From: mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd)
Subject: Re: I am not a white male. (was: PC)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 03:16:53 GMT

sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven Conley) writes:
[identifying himself as "Icky White Male at White Male Conspiracy"]

As far as I know, there is no White Male Conspiracy.  There was a White
Male Monopoly, and it is only slowly being eroded, but that's different
(non-US residents may or may not be interested that a black woman was
elected a senator [representative?  I get confused] for the first time
over here a few days back).  As for being an "Icky" White Male, that's
up to you, I guess.  I don't see you as such.  You made a comment which
was reminiscent of a white, male view (although neither held by all WMs,
nor unique to them).  You have done little to make me want to use the
word "icky", although I was less than impressed with:

: So, with respect to all that, fuck you, I don't care what you think.

Look, it was I who called you a White Male first.  I can see that this
offended you; it was not meant to (and indeed, was immediately followed
by a comment to that effect).  I apologise for that offence.  (It's
also a pity I couldn't get the time to say so sooner.)  However, I do
not retract the comment.  I do not like offending people; however, I
also do not think that what I said was either insulting or irrelevant,
or ad hominem for that matter.

I think what you said was wrong, or at least incomplete as an analysis
of liberty in society.  I did not say (that I thought) you were wrong
*because* you were a white male.  I said (that I thought) you were wrong
for the reasons later in my post, which you have not responded to.  I
said "so speaks a white male", which I continue to believe is both
correct and germane in the situation.  White males often hold views
similar to those you expressed, and (separately) to my mind they are
incorrect, for reasons I explained.  It seemed likely enough that you
*were* a white male that I could afford the implication about your
nature.  Apparently this caused you aggravation, and I apologise for
that; I stand by it, though, and will continue to do so unless you can
convince me it was  irrelevant or wrong.  Saying that it hurt your
feelings is enough to warrant an apology, but not a change of mind,
since the damage is already done.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with whiteness or maleness; that
was not my point.  However, the relevance of the (correlational)
observation is that your social status, and that of your peer group, has
a strong interaction with (not to say determination of) your views on
liberty and social power.  You may still speak the truth (in so far as
that exists - see other threads), but your views are certainly connected
to who you are.  I refer you back to the talk about the unavoidability,
and usefulness, of dichotomies a wee while ago for that.  When a wealthy
capitalist tells me of the virtues of the market system, I bear in mind
who sie is, in just the same way as I would regard remarks on the
necessity for violent revolution from an opppressed radical.

You claim that somehow the fact that your only means of communication
with me is through dots on my screen means that you are no longer what
you are - you become some kind of homogeneous "netter" (itself a far
from neutral phrase) with no characteristics beyond your chosen
sylabbles.  I do not believe that this is so.  Why does your
non-presence in this room affect your characteristics?  Would it be
different if we spoke by telephone?  By television?  Through a pane of
glass?  Face to face?  You are still you, and who you are affects how
you form your opinions.  This affects what you say and what you do.  My
belief in the "characterful-ness" of pople's e-communication is based at
least in part on meeting lovers and friends this way, and finding that
often the tone of e-stuff matches exactly the "chemical" interaction
when we meet.  Perhaps we would like to think that this medium erases
all power structures and assumptions, but this is simply not true in
practice.  Some features of the social space are indeed unusual (even
unique), but it is not some ideal vacuum of free expression - free of
context, history, power games or consequences.

The argument you used was, in my view, white(ish), male(ish) and
wrong(ish).  The last is not a consequence of the first two, but it is
worthy of note that these characteristics are present in what you say.
If you believe that either trend is not there, then we can talk more of
our views of gender politics, race politics, and the dynamics of
oppression (which was the original point, I think).  However you have
not, as far as I have seen, made any claim that the connections are
incorrect - merely that they are irrelevant.  Not so, I claim.  Do you
have a response, or is "fuck you" all we get?  That, as we agreed, makes
you liberated, but it doesn't help the discussion much.

Mike
-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--