beliefs, but because *OTHER PEOPLE* treat me in a particular way! Since I can't control "society's" attitudes towards men, there is no escape. No redemption for me -- it's sackcloth and ashes time, folks, because I was born white and male. *OH, THE SHAME OF IT ALL!!!!* David, you're a bigot, but I salute you -- you're a very inventive bigot. -- -- Robert Plamondon {ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex}!weitek!robertp
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/30/85)
> > From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) > > I will never accept the blame for someone else's actions, > > nor allow anyone to accept the blame for mine. > > People are individuals, and they must be treated as such. Treating them > > as groups of faceless automata fullfilling societally defined roles is cruel, > > unfair, and exactly the kind of behavior which the feminist movement has been > > trying to change. > > Yes and no. The original point was that none of us lives in a vacuum > (no, not even engineers :-)). Hey, Melinda - thanks for redefining the origional point. The posting *I* was resonding to claimed that men weren't individuals, and that we all should share in the blame for the actions of other men. I really appreciate the way you've twisted things around to make it look as though I was argueing against affirmative action. Go back and look at my article which you replied to. Did I say anything about AA? Then why does your reply imply that I did? Were you just in a mood to slander someone today? Tactics like this are best left in net.flame where they belong. Just because I don't feel guilty for things other people have done doesn't mean I'm against giving women and minorities a fair shot. Do you think guilt is the only reason men wouldn't oppose AA? (I know, we're all such monsters.) > I won't take responsibility for the > actions of another, but I'm certainly going to recognize that what > someone else does can have an effect on my situation. The fact > remains that for much of this country's history, several groups > (classes, you might say) of residents were not allowed to participate > socially, economically, or politically. The effects of this are > still being felt at the individual level, even though most > individuals weren't participants. And the question remains -- what > are *you*, as an *individual*, going to do about it? Are you going > to say "Gosh yes, lots of people were treated badly for unacceptable > reasons and I'm going to do what I can to treat every individual the > best that I can," or are you going to say "Hey, it's not my fault. > I'm pulling down big bucks as an engineer, so the system works for > me. I think I'll just ignore all this equal opportunity nonsense." > > As a feminist, I'm not asking for privileges. I'm asking for parity. > Too bad that we can't get even that without complaints from those who > *are* privileged. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there." - Martha and the Vandellas
london@oddjob.UUCP (David London) (05/30/85)
<> >> me (David London) > w linke >>So, I say to you men: you are *not* individuals. Society treats you as men, >>which, in most cases, has benefited you. Be willing to accept (in part) the >>blame for what other members of the group "men" do. And work to change men's >>attitudes towards women, blacks, etc. >> >> David London >> ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london >I am surprised to find that I am actually incapable of expressing in words >my contempt for this posting. Speak for yourself, London. If you want to >define your existence by what other people think of you, that's your >business. But the fact that I AM an individual can not be changed by what >you or anyone else may think. This is the sort of attitude which really annoys and dismays me. (Not the tone - I'm used to that on the net). Sorry, but you don't have a choice - your existence within this society IS defined (to a large extent) by what others think of you. You may shut your eyes and stamp up and down and shout "I am an individual", but it doesn't change the fact that society does not treat you as one (I assume you live in society?). For instance, if you (a man) and a woman apply for a job, and the woman is turned down because she is a woman (which happens a lot), how have you obtained the job on *your* merits? You haven't; you just got it because your competition was a woman, who was not treated as an individual. I think I'll push the point a bit further, and say that this attitude really has a tone of sexism, racism, etc.. If you really believe that you are treated as an individual, then you must believe that everyone is treated as an individual (because, if others aren't treated as individuals, then, since you interact with others, you must not be treated as an individual). Hence, there must be something less worthwhile in women, blacks, etc.. for not having gotten the same jobs (for instance) as men. After all, they are treated as individuals, and must have been rejected on their lack of merit. Working towards having everyone in society treated as individuals is an admirable goal. But don't fool yourself into thinking that anyone, you included, is treated as an individual in this society. David London ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london
london@oddjob.UUCP (David London) (05/30/85)
<> >> me (David London) > Jeff Sonntag >> ... So now I no longer object >> to the phrase "Men do...". One *can* describe a large group of people by a >> number of characteristics, some good and bad. > Certainly, one *can*. Once can say: 'Women are no good at engineering', >or 'Blacks are shiftless and lazy.' or 'Jews have big noses.' Of course, if >one *does* say these things, then one is guilty of incorrect generalizations, >racism, and sexism. Why do you think it should be different when the group >being generalized is 'men'? All you have shown is that one can make incorrect generalizations, not that generalizations are not valid - they may be. You can even make valid and useful generalizations about blacks, Jews, women, etc.., without being bigotted. Try these: 1. Blacks, in the U.S., after suffering discrimination for so many years, have a "collective inferiority complex", which also must be overcome to correct the effects of discrimination. 2. Jews have a history of promoting learning and education among their children, which may account for the fact that so many of our great scholars over the last 100 years (for instance) are Jewish: e.g. Einstein, Marx, Freud. 3. Men (in our society) have treated, and continue to treat, women very badly. Women have been made to feel inferior, and been made to feel as if they could not do things men can. Among (many) other things, this sort of attitude has been promoted (by men) by such phrases as 'Women are no good at engineering'. >> So, I say to you men: you are *not* individuals. Society treats you as men, >> which, in most cases, has benefited you. Be willing to accept (in part) the >> blame for what other members of the group "men" do. > Society also treats me as an engineer, which, in most cases, has >benefited me. But I'm not willing to accept (in any part) the blame for >what other members of the group "engineer" have done. No, society does *not* treat you as an engineer. Those who know you may treat you as an engineer (I'm not really sure what being "treated as an engineer" means). The fact that you are an engineer *is* part of your individuality. The fact that people who don't even know you treat you a certain way, simply because you are a man, is evidence of your loss of individuality. I'm not supporting this, just pointing it out. I said this in another posting, but let me say it again: if women and blacks (among others) are not treated as individuals, how can you believe that you are? > I will never accept the blame for someone else's actions, > nor allow anyone to accept the blame for mine. > People are individuals, and they must be treated as such. Treating them >as groups of faceless automata fullfilling societally defined roles is cruel, >unfair, and exactly the kind of behavior which the feminist movement has been >trying to change. First of all, I think you misinterpreted, or put different connotations on, my use of the phrases "blame" and "responsibility". I don't mean that, for instance, if a man is convicted of rape, you should go take his place. But you must recognize that this sort of behaviour does have some connection with our society, with the way men treat and view women. As a man, your peers have created this sexist, racist, etc.. society (i.e. laws and attitudes). I believe that you must recognize this fact. This is not, by the way, just intellectualizing. I think it goes deeper, to the "psyche" of men in our society. And I think part of the solution to the problem is recognizing this, and working to eliminate it. Secondly, I agree that people are individuals, and must be treated as such. My point is that our society doesn't treat anyone as an individual (including you), and this must be recognized - you can't go around saying "I AM an individual", because, in this society, you're not; what you can do is to start treating everyone as an individual, teach your kids to do the same, etc.. But all the while, you can't pretend that, just because you treat others as individuals, others will do the same to you. You may want them to, but they (very likely) will not. David London ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (05/30/85)
In article <183@maxvax.UUCP> wfl@maxvax.UUCP (w linke) writes: >> >>So, I say to you men: you are *not* individuals. Society treats you as men, >>which, in most cases, has benefited you. >> David London > >I am surprised to find that I am actually incapable of expressing in words >my contempt for this posting. Speak for yourself, London. If you want to >define your existence by what other people think of you, that's your >business. But the fact that I AM an individual can not be changed by what >you or anyone else may think. Typical male response. :-) _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/30/85)
> just as I have to accept (to a certain degree, at least) the way society > treats me just because I am a man, I have to take responsibility for being > a member of that group of individuals called men. So now I no longer object > to the phrase "Men do...". One *can* describe a large group of people by a > number of characteristics, some good and bad. What I really was doing before > was accepting the "good" characteristics, but refusing to acknowledge the bad > characteristics (the way men treat women, blacks, etc..). And you can't > do that. So now I accept the fact that, in society's eyes, I am a man, and > thus am also responsible for the actions of other men (in the sense that I > have to fight against the "bad" things other members of my group do to other > people). So I have no objections to the phrase "Men do ..."; I also recognize > that, whether I personally have or not, men have benefited for years at the > expense of blacks and women, and I have to work to change this. Just to balance things out, let me add that I think that this applies to women too. I certainly feel that more harm is done by women who act in stereotypical fashions than by men who believe that women act that way. (Of course I am talking about the bad stereotypes here.) -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/30/85)
> >>So, I say to you men: you are *not* individuals. Society treats you as men, > >>which, in most cases, has benefited you. Be willing to accept (in part) the > >>blame for what other members of the group "men" do. > >> David London > > >I am surprised to find that I am actually incapable of expressing in words > >my contempt for this posting. Speak for yourself, London. If you want to > >define your existence by what other people think of you, that's your > >business. But the fact that I AM an individual can not be changed by what > >you or anyone else may think. > > I think I'll push the point a bit further, and say that this attitude really > has a tone of sexism, racism, etc.. If you really believe that you are treated > as an individual, Hold it right there. Who has said that they believe that they are treated by society as individuals? Both myself and the person to whom you are replying here have stated only that we *are* individuals, *not* that society treats us as individuals (though that is a wonderful goal to work towards.) -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there." - Martha and the Vandellas
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/31/85)
> >> or > = David London > > Jeff Sonntag (me) > > >> ... So now I no longer object > >> to the phrase "Men do...". One *can* describe a large group of people by a > >> number of characteristics, some good and bad. Oops, deleted too much. David was giving these (below) as examples of correct generalizations: > 3. Men (in our society) have treated, and continue to treat, women very badly. > Women have been made to feel inferior, and been made to feel as if they > could not do things men can. Among (many) other things, this sort of > attitude has been promoted (by men) by such phrases as 'Women are no good > at engineering'. The problem with this type of generalization is the same as the problem in the following generalization: "Dogs are black." What's that? Only some dogs are black? You think my generalization about dogs is incorrect? How is it different from your generalization about men? > > Secondly, I agree that people are individuals, Yeah! Then what are we argueing about? > and must be treated as such. > My point is that our society doesn't treat anyone as an individual (including > you), and this must be recognized - you can't go around saying "I AM an > individual", because, in this society, you're not; The fact that this society doesn't treat me or anyone as an individual is one of this society's problems, not evidence of our lacks of individuality. I define myself by what *I* think of myself, not by what society thinks of me. > what you can do is to > start treating everyone as an individual, teach your kids to do the same, > etc.. But all the while, you can't pretend that, just because you treat > others as individuals, others will do the same to you. You may want them > to, but they (very likely) will not. Damn good advice. I think the whole misunderstanding we've had here, David, is about the source of individuality. I think it comes from within a person; you seem to think that it is assigned to or denied from a person by society. You're wrong. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there." - Martha and the Vandellas
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/31/85)
> I will never accept the blame for someone else's actions, > nor allow anyone to accept the blame for mine. > People are individuals, and they must be treated as such. Treating them > as groups of faceless automata fullfilling societally defined roles is cruel, > unfair, and exactly the kind of behavior which the feminist movement has been > trying to change. > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j Yes, but nonetheless, everyone (rightly or not) gets associated with the group to which they're supposed to belong (in the eye of the associator). Undue blame for being associated with a group is just as bad as undue credit for being associated with a group. People SHOULD be treated as individuals, but, let's face it, we're not, and getting benefits just for belonging to a group occurs just as much as people being punished just for belonging to a group. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/31/85)
> >So, I say to you men: you are *not* individuals. Society treats you as men, > >which, in most cases, has benefited you. Be willing to accept (in part) the > >blame for what other members of the group "men" do. And work to change men's > >attitudes towards women, blacks, etc. > > David London > > > I am surprised to find that I am actually incapable of expressing in words > my contempt for this posting. Speak for yourself, London. If you want to > define your existence by what other people think of you, that's your > business. But the fact that I AM an individual can not be changed by what > you or anyone else may think. [W LINKE] Feel as much contempt as you like. A good part of your existence is in fact defined by the world around you, and by the benefits you may accrue from being associated with a particular group by other people. It's wrong, but it's still true. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/03/85)
> <> > > >> me (David London) > > Jeff Sonntag > > >> ... So now I no longer object > >> to the phrase "Men do...". One *can* describe a large group of people by a > >> number of characteristics, some good and bad. > > > Certainly, one *can*. Once can say: 'Women are no good at engineering', > >or 'Blacks are shiftless and lazy.' or 'Jews have big noses.' Of course, if > >one *does* say these things, then one is guilty of incorrect generalizations, > >racism, and sexism. Why do you think it should be different when the group > >being generalized is 'men'? > > All you have shown is that one can make incorrect generalizations, not that > generalizations are not valid - they may be. You can even make valid and > useful generalizations about blacks, Jews, women, etc.., without being > bigotted. > > Try these: > 1. Blacks, in the U.S., after suffering discrimination for so many years, > have a "collective inferiority complex", which also must be overcome to > correct the effects of discrimination. > 2. Jews have a history of promoting learning and education among their > children, which may account for the fact that so many of our great scholars > over the last 100 years (for instance) are Jewish: e.g. Einstein, Marx, > Freud. > 3. Men (in our society) have treated, and continue to treat, women very badly. > Women have been made to feel inferior, and been made to feel as if they > could not do things men can. Among (many) other things, this sort of > attitude has been promoted (by men) by such phrases as 'Women are no good > at engineering'. > It is very true that certain statements *can* be valid statements of averages: blacks may in fact have a greater average preference for fried chicken than whites (although I doubt it), but making the assertion that it is only necessary for us to get the *right* prejudices demonstrates the fallacy of collectivism (saying racism, sexism, religious bigotry, etc. is getting to be laborious to right). The *average* woman may feel that "women are no good at engineering", but an average is just that --- I know women who became engineers because they didn't feel that way. Viewing all men as identical because of some notion of *averages*, is only slightly more intelligent than the bigot who says, "All blacks like to dance." > > David London > ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london
chaiklin@umn-cs.UUCP (Seth Chaiklin) (06/09/85)
The recent exchange between David London and Jeff Sontag about individuality in society has been very interesting. I want to add a point for consideration. Both writers assert that ideally we should treat people as individuals, though David London adds an important qualification about the current conditions: >Secondly, I agree that people are individuals, and must be treated as such. >My point is that our society doesn't treat anyone as an individual (including >you), and this must be recognized - you can't go around saying "I AM an >individual", because, in this society, you're not; what you can do is to >start treating everyone as an individual, teach your kids to do the same, >etc.. Mr. London seems to think that eventually we could achieve the ideal. I think the fact of the matter is that we are embedded in a social system, that we rely on other people, and if we spent more time acting for the welfare of all, the welfare of individuals would accrue.
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/26/85)
> [David London] > Secondly, I agree that people are individuals, and > must be treated as such. My point is that our society doesn't treat > anyone as an individual (including you), and this must be recognized > - you can't go around saying "I AM an individual", because, in this > society, you're not. Oh, boy -- *MAGIC!!* All you have to do is convince 'society' of something, and it's *TRUE!!* David London's individuality is a variable that depends on the people he associates with. If he belongs to a society that believes in the individual, he's an individual. If he belongs to a society that doesn't, he's just a cog in a great machine. I wonder what would happen if he belonged to a society that believed that he didn't exist? -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert