From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Carol Mosley Braun
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:39:34 GMT

In article <y_6mvn.barnhart@netcom.com>, barnhart@netcom.com (Aaron Barnhart) writes:
> Hey, that would be nice, their *saying* they'd never vote for a woman.

They used to come right out and say it. Now, at least, it's generally
considered wrong. For me, at least, this is a distinct improvement.

> What has happened in American politics is more subtle, in that the
> culture is almost entirely a product of the acts of men, males.

And here I thought women could vote since the 1920's.  Responsibility
for elected officials ultimately rests with the voters and there are
more women voters than men voters. Or do you wish to argue that women
are so weak willed that they are more easily fooled by these evil men?

> Now *some* people would say -- like Carol Moseley Braun in more candid
> moments -- that the male hegemony in American politics (*what* % of the
> U.S. senators and congressmen?  yup) has resulted in abuses of the public
> trust and a distortion of certain gender-related issues. 

Such a contention requires the assumption that women are inherently
morally superior to men. Do you wish to openly claim that? There are a
number of members of Congress who are women. They were about
proportionately represented in the check kiting scandal. What does
that say about maleness being the problem?

Gender related issues, like abortion? Last I heard, American women
were very divided on that issue. The head of one of largest
anti-abortion groups is a women, and there is no lack of women as
members in organizations on both sides.  Why, there's "Feminists For
Life" who claim that abortion is partiarchal violence against women
and "Feminists For Choice" who claim that lack of abortion is
patriarchal oppression of women. So tell me, what is the distortion
caused by men in this gender issue?

> *So,* a majority
> of U.S. senators somehow are able to convince themselves that Anita Hill's
> story is simply untenable because what kind of woman would *let* herself
> go on with life reporting to a man who had sexually harassed her?

So did a majority of Americans of both genders. Which means that a
majority of senators believed the same thing a majority of American
women did. So what is your point?  In addition, "innocent until proven
guilty" is a precept of our society. Which means that if a senator
couldn't decide who was telling the truth, Thomas would be presumed
not guilty. Would you like that changed for charges of sexual
harrassment? (Personally, I didn't believe either one of them. It's
since come out that Hill lied about who had access to her report
before it was leaked, and I watched Thomas deny most of the principles
he had previously endorsed.)

Frankly, anyone who thinks the Anita Hill affair was oppression of
women has clearly not spent much time watching Congress in action. The
behavior of the Senators, while appalling, was fairly typical. Watch
some Bork testimony sometime.

> you haven't read the article.  Ah,
> c;mon, your *gut* feeling is they must be lying, right?  Hm?

Having not read the article, I really don't have an opinion. My gut
feeling is that "they" are lying, if by "they" you mean "everyone
involved".  That's the most common case for political matters like
this.

> I'll say two things.  One, if another Clarence Thomas type even *dared*
> to stage the media show he did on the Senate floor, Carol Braun, Barbara
> Mikulski, Dianne Feinstein, Lynn Yeakel, and maybe even nicey nice Nancy
> Kassebaum would have him squashed like a little cock-a-roach.

I doubt it. I don't see any reason why the same pressures that worked
against the current senators (except Teddy-boy) wouldn't apply to them
as well. But perhaps we will find out.

> [Ms. Rankin in the Sentate]
> something not entirely inappropriate in the model of the lone woman standing
> athwart 400 belligerent men yelling Halt.

I can understand voting against WWI. But I have to question the sense
of reality of someone voting against entering WWII. As for the image
of a lone woman, I would find it just as inspiring as a lone man (say,
Ghandi).  Would you? Just try picturing Jean Kirkpatrik doing that,
and then tell me about "women" and voting for wars.

What's the bottom line? That women are people too, just like men. They
vary in their opinions just as much as men do, and span the entire
political spectrum just as men do, vary in their honesty and integrity
just as men do. Just as voting for men because they're men was wrong,
so is voting for women because they're women.

What saddening is that there was a good discussion of Ms. Braun in
here a while ago, which concerned things she'd said (or alledgedly
said). That was a good discussion because it concerned her as a
person, not a chip off some monolithic gender block.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan