farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu (lisa ann farmer) (05/01/91)
I just remember something else that was emphasized in the seminar. (yea, I am the one who posted stuff about to be *ist you have to be in power). The point was made that it is useless to say that you aren't *ist, because some time in your life you probably had a *ist thought even if it wasn't conscious. For example, I have walked around campus at night quite a bit and if I see a male I get a little nervous- hold my keys tighter, etc. But if I see a black male I am more nervous. So I admit that I am racist because the power structure has taught me to think that this black man is more dangerous than a white man. I can never say that I am no longer racist because I don't know how deep what I have been taught goes. I think that there is also different levels of awareness that this info from the seminar hits. I am thinking of an example of someone who says "I am not sexist, I have lots of female friends." or " I am not homophobic, I know lots of gay people." Proving that you aren't something is (imo) silly. I think that the purpose of the seminar was to question your actions, your speech to see if it is *ist and to take the time to try and change those things in your life that are *ist. There is a wonderful book by Schaff called Women's Reality which discusses the White Male System (WMS) that discusses the male power system (some one asked what power meant I think.) Lisa farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (05/05/91)
Well, here's a political, or perhaps moral, question. farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: |The point was made that it is useless to say that you aren't *ist, because some |time in your life you probably had a *ist thought even if it wasn't conscious. |For example, I have walked around campus at night quite a bit and if I see |a male I get a little nervous- hold my keys tighter, etc. But if I see a black |male I am more nervous. So I admit that I am racist because the power structure |has taught me to think that this black man is more dangerous than a white man. Suppose, however, it is true that males commit more crimes of violence against women than females, and that black males commit more crimes of violence than white males, or at least that we have been told that this is true, with numbers and graphs in our newspapers and sociology books. If the person encountered is a stranger, we have nothing but these statistics, or our intuition, to go on. Is a defensive reaction against such a person, when one is in a vulnerable situation, racist or sexist? Or is it simply rational? Or both? (By "defensive reaction" I mean, of course, nothing that materially harms the other party; Ms. Farmer speaks only of covert preparation for flight.) -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (05/07/91)
[This is starting to drift away from soc.feminism relevance. I'm not sure, though, where followups ought to go. - MHN] In article <14622@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: >For example, I have walked around campus at night quite a bit and if I see >a male I get a little nervous- hold my keys tighter, etc. But if I see a black >male I am more nervous. So I admit that I am racist because the power structure >has taught me to think that this black man is more dangerous than a white man. This is not necessarily racist. While in college, I did some demographic research in political science, and came up with some reasonable evidence to support your fear. Of the *reported* violent crimes, a disproportionate number of the suspects were described as black by victims. Admittedly, this statistic is not conclusive, but I couldn't find any other statistic that was better. If the data indicates that blacks might be more dangerous than whites, it is not racist to think so (indeed, it would be irrational not to). If you go further and assert that the *reason* blacks may be more violent than whites is a function of skin color, then you are a racist, because no evidence supports that. What my demographic study seemed to indicate is that violent crime is a function of economic class. Since lower socio-economic classes are disproportionately composed of minorities, they may commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. An *ist is not someone who makes generalizations about a target group, but rather someone who makes generalizations about a target group that are not supportable with statistics. For instance, it is not sexist to fear male drivers on the highway more than female drivers. Actuarial statistics indicated that women, as a group, are safer drivers. We must all make some kinds of generalizations about our world (Ornstein and Erlich make a good argument that it is instinctive in their book "New World New Mind") in order to survive. The rational person acts on the best statistics available for any given generalization until better ones develop. The irrational person (among them, the *ists) creates generalizations without the support of empirical study. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, a.k.a. Zarathustra. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Gotta find a woman be good to me, USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon Won't hide my liquor, try to serve me tea." --Grateful Dead.
mlm@cs.brown.EDU (Moises Lejter) (05/08/91)
In article <14622@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu (lisa ann farmer) writes:
The point was made that it is useless to say that you aren't *ist,
because some time in your life you probably had a *ist thought even
if it wasn't conscious.
True, perhaps even trivially true, as long we live in a sexist
society. What I question there is the usefulness of calling a person
#ist because they thought a #ist thought *unconsciously*. Consider two
people Pat and Chris. Pat is *consciously* #ist - Pat has thought
about the issues involved and it is Pat's considered opinion that #ism
is "correct". Chris on the other hand may sometimes do things that
would be called #ist, simply because Chris acted without thought (ie,
"unconsciously") - upon later reflection, or due to external input,
Chris would come to realize Chris acted in a #ist manner and would
decide no longer to fall into that particular trap. I find it useful
to distinguish between those two attitudes: Pat I would call a #ist,
but Chris I would not.
For example, I have walked around campus at night quite a bit and
if I see a male I get a little nervous- hold my keys tighter, etc.
But if I see a black male I am more nervous.
Different people perceive things in different ways, I guess. To me,
apparent economic class is a much more relevant indicator: I would
fear more the more destitute person. Color for me would be a
secondary indicator (though I confess I would use it, too).
So I admit that I am racist because the power structure has taught
me to think that this black man is more dangerous than a white man.
(This may be due to my lack of familiarity with the term "power
structure", but) I would have said that in my case that belief was
created by the society around me (the attitudes of my family and
immediate social group, "vox populi" re individuals responsible for
specific crimes, personal experience re: crimes involving me). To me
the phrase "the power structure" has strong connotations towards the
institutions that exert power and the group that actually controls
them, and "has taught me" suggests an active intention to impart that
belief on their part. Neither of these seems to me to be altogether
true.
I can never say that I am no longer racist because I don't know how
deep what I have been taught goes.
True according to your usage of the term above. Not particularly
useful, in my opinion, as per my response above.
I think that the purpose of the seminar was to question your
actions, your speech to see if it is *ist and to take the time to
try and change those things in your life that are *ist.
I believe you are right, and in that context, the statement "You are
#ist" is useful. If the purpose of the seminar is to have the
participants question their actions, challenging them to think about
what they think and do and honestly evaluate their reasons for so
doing is a valuable step. The mistake then is to take that statement
out of that context and consider it to be true.
Lisa
farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu
Moises
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet/CSnet: mlm@cs.brown.edu BITNET: mlm@browncs.BITNET
UUCP: ...!uunet!cs.brown.edu!mlm Phone: (401)863-7664
USmail: Moises Lejter, Box 1910 Brown University, Providence RI 02912gt4115a@prism.gatech.EDU ("HARDIE,PETER THOMAS") (05/08/91)
In article <14622@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: >I just remember something else that was emphasized in the seminar. >(yea, I am the one who posted stuff about to be *ist you have to be in >power). > >The point was made that it is useless to say that you aren't *ist, >because some time in your life you probably had a *ist thought even if >it wasn't conscious. ... >male I am more nervous. So I admit that I am racist because >the power structure has taught me to think that this black man is more >dangerous than a white man. I can never say that I am no longer >racist because I don't know how deep what I have been taught goes. So far this is ok. Many (most) people will have unconsicous attitudes that they are still holding on to. But I still am not sure about the initial premise that you must be a member of the power group to be an *ist. What defines membership in this case? Mere genetics? Social contact? And there is the remaining question about those who are the objects of discrimination. We all know that there are black people who are as bigoted as Archie Bunker - are they racist? If no, why not? I can see that people are partially a product of their culture, but what exempts the (relatively) powerless from the *isms? -- Pete Hardie Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt4115a Internet: gt4115a@prism.gatech.edu
farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) (05/09/91)
In article <9105050838.1718@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: > >|male I am more nervous. So I admit that I am racist because the power structure >|has taught me to think that this black man is more dangerous than a white man. >Suppose, however, it is true that males commit more crimes of >violence against women than females, and that black males commit >more crimes of violence than white males, or at least that we >have been told that this is true, with numbers and graphs in our >newspapers and sociology books. If the person encountered is a The problem is people _believe_ the above statements about blacks _committing_ more crimes. But the truth is blacks are _convicted_ of violent crimes more often then whites. Okay now I am going to justify some of the power theory...(I hope I am keeping this in the realm of soc.feminism). For many years science has been our foundation (of laws, of society, etc). For many years science has been a field open only to white,educated, males. (For proof of this read _Women of Science_ edited by Kass-Simon and Farnes) NOw, our society looks to science as this all-knowing entity. We think that if it is proven scientifically , it must be part of the Truth. Funny, though, how most of this Truth says that women and minorities are inferior. Who figured out that blacks commit more crimes than whites? A black man, black woman - I doubt it. Most likely some white person with the hypothesis that black people were/are bad set about to prove that. You may or may not know that statistics are easily manipulated to show the side that best benefits the group using them. Who gives money to the scientists to do research? Govermental grants are a good source of money, I would say. Now if our government is predominantly white males, who is going to get a good portion of the money and for what reasons? To promote the power structure is a pretty good guess. My point is I don't know how much of what I was taught is "true". Therefore I can never say that I am _not_ racist because the power structure is racist. Now if I was black and being told all this stuff 1)I would beleive it to be true and become that way. 2)I would believe it to be not true and try to prove I am not that way. Why a person can't be an *ist when they aren't in power? I can say all I want about how much I hate men, what scums they are etc. but the difference is I don't have the scientific community backing me up with the Truth on this issue. Nor does my group have the "power" to give money to someone to prove this idea. I can hate men, but I can't be sexist to men. I also can't be sexist to women because I have been taught to believe the same things about myself (see 1 above) and that is the systems way of keeping women down. (Ex: Women's brains are smaller therefore women can not do math. When I can do math and other women "can't" I feel superior but that is so I can kick other women down and therefore promote the White Male System.) I am not saying that I can't be predujice against males but that I can not do anything to hurt them collectively. > >Is a defensive reaction against such a person, when one is in a >vulnerable situation, racist or sexist? Or is it simply >rational? Or both? (By "defensive reaction" I mean, of course, I think it is both. It is very rational to use your previous knowledge to protect/help yourself. But the info comes from a racist/sexist/ablist/etc structure so what are you supposed to do? (That has been my question for quite some time.) >Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf Lisa farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu "If people want to make war they should make a colour war and paint each other's cities up in the night in pinks and greens." Yoko Ono (_Louder than Words_)
willis@photon.tamu.EDU (Willis Marti) (05/10/91)
In article <14801@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: |> |> In article <9105050838.1718@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: [Gordon's example deleted] |> The problem is people _believe_ the above statements about blacks |> _committing_ more crimes. But the truth is blacks are _convicted_ of |> violent crimes more often then whites. Quite true, but you're avoiding the point of what the correlation is between "commit" and "convict". It might support your position, but you shouldn't just ignore the correlation. |> Okay now I am going to justify some of the power theory...(I hope I am |> keeping this in the realm of soc.feminism). For many years science |> has been our foundation (of laws, of society, etc). For many years |> science has been a Don't forget religion, that bastion of white(?) male chauvinism.. 8-) |> field open only to white,educated, males. (For proof of this read |> _Women of *only* !?! Bushwa. I've read the book & understand (I hope) your point. I also believe you think lying ("hyperbole"?) is OK if it furthers your cause. I've also read history books approved by the "power structure" that mention women in science even before this currently enlightened age. |> Science_ edited by Kass-Simon and Farnes) NOw, our society looks to |> science as this all-knowing entity. We think that if it is proven |> scientifically, it must be part of the Truth. Funny, though, how most |> of this Truth says that women and minorities are inferior. Who |> figured out that blacks commit more crimes than whites? A black man, |> black woman - I doubt it. Most likely some Actually, the "proof" is that blacks are more likely -- given data that says in a population with X% blacks/minorities, (X+n)% of the violent offenders are blacks/minorities. {Kinda reminds you of the arguments as to why women should be afraid of rape by *all* men, doesn't it.} |> white person with the hypothesis that black people were/are bad set |> about to Your statement is racist and sexist, whether you think you're part of some power structure or not. You offer no proof, no objective way of measuring truth. |> prove that. You may or may not know that statistics are easily |> manipulated to show the side that best benefits the group using them. Not easily. And only if one ignores the details of the data. (I would guess, from looking at the politicians we elect, most people do ignore the details. So, in that sense, you're correct) |> Who gives money to the scientists to do research? Govermental grants |> are a good source of money, I would say. Now if our government is |> predominantly white males, who is going to get a good portion of the |> money and for what reasons? To promote the power structure is a |> pretty good guess. A pretty bad guess and *sheer* speculation. |> My point is I don't know how much of what I was taught is "true". |> Therefore I can never say that I am _not_ racist because the power |> structure is racist. If you don't think you can question what you're told, what are you doing here in this News group? How do know any of *these* articles are True? Who taught you that there is only one power structure? Or that individuals don't have "power"? |> Now if I was black and being told all this stuff 1)I would beleive it |> to be true and become that way. 2)I would believe it to be not true |> and try to prove I am not that way. |> |> Why a person can't be an *ist when they aren't in power? I can say |> all I want about how much I hate men, what scums they are etc. but the |> difference is I don't have the scientific community backing me up with |> the Truth on this issue. The key problem is your implication that there is only one power structure, that membership is granted by race and gender (not money or family, as possible counterexamples), that individuals have no power, and that people not of the correct race/gender can have no power. AND that only people with power can be *ist. The opposing view is that *ist thought/action is based upon using * as the sole/primary discriminator when other criteria ought to apply (like in hiring, schooling etc.). If the "monolithic" power structure only benefits white males, how did women or minorites *ever* get *any* benefits? You need to recognize that you don't advance equality by saying "I can do this, but you can't, 'cause you're *ist". That's not equal. If you want to act this way, then there is less reason for me {that powerful member of the Ruling Elite} to treat you as an equal. Don't tell me you're unequal and want to stay that way; tell me you're unequal but want to be equal and this is how *we* help that change. [rest of diatribe deleted]
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (05/11/91)
In article <14801@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: [Who commits more crimes...] [...] You may or may not know that statistics are easily manipulated to show the side that best benefits the group using them. Yes, I'm sure most of us know this. However, people can (and do) manipulate statistics on both sides of an argument. Without getting into all the possible causes of something like a larger number of crimes being committed by some group (race, gender, social position, etc), I would imagine that if these figures were being heavily weighted, someone from the other side would spring up and point that out. In the case of black people, what I have seen and heard is that many organizations are trying to attack the causes of what they seem to agree is a problem (with crime). [...] My point is I don't know how much of what I was taught is "true". Therefore I can never say that I am _not_ racist because the power structure is racist. Do you mean that you are waiting for someone to tell you that you are or aren't racist? I take it you don't think you *can* be sexist, since you're not part of the group "in power." A good definition of sexist (in my opinion, of course) might be "valuing (positively or negatively) a person primarily on their gender, especially when it isn't relevant." (The same would work for racist, etc). Now, I don't need "society" to tell me when I'm being sexist (although friends are free to point it out if it happens). I can simply look at my actions and see if I am valuing people based on their gender, rather than their abilities. By this definition, I can be just as sexist as anyone else, even though I'm a woman. Freedom for all...*laugh*. Since I know what being sexist/racist/etc is, though, I can try not to be. Now, if you stick by your definition that you're *ist depending on whether you're in power or not, all you have to do is look at society and see who is in power, and what visible physical characteristics you share with them. In that case, again, it doesn't matter what you are taught, since your opinions/actions don't determine whether or not you are *ist. [Suspicious character at night] >> Is a defensive reaction against such a person, when one is in a >> vulnerable situation, racist or sexist? Or is it simply >> rational? Or both? (By "defensive reaction" I mean, of course, > I think it is both. It is very rational to use your previous knowledge to > protect/help yourself. But the info comes from a racist/sexist/ablist/etc > structure so what are you supposed to do? (That has been my question > for quite some time.) Are you suggesting that all these (crime) figures are made up? You don't trust the "power structure," or "scientists" (are statisticians scientists?) so how can you trust the figures on how many women are in science? Or how many women are attacked on the street at night? Maybe the men are just making up the figures about women in science so that women will be discouraged from going into science? Maybe they're making up the crime figures so that women will be afraid to go out at night? There's no telling what they might do, since there is no one around to challenge them, eh? No other sources of information. People can't think, and decide what makes sense and what doesn't. Muffy
carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) (05/16/91)
In article <14801@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: > Funny, though, how most of this [scientific] Truth says that > women and minorities are inferior. While there have been examples of such "science", they are aberations, not "most" of science. In fact, most of science doesn't even deal with a subject matter that could possibly say anything about gender or race. Could you give me even one example of what you mean from particle physics, chemistry, or math? > Why a person can't be an *ist when they aren't in power? How about, five <ethnics> see a white guy walking along the street, and beat the shit out of him for being white. Is that a racist act? How about someone in a management positions who says, "I don't hire women because they're undependable". Is that a sexist statement? According to you, the answer is "unknown", since I haven't told you the gender of the speaker. > Nor does my group have the "power" to give money to someone to prove this idea. You mean every single female in the US is completely broke, and can't even afford to buy a book that "proves" men are scum? > I can hate men, but I can't be sexist to men. So if you were a sysadmin, and you decided to cut off the net access for all the men at the site because men never say anything worthwhile, that wouldn't be sexist? > I am not saying that I can't be predujice against males but that I can not do > anything to hurt them collectively. This is a complete bogus argument. Few male sexists have the power to hurt women "collectively", most of them can only hurt those in the immediate vicinity. Can they absolve themselves this way also? -- Alan M. Carroll <-- Another casualty of applied metaphysics Epoch Development Team Urbana Il. "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan