tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (12/14/84)
It seems to be fashionable for ethically enlightened females to assume
implicitly that women are inherently more reasonable than men, and that
men are the primary causes of the violence and hate in the world. I
suspect that this view is caused because
1) Traditionally males have taken *visible* roles in the
traffic of hate and violence,
2) The recognition of hate and violence of as an undesirable
phenomenon is a recent development, and
3) Because of 2) we are focussing of the most visible
features of hate first, that is, 1) above.
As well, there is a failure to distinguish what might actually be two separate
phenomena: the discrimination practiced by the patriarchy against women, and
the general existence of hate and violence. The ethically enlightened woman
(who opposes both of these) to bundle the two phenomena carelessly. This may be
partly due to the nurturing role that women have visibly had. I think that
there is discrimination that is NOT related to hate and that there is hate
which is not related to descrimination of women. And vice versa.
I suspect that a more accurate view of violence and hate will have to encompass
the whole social structure that supports it: *including the women who support
it*. And I have met enough of the to know that they are not scarce. I have
met many men who deplore hate (and give love freely) to know that what they
are is not purely a female 'thing'.
The existence of hate and inhumanity IS NOT per se, a sex related issue. There
may be more ethically enlightened women than men; that fact does not constitute a proof that women are essentially nicer and more cooperative than men.
Studies which contrast male and female behaviour in problem solving situations
say nothing about the behaviour of men and women in the context of a nation at
war, or a nation in the grips of paranoia. It would be truly interesting to
know just what factors were being contributed by what sexes in those
situations. Hate and it's acceptance is a highly social phenomenon, not just
an individual or sex-linked phenomenon.
I advocate a wholistic approach to the understanding of society's ills. There
are too many egocentric assumptions running around that depend on analysis of
isolated cases and unrealistically small systems.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvax!tracy
PS. As you may figure out, my understand of life leads me to belive
there are no simple solutions to it's injustices and evils, and
that there are no simple scapegoats to crucify.dls@ahuta.UUCP (d.skran) (12/20/84)
CC: skran, ecl REFERENCES: <1038@hcrvx1.UUCP> I have been generally impressed by Tracy's contribution's, and am so here as well, but would like to continue in this direction further. Lately(last 20 years) it has become intellectually fashionable, especially among environmentalists, to advocate "Eastern" or "feminine" values over "Western" or "masculine" values. Feminists, and indeed many people on this net, seem to associate violence and aggression mainly with men, and feel that mankind's best hope lies in curbing aggressive behavior. Underlying all this is a thread that suggests we should strive to "cooperate" with nature, and the aggression is generally contraproductive. I suggest this this attitude is overly simple-minded. Human beings, men an women alike, have within themselves a tremendous range of possibilities, ranging from the affectionate care of a small child to ruthless genocidal violence. Over millions of years of changing conditions, we have survived, not by always "cooperating" or by always "dominating" but by doing each AS APPROPRIATE. Flexibility has been our hallmark. True liberation is more than men learning to be supportive and nurturing(as appropriate), it is women learning to be aggressive and violent(as appropriate). I strongly suspect that, as has been pointed out by others on the net, that when women do ascend to positions of "real power" and hold the world in their hands, their behavior will be remarkably like that of men in similar positions. They will discover that a policy of "cooperation" with all enemies is as foolish as men have discovered that "constant attack" is suicidal. In the end, men and women are far more alike that we may want to admit. We have the same potential for love. The same potential for awesome, ruthless, fiendishly clever violence. And we live in the same world, with the same problems. Over-population. Crazy people with bombs. Periodic ice ages. Possibly asteroid impacts. Pollution. We will need to be aggressive and cooperative to survive. There is no single ultimate paradigm for approaching the universe. Once more: aggression is not just a male invention. It is a strategy for survival that WORKS. So is cooperation. We can't afford to leave either one behind. Dale ahuta!dls
ag5@pucc-k (Basket Case) (12/28/84)
<<>> >Once more: aggression is not just a male invention. It is a strategy >for survival that WORKS. So is cooperation. We can't afford to >leave either one behind. >Dale <ahuta!dls> Unfortunately it is our fault that this strategy works. It does indeed have to be curbed *on all sides* and not fostered. Keep in mind that this wonderful aggression on everyone's part caused things like the first atom bomb and the like... Just what's so wrong with a peaceful and cooperative world, anyway? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services {ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|seismo|purdue|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Never eat more than you can lift!" -- Miss Piggy
tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (12/30/84)
Dale <ahuta!dls>:
... aggression ... is a strategy for survival that WORKS.
So is cooperation.
Henry C. Mensch (pucc-i!ag5): (paraphrased)
Unfortunately it is our fault that this strategy works. ... this
aggression caused things like the first atom bomb ...
Just what's so wrong with a peaceful and cooperative world, anyway?
It doesn't exist. All you can do is decide to be peaceful and cooperative
and to try and recognize other peaceful and cooperative people that you can
be peaceful and cooperative with. Sometimes you come across people who just
want what you've got. All of it. To ensure you own survival you resist.
Look at it this way: if you can make the distinction between aggressive,
non cooperative violence, and between violence designed to ensure your
survival (note that "survival" does not mean: political ideology, standard
of living or a McDonald's on every corner) and if you can avoid the first
then your resisting those who can't (and possibly denying their survival)
will enhance peaceful survival in general. I think that's a good thing.
When Dale says aggression is a good strategy for survival he fails to answer
the question "Who's survival?" In some situations perhaps aggression works
for the survival of the person being aggressive. It certainly doesn't help
the survival of the person being aggressed upon. If the two are human beings,
the aggression doesn't help the survival of the race as much as cooperation.
A cooperating system has much more potential for survival (and more potential
for the survival of it's components) than a non cooperating system.
It's pretty clear to me that we could be using this planet and it's resources
to better effect, if there was less aggression. People as individuals would
have to settle for less in areas that they are used to getting all they want.
(Try to convince anyone this is good.) But the outlook for the race, and for
the people following us (who may not share our particular notions about what
we deserve to get out of life) might be a little better.
Yes, sometimes there are situations where there *really* is only one slice of
pie, and in order to stay alive you've got to get it. In these instances,
aggression gets used. Unfortunately many people want to be aggressive where
it's not really appropriate (or survival related) (perhaps it's dishwasher or
big car or cheap electronics related).
Look at it this way: both aggression and cooperation are systems for cutting
up the pie. In one of them you grab, in the other you are given. I suspect
that the overhead of the aggression system is much higher than the overhead
of the cooperation system in all but the most trivial of cases (where the
overhead is the same.) The overhead comes out as oppression, loss of life
and all sorts of nasty things.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvx1!tracy