dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/15/85)
(Originally from net.women, but I decided to put it in net.politics too) In article <2473@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: > ...there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and >dangerous claims that: > 1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at > least as much attention as discrimination against women. > 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome > discrimination. > 3. Wearing ``provocative'' clothing is somehow responsible for > (at least some) rape. > >Except for one or two mild postings, the net is *silent* in response >to these and other such claims! I'm only going to deal with point 2, Ed, because it looks like a distorted version of something I've been saying, and I think I'd like to go into some detail about how it's been distorted. First, I've been trying to argue (poorly, I admit) that it makes no sense for one person to feel pride over another person's accomplishments just because that other person happens to be of the same race, sex, nationality, or handedness. (Pride must be earned.) But carefully selecting one of the beliefs this implies, ie. that it makes no sense for women to feel pride over the accomplishments of other women, and stating it in isolation is a good way to make it look like I'm something I am not, ie. a sexist. Second, as I understand Ed's statement, (he will correct me if I'm wrong), Ed is defending the practice of being proud of other people's accomplishments on the basis of an (irrelevant, in my point of view) resemblance, *for* *women*. But his statement is ambiguous, and can be taken to mean that I consider it incorrect for a woman to be proud when she has overcome discrimination. Be very careful, Ed, what your statements imply, or can be taken to imply, or you may move me to resentment. Third, Ed introduces moralistic language to a statement that had no moralistic language. Ie. where I said "it makes no sense to..." Ed said "shouldn't..." Of course, if Ed was not referring to what I've been saying, then I apologize for any nasty implications about his honesty that people may mistakenly derive from the above. -- David Canzi It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us. Peter De Vries
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (05/18/85)
> (Originally from net.women, but I decided to put it in net.politics too) > > In article <2473@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: > > ...there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and > >dangerous claims that: > > 1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at > > least as much attention as discrimination against women. > > 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome > > discrimination. > > 3. Wearing ``provocative'' clothing is somehow responsible for > > (at least some) rape. > > > >Except for one or two mild postings, the net is *silent* in response > >to these and other such claims! > 1) I've heard this one before. How many times have you heard of a white male being unable to get a good job or a good education simply because he is a white male? The affirmative action laws are there because blacks, women, and other oppressed groups would not get what is rightfully theirs without them. 2) This paraphrase is a little misleading. Ed Hall's argument was that it is wrong for women to be proud of other women who overcome discrimination, when men don't feel proud of other men's accomplishments. First, I don't think it is anyone's business how someone else feels, especially when those feelings are positive. Second, it is strange to me that someone can't understand pride in another person with whom you identify. Many women identify with other women as a class, and it seems only natural to me that they would be proud when some woman overcomes an injustice against her, or accomplishes some other positive thing related to the fact that she is a woman. Men don't have this feeling about other men for a number of reasons, but the main one is that men as a class don't suffer unfair discrimination (except in a few peculiar circumstances), and so there are few chances for men to be proud of each other when they overcome obstacles placed there because they are men. 3) A woman should be able to walk down the middle of Main Street naked with no fear of rape. I would say that, with the current state of society, it would be foolish for a woman to do so. Some men take "provocative" clothing to mean that the woman wants to be raped, or are such slavering baboons* that they go into a frenzy whenever they see female skin. This is not the woman's fault, which is what I assume Ed Hall means by responsibility. *Sorry, I didn't mean to insult baboons by comparing them with rapists. These are too easy. I guess the reason there hasn't been much net traffic about this is that most people, when they see such crap, assume that everyone else knows it's crap, too. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/22/85)
In article <400@rtech.ARPA> jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> In article <2473@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: >> > ...there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and >> >dangerous claims that: >> > ... >> > 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome >> > discrimination. >> > ... >> >Except for one or two mild postings, the net is *silent* in response >> >to these and other such claims! >> > >... >2) This paraphrase is a little misleading. Ed Hall's argument was that it is > wrong for women to be proud of other women who overcome discrimination, > when men don't feel proud of other men's accomplishments. That was *my* statement, which Ed Hall paraphrased... > First, I don't > think it is anyone's business how someone else feels, especially when those > feelings are positive. Second, it is strange to me that someone can't > understand pride in another person with whom you identify. Taking second first, I once felt that way myself. I've thought it over, and tried carefully to define to myself the nature of that pride. Then I tried to decide for myself whether it made sense for me to feel that way. And I couldn't convince myself that it did. One problem I came up against was that I have no way of being sure that the feeling of a woman who is proud to be a woman (or proud of the accomplishments of other woman) was feeling the same thing I felt when I used to proud of my nationality. Returning to first, and what business is it of mine what others feel, especially if they are positive feelings: I had an ulterior motive. I don't feel that this is restricted to positive feelings. People can be manipulated by trying to make them feel guilty for the actions of other members of their race/sex/nationality. Also, it's commonplace among racists, sexists and patriots to blame an entire race, sex, or nation for the nasty actions of some members. I wanted to argue against the idea that there can be any validity to holding an entire group (eg. teenagers, Germans) guilty for the bad behavior of some members. This type of blaming is common among racists and nationalists, of course, but I also wanted to point out that this is also being done by some who call themselves anti-racists. For example, in discussions about affirmative action, slavery is often brought up as a justification for over-redressing the injustices against blacks caused by discrimination. But giving slavery as a reason for policies that are unfair to whites implies a belief that somehow the white people who will be hurt "deserve" it because of something other white people did. (Not all such arguments are pure exercises in guilt-making. Sometimes, in the middle of all the moral indignation, I find hidden rational, or at least rational-seeming, arguments.) -- David Canzi "The Indians got revenge on the white man. They gave him tobacco."
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (05/23/85)
[] > ... First, I don't > think it is anyone's business how someone else feels, especially when those > feelings are positive. ??? What in the world does this *mean*? Is it not any of my business if a German feels pride in Adolf Hitler, or a Ugandan in Idi Amin? Isaac Dimitrovsky
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (05/25/85)
> First, I've been trying to argue (poorly, I admit) that it makes no > sense for one person to feel pride over another person's > accomplishments just because that other person happens to be of the > same race, sex, nationality, or handedness. I think you said it--it is wrong to have pride *over* another person. But that's not the point. > (Pride must be earned.) Exactly. And when women--even if it is just a few at first--prove that they can overcome the handicap of living in a male-dominant culture, I think they *all* have a right to be proud, for it is a small step towards breaking these cultural bounds *for* *all* *women*. This is the point: If I belong to a group that has long been held to be innately inferior, then for one of my group to overcome this indicates that I can, too. And I feel proud. And I claim it is natural to feel this way. Furthermore, I claim that when a group that has held a superior position (by force, I might add) accomplishes something that this group has always claimed, there is little cause for pride. > But carefully selecting one of the beliefs this implies, ie. that it > makes no sense for women to feel pride over the accomplishments of > other women, and stating it in isolation is a good way to make it look > like I'm something I am not, ie. a sexist. I say you *are* a being sexist so far as you support the status quo as being fair when it clearly bears sexual bias. > Second, as I understand Ed's statement, (he will correct me if I'm > wrong), Ed is defending the practice of being proud of other people's > accomplishments on the basis of an (irrelevant, in my point of view) > resemblance, *for* *women*. But his statement is ambiguous, and can be > taken to mean that I consider it incorrect for a woman to be proud when > she has overcome discrimination. Be very careful, Ed, what your > statements imply, or can be taken to imply, or you may move me to > resentment. I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Can you, or someone, enlighten me? > Third, Ed introduces moralistic language to a statement that had no > moralistic language. Ie. where I said "it makes no sense to..." Ed > said "shouldn't..." And, of course, because I do this, and you don't, you claim the moral high ground by pointing it out. All you've done is substitute ``makes sense'' and ``doesn't make sense'' for ``right'' and ``wrong'', respectively. I don't think there is a real difference here. > Of course, if Ed was not referring to what I've been saying, then I > apologize for any nasty implications about his honesty that people > may mistakenly derive from the above. What??? I didn't even catch anything remotely like an accusation that I was dishonest. I'd be upset if you had... so I guess it's best that I missed it. > -- > David Canzi -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (05/27/85)
> [] > > ... First, I don't > > think it is anyone's business how someone else feels, especially when those > > feelings are positive. > > ??? What in the world does this *mean*? Is it not any of my business > if a German feels pride in Adolf Hitler, or a Ugandan in Idi Amin? > > Isaac Dimitrovsky One of the favorite activities on the net is to take a person's innocent and reasonable statement to a ridiculous extreme in order to show that he or she is completely, totally wrong. How does pride in Adolph Hitler or Idi Amin fit into the context of the original discussion? Am I now expected to formulate a complex theory of when it is allowable to judge another's feelings and when it isn't? The original question was whether it should be acceptable for a woman to feel pride in other women's accomplishments, when it seems ridiculous for men to feel pride in another man's accomplishments simply because he is a man. It annoys me that some people want to get inside other people's minds and tell them that it is not O.K. to feel something like this. I feel that, generally, people don't have the right to tell other people how to feel. What goes on inside your head should be your own property. Of course, I don't believe in this idea absolutely, nor am I interested in getting into a petty, sophomoric discussion about where to draw the line. I think my statement is reasonable as it stands, as long as you don't try to stretch it so thin that it covers the whole universe. Please note that I am not saying that you claim women who feel pride in other women are the moral equivalent of Nazis. In this way, I am being more reasonable toward you than you were toward me. Isaac, are you able to get out of bed in the morning without formulating a theory about it first? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/31/85)
I had been saying that it doesn't make sense for a member of some group to be proud of the accomplishments of other members of his/her/its group. This was meant to apply, in full generality, to whites, blacks, men, women, short people, liberals, and wombats. Here is how Ed Hall chose to interpret what I was saying: > ...there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and >dangerous claims that: > ... > 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome > discrimination. > ... The most obvious feature of this is the way Ed chose to take *one* special implication of what I was saying and express it in isolation from the others. Thus, anybody reading it without knowing what I *really* said can leap to the wrong conclusion. The sentence is also ambiguous, as I've pointed out, and can be taken to mean that an individual woman should not be proud when she manages to overcome discrimination. (Reread the sentence, just to check.) This implication may not be deliberate, but I can't be sure. And that is what prompted me to say "be very careful what your statements imply, or can be taken to imply, or you may move me to resentment", a statement which Ed appeared to find puzzling. Part of Ed Hall's response to my response follows: >> Of course, if Ed was not referring to what I've been saying, then I >> apologize for any nasty implications about his honesty that people >> may mistakenly derive from the above. > >What??? I didn't even catch anything remotely like an accusation that >I was dishonest. I'd be upset if you had... Very well. I say you have deliberately taken some of my words out of context and distorted them for the purpose of character assassination. Now, get upset. -- David Canzi "All in all you're just another prick in the stall." -- men's room graffiti
colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (06/05/85)
[Honk if you love Hitler] > > ... First, I don't > > think it is anyone's business how someone else feels, especially when those > > feelings are positive. > > ??? What in the world does this *mean*? Is it not any of my business > if a German feels pride in Adolf Hitler, or a Ugandan in Idi Amin? > > Isaac Dimitrovsky One could have loved Hitler (while he lived) without hating Jews. (Personally I never found him very lovable ...) But now that he's dead, the people who revere his memory do so because they share his hatreds. I agree with Ed insofar as you cannot argue with people's feelings. If somebody hates me, that's cool. I'll be on my guard, of course. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel