From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:05:45 GMT

In article <BzzEp3.Hoz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>(Re the importance of not blaming society.)
>OK. I thought of a better example. When I was a teenager my family
>took me to visit Mt. Vernon. The building really upset me, because
>of the slave cabins. Yes, that's right, George Washington owned slaves!


	I've been there.  In fact, one of the nice things about living
	in this area is that a lot of actual history--well, what America
	has of it--is within a reasonable distance--visitable.


>Was this right? Hell, no! Did the slaves have any reasonable chance to
>get out of slavery? Did they have decent options for their life,
>even under a good master? Of course not! Was this the fault of the
>slaves? No. Was this the fault of George Washington, who I am
>postulating was a good man? Not particularly.


	Sure it was.  There were plenty of people opposed to slavery 
	even then.  

	Parallel:  Lots of people will pick up money off the street and
	not turn it in.  This is because they profit from this action.
	Is it wrong?  Yes.  Who's *fault* are we observing?  Their own.

	If slave owners saw profit in their actions and did not bother
	to discover--or denied--the pain that slavery may or may not
	have caused to the slaves, they were at fault--not society.


>That is, sometimes injustices occur that are not caused by the
>moral faults of individuals. 


	This was *clearly* the fault of individuals.  Look at other
	people in the time.  Many of these people knew that slavery was
	wrong--and others thought it was right for some morally just
	reason (the inferiority of the blacks--"We whites must take
	the burden of helping them survive", religious arguments much
	the same).  Those who thought it morally just were under the
	influence of a group, not "society" because large numbers felt
	quite otherwise about the issue.


>I don't know who, or what, to blame
>for them... If you don't want to call it society, call it something
>else.


	Don't blame anyone else "for them" (them being actions) but those
	who took it upon themselves to act in that manner.  


>Some other points:
>1) Before AIDS, there was not the inordinate reason to practice safe
>sex there is now. That is, the only incurable venereal disease was
>herpes, which does not cause major physical harm. 


	What, do people have to be *dying* for someone to take 
	responsibility for himself? Is it, "Oh, it's _just_ herpes--so 
	what if I get it"?

	Come on.  There were plenty of reasons for people outside of
	monogomous relationships to engage in safe sex.  "Incurable"
	is irrelavent-VD is quite enough even if you can get rid
	of it.


>I know in the 70's, reasonable and sensible people did *not* necessarily
>practice "safe sex." 


	Reasonable and sensible people are Christians, Flat Earthers
	and Joe-television-watcher.  What I am concerned with is
	*responsible* people, and they clearly weren't.


>There *were* emotional and practical reasons not to
>be *extremely* promiscuous (have you read "Looking for Mr. Goodbar"?);
>but many people got AIDS *without* being extremely promiscuous.


	I doubt it.  The big concentrations of AIDS are groups that
	have veryt clear and obvious vectors of transmission.  
	Only one group was not engaging in self-destructive
	behavior (hemophiliacs, people who had surgery involving
	a lot of blood infusion).  The problem with IV drug users 
	is obvious.

	When people say that AIDS is a gay disease, they are wrong.
	It is a human disease and anyone can become infected.  
	But they are only reporting what is clear from observation:
	AIDS is, in this country, predominantly a disease of homosexual
	men.  There are a number of reasons.  The first and most important
	one is that, due to promiscuous behavior, there are a huge number
	in AIDS carriers in the general homosexual population.  Now, 
	even assuming that each and every gay uses safe sex (and this
	is *far* from true, despite the propaganda from GLAD and
	Queer Nation--just go to some of the places on Dupont Circle) 
	there is still a greater chance of having intimate contact
	with an AIDS carrier. 

	(It is further complicated by the fact that M-->F transmission
	[vaginal] is so/so next to anal or oral sex, and F-->M 
	transmission [vaginal] is extremely unlikely.  F-->F
	transmission is, for all practical purposes, nonexistant)


>2) I do not think *any* society is perfect. But I do think some are
>more just and comfortable than others. That is, there are no
>utopias, but there are a lot of horror stories.


	Please give examples.  Most of my feminist friends like to
	give me some shtick about the glorious civilizations in 
	pre-Eurocontact africa, but historians have pretty much
	debunked that nonsense.


>And if you are not interested in "social justice" what are you doing
>on this group? I don't see what *practical* benefit there is to you in
>it.


	The is no "social justice".  It is an interesting buzzword,
	but I can't think of any useful definition for it.  There
	is justice, or there is nothing at all.

	As for why I'm bothering to read this group--it helps keep 
	me balanced to see the other side.  I also read .christian
	.athiest, .islam, .men, .feminism, .motts, etc. 

	
>3) About the "Women's Studies" classes. I still think a detailed posting
>about some of these classes would be of interest to everyone.


	I think I've been pretty detailed.  I could give example after
	example, but they all sound pretty much the same.  Male asks
	a question, teacher ignores or snaps some "You just don't
	understand" answer.  Male late for class the teacher ridicules,
	while ignoring the two girls who follow.  Male answers essays
	with a well-thought out but dissenting answer, teacher X's 
	it but gives credit to thew bimbo chowderheads who parrot 
	everything lil' adolf preaches. 

	It gets boring, because it's all the same thing: raw, unashamed
	bigotry.


>By the way, I don't think that unwise actions justify the penalty they
>incur. 


	I'm sorry?  How can people learn otherwise?  
	Positive reinforcement is all well and good, but negative
	is just as important.  "Good doggy, used the litterbox, good
	doggy--have a treat."  "Ohh, you bad doggy!  No treat for you!"

	With very, very few exceptions, I believe that you get 
	[on a personal, individual interaction level] *exactly*
	what you deserve.  I do not believe people have a 
	"right" to something or "deserve" something for free 
	that others have had to work and sweat to earn.  Anything
	you get other than what you work for is a *kindness*--
	a charity--and people should be ashamed that they have
	to take advantage of others that way.



>Nevertheless, I must say that attending a "warm and fuzzy studies"
>class, when the instructor doesn't seem to be on your side, and then
>not dropping the class, is quite unwise. I would hope that one or two bad
>grades is a lesson not to do this again.


	There's a great response.  "Treated unfairly?  Well, no one is
	FORCING you to try and listen to both sides of the story.  Why
	don't you just stop causing waves and stay out.  That's why
	we're treating you unfairly, you know, to drive you out."


>Lenore Levine


-- 
	This weakness that you've told us of, it must be very comforting
	to have some make-believe specter on which to lay your blame.

	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6609 misc.legal:21772