rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/14/84)
...the drips start coming out. Let's take two blatantly bigoted statements: 1) I hate black people because they're all stupid and lazy. 2) I hate black people because their skin is darker than mine. What's the difference between these two statements? One states an opinion that is based on a lie/misconception/stereotype. The other states an opinion based on a fact. Now, does someone else having darker skin than yours seem like a reasonable reason to despise someone? Of course not. While the second opinion is based on a fact, it's not a very logical reason for having that opinion. Now let's use a more general, hypothetical case: 1) I hate X's because they are A. 2) I hate X's because they are B. 3) I hate X's because they are C. Assume X's are not A, but they are B and C. Also assume that B is something innocuous like "they wear blue shoes", but C is something heinous like "they go to people's houses and murder them at random whenever they feel like it". Apply the same tests employed in the previous example. Which are "valid" opinions based on the premise and its truth/falseness? Now, one more time. 1) I don't associate with men because they're all morons. 2) I don't associate with men because they all have penises. 3) I don't associate with men because their behavior towards me and other women has been repulsive and defamatory to the point where I would feel degraded to deal with them on such a level. Now, some might respond that "Well, that's just another generalization. It's not like the last example because the "C" clause just isn't true of all men in general." Like I said the last time, you must be living in some alternate universe. More likely, though, you're like anybody whose behavior patterns are so ingrained that you assume nothing wrong in them, never having been on the receiving end of them. Or perhaps you've never actually had a serious conversation with a woman about how she reacts to what you accept as normal. I thought Trish put it very well, though I wonder if anybody actually read it. She listed a number of things common in everyday male behavior that I would think anyone would agree were at least annoying. (That is, if you actually stopped to think about their effects on the other person. Men aren't alone or unique in often missing that quality...) Things like: referring to a marriage as "losing one's freedom", *expecting* sexual "recompense" for whatever reason, doing standard expected male things in general because it's thought to be a requirement. I don't want to make Trish's arguments sound flawless. Yes, she is generalizing, and perhaps, as someone else said some other way, if you go out there expecting to find assholes, you'll find more than enough. Yes, she puts direct blame on men in such a way that it sounds like it's the result of a consensus by some governing body of malekind that can be rescinded by a 3/4 majority. (Men may benefit from the situation, and may propagate it, but the problems are problems for both men and women. Though men may be "assholes" for doing it and some women may be "stupid" [Trish's word] for accepting it, it's an ingrained societal behavior system, and as long as people are taught to be sheep and go along with such roles and behaviors, we're gonna be stuck with them! As someone else (sorry, I should save these items and credit people appropriately) said, it's a regenerative (Chuqui said DEgenerative) set of behaviors that is counterproductive for everyone in the long run.) But what really got my goat was when a certain Mr. Driscoll stood up and put on his Mr. Gender Defender costume, in an effort to defend to the death the virtue of the male sex. He berated (ridiculed?) Chuqui for not "coming to the defense of males" after having joined him in defending gays, secretaries, women, etc. Alan, maybe Chuqui (and others) feel as I do: that, no, not all men are belligerent assholes all the time, and some are rarely that way if at all, but that we live in a society where such behavior is considered the status quo, and even faithful, considerate husbands/boyfriends who are really quite nice guys in the way they behave towards their SO, will join in on the behavior when "moved" to do so by their comrades. (Maybe just thinking and talking rather than doing, but still going along.) The problem isn't just with men and women, it encompasses all role-defined behavior patterns for which people know no alternatives! Many assholes are probably assholes because they know no other way to behave. If your point is to continue to tell Trish that she's full of crap while defending the male sex as a paragon of goodness, truth, and apple pie (No, the male sex probably could not be considered a paragon of motherhood, that's why it was left out :-), denying that the behavior Trish described is the status quo, then I suggest you relax a bit and think about whether that point is worth defending. Lest I give you the impression that Alan Driscoll was alone in this, there were others who also supported his point of view. And that's the point. It's easy to ignore the effect that one's seemingly natural (but probably learned---and difficult to unlearn) behaviors have on other people. I just thought Alan (and Greg and Dick et al) would have avoided that pitfall. -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/14/84)
> Lest I give you the impression that Alan Driscoll was alone in this, there > were others who also supported his point of view. And that's the point. > It's easy to ignore the effect that one's seemingly natural (but probably > learned---and difficult to unlearn) behaviors have on other people. I > just thought Alan (and Greg and Dick et al) would have avoided that pitfall. Rich, I think your interpretation of me (and Greg and Dick) is quite unfair. You assume we are "macho assholes" who are too insensitive to know how our behavior effects women. Well, I consider myself a "liberated man." I don't think the traditional male role works to the benefit of men or women. Ditto for the traditional female role. That's one of the reasons I rejected those roles years ago. I think Greg and Dick are saying they did too. Trish has decided the traditional role is not for her. Great! I support that decision. But instead of encouraging and supporting men who have made the same decision, she lumps us into one heap, and writes us all off. That sucks. > "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr "Disapproved." -- Alan ("I Even Cook") Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/16/84)
> Alan ("I Even Cook") Driscoll
Tv dinners don't count... *grin, dammit!*
--
From the ledge of the seventh cornice: Chuq Von Rospach
{amd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242
Woke up this morning don't believe what I saw. Hundred billion bottles
washed up on the shore. Seems I never noted being alone. Hundred billion
castaways looking for a call.alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/17/84)
[ Real Men don't feed the line bug. :-) ] Rich, I think you've misunderstood my position. You percieve me as defending the traditional male role (hereafter refered to as the Real Man). That was the last thing I meant to do. I was not defending a role, I was defending flesh and blood people, most of whom don't deserve Trish's hostility. > Let's take two blatantly bigoted statements: > > 1) I hate black people because they're all stupid and lazy. > 2) I hate black people because their skin is darker than mine. > > What's the difference between these two statements? One states an opinion > that is based on a lie/misconception/stereotype. The other states an > opinion based on a fact. Now, does someone else having darker skin than > yours seem like a reasonable reason to despise someone? Of course not. > While the second opinion is based on a fact, it's not a very logical reason > for having that opinion. > > Now let's use a more general, hypothetical case: > > 1) I hate X's because they are A. > 2) I hate X's because they are B. > 3) I hate X's because they are C. > > Assume X's are not A, but they are B and C. Also assume that B is something > innocuous like "they wear blue shoes", but C is something heinous like "they > go to people's houses and murder them at random whenever they feel like it". > Apply the same tests employed in the previous example. Which are "valid" > opinions based on the premise and its truth/falseness? I wouldn't have taken quite so long to say it [ :-) ], but yes, I agree with what you've said so far. > Now, one more time. > > 1) I don't associate with men because they're all morons. > 2) I don't associate with men because they all have penises. > 3) I don't associate with men because their behavior towards me and other > women has been repulsive and defamatory to the point where I would > feel degraded to deal with them on such a level. Before we continue... Is (3) purely hypothetical? Or is it an attempted paraphrasing of Trish's statements? If it's a paraphrasing, *much* has been lost in the translation! > Now, some might respond that "Well, that's just another generalization. It's > not like the last example because the "C" clause just isn't true of all men > in general." I didn't think (3) was supposed to be hypothetical... You know what I'm going to say now. "It's not like the last example because the 'C' clause just isn't true of all men in general." > Like I said the last time, you must be living in some alternate universe. I don't know how old you are. I'm fairly young, and that may partly explain why we live in alternate universes. Roles are changing, and more and more of us, especially younger men, have turned our back on the Real Man. Even among the older generation, though, things have been changing. > More likely, though, you're like anybody whose behavior patterns are so > ingrained that you assume nothing wrong in them, never having been on the > receiving end of them. Or perhaps you've never actually had a serious > conversation with a woman about how she reacts to what you accept as normal. You're out in left field here. I told you, I'm not a Real Men. I have feelings. I even have serious conversations. > I thought Trish put it very well, though I wonder if anybody actually read it. Accuracy aside, her comments were very hostile. That's not my opinion of "putting it very well". > She listed a number of things common in everyday male behavior that I would > think anyone would agree were at least annoying. (That is, if you actually > stopped to think about their effects on the other person. Men aren't alone or > unique in often missing that quality...) Of course the things she listed are annoying. I just don't believe they're as common as you say. Sure, our culture encourages certain unpleasant behavior in men, but that doesn't mean most men are guilty on all (or even most) of Trish's 14 points. If you find a man who does none of those things, hang onto him! On the other hand, if you find a man who fails on more than 2 or 3, he's a loser, and certainly not typical. I suspect most of us fall somewhere in between. Oh, and don't forget -- our culture also encourages certain unpleasant behavior in women. So we can sit around blaming each other, or we can start to overcome this stuff. Overcoming it requires cooperation, not hostility and bitterness. > Things like: referring to a > marriage as "losing one's freedom", *expecting* sexual "recompense" for > whatever reason, doing standard expected male things in general because > it's thought to be a requirement. Standard? Expected? Not me. Not my friends. Sure, it goes on, but I'm not ready to write half the human race off because of a few jerks. > I don't want to make Trish's arguments sound flawless. Yes, she is > generalizing, and perhaps, as someone else said some other way, if you > go out there expecting to find assholes, you'll find more than enough. > Yes, she puts direct blame on men in such a way that it sounds like it's the > result of a consensus by some governing body of malekind that can be rescinded > by a 3/4 majority. (Men may benefit from the situation, and may propagate it, > but the problems are problems for both men and women. Though men may be > "assholes" for doing it and some women may be "stupid" [Trish's word] for > accepting it, it's an ingrained societal behavior system, and as long as > people are taught to be sheep and go along with such roles and behaviors, > we're gonna be stuck with them! As someone else (sorry, I should save these> items and credit people appropriately) said, it's a regenerative (Chuqui said > DEgenerative) set of behaviors that is counterproductive for everyone in the > long run.) Yes, I agree with everything you've said here. If things are going to get better, it's going to be because men and women work together to find better ways to relate to each other. Trish's hostility is not productive. It will *never* help the situation. > But what really got my goat was when a certain Mr. Driscoll stood up and put > on his Mr. Gender Defender costume, in an effort to defend to the death the > virtue of the male sex. No. I was not singing the praises of any group. I was aking that we deal with each person on an individual basis. If Joe Bloe is a macho asshole, then treat him accordingly. Just don't walk around with a bad attitude toward all men. > He berated (ridiculed?) Chuqui for not "coming to > the defense of males" after having joined him in defending gays, secretaries, > women, etc. Alan, maybe Chuqui (and others) feel as I do: that, no, not > all men are belligerent assholes all the time, and some are rarely that way > if at all, but that we live in a society where such behavior is considered > the status quo, and even faithful, considerate husbands/boyfriends who are > really quite nice guys in the way they behave towards their SO, will join in > on the behavior when "moved" to do so by their comrades. (Maybe just thinking > and talking rather than doing, but still going along.) The problem isn't just > with men and women, it encompasses all role-defined behavior patterns for which > people know no alternatives! Many assholes are probably assholes because they > know no other way to behave. If your point is to continue to tell Trish that > she's full of crap while defending the male sex as a paragon of goodness, > truth, and apple pie (No, the male sex probably could not be considered a > paragon of motherhood, that's why it was left out :-), denying that the > behavior Trish described is the status quo, then I suggest you relax a bit > and think about whether that point is worth defending. You take a very negative view of things. I've seen plenty of the kind of men you're talking about, but I've also seen plenty of men who are nothing like that. I don't think it's fair to indiscriminately reject such a large group of people. > Lest I give you the impression that Alan Driscoll was alone in this, there > were others who also supported his point of view. And that's the point. > It's easy to ignore the effect that one's seemingly natural (but probably > learned---and difficult to unlearn) behaviors have on other people. I > just thought Alan (and Greg and Dick et al) would have avoided that pitfall. Again, your perceptions of me are inaccurate. I can't speak for Greg or Dick, but you should at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Yes, some of the behaviors are difficult to unlearn, but it's worth the effort. ******* I think that woman have been ahead of men in rejecting some of these roles. I wonder if that's the reason that men are so often made out to be the bad guys in all this. Some women think that men "win" in our society. That's a superficial point of view. It's not that one sex role is more comfortable than the other, it's just that they're uncomfortable in different places. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (07/20/84)
Actually as a man, I see alot of the 'male locker room' antics that
lead me to believe alot of what Trish said is 100% on the money.
Lately, however, I have seen and heard much less of the sort of
behavior that she berates (with adequate justification). But I
am getting older and started relating to a different crowd of
straight male, so perhaps it is just that I have gotten away from
those in the pit.
Such 'macho' behavior upsets me as much as it upsets Trish, and I
still have a difficult time relating to straight men... and in general
I like men. One should be able to change ones opinion with the
availability of different facts, and I have found facts that lead
me to believe that 'most' men (that I have met recently) are coming
to drop the macho bullshit. However, since the flap caused by her
submissions, I may have to revise my opinion again to conclude that
the straight men I have met (in person) recently are not representative
of straight men in general.
Richard Brower Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower