From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 03:11:49 GMT

In article <168CED207.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> news@mont.cs.missouri.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.060738.7301@netcom.com>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
> (about my assertion that everyone has some measure of self-determination)
> 
>>Children do not. And if you argue from the biological standpoint, there
>>is no such thing as self-determination. Heck, if you argue from the
>>social "brainwashing" standpoint, most have no choice either. Unless
>>they recieve the -proper- brainwashing.
> 
>Whether or not we were socialized or 'bred' for the tendency to be violent,
>that certainly doesn't mean that there is nothing that a person can do
>to 'overcome' this conditioning. 

If it is "bred" in, then it is not conditioning, and like your height,
there may be very little that can be (or even should be) done about it.

>                                      No choice? Hardly. You make choices
>everyday. Biological *and* social theories allow for evolution (obviously).

Then you disagree with many (dare I say a majority who post here?) feminists
who post here who seem to be claim that social conditioning is all prevasive
and inescapable, and capable of causing death and disfigurement to most
women in our culture. They seem to be arguing that women cannot make choices
divergant with social conditioning.
  
>>It's really strange how enviornmental factors are claimed to be -major-
>>limiting factors in womens lives, but it is unforgivable heresay to
>>consider enviornmental factors when men are involved.
> 
>Could you come up with a few good examples? Assertion is not proof.

No it is not, further, proof is impossible. But since this is not a
doctoral dissertation, lets just use discussion and whatever evidence
we can dredge up, shall we?

For starters, if a wife stabs of kills her husband, she can claim 
enviornmental factors, and literally get away with murder. She can claim
that she had no choice, even though she made her choice and did whatever
she did.

If a man strikes or kills his husband, the enviornmental argument will
gain him no sympathy, and most likely, he will be looking at jail.

Parallel situations, but widely variant treatement. I just saw an advert
on TV which stated that 1 in 3 women will be battered (they did not state
any timeframe), showed a poor battered women near tears, and then gave
a number for a Bay Area Battered Womans Shelter. 

If the description given for such shelters is accurate, amplify the situation,
and propably instill hate for men, rather than making any attemt to heal
the situation. If a horse throws you, do you get together with others and
focus your hate for horses?

Does anyone else have any comments, or experience on how these shelters 
operate?
  
>>>I'm sorry if I'm just not co-dependent enough to make (or accept) lame
>>>excuses like "mommy made me do it".
> 
>>Women are not innocent, and they are not guilty, but there are clearly
>>-part- of the situation. Perhaps if women took responsibility for raising
>>their children as non-violent there would be less.
> 
>Who do you *know* that raises their children to be violent? 

If the statistics quoted are anywhere accurate, just about everyone.
What does this tell you? Think about it, it says something about causal
relationships.

>Avoid them!!!! Honestly, Rich, what do you suggest? 

The only clear thing that comes to mind is that the cause/blame has been
completely misidentified. I suggest that children learn from what we do, 
not from what we say, so there is probably quite a bit of hypocrisy and 
denial going on. Look at the violence figures, and figure that much
more is probably unreported, this is what the children are learning.

>                                     Taking Junior out of Little League?
>Leave him home the next time I knock off a bank or rob an old lady? ;) 

Naaa, he has to learn to cope with the real world.  :^)

>By most estimates a child develops a sense of right and wrong by age seven.

Hmmm, my understanding is that this is about when children become -capable-
of understanding the concepts.

>Would it be too much to ask a grown person (man or woman) who is well past
>the age of seven (like maybe 18?) to take responsibility for their own actions?

Not unless they have at some point in their life gained a sense of identity
and taken personal responsibility for their lives. 
  
>>>>>If you're not part of the cure, you're part of the problem. [ ]
>>>Maybe you would prefer "if you're part of the problem, blame mommy"?
> 
>>Naaa, safer and perfectly PC to blame daddy exclusively. How is it that
>>you decry taking responsibility in the same post in which you deny all
>>responsibilty?
> 
>Show me where I denied *all* responsibility. At this point I take
>responsibility for both *my* actions *and* the actions of my minor children.
>If my children get into trouble when they are adults, I will still love and
>support them. Will I take personal responsibilty for *their* actions as adults?
>No. I have never raped, murdered, or robbed and I teach my children that these
>are not acceptable behaviors. If my son (or daughter) robs a bank one day, as a
>adult, he will go to jail, because *he* will have committed the crime.

But if your daughter does, can she claim a poor childhood and society made
her do it, and that she was not responsible? The social message that is
being broadcast now is that you can often blame someone else for what you
do or fail to do. Enviornmental arguments are denial of personal responsibility
and assigmnent of responsibility/blame elsewhere.

Is it any wonder children do not learn responsibility? 
  
>How far back do we take this? If my child goes wrong because I was a 'bad'
>mother, can I blame *my* parents? Can they blame their parents? How many
>generations do we go back to find the original responsibilty? 

Well, religion does claim that Adam and Eve started the whole thing. And
even the Biblical message has incorrectly assigned responsibility and
punishment.

>Isn't it just a little *easier* for each of us to stop whining and take
>responsibilty for ourselves? Do this make too much sense to be understandable?

No, it is the hardest thing a person can do, which is why many will go
to extreme lengths to avoid such responsibility. The current legal system
reinforces this. 
  
>It's getting a little cliche' to invoke the demon PC when what little logic
>you seem to have fails. Blame it on mommy *or* PC, huh? Pretty sad.
>Diane

Why not, PC blames daddy, white males specifically, and gives them full
blame and responsibility for all that goes wrong. If you want irresponsible
children, teach them to be PC.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6629 alt.abortion.inequity:6219