From: jessec@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: ROBO-COPULATION
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:10:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.cyberpunk
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <9469@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, astinus+@pitt.edu (Mark E 
Porterfield) writes: 
[paula's post deleted, but thanks for re-posting it]
> Sorry if this is irrelavent at this time but I've been away and it REALLY
> irks me....
> 
> Paula dear...What someone just tried to tell you is that hey...everyone isn't
> like that.  think about hearing someone say, "All feminists are females
> seeking dominance over males."  Not true huh?  Of course not..but some are.
> Well, some males don't agree with lower wages for women and the opression of
> the female sex.

   But that doesn't mean that those males can miraculously cleanse their 
psyche of every habit of thought, every assumption, every tendency of 
judgement, every aspect of the belief system that they have been raised 
with-- and even less that they have the magic ability to disavow all the 
privileges bestowed on them by the society that is the product of 4 or 5 
thousand years of male dominance.  Good intentions only count for so much, 
in this as in all things.

> You degrade each and everyone of us when you speak so.  Think
> about it in an OTHER THAN GERALIZED FORMAT.

   Perhaps they should think of things in a particularized format? "Well, 
this woman was fired because she got pregnant and wanted leave, and the 
woman before her was fired because she wanted to know why she'd been 
passed over for promotion twice, and the woman before her..." Damn, 
sometimes it's sheer blindness *not* to see the pattern for the instances; 
or not to see the forest for the trees, as it were.

> There are women out there in college that are there to get the man to 
> support them.  And, there are women engineers and Comp Sci etc.  But 
> there are only a few of them in comparison.  I know a lot of techie 
> women and they are good at what they do.

   Okay.  What's your point?

> we are up against a long standing standard (all of us).

   True enough, but there is the question of who materially benefits from 
that standard.  Notice the qualification; I believe in Gandhi's principle, 
that one should pity one's oppressor, who in the moral plane (the absolute 
and final sense) can *never* gain by the oppression.  But to say that the 
material conditions of life don't matter is a philosopher's fantasy.

> Men are capable of real love to.  We are different but we care and want 
> to be with our children just as much.  Men do unique men type things and 
> women do unique women type things to take these away from either sex is 
> wrong! 

   This is *amazing*.
   Did you read her post?? Where did she say this stuff?? Your assertion 
that "men are capable of real love too" is at least to the point (I happen 
to agree with it), but where was Paula addressing the issue of "men type 
things" vs. "women type things"?? I get the feeling you're not responding 
to Paula but to some generalized (hah!  It's a double-edged sword) idea of 
what a "radical feminist" would say.

> Just as it is wrong for one sex to take advantage of the other.  It 
> really sounds as if you are the one whining.  So, deal!

   Now, here you make a transition from the placating, "reasonable" tone 
you assumed in the beginning, to a pushier voice, accusing her of 
"whining" (it boggles my mind.  Would you tell a black man not to whine? 
Why can't we recognize the legitimacy of some complaints of oppression?) 
and telling her to "deal".  You have ceased to even sound like you are 
considering her side of things (if you are tempted to counter that she is 
not considering your side of things, tough; for her to consider our side 
is an act of grace, for us to consider her side is part of a societal 
apology and reparation that needs to be made).  "So, deal!" implies that 
you are utterly blowing off her pain, her frustration.

> Don't make enemies with those who do not want to be.

   In light of my above comments, I repeat your advice to you.

> Too radical a stance will push others away.  You seem to have the
> "All men are pigs" attitude. Well, we aren't and you are oppressed because
> you choose to espouse you are.

   Now, this is an angle that I've seen in many different guises.  
Homophobes love to say that those of us who are "militant gays" are 
"bringing it [the continued abuse and derision] on yourselves".  Similar 
language is often used by whites to excuse themselves from responsibility 
for the horrible plight of black America.  How on earth do you think that 
Paula, one woman, has singlehandedly created an entire sexist society 
(this would have to include responsibility for the thousands of years of 
patriarchal history as well!), just by "choos[ing] to espouse" that she 
is?? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of your 
contradictory statement in the next sentence, you may not have meant to 
say such an outrageous thing, but I wonder what you could have meant.

> I don't deny that men have and still do try to oppress women but we have 
> changed a great deal and are trying to keep going that direction with 
> others.  I know my children will be taught to be fair...no "Bare foot, 
> pregnant and in the kitchen" stuff.

   Better not buy them the new talking Barbie doll (this is for real) that 
says "Math is really hard".

> I do tease my SO with it though and she takes it well and retaliates in 
> jest as I was in jest. 

   Personal anecdote of positive relationship with woman friend; okay.  
Does this make you not sexist? I know it didn't mysteriously purify me!

> Men put down men but when they do it to women they are bad...NOT!  I do it
> with (key word "WITH") my SO because she IS smart, her own woman and knows
> that it is in jest!  Teasing!

   What *does* this have to do with what Paula said?? You think she's that 
angry because some man teased her, and that's it?

> So, Paula chill and work with those of us who are male and ar capable of 
> loving, caring, joking on and equal level and believe that we should 
> hire and pay people based on ability alone.  Notice I didn't say give up 
> the fight...there is still one yet.  We will accomplish more together.

   By this time, I should assume, having read a post that went from being 
patronizing ("Paula dear"?) to dismissive ("So, deal"?) to lecturing ("So, 
Paula chill etc."?), which only minimally addressed her argument and even 
less her anger, you have probably so alienated her that she stopped 
reading it altogether.

   This is not a flame, this is me expressing my frustration at you and 
other men on this newsgroup who, as members of the more powerful party, 
have consistently refused to *listen*-- not to register knee-jerk 
agreement for political correctness, not to accept the argument without 
question, but to *listen* to it and understand the emotions-- consistently 
refused to listen to a representative of the injured party, preferring to 
engage in rebuttals composed mostly of "progressive" macho denials.  If 
things are to change for the better in this world, it is the groups with 
power, and not the groups with less or none of it, that need to do the 
listening first.  That is the only way that the historical conversation to 
heal human civilization is going to start.
   Ugh.  My jeremiad for the day.  Hope some women post on these threads 
and enlighten the discussion.


   --Jesse.

   well,
    once again, here we are on screens
     that are connected by technical mysteries
      far beyond my simple understanding of mere
       addition.

                      --Caroline F. Williams
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,alt.sex.stories.d,alt.industrial,alt.sex