sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.EDU (Mark Sobolewski) (02/07/91)
This is in response to a reply about a posting I made in soc.men.
Valerie had justified Affirmative Action based on her philosophy that
it's making up for "centuries of discrimination". I pointed out that
while I could have talked to many of my grandmothers, aunts, etc. on
this subject, my paternal ancestry was forever silent to me, because
they were all dead before I was born.
They either worked in coal-mines, in stores, almost always doing heavy
labour in stress filled environments that shortened their lives. They
did this for their families as many men feel they have and had to do.
So their women could stay at home. Now I'm supposed to be punished
for this? For what my fathers did?
Kemasa said that I may have something against women. Here is my
answer:
Kemasa has criticized my posting with regard toward the men in my
family. He sees it as women hating. I feel a few things need to be
clarified:
I don't hate women. I hate a lot of the things some of them do to
me. But I like a lot of them too. :-) I feel that men in our society
are seen as disposable. Women who follow up on this aren't to "blame"
but that doesn't ease the sting when it's done. Many of them believe
that men want "chivalry". Many of us do. But we are human beings,
not mere biological reproduction units. Women have fought for the
right to their bodies and to control when they give birth. Men should
have the right to expect the same level of protection that they have.
_Both_ signifigantly affect the "baby count". Considering the fact
that our society has had no problems so far keeping up it's
population, this may be a _good_ thing rather than bad. But that's my
opinion...
About women's contributions to our society. Just because men died
young in the past at jobs they hated doesn't make them saints. My
father, for one, tried, but sadly failed to respect me in many ways.
My mother isn't necessarily lazy either. She kept the house
spotlessly clean (as well as a good sized yard), put the best cooked
food on the table _anyone_ who's ever come to our house has had the
pleasure to consume, managed our finances to a cutting edge, etc. She
kept busy almost 24 hours a day. But my father's work is more
stressfull, and he's paying for that now.
I don't want to downplay women's contributions to society, or how
they have suffered from gender roles; I just want to point out that
men have selflessly contributed and suffered as well. "Punishing"
their sons for what they have done is sick. Making self-sacrifice out
to be "oppression" or punishing them because someone elses father was
a jerk sounds like sexism to me. The worsest kind.
I've noticed this attitude all over the place: When I point out
how I want to be regarded as a human being and not as a success
object, I get the line: "We're all free to make choices to go with
society, or not..." But if a woman is harrassed because she's trying
to do something out the traditional expectations of her gender,
everyone gushes lakes of tears. What sort of people think this way?
Kemasa, how can you read what I say and still hold these positions?
How!?!?
My father's very much like Homer Simpson and sometimes is a jerk.
But one thing I've never seen portrayed about him is as a coward. Or
ungenerous. Doesn't that count for something when we look at what men
have traditionally been expected to be in respect to what women went
through? Don't we count for anything?
--
"S&M Consciousness Raising" by: Mark Sobolewski sobleski@cs.psu.edu
(814) 867-4367 Bitnet: sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edujan@orc.olivetti.com (Jan Parcel) (02/07/91)
In article <513Go7_c@cs.psu.edu> sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.EDU (Mark Sobolewski) writes: >This is in response to a reply about a posting I made in soc.men. >Valerie had justified Affirmative Action based on her philosophy that >it's making up for "centuries of discrimination". I pointed out that >while I could have talked to many of my grandmothers, aunts, etc. on >this subject, my paternal ancestry was forever silent to me, because >they were all dead before I was born. > >They either worked in coal-mines, in stores, almost always doing heavy >labour in stress filled environments that shortened their lives. They >did this for their families as many men feel they have and had to do. >So their women could stay at home. Now I'm supposed to be punished >for this? For what my fathers did? It's obvious that you and I disagree about affirmative action. But the tone of you post indicates (IMHO) that you have a strange idea of the motives behind affirmative action, Now, I am not talking about any particular implentation of aa here, because it seems there is always a horror story somewhere, but even those are sometimes distorted. I keep seeing posts from college people about "less qualified" and "punishment." My undertanding is that aa for college vs. for the corporate world are quite different. For college, the idea was supposed (in the 60's, when it was first proposed) to be based on these ideas, and without aa these things would still be true, IMHO: 1. Majority Americans and immigrants with families intact had role models for education denied to slave people whose families were deliberately broken up and sold, and who would be punished for speaking their native language. Continuity of culture was deliberately denied. There were also the Jim Crow laws making it a crime for a slave, or, later, ex-slave, to read and write. Therefore, an educated "base" needs to be established, of neighbors and parents who can act as resources to the community. 2. Colleges actively panic and start taking action if the supply of qualified white applicants starts drying up (remember, this was when "applicant" was almost a proper subset of "white". ) Maybe if they're required to find applicants of all colors, they will also start taking action (such as contacting secondary schools, lobbying for legislation) if there are not enough nonwhite applicants. 3. At least for public colleges, which are tax supported, an education is not a prize to be won, but a community resource, and it is no more right to give educations to the "most qualified" than it is to give streets to the "most qualified." There should be a qualification threshold above which everyone has an equal chance to be selected. 4. The definition of "qualified" tended to be biased -- questions about Rogers and Hammerstein but not blues and jazz, interviews with unconsciously biased people, etc. Now, as to the corporate world, a couple of comments. "Remedying past discrimination" does not mean punishment. It means that (and I have found this to be true everywhere I've worked) employers don't usually hire the "best" qualified, they usually have a threshold, and interview people sent in by personnel and friends, weed out those below the threshold, and then choose the most comfortable personality from those above the threshold. This means that as long as those already "in" are all from the same culture, or sub-culture (ethnically and, also, gender, for fields formerly male-dominated), the most comfortable applicants will be just like the people already there. Until aa created a need to examine prejudices and diversify the field of people already at the company and making the environment into which the new person must fit, there was still a STRONG tendency to hire more of whatever one already had. In other words, "remedying past discriminatin" refers to changing the environment, not to reparations. Lastly, the newspapers give a very weird view of many aa decisions. The famous case in which the newpapers said the Supreme Court said that aa may be used to hire a lower-scoring person was actually not even close to what they decided. The case involved a woman who WAS legally qualified for a job, against a man who WAS NOT legally qualified for the same job. (If you ignore the legal guidlines for that job, he may have been slightly more qualified -- but he didn't meet the legal guidelines of working his way up in the department.) First he got the job, then she got it away from him by calling the aa office, then he sued, and she won. Her "interview" score was lower than his. They each interviewed with three people. One of these three people was a former supervisor of hers who she had had to file a grievance against for failing to provide her with work clothes. The interviewers each gave the applicants a "score", and the man's was highter than the woman's. But the score wasn't a test score, it was a preference score. The Supreme Court said that if the department was going to ignore its own requirements in favor of other considerations, then one of those considerations could be affirmative action. It DID NOT say that a "lower-scoring" woman could take the job because of AA. > About women's contributions to our society. Just because men died >young in the past at jobs they hated doesn't make them saints. I am not opposed to giving men credit for sacrifice. IMHO the reason feminists *appear* to be discounting men's contributions is because we are already taught about them in school, so we are trying to augment what people already know. Also, my understanding is that after the midwife-hunts (which are taught in school as witch hunts) and before Lister, women still had a shorter life expectancy than men because of childbirth. *IF* there was a shortage of population (which there ISN'T), then and only then would it be true that men's contribution to population growth is less significant than women's. But we could loose 4 billion people before that would be a valid reason to preserve women over men. > I've noticed this attitude all over the place: When I point out >how I want to be regarded as a human being and not as a success >object, I get the line: "We're all free to make choices to go with >society, or not..." But if a woman is harrassed because she's trying >to do something out the traditional expectations of her gender, >everyone gushes lakes of tears. What sort of people think this way? That is because you are on the cutting edge of the men's rights movement, whereas the feminists have been around for 100+ years. You are suffering from being a pioneer. Corragio! You have my sympathy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III -- "Those parts of the system that you can hit with a hammer (not advised) are called hardware; those program instructions that you can only curse at are software." - Richard P. Brennan nadel@aerospace.aero.org
sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski) (02/09/91)
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.EDU (Mark Sobolewski) writes: >It doesn't make sense to me either and I sympathize, but at the same time >I feel I ought to point out that *NOBODY* from "back then", whenever that >"when" is, as a gender, was worthy of applause by modern standards. [And lots of other stuff I agree 100% with.] I was merely pointing out that men have contributed to our society and that their actions were not entirely motivated out of "oppressive" feelings or whatever. Take into account that this was in response to a feminist who wrote that AA was needed to make up for "centuries of discrimination". The problems with that statement are obvious and that was what I was argueing against. >But someone has to be guilty. Someone has to have been responsible for >forcing these men and women to participate, to feel they *had* to do >what they did, don't they? But who? >Maybe it really wasn't anyone. Maybe no-one is to blame but ourselves. >Scary thought. I know a lot of people who will fight that tooth and nail .. >people who will say, "Oh but just look at So and So --- look what they've done >to repress us!" And then So and So's children will say, "Oh no! So and So >hated what he/she did. They were a product of their sociiety and times ... >how can you possibly blame them?" And so it goes. Agreed. I couldn't (well maybe I could :-) have said better. In any case, witch hunts for the past is a _bad_ precedant to set. We should care about what women and men go through today. BTW: To the other poster who mentioned men's contributions filling the screens. I agree. But I think the problem is that men are _expected_ to do these things and such acts including getting shot and killed are seen as just daily business. (Well, maybe not, but certainly less than if women were involved.) While a woman is going to have her own point of view and see things from that focus, I'm only pointing out that men are people too and a lot of the bull**** you gals have to put up with is a direct offshoot of what we go through. Any movement is going to have some egocentricism to it, but I don't think that's healthy in the long run. Comments? >Yup. Your father's is, I'm sure. But that doesn't mean *all* men's jobs >were more stressful than the womens'. Don't lose sight of the whole when you >plunge into emotional validation of a single example. There are just >*tons* of people/books/statistics waiting to prove you wrong. And at least >as many waiting to prove *them* wrong. Why do you think I quoted mine? To demonstrate this to Valerie so that she could see that as well. >I guess this is where I disagree with you. I don't think *ANY* of our >forparents "selflessly contributed and suffered" to tell you truth. If they >did, then I think they were brain-dead and not worth bothering much about. Well... Many of the men (and some women) who died for our country would disagree with you there. _Someone_ has to do it. Don't take this cynicism too far. >The thing is, when you get down to it, they all took advantage of as many of >the positive benefits of their gender roles as they possibly could -- as >pretty much all people (men and women) have and will ... and now we look back >and say .... what? How do we judge these people? What standards shall we use? >I say none. >Why should I care what So and So did 30 years ago? *He's* not trying to >marry me. He's not my boss/perspective boss. So why should I care? I couldn't agree more. The only problem is that other people use standards to judge you. It's one of feminism's goals (isn't it?) to further appreciation of women and their interests in our society and judge people based on their ability rather than their gender? If this is to be accomplished, _some_ amount of cooperation is warrented. I agree, I don't care what happened 30 years ago as well. >The only thing that matters is how people conduct themselves now, right >here in 1991. This is the society that I grew up in and this is the one, >the *only* one that I can understand enough to pass judgement on. Agreed again. >I'm not sure if I'm parsing this sentence correctly. I'll assume you >meant "But if a woman is harrassed because she's trying to do something >outside of the traditionally defined female roles everyone gets upset and >thinks her harrassment was unjustified." >And you are saying, then, how can people who say "We're all free (or should >be!) to make choices to go along with the traditional roles or not ..." >object to the harassment the woman gets for making her "free" choice? >If this isn't what you meant, I'm very sorry for misinterpreting you. That isn't what I meant. The statement "We're all free to make choices to go along..." is not applied equally to men and women. Men are still expected to either take abuse due to their gender or shut up in many cases. I know you go through this too, but feminism has made many strides in recent years while men's rights have not. I just wanted to point out that this should be taken into consideration when considering the long term effects of something like AA when the situation that caused the disparities in the first place (men being expected to be breadwinners) still exist and nothing's being done about it. It's not just a matter of "fairness" towards men, but giving men a stake in it would help grease things a little. >Anyhoo, I can't see the contradiction you see. Why shouldn't people be >regarded as individuals and allowed to perform any role they wish? How >does the objection to restrictions placed on people who share your own desire >to be a human being offend you? It seems that they are fighting to make >that desire of yours reality. I doesn't, somehow you switched my train of thought at the wrong station. :-) >Lighten up! The rest of us enlightened ones are doing just fine, and don't >really appreciate being lumped in with the "everyone -- what jerks! ugh" scene. "Everyone" was said in terms of the majority of "educated" people I've come across. Your experiences may differ. >But I'm not a historian, and I am not interested enough in women's history >to wish to devote a major portion of my life to digging it up and >bringing it to the public's attention. Me, I just find it hard enough >getting from day to day and getting myself accepted for what I am ... and >there are millions of other people (men and women) like me ... Don't we count >for anything? You bet. As I said, this was in response to something else. Just because I discuss a subject and respect it, doesn't mean I'm overglorifying it. You seem to have a _very_ pragmatic view of life. Wonderful. But I feel that some awareness of what goes on in our society as well as consideration for other people's needs is necessary for a healthy working relationship with people. I don't dwell on things, but I do consider them. You want the right to go on with your life and accomplish what you want free of limitations on you based on your gender. Right? Us men would like the same as well. That's all I'm saying. -- "S&M Consciousness Raising" by: Mark Sobolewski sobleski@cs.psu.edu (814) 867-4367 Bitnet: sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu -- "Those parts of the system that you can hit with a hammer (not advised) are called hardware; those program instructions that you can only curse at are software." - Richard P. Brennan nadel@aerospace.aero.org
lurkette@xanadu.com (Lurker's Significant Other) (02/09/91)
In article <49558@ricerca.UUCP> jan@orc.olivetti.com writes: > >In article <513Go7_c@cs.psu.edu> sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.EDU (Mark Sobolewski) writes: >My undertanding is that aa for college vs. for the corporate world are >quite different. For college, the idea was supposed (in the 60's, when >it was first proposed) to be based on these ideas, and without aa these >things would still be true, IMHO: > > 1. Majority Americans and immigrants with families intact had > role models for education denied to slave people whose families > were deliberately broken up and sold, and who would be punished > for speaking their native language. Continuity of culture was > deliberately denied. There were also the Jim Crow laws making it > a crime for a slave, or, later, ex-slave, to read and write. > Therefore, an educated "base" needs to be established, of neighbors > and parents who can act as resources to the community. Please note that before AA white immigrants were rarely considered. It was customary to hire people from the same fraternity that the managers had been members of. That is why fraternity membership or eating club membership was so important. Catholics and Jews were pariahs except in Catholic or Jewish firms. > 2. Colleges actively panic and start taking action if the supply of > qualified white applicants starts drying up (remember, this was > when "applicant" was almost a proper subset of "white". ) > Maybe if they're required to find applicants of all colors, they will > also start taking action (such as contacting secondary schools, > lobbying for legislation) if there are not enough nonwhite applicants. This is true. Many colleges accepted only white protestants; if other groups were accepted they were often limited by quotas. What has long amused me is the origin of the quota system was to keep the number of Jews, Asians, and ethnic whites down. The forementioned groups were thought to lower the social level of the school, but to raise the intellectual level (except fot Catholics. bigotry is so weird; Catholics were thought to be unsanitary (seri- ously) and somewhat retarded and immoral!) > 3. At least for public colleges, which are tax supported, an education > is not a prize to be won, but a community resource, and it is no > more right to give educations to the "most qualified" than it is > to give streets to the "most qualified." There should be a > qualification threshold above which everyone has an equal chance > to be selected. Amen. Besides, to be facetious, if the "most qualified" were admitted you wouldn't find very many WASPS in some parts of the country. :-). > 4. The definition of "qualified" tended to be biased -- questions about > Rogers and Hammerstein but not blues and jazz, interviews with > unconsciously biased people, etc. Or questions about what church one attends, one's parents education, how long one's family has lived in the same house, does one have certain very expensive hobbies that are favored by the horsy set, whati is one's family background, how many siblings one has, the value placed on cultural icons such as volunteer work in certain fields and other things that are less easily attained by the student who starts working to help support the family sometime in elementary school. >Now, as to the corporate world, a couple of comments. "Remedying past >discrimination" does not mean punishment. It means that (and I have found >this to be true everywhere I've worked) employers don't usually hire the >"best" qualified, they usually have a threshold, and interview people sent >in by personnel and friends, weed out those below the threshold, and >then choose the most comfortable personality from those above the threshold. >This means that as long as those already "in" are all from the same culture, >or sub-culture (ethnically and, also, gender, for fields formerly >male-dominated), the most comfortable applicants will be just like the >people already there. Until aa created a need to examine >prejudices and diversify the field of people already at the company and >making the environment into which the new person must fit, there was >still a STRONG tendency to hire more of whatever one already had. >In other words, "remedying past discriminatin" refers to changing the >environment, not to reparations. Pathetic, but absolutely true. If you are into funereal humor read the rest of this paragraph, if not skip it or you will be upset. Absolutely. One of the strangest stories about academia had to do with a certain college that had to hire a minority person. A woman non-white was hired. The men found many reasons to dispose of her; they settled on the fact that she was "taking a job from a black man." Of course,since the subject she taught was a cultural area of little interest at the time to African - Americans (who preferred to study African cultures, not the cultures of her ancestral continent) no black man could be found. Naturally, they settled on a white one. But, they all sagely agreed, he might be potentially supporting a family... >Lastly, the newspapers give a very weird view of many aa decisions. The >famous case in which the newpapers said the Supreme Court said that aa may be >used to hire a lower-scoring person was actually not even close to what >they decided. The case involved a woman who WAS legally qualified for >a job, against a man who WAS NOT legally qualified for the same job. >(If you ignore the legal guidlines for that job, he may have been slightly >more qualified -- but he didn't meet the legal guidelines of working his >way up in the department.) First he got the job, then she got it away >from him by calling the aa office, then he sued, and she won. Her >"interview" score was lower than his. They each interviewed with three >people. One of these three people was a former supervisor of hers who >she had had to file a grievance against for failing to provide her with >work clothes. The interviewers each gave the applicants a "score", and >the man's was highter than the woman's. But the score wasn't a test score, >it was a preference score. The Supreme Court said that if the department >was going to ignore its own requirements in favor of other considerations, >then one of those considerations could be affirmative action. It DID NOT >say that a "lower-scoring" woman could take the job because of AA. Amen. The popular press seriously messes up. The main beneficiaries of AA have been white ethnic males who formerly would never have been able to learn about jobs they now apply for. Before AA, the jobs were not posted or advertised; hiring was done through the good old boy net - and all too often still is. > >> About women's contributions to our society. Just because men died >>young in the past at jobs they hated doesn't make them saints. Amen. Women died young at jobs they hated, too. Women didn't "stay home with the family" very much in our past. Farm wives were out working in the fields, not merely tending kitchen gardens or cooking. The phrase "a man may work from sun to sun, a woman' work is never done" referred to the fact that not only did women help support the family, but that they also did all the house tasks. Factory women worked twelve hours a day or more and then came home to cook and clean the appalling slums they called home... >I am not opposed to giving men credit for sacrifice. IMHO the reason >feminists *appear* to be discounting men's contributions is because >we are already taught about them in school, so we are trying to augment >what people already know. Also, my understanding is that after the >midwife-hunts (which are taught in school as witch hunts) and before >Lister, women still had a shorter life expectancy than men because >of childbirth. And for quite a while following Lister, too. The witch hunts weren't just for midwives (amazing how even feminists romanticize being breeding machines) but more usually went after "uppity women" who had opinions on subjects that men felt were none of their business. The midwife myth is one of the ways that women's history has even been distorted in the feminist movement. A quick way to get flamed off was to suggest women were of equal value to men. >*IF* there was a shortage of population (which there ISN'T), then and >only then would it be true that men's contribution to population growth >is less significant than women's. But we could loose 4 billion people >before that would be a valid reason to preserve women over men. Actually, losing a few billion people might be good for the long term survival of the environment, but somehow I don't think either sex is going to volunteer to go. Seriously, this devalues the social roles of both men and women; we are more than machines for reproduction; men have souls and value and feelings much like women do; we are far more alike than we are different, and much of the difference is cultural. >> I've noticed this attitude all over the place: When I point out >>how I want to be regarded as a human being and not as a success >>object, I get the line: "We're all free to make choices to go with >>society, or not..." But if a woman is harrassed because she's trying >>to do something out the traditional expectations of her gender, >>everyone gushes lakes of tears. What sort of people think this way? > >That is because you are on the cutting edge of the men's rights movement, >whereas the feminists have been around for 100+ years. You are suffering >from being a pioneer. Corragio! You have my sympathy. Mine too. My first suggestion is try to change your circle of friends to people who are not as hung up on the superficial; but that is silly because the devaluation of human beings is diffused throughout our culture. Good Luck and Best Wishes From: Lurkerette (I really AM Lurker's Significant Other) >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn >if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. > -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III > >-- >"Those parts of the system that you can hit with a hammer (not advised) are >called hardware; those program instructions that you can only curse at are >software." - Richard P. Brennan >nadel@aerospace.aero.org -- "Those parts of the system that you can hit with a hammer (not advised) are called hardware; those program instructions that you can only curse at are software." - Richard P. Brennan nadel@aerospace.aero.org
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (03/05/91)
In article <j8bGovhi@cs.psu.edu> sobleski@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski) writes: >jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >>I guess this is where I disagree with you. I don't think *ANY* of our >>forparents "selflessly contributed and suffered" to tell you truth. If they >>did, then I think they were brain-dead and not worth bothering much about. > Well... Many of the men (and some women) who died for our country >would disagree with you there. _Someone_ has to do it. Don't take >this cynicism too far. I think I'll have to argue against that. If someone believes they are doing the right thing, then they're doing it for the purely selfish reason of their own pride, sense of self. My argument is that the self is so tied up in any decision that there is no such thing as a "selfless" act. I'd also argue that people who decide to make a "selfless"/selfish act are consenting to their suffering -- which is an entirely different kind of suffering than that which is forced upon someone. > I couldn't agree more. The only problem is that other people use >standards to judge you. It's one of feminism's goals (isn't it?) To tell you the truth I don't know. I read feminist literature a bit, but I don't care to apply such an ambiguous label to myself. I don't consider myself a feminist, so I can't be the person to say what is or isn't a feminist goal. >to further appreciation of women and their interests in our >society and judge people based on their ability rather than their >gender? If this is to be accomplished, _some_ amount of cooperation >is warrented. However I do have my own opinions on what could be done, and one of them is a belief that there are sexual *classes* which exist as further striations of our society. Few people openly recognize this fact or that so much of our society not only condones it, but *relies* on it. Anyhoo, let people judge me. They're free to think whatever they like of me and I expect the same courtesy. Of course, if I don't like their opinion I may try to change it. It seems ludicrous to not expect people to be judgemental. What else could they possibly be and still call themselves individuals? And yes, getting people to base their judgements on ability rather than gender is an excellent start. But for me, the whole dependence on sexual social classes will have to go; which is why (IMO) many fear feminism and other related movements threaten society .... because they do! And quite a lot of men are smart enough to know that the removal of sexual classes could be beneficial for them too! It's just a shame more men and women don't work together, but there's a lot of social inertia ... no ... active enforcement of the status quo ... keeping them that way. > That isn't what I meant. The statement "We're all free to make choices >to go along..." is not applied equally to men and women. Men are >still expected to either take abuse due to their gender or shut up >in many cases. [...] > It's not just a matter of "fairness" towards men, but giving >men a stake in it would help grease things a little. I think that's a wonderful idea, but in "fairness" I should point out that changes for women are happening only very slowly and very painfully .... I've seen very little in the patriarchal system that exists today that gives me any kind of "stake" in it. That's why I want to change it. It's also, I think, why a lot of feminists/women feel they have to argue so strongly for _women's stake_ ... because men have so much of a stake in what already exists that there's not a whole lot they could offer men instead ... unless of course men already buy the women's movement as a given. But that's hard. So again, it sounds like a wonderful idea but I also know that so many women friends of mine are just barely (if at all) managing to keep the pressure on for their own rights that they couldn't possibly have the energy to fight for men's rights too. Ultimately, men are going to have to have form their own movement and support a general awareness of their problems. I don't believe it's something that can just join up with the feminist movement and expect to be handed their own equal place in it. Not yet anyway. However I still take issue with your assumption that all women expect men to take abuse due to their gender. I don't for one, and I find it just as annoying to be automatically categorized that way as you do. >>Lighten up! The rest of us enlightened ones are doing just fine, >>and don't really appreciate being lumped in with the "everyone -- >>what jerks! ugh" scene. > "Everyone" was said in terms of the majority of "educated" people >I've come across. Your experiences may differ. Yes, that is probably true. But regardless, "everyone" does mean everyone -- no exclusions. To deny that there are exceptions, that in fact everyone does *not* act that way is to belittle the accomplishments of some people who have worked and are working very hard to change the majority's view. It's a self-defeating and frustating terminology to use and one that I think causes more debates and hostility than any other between people who might otherwise agree completely. > You bet. As I said, this was in response to something else. >Just because I discuss a subject and respect it, doesn't mean I'm >overglorifying it. You seem to have a _very_ pragmatic view of >life. Wonderful. But I feel that some awareness of what goes >on in our society as well as consideration for other people's >needs is necessary for a healthy working relationship with people. >I don't dwell on things, but I do consider them. You want the >right to go on with your life and accomplish what you want >free of limitations on you based on your gender. Right? >Us men would like the same as well. That's all I'm saying. Pragmatic is the only way I've found that offers *any* hope of realistic satisfaction within my lifetime. Unlike you, apparently, I've given up on any hope that anyone else will give a damn about whether I'm being treated the way I feel I deserve or not. Anyhoo, good luck. j- Maybe we can all wear buttons to identify ourselves, something like this: __ ___ / \ / \ | | \ / --- | _____ | -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
jj@alice.att.com (jj, like it or not) (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar5.120705.8052@ora.com> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >I think I'll have to argue against that. If someone believes they are >doing the right thing, then they're doing it for the purely selfish >reason of their own pride, sense of self. My argument is that the >self is so tied up in any decision that there is no such thing as a >"selfless" act. On the surface, at least, this is a very scary argument, if you consider the implications. First, it argues that there is no right and no wrong in human thought, only "selfish" reasons. This is rebuttable by the reply that it is indeed selfish to do the "right" thing, at least in the long run. Unfortunately, you then exclude enlightened self interest. Second, it portrays all people on an equal level. This is a more scary idea, since it suggests that all people are merely selfish, and some express it differently. I have a problem with this idea. Third, you say "pride of self", thereby excluding my reply to the first item, enlightened self interest. I guess what bothers me is that you absolutely deny the existance of enlightened self interest in your statement above. If your statement is in fact true, you are arguing that the entire race of human beings is in some way evil; the race is incapable of reasoned thought regarding the concepts "good" and "evil". Now, I'm not a theist, but I can still shudder at the theistic implications. The non-theistic implications are even worse, as they suggest that there is no good in humankind whatsoever, a sort of athiestic version of "original sin". Can we have some clarification, please? Now, I don't think this is a "feminist" issue, it's more of a basic philosophical issue. I will note that some (self-proclaimed) feminists seem to have the ideas 2 and 3 when talking about males (as do some males when talking about females). All (male, female, human) forms of this statement seem somehow both counterproductive and ultimately causing a negative social result. It's somewhat ironic that even if your statement is indeed true making the statement is counterproductive, especially if believed and codified. Such is life. -- -------->From the pyrolagnic keyboard of jj@alice.att.com<-------- Copyright alice!jj 1991, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is granted only for complete copies that include this notice. Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (03/15/91)
In article <20021@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (jj, like it or not) writes: >In article <1991Mar5.120705.8052@ora.com> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: > >>I think I'll have to argue against that. If someone believes they are >>doing the right thing, then they're doing it for the purely selfish >>reason of their own pride, sense of self. My argument is that the >>self is so tied up in any decision that there is no such thing as a >>"selfless" act. > >On the surface, at least, this is a very scary argument, if you >consider the implications. First, it argues that there is no right >and no wrong in human thought, only "selfish" reasons. This is >rebuttable by the reply that it is indeed selfish to do the "right" >thing, at least in the long run. Unfortunately, you then exclude >enlightened self interest. No, I'm afraid that I never said that there is no right and wrong -- I merely say that, in most situations, right or wrong is dependent upon whether or not it has some perceived beneficial result for the individual. Therefore, of course enlightened self interest is still included in my statement. Unless of course, you decide that people shouldn't be allowed to decided that it would make them happy to do something (like die to save a bus of children) that might have destructive effects. You seem to think that anything which involves pain on the individual's part immediately takes it into the realm of selflessness. Well, I say this, the person was not _swept_ away helplessly into the realm of "selflessness" they WENT there all by themselves with a conscious act of will because somehow it was also good for them. Selfishness is not completely connected to the physical body. If you think about it, right and wrong must *always* begin with the individual. Civilization, with it's rules and laws was initially (probably) created to do more good for more people (individuals) so therefore it is in their own "enlightened self interest" to help out society. BUT -- that decision to help out is fundamentally based on the fact that somewhere down the road there will be some satisfaction for the individual -- some good if you will. It is people, I argue, who give meaning to the concepts right and wrong. Right and wrong do not exist outside of humanity. >Second, it portrays all people on an equal level. This is a more >scary idea, since it suggests that all people are merely selfish, and >some express it differently. I have a problem with this idea. Everyone wants to live don't they? Everyone wants to be happy, yes? That's equality of all people and I see nothing wrong with it. I think you're problem is you're defining what people see as "good" too narrowly -- almost at the level of the libertine and that's *way* too simplistic a model. Consider this, if you take a "selfless act" like, say, dying for one's country in a war -- most people would consider that a selfless act. But it's not, don't you see? The act wouldn't have been possible if the individual being _asked_ to make the choice hadn't decided to do it. The whole decision process began and ended with the self and what that individual decided would satisfy him and his own drives/morals and personal imperatives. But you cannot *make* someone commit a "selfless act". >Third, you say "pride of self", thereby excluding my reply to the >first item, enlightened self interest. Please see the above. >I guess what bothers me is that you absolutely deny the existance of >enlightened self interest in your statement above. If your statement >is in fact true, you are arguing that the entire race of human beings >is in some way evil; the race is incapable of reasoned thought >regarding the concepts "good" and "evil". Now, I'm not a theist, but >I can still shudder at the theistic implications. The non-theistic >implications are even worse, as they suggest that there is no good in >humankind whatsoever, a sort of athiestic version of "original sin". >Can we have some clarification, please? Yes, I don't believe in absolute concepts of good and evil as if they existed somehow outside of the sphere of human worth, value and activity. I challenge any theory that states that human value must be subjugated to a imperative drive which operates outside of it -- if that were true, then how would humanity, as a race, possibly survive if it was constantly making "selfless acts" which robbed the individual of any free will or ability to express their unique viewpoint? How could a race survive if it was constantly condemned to actions which had no possible benefit for it or for anything it cared about? How can you define "enlightened self interest" alongside of the concepts of good and evil and _still_ demand that the person, the individual be robbed of any chance at a legacy -- at any chance of having a self? I see that as highly contradictory, but that's alright, these are things that few people ever really think about. Unless of course you're assuming that all people everywhere must subscribe to the Judeo-Christian beliefs which are so present in your arguments. >All (male, female, human) forms of this statement seem somehow both >counterproductive and ultimately causing a negative social result. >It's somewhat ironic that even if your statement is indeed true making >the statement is counterproductive, especially if believed and >codified. I think my view, which elevates and celebrates the individual and the worth of the human will and life is far, far more productive than one which condemns us all to be mindless, selfless, slaves of a society that is far more interested in how it can exploit *us* for its survival than vice versa. I believe that we should be in control of our own creations, not vice versa. >Such is life. yup. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
jj@alice.att.com (jj, like it or not) (03/19/91)
[This is starting to drift away from feminist issues. Followups should be directed elsewhere - maybe talk.politics.misc? - MHN] In article <9103141804.AA15086@rutgers.edu> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >In article <20021@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (jj, like it or not) writes: >>In article <1991Mar5.120705.8052@ora.com> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >>On the surface, at least, this is a very scary argument, if you >>consider the implications. First, it argues that there is no right >>and no wrong in human thought, only "selfish" reasons. This is >>rebuttable by the reply that it is indeed selfish to do the "right" >>thing, at least in the long run. Unfortunately, you then exclude >>enlightened self interest. >No, I'm afraid that I never said that there is no right and wrong -- I >merely say that, in most situations, right or wrong is dependent upon >whether or not it has some perceived beneficial result for the >individual. I think this is mostly due to misunderstanding (perhaps my prose is at fault). I don't seek to propose that there IS any absolute right and wrong. I should have quoted the words "right" and "wrong", clearly, because I don't accept their absolute nature myself. (There are absolutely no absolutes!) Note that I say "in human thought". I have NOT proposed any absolutes here, and I stongly reject such tomfoolery. >Therefore, of course enlightened self interest is still included in my >statement. I don't see that it can be, unless this enlightened self-interest is nothing but an accidental byproduct of the selfish behavior you propose. This is an accepted presumption in some philosophies, but it's hardly accepted as an axiom in general debate. Now, if you would argue that enlightened selfishness could lead to enlightened self-interest, I'd agree, but somehow you seem to imply an accidental and less-than-firm relationship between the two, and so chose to argue to selfishness rather than self-interest. >You seem to think that anything which involves pain on the >individual's part immediately takes it into the realm of selflessness. Huh? Now, waitddaminut. I haven't said anything like that at all, AND I'M NOT ARGUING THAT DYING (hurting/etc) for society is good/bad/selfless or anything of the sort. -->>I would prefer to observe that there is usually (although not always) a more sensible way to do what must be done than "suffer" or whatever. -->>WHY IS SUFFERING selfless? I can imagine (and I've seen, in my past while working as a campus cop) that some people use suffering in most astonishingly UNselfless ways, for many reasons. Perhaps I'm somewhat of an idealist, but I'd prefer to avoid suffering altogether. I'm not of any religious bent, I don't believe in any life-after-death, and THIS IS ALL WE GOT, folks.. Might as well make it better. (Now, to do that, many things, such as cooperation and equitable behavior, are necessary.) >conscious act of will because somehow it was also good for them. Huh? Dying for war's sake is good? Nah, I think you haven't examined your own premises and conclusions. >Selfishness is not completely connected to the physical body. What else IS there? There is nothing more, or at least nothing more that I've ever seen the most minimal evidence for. >If you think about it, right and wrong must *always* begin with the >individual. Civilization, with it's rules and laws was initially >(probably) created to do more good for more people (individuals) so >therefore it is in their own "enlightened self interest" to help out >society. On this we agree wholeheartedly. I'd also argue the same for religions, since it's so obvious how some religious dogma corresponds to desert survival issues in a non-technological world. Both civilizations and religions, as is typical of institutions, fail to adapt and adjust as the world changes. I would argue, though, that it IS in ones "enlightened self interest" to create a cooperative society, but that that the value of cooperation does NOT require the existance of a society. The advantages of cooperation can be seen to CREATE what one might ( I don't ) describe as "natural" rules; such rules do not require the prior existance of any civilization, rather they preceed it. In its most basic form, me vs. the lion and you vs. the well-fed lion is much worse from our point of view than us vs. the lion. >BUT -- that decision to help out is fundamentally based on the fact >that somewhere down the road there will be some satisfaction for the >individual -- some good if you will. This is the basis for all cooperation. I'm NOT talking about altruism (whatever that REALLY is...), but cooperation. >>Second, it portrays all people on an equal level. This is a more >>scary idea, since it suggests that all people are merely selfish, and >>some express it differently. I have a problem with this idea. >Everyone wants to live don't they? Everyone wants to be happy, yes? I can't agree with this. There are people who put very little value on their own life (some due to the effects of "civilization"). There are people who cannot deal with being happy. Your choice of universals has a gigantic case-history of counterexample, some inflicted by society, some (it is argued) inflicted by genetics or whatever. >Consider this, if you take a "selfless act" like, say, dying for one's >country in a war -- most people would consider that a selfless act. >But it's not, don't you see? The act wouldn't have been possible if >the individual being _asked_ to make the choice hadn't decided to do >it. The whole decision process began and ended with the self and what Say what? I've never had the enemy ask if I'd LIKE to die in war. I wasn't asked if I wanted to go to war, either, I was told (but my notice came AFTER the draft ended, fortunately). I simply think that wars and death by conflict are a simple waste of life, and I value mine too highly to waste it until the alternatives are worse. I would expect others to take the same position, quite obviously. It is, rather, enlightened to PRE-EMPT the war, I would argue. >But you cannot *make* someone commit a "selfless act". Thats the whole point, and the basic flaw in your previous paragraph. >>Third, you say "pride of self", thereby excluding my reply to the >>first item, enlightened self interest. > >Please see the above. I have. You still seem to imply that "pride of self" somehow has as a side effect "enlightened self interest", and I can't agree with that. >How can you define "enlightened self interest" alongside of the >concepts of good and evil and _still_ demand that the person, the >individual be robbed of any chance at a legacy -- at any chance of >having a self? I have no problems at all with that particular juxtaposition. I suspect (I can't read minds) that you are making incorrect assumptions about my position. Since there is really no 'absolute good' (or evil) outside human existance, I would propose that "enlightened self interest" is that which qualifies (as much as anything can) as "good". The words good and evil are very common in this society, but as you quite correctly point out, few people examine what they mean. If, in fact, acting in one's enlightened self interest is good, then there is no contradiction. You seem to be arguing otherwise. Is "good" opposed to enlightened self interest? Why? How? >I see that as highly contradictory, but that's alright, these are >things that few people ever really think about. Please don't make assumptions about what I've thought about. I think that there's some miscommunication here, perhaps because you've missed my initial qualifier "in human thought", and taken my mention of the words "good" and "evil" to mean something other than what they mean. >Unless of course you're assuming that all people everywhere must >subscribe to the Judeo-Christian beliefs which are so present in your >arguments. ACK! That's simply offensive. Please don't project your dislike for an obsolete 2000 year old set of rules for desert survival on ME! Further debates on obsolete sets of ethics and morals should be moved to talk.religion.2 C2H2+ 5 O2, please. If I were to accept the guilt-view (aka the Judeo-Christian view), I couldn't even concive of using the qualifier "in human thought", because I'd never have accepted the ability of the human to have self-determination and do good in contradiction to the JC ethic. >I think my view, which elevates and celebrates the individual and the >worth of the human will and life is far, far more productive than one >which condemns us all to be mindless, selfless, slaves of a society >that is far more interested in how it can exploit *us* for its >survival than vice versa. How curious, I happen to share your view on what the current society would make of us. What's alarming to me is that you would seem to be supporting that outcome, by somehow making a value judgement that encourages ultimate cynicism. -- -------->From the pyrolagnic keyboard of jj@alice.att.com<-------- Copyright alice!jj 1991, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is granted only for complete copies that include this notice. Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.