london@oddjob.UUCP (David London) (05/31/85)
<> >> me (David London) > Jeff Sonntag First of all, I made a misprint in a previous article: I said: "Secondly, I agree that people are individuals, and must be treated as such." I meant to say that *in theory* (or in the absence of society), people are individuals, etc... Upon second thought, I'm not sure of this either. I will comment further on this below. Point 1: Jeff says: >I define myself by what *I* think of myself, not by what society thinks of >me. Jeff, this statement doesn't mean anything. Did you know that I think I'm the most intelligent, best looking, most talented person in the history of the universe? However, since nobody agrees with me, and nobody treats me as if I have these qualities, what weight does my conviction carry? None. As long as you interact with other people, part of that which is "you" will be what other people think of you and how they treat you. Frankly, I don't think this is necessarily a "bad thing" (i.e. I'm not sure that, within any society, total individuality is such a good quality). For instance, an important goal of the feminist movement is to make women feel as if they *do* belong to a group, that they are not alone. In some sense, this is a loss of individuality (women can now say, "Yes, I am a feminist."), but it seems to me that this a "good" loss of individuality, something which (at least at this time) should be strived for. (aside: part of Jeff's point is, I think, that you can't base all of your opinions about yourself solely on the basis of the way society treats you. This can lead to all sorts of horrible things - diminished self-worth (which is a by-product of years of discrimination), etc. Conversely, however, you must put *some* weight on the opinions of other people.) Point 2: Although I've made the point that the way society treats you is important, you are not powerless to change this. The way society treats (white) men is connected intimately with the way society treats blacks, women, etc.. The way society treats people reflects the way men treat people, since this *is* a man-dominated society (more on the validity of generalizations below). For instance, I believe there is a connection between rape and the way society (i.e. men) treats women as subservient. *You* may not treat women as subservient, but society does, and as a man, you have a responsibility to change this (yes, I know that *everyone* has this responsibility, but men do in particular, since they fostered the attitude in the first place). A corollary to this is that men should not use the excuse, "I don't do X", to remove responsibility from themselves for the attitudes that fostered the action X. Point 3: (generalizations) In the above point, I have said "Men do ...". I believe Jeff would object to this, vis: >>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? Jeff, I think you're being a bit stubborn here. My generalization attempts to explain the reasons for a certain feature of society. I assume you will agree that women are treated badly. I ask why? If you answer, "Well, society treats them badly.", this is not an explanation. To be precise, "society" doesn't treat anyone in any particular way (although I've used the phrase) - people do. And the people who have the power, the people who make the rules, are men. *Men* have created these attitudes. Your example doesn't answer any questions, it's just a statement with no importance attached to it. (By the way, Jeff, I suggest that you avoid such statements as, "I think X. You think Y. You're wrong." It's just childish, and diminishes the importance of the rest of what you may have to say. If you want to stop, just say something like, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.") David London ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/05/85)
> Point 3: (generalizations) > In the above point, I have said "Men do ...". I believe Jeff would object to > this, vis: > >>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? > > Jeff, I think you're being a bit stubborn here. My generalization attempts > to explain the reasons for a certain feature of society. I assume you will > agree that women are treated badly. I ask why? If you answer, "Well, society > treats them badly.", this is not an explanation. To be precise, "society" > doesn't treat anyone in any particular way (although I've used the phrase) - > people do. And the people who have the power, the people who make the rules, > are men. *Men* have created these attitudes. Your example doesn't answer any > questions, it's just a statement with no importance attached to it. > The above paragraph asserts that "society" equals rule makers, and that rule makers equals (all) men. Rule makers include a lot of women, many of whom see women in a subservient role, and some of whom even like it that way. (Like Madonna.) Also, even if all the rules associated with "society" were made exclusively by men, all men don't make the rules. Your generalization is still wrong. > (By the way, Jeff, I suggest that you avoid such statements as, "I think X. > You think Y. You're wrong." It's just childish, and diminishes the importance > of the rest of what you may have to say. If you want to stop, just say > something like, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.") > > David London > ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london "The sky is orange with magenta stripes." "You are wrong." "That just being childish --- it diminishes the importance of the rest of what you may have to say."