dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/15/85)
When a woman points proudly to the accomplishment of some famous woman, she is simply showing a healthy pride in her sex. If a black shows pride in the accomplishments of some famous black, his/her pride is considered praiseworthy. If a white man expresses pride in the accomplishments of white men, he's a filthy racist sexist pig. Do I smell a double standard? -- David Canzi
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (04/15/85)
About two months ago I posted the following to net.politics and net.women under the title "A white man speaks his mind": > When a woman points proudly to the accomplishment of some famous woman, > she is simply showing a healthy pride in her sex. If a black shows pride > in the accomplishments of some famous black, his/her pride is considered > praiseworthy. If a white man expresses pride in the accomplishments of > white men, he's a filthy racist sexist pig. > > Do I smell a double standard? I had hoped that there would be some response showing how people handle this double standard, but people were too busy at the time arguing over affirmative action. There seem to me to be three ways to handle this double standard: 1) Decide that whites/men have the right to be proud of the accomplishments of other members of their race/sex. 2) Decide that blacks/women don't have the right to be proud of the accomplishments of other members of their race/sex. 3) Decide that there really isn't anything wrong with double standards. Which of these do you consider to be right? -- David Canzi If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?
jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (04/17/85)
>When a woman points proudly to the accomplishment of some famous woman, >she is simply showing a healthy pride in her sex. If a black shows pride >in the accomplishments of some famous black, his/her pride is considered >praiseworthy. If a white man expresses pride in the accomplishments of >white men, he's a filthy racist sexist pig. Stop. Think. If we are proud of some great accomplishment, it does not follow that we are proud of the person who did it because they are female/ male/black/white/short/tall/whatever. I was very thrilled when Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon and I felt it was an accomplishment of all human beings. WE had done it! I was not glad because a white had stepped on the moon! When people point to great accomplishments of blacks (for instance George Washington Carver) it is not BECAUSE he was black that he was great but he doubly great becausemanaged to accomplish so much IN SPITE OF the obstacles put in his path. People admire him because he overcame social difficulties AND he made useful discoveries for everyone to enjoy. When disparaging remarks are made about blacks, one can point to him as a clear contradiction. If someone says that Margaret Thatcher is a great leader because she is white, they are discounting the reality of the prejudice against non-whites in Britain. They don't recognize that that prejudice means a black didn't stand a chance. The inference is that a black could not be in that position because she would be incompetent. My point is, it is EASIER to become great if one is a white man. One can get the education, financial help, moral support, etc. To be proud of a man BECAUSE he is a white man is a slap in the face to anyone else. To be proud of someone despite the fact that the person is not a white man is to acknowledge the obstacles in their way and to have a role model for fighting such obstacles oneself. If you say you admire Leonardo da Vinci -- I'd agree with you. If you say he was great because he was a white man I wouldn't be able to see how that was germane and I would assume you were saying that if he had been born a woman (with the same social opportunities) he would somehow not have accomplished what he did and I would think you were a filthy racist sexist pig. Now, you may have some obscure reason to be proud of white men, and not be aware of the prejudice against those who aren't white men so you don't have the same thought patterns that most people do. In that case, you should be aware of the way your society operates. Remember that communication is two way. There is the way you say something and there is the way it is understood. Times change and the language changes and part of communication is making sure you understand how to phrase things so you will be understood. There are much wider implications to statements about pride in the accomplish- ments of white men than you seem to realize, from your statements above. --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullan
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (04/17/85)
In article <2285@wateng.UUCP> jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) writes: > There is the way you say something and there is the way it is >understood. Times change and the language changes and part of communication >is making sure you understand how to phrase things so you will be understood. ------ ------ -- --- ---- -- ---------- I can see I haven't done this well, Judy. First, let me make it clear that I feel there is an important difference between *being* *proud* of somebody else's accomplishments and *admiring* somebody else's accomplishments. Admiration is merely the recognition of the greatness of some person's accomplishments. Being proud of some other person's accomplishments is usually based on great accomplishments and some shared characteristic, such as race or sex. This type of pride has the connotation that the greatness of one member of a group rubs off on the rest of the group. It is considered commendable for a woman to be proud of the accomplishments of other women, when a large component of this pride is based on their shared membership in the female sex. It is considered disgusting for a man to be proud of the accomplishments of other men, if that pride is based on their shared membership in the male sex. (It's commendable if that pride is based on shared membership in the human species.) I posted that article to point out this double standard, provoke some discussion, and try to see how other people resolve it, not to defend or expound racism and sexism. And afterwards I intended to make a point. I thought that these articles, with the deliberately offensive title, would be a clever way to get around to making my point. Maybe too clever. > --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM > ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullan -- David Canzi "Too clever is dumb."
jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (04/18/85)
I have never looked at it this way. What you are describing is a feeling of
rivalry. The white man is proud because a white man was great -- the implication
is either (1) that he was proud/glad that the great one was NOT a woman or non-
white (2) or that he would not have been proud or thought the person great if
they were a non-(white man). (1) means the guy is full of hatred for others
(2) means the guy is so prejudiced he refuses recognize greatness unless the
person is a white man.
Let me think about the other case (I use a black woman as the example). The
black woman is proud because the great one was a black woman. Considering the
society she lives in, the implications are (1) she is glad that the great one
was NOT a white man or (2) she would not have noticed his accomplishment if he
was a white man. (1) could mean she is glad someone other than a white man
finally getting some due OR it could mean she hates white men (2) is very
unlikely as newspapers, schoolbooks, etc. would all be mentioning him to her.
What do you think? An accurate analysis? I think so. But it means the proud
white man has no possible good motives while the proud black woman could be
just as vile OR she might just be glad that black women are finally getting
equal billing.
--from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM
...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullanwest@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (04/21/85)
Judy McMullan writes: > (2) she would not have noticed his accomplishment if he was a white man. > (2) is very unlikely as newspapers, schoolbooks, etc. would all be > mentioning him to her. Actually this is not necessarily the case. While a certain accomplishment might be relatively insignificant for a male caucasian, it could be considered quite an accomplishment for a female negro. An example of this would be someone becoming a president of a large corporation. This is generally not considered something to be terribly notable if the person is a male caucasian, but having such a post occupied by a female negro would be quite significant, and would probably be news-worthy. However, the analysis of this situation is probably the same as was made in point (1) of the original article. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
chabot@miles.DEC (Bits is Bits) (04/24/85)
David Canzi >It is considered commendable for a woman to be proud of the accomplishments > of other women, when a large component of this pride is based on their shared > membership in the female sex. It is considered disgusting for a man to be > proud of the accomplishments of other men, if that pride is based on their > shared membership in the male sex. (It's commendable if that pride is based > on shared membership in the human species.) The reason why it is acceptable for women to think about the accomplishments of other women is that for a long time women have been conditioned to think that they were incapable of accomplishing such things; for instance, there were Victorians who rewrote histories eliminating women who were architects for cathedrals in preceding centuries. In other fields, such as literature, women authors are largely ignored or their art attributed to masculine influences: the 19th century writer Rebecca Harding Davis and her novels about industrialization and about the War Between the States is an example of the former, and Virginia Woolf is a silly but true example of the former. Young males are not subject to this same indoctrination towards non-achievement, although individual cases (such as destructive parents or influences due to racism) may differ. Job-orientation practices I remember from school days were largely male-directed: in kindergarten we went on trips and discussed exciting jobs such as fireMAN and postMAN, but when I had to rack my young brain for an answer as to What I Wanted to Be, I realized they wanted me to answer "Mommy". (Yeah, hell, so I probably did--who wants to be found out as a pink monkey.) Typical Day in a Life of an X kits in junior high yielded typical days for only males in the professions I chose (mathematician, musician (and it was even a flautist, which was right for me), cartoonist (but it's my mother with the art talent), secondary school teacher (I think primary school teacher was a woman); I began to feel suspicious that maybe I'd get caught again, so luckily I'd run out of the number I was allowed to choose. I wonder how many of them were portrayed as women? It is only considered disgusting to be proud of the accomplishments of one's group if this pride is used as a proof of that group's superiority, and, frankly, that's only the opinion of some. _The_Mismeasure_of_Man_ contains many examples of how pride in one's group and the need to prove that group superior corrupted thinking and scientific research, and the results of this corruption were displayed with pride. Another example is that women who are militant female-supremists are considered disgusting by many; Malcolm X was considered disgusting too. The disgust is probably felt by those oppose searching for such rankings, and also by those who think the rankings fall the other way - in their favor. I haven't had occasion to see highlightings of accomplishments by women with a goal of leading women to believe in their superiority; I have seen it used to reinforce confidence in women that they too needn't be passive in life. I have seen arguments listing white christian men's accomplishments as proof of their superiority--sometimes from the horse's mouth, sometimes in discussions of opinions such horses held in historical times (er, longer ago than last month? :-). Perhaps some people need to boast about their superiority in order to retain confidence in themselves (or at least excuse themselves for such ridiculous behavior!); these people might then see the actions of any therefore inferior group to reinforce their own self-worth as destructive to the confidence of the "superior" group--without that being the intent of the "inferior" group. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA DEC, LMO4/H4, 150 Locke Drive, Marlborough, MA 01752
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (04/30/85)
[David Canzi, expressing dismay at women's "sexism" (David, I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting above, but I'm trying to sum this up *briefly* for net.motss, which didn't get the original posting):] >It is considered commendable for a woman to be proud of the accomplishments >of other women, when a large component of this pride is based on their shared >membership in the female sex. It is considered disgusting for a man to be >proud of the accomplishments of other men, if that pride is based on their >shared membership in the male sex. (It's commendable if that pride is based >on shared membership in the human species.) An interesting corollary to this is how often members of *other* groups try to make one feel guilty/ashamed/worthless/*wrong* based simply on one's "shared membership in" some group or other. Women get it all the time ("women drivers", "dizzy blondes" and countless other more damaging ways without such catchy names). Gays get it CONSTANTLY. Blacks get it CONSTANTLY. Hispanics (in the US) get it CONSTANTLY. White men, for years and years, almost *never* got it (but that's changing now). (I often ponder how many times I've heard straight people want to bar gays from "teaching their children". I'm guessing at the numbers, but I'd say 98%+ of rapes are committed by men, and since about 90% of men are white, probably 90% of the rapists are white too. Similarly, 90% of men are straight, so .... Yet how often do you hear someone say "I wouldn't want a straight white man teaching MY kids!"?) Perhaps allowing other groups to feel pride instead of shame based on "their shared membership" in a group is a way to compensate for this madness of blacklisting people based on (anything, really, but especially) things beyond their control (e.g., gender, race, nationality, sexual preference). In the perfect world, compensation shouldn't be necessary. (But in the perfect world this wouldn't have happened in the first place.) But maybe sometime (soon) down the line both the blacklistERs and the blacklistEEs can forget all this b...s... and just show a little respect for each other. -- --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/06/85)
Judy: You've failed to separate the ideas of (a) admiring another person and (b) being proud of another person. I'll try to make the distinction very clear, and what the hell, I think I'm going to give away most of what I intended to say. To admire another person's accomplishment is to recognize that that person's accomplishment is great (or at least pretty good). Pride is an increase in your self-esteem resulting from your accomplishment(s). It's hard, given this, to make any sense of the idea of being proud of somebody else's accomplishment. Yet, when people talk of being proud of some famous person or other, they mean something more than just admiration. For example, as a kid, I was encouraged to be proud of being a Canadian, and several famous Canadians were mentioned to me as reasons for being proud. This had the same effect on my self-esteem as if I had actually done something great, myself. But all I had actually done was to be Canadian, and being Canadian is no accomplishment. Being of the same sex or race or nationality as some other person who has accomplished something great is not an accomplishment. So why be proud? Paraphrasing myself: It is okay for a woman to be proud because of the accomplishments of other woman. It is not okay for a man to be proud because of the accomplishments of other men because they are men, though it's okay for him to be proud because they are fellow humans. There appears to be a double standard here. My resolution of this double standard is that it makes no sense for you to be proud of somebody else's accomplishment, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation or handedness, because it's their accomplishment, not yours. You want to be proud? You have to earn it. I intend to *generalize* on this idea in some future posting... -- David Canzi It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us. Peter De Vries
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (05/07/85)
> Pride is an increase in your self-esteem resulting from your > accomplishment(s). No, according to the dictionary [The American Heritage Dictionary], pride is "a sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect." It *also* means "pleasure or satisfaction taken in one's work, achievements, or possessions" but this is not the *only* definition of pride. > For example, as a kid, I was > encouraged to be proud of being a Canadian, and several famous > Canadians were mentioned to me as reasons for being proud. This had > the same effect on my self-esteem as if I had actually done something > great, myself. But all I had actually done was to be Canadian, and > being Canadian is no accomplishment. Being of the same sex or race or > nationality as some other person who has accomplished something great > is not an accomplishment. So why be proud? > In the best of all possible worlds "a sense of one's own proper dignity or value" might only be tied to one's accomplishments. However, we do not live in the best of all possible worlds. [Surprise, surprise!] We live in a world where blacks, hispanics, Jews, women and/or even Canadians are devalued for being blacks, hispanics, Jews, women and/or Canadians. And as long as the devaluation process exists, I see nothing wrong with encouraging black, hispanic, Jewish, female and/or Canadian children to be proud of their birth. WASP males have been instrumental in obscuring the accomplishments of members of minority groups in order to justify dominating those groups. And the US domination of Canadian culture is well documented. Telling people to be proud of their membership in discriminated against group is another way telling people not to be ashamed of their membership in that group. WASP males are not acculturated to be ashamed of the group to which they belong the way the rest of us are. They do not need to be encouraged to feel pride in their group as a corrective to the devaluation of their group. C. E. Jackson ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)
jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (05/08/85)
All right. I think you've managed to give a fairly narrow meaning but at
least I find the semantics clear now. I guess it all comes down to whether
a person is glad to be a woman or a man.
Did you know that one of the questions on a popular personality test (the
Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory) was (it may still be for all
I know) a question asking, for men, if you were glad to be a man and for
women, if you were glad to be a woman? It was a sign of good mental health
for a man to be glad to be a man and a sign of good mental health for a woman
to want to be a man. This was serious. A mentally healthy woman
is supposed to wish she was a man!! I don't know how they developed this
test. I do know that most of them are developed by just asking people, who are
judged by other criteria to be mentally healthy or not, a bunch of questions.
They then develop a set of answers consistent with good or bad mental health.
My point is, our society has come up with such a twisted set of expectations
for women that a woman has been defined as well-adjusted despite the fact that
she disklikes herself. Women are urged to adopt behaviours that are
simultaneously scorned. I could go on and on. Read "Women and Madness", for a
start.
This is why women are not usually condemned for being proud to be women. It is
such a refreshing change for them. It is such a healthy release from the twisted
lessons of society. They are becoming truly happy with themselves.
Men, too, should be happy to be men. I feel sorry for someone who wants to be
what they are not. Even small things such as wishing to be shorter or taller
are draining on a person. Make the most of what you have, is my motto.
However, the fact remains that because women and men have different societies
within a larger society, the "pride" you talk about has different connotations
and a different background (or backdrop).
The "double standard" is a direct result of the differing expectations for
men and women and the different roles they have assumed in society. The
secondary position of women means their pride is being women is not usually
a kick in the teeth to men. They simply have lower status and only when an
individual woman is able to ignore societal expectations about her status
can she become obnoxious in her woman-pride.
Some women HAVE managed to express disdain for men and made declarations that
they are glad to be women. These "castrating bitches" are quickly condemned (and
pointed to as "typical feminists").
I'd love to see the day when both women and men are seen as a little weird for
showing excessive pride in the accomplishments of members of their own sex.
When women and men (and people of all colours) are equally respected and the
feelings of rivalry and hatred are gone.
--from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM
...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullanellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/08/85)
>Judy: > >You've failed to separate the ideas of (a) admiring another person and >(b) being proud of another person. I'll try to make the distinction >very clear... Being of the same sex or race or >nationality as some other person who has accomplished something great >is not an accomplishment. So why be proud? > >I intend to *generalize* on this idea in some future posting... All HUMANS who have worked together against oppression have a great deal to be proud of whenever anyone of us breaks the chains of the past. One white man speaks his mind But we all suffer his disgrace -michael