rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/19/84)
I've been wondering what people really think about conspiracy theories in general. Like: 1) Men work together as a united front to keep women in their place, holding regular secret meetings to discuss methods of doing this. 2) Rich people control society by causing innumerable things to happen (wars, elections, etc.) as a uniformly organized consortium that controls the world with its massive power. 3) Kennedy was shot because a number of people in the government (or the above consortium) thought that he might be a danger to them. 4) God created the world specifically to give *you* problems. Does anyone really believe that **THEY** are that organized, that competent, that intelligent as a group to actually **DO** anything????!! -- Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
pcl@hlexa.UUCP (Paul C. Lustgarten) (03/20/84)
I have one comment on Rich Rosen's question about conspiracy theories. In my mind, it's important to distinguish the presence of an *explicit intent* from some *functional effect*. I think that it's just the explicit intent version that is really a 'conspiracy theory', but that it's very easy to confuse the two. In fact, I think it is just such a confusion that causes some of the problems with Brownmiller's book "Against Our Will" that's been discussed in net.women recently. In the discussion, there's been a lot of talk about what I gather is one of the books assertions, that men (categorically) oppress women (categorically) by rape. This seems confusing, given that only *some* men and *some* women are ever directly involved in rape, and that most men are clearly opposed to it. From the quotes that people have given from the book, it sounds like Brownmiller uses language suggesting it is some kind of conspiracy among men that they keep women in fear, etc. by the existence of rape - i.e. that it is a conscious, intentional, and collective arrangement on the part of men to maintain this state of affairs. While this may actually be what Brownmiller means, I think it is very confusing to lose track of the distinction between such an intentional situation and one of 'mere' functional effect. In particular, I think it is patently absurd to suggest that there is some explicit coordination among men to maintain some kind of class oppression of women through rape -- just as such an explicit conspiracy is pretty unlikely in the other cases that Rich mentions. (Like he says, what large groups are *that* organized?) However, I think it is *quite* true that there is the functional effect of class oppression, as a result of the prevalence of rape in our society. (I happen to think the causality really goes both ways here, and that rape is also a *manifestation* of the class (power) distinctions between men and women.) It is this functional effect that is reflected in the observations from other commentators about women (in general) developing a wariness, if not downright fear, of men. Further, one can charge that the general situation (remember, the functional effect, now) is maintained by the actions of men, in their status as the socially more powerful group - e.g, when women are systematically excluded from being co-workers with men in many jobs, or when any of the other zillions of things are done that reinforce the divisions between the sexes. This is *NOT* the same as a charge that the men are 'conspiring' to create a situation that fosters rape, just that the things that they are (were?) doing - and doing more or less independently of one another - had a systematic effect of creating that situation. (In this case, an effect of creating a grossly unbalanced power & status relationship between the two groups, which I suspect is one of the things that fosters rape.) Soooo, what I'm saying is that while the "intentional" (conspiracy) situation and the "functional effect" situation may be quite similar in their effects, and thus easy to confuse, they are *quite* different in what they say about the intentions, etc. of the 'conspiring' (or oppressing, or ruling) class. They are also quite different in what they say about how one might go about changing the situation. I think it is important to avoid confusing the two situations for both of these reasons. Paul Lustgarten AT&T Bell Laboratories, Short Hills, NJ ihnp4!hlexa!pcl
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (03/21/84)
Rich Rosen asks if anyone really beleives that men are organized to keep down women and big business is organized to control the world. The point is that they don't have to be organized. If people merely TEND to act in a certain manner, they aggregate result will be tending in that certain manner, no central organization is required. Marx argued that the capitalist economy naturally devided into 2 classes. The capitalists (who owned the means of production) and the workers (who had to sell their labor to survive). His claim was that each person ACTING IN HIS OWN INDIVUAL INTEREST would tend to make the society more polarized economically by ecoomic forces which tended to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. No collusion was postulated. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-ml
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (03/21/84)
}}
If, as the last poster said, in effect," people Tend to act in a
conspiratory manner, and thus there is a conspiracy," then how
can there be a conspiracy? To conspire means to come together
to agree to do something without the knowledge of the group or
person being aware of the conspiracy or agreement. If the
conspirators have no knowledge of one another or agreements with
one another, then, there is no conspiracy. For instance, if A
and B meet or somehow contact each other and agree to boycott C,
that is conspiracy. However, if A and B never meet or even have
knowledge of one another, and each on their own initiative decides
to boycott C, it is not conspiracy. If, on the other hand, A and
B decide to boycott C on the basis of information they received
through the media, and still have not met, there is still no
conspiracy. There are many ways in which A and B can come to the
same conclusion to boycott C, but conspiracy is only that instance
in which the two mutually agree to to do something in concert.
Conspiracy does not mean that the agreement is good or bad. It
simply means that there was an agreement made in private to which
a third party was not made aware. You could conspire to throw
a surprise party for a friend. Thus, the contention that all
men are conspiring to keep women down is false. I am a man.
I am, therefore, one of the "all men". I have never meet with
"all men" (or even one other man) to agree to do anything to
women (other than throw the afformentioned party). The Great
Conspiracy theory is a bunch of horse puckey. People may tend
to act in concert, but much of this action can be attributed to
media influence, upbringing, economic factors, or social
pressure. To attribute the actions of large, or even small
groups, to conspiracy is nothing more than a blatant generalization
of human behaviour.
When a group of manufacturers get together to establish a price
structure for their products in order to make a monetary gain
or squeeze a competitor, that is conspiracy and there are laws
which cover this kind of situation. This situation happened
in the electrical supplies industry several years ago and was
discovered and the participants punished. The statement that
men are conspiring to keep women in the kitchen won't hold
water under close scrutiny. I have no doubt that there are some
men who like this idea and talk to each other about it, but to
lump all men under that guise is unworthy of the writer.
T. C. Wheelertac@teldata.UUCP (Tom Condon) (03/21/84)
,
You must remember that when *THEY* ARE out to get you being
paranoid is only smart!
Seriously, *THEY* are a convenient way of coping with the pressures
of society that are just too great to see any progress against. *WE*
should keep in mind that *THEY* have only so much power as we allow
them.
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (03/23/84)
TC WHEELER misses the point of my article. I said that there didn't have to be active cooperation between members of a certain class for them to have a deliterious effect upon another class. this doesn't mean that effect isn't real. It does mean that it should be fought and that counter measures should be taken. Most people would agree that Blacks were oppressed by Whites in the South, yet for the most part (KKK exlcluded), the racism was on a personal level, and had to due with individual behavior. Still, Blacks could still say that the Whites (as a class) were oppressing them. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-ml
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (03/27/84)
As everyone knows, history has been controlled by the Illuminati, with their roots back before Abu Hassan. George Washington was substituted by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Bavarian Illuminati. For details on the true structure of the world, read the "Illuminatus!" trilogy by Shea and Wilson. Hail Discordia! Simon Moon -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf Or just address to 'native of the night' and trust in the forces of evil.