schoi@teri.bio.UCI.EDU (Sam Lord Byron Choi) (04/03/91)
In response to rutabaga!jls@igor.rational.com jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >Why didn't you instead question the social institutions which train >men and women to act in certain ways and thus makes victims of >them all? >Attempting to place blame and chastisement upon individuals has been >proven to only make things worse and ignores the greater issue.... >after all, it's ludicrous to imagine that EVERY SINGLE man wants to >oppress women just as it's ludicrous to imagine that EVERY SINGLE >woman has an "innate" inability to be aggressive. Instead, of trying >to find models that allow us to blame everyone, there should instead >be more interrogation of the whole underlying model i.e. what is >producing all of these terrible men and women? The parents? No ... >the other "parent" the surrogate parent that we all have to live with, >society and the institutionalized ways it attempts to "socialize" >everyone. I really have problems with this kind of attitude which I call the "weak ego" argument. The basic thesis is that individuals only act according to the rules instilled in them by the conforming pressures of SOCIETY. It vindicates everyone from responsiblity for their actions by arguing that they are nothing but automatons programed by this huge oppressive machine called SOCIETY. So what the hell is this thing you call SOCIETY? If it is true that SOCIETY is the problem, how do we go about changing anything. Is there any way at all to change SOCIETY? But wait! If we only act in accordance to what SOCIETY dicatates, how is it at all possible for individuals even to question SOCIETY? Does SOCIETY tell us that SOCIETY is a hateful oppressive institution? Here's the internal contradiction in this view. You say that people can't help acting in certain ways or putting themselves in certain situations because the programing that they receive from the omnipotent society forces them to. Then how is it that some people do not act in this way? Surely you don't believe that every individual acts in the precisely the same way according to his/her programming! Well, what could be the reasons for this? 1) The programming fails. Because of some sort of defect in some individuals, they cannot remember their programming, or react to it in a strange way. 2) There is not one, but several societies. (a bit post-structuralistic, eh) Although their physical boundaries are invisible, perhaps this large SOCIETY in which we live is actually composed of many different societies, each of which program the individuals under their power a little differently. 3) Free will exists! Although individuals receive the same kind of messages from SOCIETY, they have the choice whether or not to incorporate those beliefs and behaviors into their own. I don't happen to believe that any of these possibilities are totally implausible. And #2 and #3 reshift the emphesis and at least part of the responsibility back the the individual. >Do you really think women CHOOSE to be oppressed? Well, I wouldn't say that, since the way I see it, to be oppressed, you must be able to locate an oppressor. To choose to be oppressed in this case would be a silly notion. However, the way you seem to want to define the mechanics of oppression, I might not be so sure. Afterall, with your model, men are oppressed too since it defines how we too must act. So if I'm an asshole, it's not my fault, SOCIETY made me do it. Let's not use the word "oppressed" for the reason I explained above. Let's ask the question, "Do you think SOME women choose to act according to the dictates of their particular social discourse?" All of the sudden this possibility doesn't seem so silly. If you don't think that you have a choice to question what you call SOCIETY, how is it that you yourself are able to come out and question it? How is it that you alone are immune to the pressures of this SOCIETY? I always say "You can't hurt my feeling unless I let you" (I stole it from someone). Isn't this a similar example? I don't deny the pressures to conform, but pressure alone cannot motivate an individual to act. Sam Choi
tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) (04/04/91)
In <9103311721.aa13231@orion.oac.uci.edu> schoi@teri.bio.UCI.EDU (Sam Lord Byron Choi) writes: [In a discussion with Jeanette Dravk] > Let's not use the word "oppressed" for the reason I explained >above. Let's ask the question, "Do you think SOME women choose to act >according to the dictates of their particular social discourse?" You outlined your model quite nicely for the most part, but I think it fell apart right about here. The reason is that I (and many other women) have made the choice NOT to act according to these dictates. The way in which these choices are carried out vary; in my case I'm working on my doctorate in the field of computer science, I have been self-supporting since I got my bachelor's degree, I do not wear make up, I do not shave, and I rarely wear dresses. It is quite likely that my partner will stay at home should we choose to have children. I believe that is a sufficient basis for my claim to have chosen not to adhere to societal dictates. And yet, I have time and time again encountered discrimination; partly for just being female and partly for having abandoned the traditional female role. These ranged from the man who thought I should have sex with him to make sure that I was not lesbian to the woman who thought I would make a terrible mother since I was so "unfeminine" to the countless people who assume that I have no idea of what a computer *is* (even a few folx on the net!). Now, I will agree that these can be viewed as individual actions, but I think they still need to be looked at as a whole. What is the cumulative effect of individual actions of this type? What is the effect from deviating from socially acceptable norms? Some deviations are more acceptable than others; why is this so (e.g., women wearing pants versus men wearing dresses (& scottish kilt doesn't count!))? I think this is what Jeanette was getting at. How does your model take into account experiences like mine (which are not at all unique)? --Cindy
schoi@teri.bio.UCI.EDU (Sam Lord Byron Choi) (04/04/91)
tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: >And yet, I have time and time again encountered discrimination; partly >for just being female and partly for having abandoned the traditional >female role. These ranged from the man who thought I should have sex >with him to make sure that I was not lesbian to the woman who thought >I would make a terrible mother since I was so "unfeminine" to the >countless people who assume that I have no idea of what a computer >*is* (even a few folx on the net!). Now, I will agree that these can >be viewed as individual actions, but I think they still need to be >looked at as a whole. What is the cumulative effect of individual >actions of this type? What is the effect from deviating from socially >acceptable norms? Some deviations are more acceptable than others; >why is this so (e.g., women wearing pants versus men wearing dresses >(& scottish kilt doesn't count!))? I think this is what Jeanette was >getting at. How does your model take into account experiences like >mine (which are not at all unique)? In presenting my case I didn't mean to imply that all discrimination is self-inflicted. My argument applied only in the context of people acting in a certain way because they believe that SOCIETY makes them do it. So my point applies more to your choice to disregard social norms and dress the way that you like rather than your experiences of discrimination and harrassment. I would like to modify my stance though. Although I seemed to come down hard on emphesizing individual choice in conformity, I would not say that all actions are simply the whimpy choices of the spineless. After all, we are all largely products of our development and education. When all we ever hear is the party line, it's pretty difficult to do something else. Continued naivite, however, after learning about the alternatives is a little more difficult to sympathesize with. So that's my fudge of an answer. To take the example of why more men don't wear dress. Sure society says we shouldn't, but hell even if it were completely hunky dory I wouldn't really want to. Your point "what is the cumulative effect of individual actions of this type?" is well taken. But here's how I would try to tackle it. When people are telling you, constantly, that you have to act in a certain way or else your not a real woman, it's still a matter of your own choice. When their beliefs come to the point, however, of limiting your own choices, such as people automactically assuming that you don't know anything about computers, then it's not something entirely in your hands anymore. Sam Choi
dsy@psych.toronto.EDU (Desiree Sy) (04/05/91)
No one is arguing that we do not make our own choices because an amorphous entity called "society" is making choices for us. But cultural influences do subconsciously colour our conscious decisions. For example, Sam Choi says that "even if [men wearing dresses] were completely hunky dory [he] wouldn't really want to." Why is this true? What yardstick do we use to decide what we want to wear and what we don't? Our tastes -- in clothing, work, and even beliefs -- are a reaction, whether positive or negative, to the tastes of those around us. As Sam Choi pointed out, this doesn't limit our choices in clothes, work, or beliefs. But it *does* influence them. Luckily, not only can societies form individuals -- individuals can form societies. When, secure as individuals, we can also act as part of a whole, then our actions can shape society. -desiree
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (04/05/91)
In article <9104021701.aa25301@ICS.UCI.EDU> tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: >And yet, I have time and time again encountered discrimination; partly >for just being female and partly for having abandoned the traditional >female role. These ranged from the man who thought I should have sex >with him to make sure that I was not lesbian to the woman who thought >I would make a terrible mother since I was so "unfeminine" to the >countless people who assume that I have no idea of what a computer >*is* (even a few folx on the net!). Now, I will agree that these can >be viewed as individual actions, but I think they still need to be >looked at as a whole. What is the cumulative effect of individual >actions of this type? What is the effect from deviating from socially >acceptable norms? Some deviations are more acceptable than others; >why is this so (e.g., women wearing pants versus men wearing dresses >(& scottish kilt doesn't count!))? I think this is what Jeanette was >getting at. How does your model take into account experiences like >mine (which are not at all unique)? I agree. I believe that it is just exactly examples like this -- wherein individual change did not stop unwanted behavior -- which implies that there is something going on at a level other than the individual. Not to devalue the worth of individual actions, but I would like to claim that there is a force which is operating as a trend towards what a general sample of the population will probably be influenced by in its members' personal ideological beliefs. For lack of a better term I use society. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."