From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:10:04 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

(About judging other cultures by 20th-century standards.)
>        Yes.  The problem with other points of view is that tdey're
>        dishonest and inconsistent.
> 
>        For instance, in some cultures it is permissable, if not
>        expected, to beat your wife--even to death--for something
>        like disobedience.  In fact, in some, it is down right
>        immoral *not* to do so in some circumstances.
> 
>        Now, people who claim we should jubge a culture from
>        withing it's own mores would have to admit that, in thbse
>        cultures, there isnothing wrong with wife beating.  Most
>        would not do so, because deep down they're unable to accept
>        the real ramifications of their philosophy.  Oh, sure, a few
>        would try and argue using individualism--that is, it's fine
>        to judge things that exceed certain limits, in this case
>        when it is one person acting upon another person.  Well, that's
>        all bunk too, because "individual" is pretty much a Euro
>        Christian idea (in the last two centuries, it's been taken to
>        a whole new degree by those upstarts in the New World, which
>        I think is wogderful) -- and then you're basically judging
>        a culture by using alien criteria--what they say is wrong in
>        the first place.

Please read what I said carefully. I am *not* saying that people
should *only* be judged by the standards of their culture. I just
said that the standards of their culture need to be taken into
consideration.

In particular, I suspect that George Washington was *not* an
inordinately wicked man.

Also, in particular, I note that people of different cultures
may not have had the scientific facts available to them that are
available today; and that their lack of scientific knowledge may have
meant that they believed that certain actions, which for someone
with our knowledge would be wicked, were ethical and sensible. 
For example, if you really believe that there is a hell located
a mile under the earth, and that children who masturbate are going
to suffer everlasting torment there when they die, it is sensible
to use severe measures to make sure your child does not masturbate.

>>In any case, *can you blame the slaves* for what happened to them?
> 
>        No, but you *can* blame their minimal group:  the culture
>        (in africa) that sold them into slavery.

But I thought you said that societies, that is, groups of humans
as opposed to individual humans, could not be blamed. 
 
>>>>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.
>>
>>Once again, and please pay attention. 
>>I am not talking about
>>glorious civilizations, or Utopia. I've said this about
>>five times. Just the difference between, for example, the
>>United States and India.
> 
> 
>        You think India is more comfortable or just than the US?

On the contrary. It seems quite obvious that the US is more just
and comfortable than India.

Let me give you a better example. It seems that Communism was a
big mistake; that those countries which did embrace it became worse off
than if they did not. Therefore, one very simple prescription for
*minimizing* human misery would be, "Don't go Communist."

>        Social justice seems to be some kind of word used to
>        mean "justice" whbn what it would seem to mean is "equal
>        treatment in a social situation".

That is not the sense in which I use it.
> 
>        Please define.

I can't. I am not even sure that one rigid definition would always
be appropriate.  
 
>>Also, you seem to associate wanting "social justice" with advocating the
>>standard left-wing prescriptions for it.
> 
> 
>        Certainly.  Only a left-winger would claim that there is any
>        great (and I stress that word) social inequity in the united
>        states.  All things must be examined relative to others in
>        a set.  In this case, it would be other countries.

I don't know what "great" means. But the fact that conditions are
better in this country, on the whole, than many others, does not
mean they cannot be improved.

>        I have a very *clear* concept of right and wrong.  It is not
>        muddled by goofy social ideals.  For me, right and wrong are
>        black and right--there can be no "almost right" because that
>        almost certainly implies that there were ulterior motives,
>        and I consider motivation a prime factor in determining
>        right and wrong.

If you do consider motivation a prime factor, then please, use
respectful language to sincere posters. And *assume* people are
sincere until they give you *individual* evidence otherwise.

>        I waste far
>        too much time og this stupid network--time that I could be
>        using to do almost anything.  Years ago I commented that if
>        we compiled all of the messages we'd written on a local BBS
>        system in a year, me and a friend would each have more than enough
>        text for a book.  It's been years since, and I post far more on
>        Usenet each month than I ever did there.

I post too much too. Maybe we should cut down our exchanges a little?

>        Finally, one of the biggest reasons that I like to read usenet
>        is that I have difficulty discussing intellectual topic with
>        the people I associate with.  The problem is not that they
>        are uninformed, but rather that most people are not inclined
>        to spend hours debating a topic.  Add to this the fact that
>        I am *very* skilled verbally: this is not an ego boost.  I
>        can easily out argue most people I meet--parents, teachers,
>        classmates, whatever--I am quite serious.  Written, I am
>        not nearly as skilled because I rely a great deal on gestures,
>        tone, facial gestures, etc.

I'm the opposite, so I sympathize.

>>>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.
>>
>>Shouldn't the penalty be in proportion to the actions? 

>	Sure.  Want to show me where is hasn't been?  The problem is,
>	people are so busy watering down the penalties that they're
>	defeating the point.  Punishment is *punishment* -- not just
>	incarceration.

>>See "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," by Robert Heinlein. A tourist on the
>>moon is captured by a mob, who he unwittingly offended by
>>violating local customs (doing something that's an extreme insult
>>in -- and only in -- the context of the culture). Our hero, Manuel,
>>is asked to serve as judge. He tells the gang that roughing up the
>>guy a little was OK, because it would make him learn faster. But causing
>>him serious injury would be quite out of line...

>	Fair example, but I would point out that while the punishment
>	was extreme, the individualin question was a damn idiot for
>	not having bothered to familiarize himself with local custom.

>	<You happened to hit upon *the only* Heinlein book I haven't
>	read>

It's a very good book.

>	So that's one good example, clearly extreme and unrealistic. We
>	agree on the basic premise: let the punishment suit the
>	crime.  In any case, ignorance doesn't excuse anything.

>>I was going to talk to you, in another context, about date rape. 
>>But then I realized that you'd just say the woman was responsible for 
>>that, by her foolishness in getting into an unprotected situation with a 
>>person she should have known was a creep. 

>	You don't think that a woman has some moral obligation to
>	responsibly choose wdo she will be intimate with?  I sure
>	do.  I've noticed--as have many men--that women routinely
>	pick assholes over nice guys [even excluding looks].  As
>	far as us nice guys are concerned, this is fine--if you
>	dig your pit, you can try and climb out on your own.

>	Frankly, I don't have much sympathy for many date rape
>	victims because a little common sense and a little self
>	control would have prevented the entire situation.  This
>	does not excuse the rapist--not by any means--who should
>	be punished--but when the woman who was raped starts whining
>	and moaning about how unfair life is and so on, I can't help
>	but feel rather disgusted.

Some people are raped in situations which they should have been
able to know was dangerous; others in situations that they could
not imagine were dangerous. In any case, the "penalty" of being raped 
is much higher now than it was a generation ago, because of AIDS.
And I don't think this "penalty" is appropriate, for, for example,
a 14-year-old girl (a true example). Much too much punishment for their crime!

By the way, what do you think of the idea of giving a rapist who
doesn't use a rubber a much higher penalty? Of charging them
with attempted murder rather than rape?

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism