From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:08:34
Organization: savage hackers
Distribution: usa
	<ZEN.92Dec23161814@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Dec24.010749.21597@wam.umd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu's message of Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:07:49 GMT


  Just one thing of note out of all of this, which sums up yamanari's
ideals -- make sure you get this, if nothing else:

In article <1992Dec24.010749.21597@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>  In article <ZEN.92Dec23161814@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> >Of course, if morals/ethics don't matter
> >to you, alt.feminism might not be where you belong... 
>    Morals and ethics have no place here--feminists are primarily
>    concerned with blame.

  He says morality and ethics have no place here; it's no wonder he
writes what he does... that really explains his postings a lot, at least
to me.  Another really interesting thing, after he says that capitalism
and democracy are so great:

> 	 Buy American as if your job depended on it. 

  A true capitalist, I see.  Buy inferior products so that you'll hang
on to your way of life.  That's fairly consistant with your other
quote/statement, that "equality is an illusion" -- the mark of a true
democrat.  I can see how well you practice what you preach...

  Ok... onto more flames and stuff now, including some perhaps radical
views on darwinism:

>    And now the real loser flames start to come into the newsgroup.

  *laugh*  Yes, I thought so too, as soon as I saw your postings.  Tell
you what, though, in the spirit of the holidays, I won't even flame you
back if you continue this.  However, as a last fling before my vacation,
I'll go ahead and respond:

> >   In article <1992Dec23.190432.29510@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
> >> >When in doubt, quote the superiority of capitalism and Darwin's
> >> >survival of the fittest theory.  
> >> It works.  That's a lot more than I can say for alternative
> >> theories.
> >  So you're saying that if I come up to you and blow you away with a
> >shotgun, then you were just unfit to live (survival of the fittest and
> >all, ya know)?  
>    Something that so many of the toddlers who run around
>    thinking they're bright tend to miss: human beings can 
>    reason.

  Well, then, you must be something other than human, eh?

>    To illustrate:  I can understand that it it not *in my own
>    best interest* to actively eliminate those who irritate me.
>    How can this be?  Obviously, I get many direct benefits from
>    their elimination.  This is as far as simpletons, like the
>    poster who forged at sun.com, manage to go.

  [Just as a note -- are you saying I forged this, or are you talking
about someone else?  I may have missed something earlier, but this is my
real account]

>    What Mr. Zen fails to understand is that engaging in such behavior
>    is *not* _really_ darwinistic because it opens the playing 
>    field --for that kind of behavior--to all of my competitors.  
>    Which is virtually committing suicide.

  Well, I'm sorry to break it to you... but my blowing you away would
indeed be a darwinistic behavior on my part (and yours too, perhaps in a
more passive sense.)  Destroying people like you would be a boon to our
species and a boost to feminist survival.  Not that I think that the way
that most people view darwinism is a very good model of how to base
individual behavior, mind you.

> >*You* may call that working, but not me (well, if it
> >happened to you, I might make an exception), 
>    Ho-ho, and s/he tries to be funny.  What's the matter, 
>    I hit a little cord with the darwinism?  What, are you one
>    of the failures of society?  A loser who seeks externals
>    to blame?  

  *laugh*  A failure of society?  Perhaps I am... our society is very
interested in grinding people down, cranking out clones that will
maintain the status quo -- I'm uninterested in that.  I don't think I've
lost anything of import.  Blaming our male dominated power structure for
many of the problems that women face seems rational to me.  It's obvious
that those in power disagree.

  And why the "Mr." before, and then "s/he" now?  If you're uncertain of
my gender, the latter is fine... I know it's hard for you to keep your
thoughts consistent from paragraph to paragraph though.

>    Ah well, probably just one of thos pathetic socialism-groupies
>    that feels downtrodden since the rest of the world is rapidly 
>    discarding the ideals they held so highly.  

  As far as I know, most of the rest of the world has never held much
stock in treating people equality, regardless of gender.  You seem to
feel it necessary to try and crush people that attempt to disagree with
you... it's sad; that's why I won't bother trying to discourse further
with you -- you're so intent on being *right*, you don't listen to those
who disagree, or see the answers or any changes, even when they stroll
right past you.

> >at least, not as a viable
> >ethical and/or human solution.  

>    It doesn't work because it violates the very principles
>    that are at the core of human beings.

  I say "you may call it working, but not me", and then you try to argue
that it doesn't work?  Your "It" doesn't seem to be the same "it" I'm
talking about, unless you're arguing with yourself.  I didn't posit any
solution, but then I realize you didn't read my post.

> >  But I'd say that pure capitalism and darwinism work about as well in
> >practice as pure communism and dworkinism.
>    They work quite well, thank you.  Nothing mankind has ever come up with 
>    has worked anywhere near as well at fufilling the needs of the people
>    than capitalism and democracy.  

  Who said anything about democracy?  You think that capitalism fulfils
the needs of the people... well, I suppose it's what you define as
"need".  If you mean material possessions, I agree, it's a fine way of
amassing wealth for the people in power.  It may even be a fairly
natural way to operate, but it's makes for a sad world -- full of greed,
power inbalances, and immense suffering.

>    Darwinism, well, that provided us with our bodies, our intellects,
>    and our culture.  

  If you accept that that is the way the world works.  It seems that, as
you said in your post about communism, it works well for insects, as
well as (non-human) animals.  As culture progresses, though, I think it
ceases to function as a good model for our behavior.  Relying on it to
model your daily behavior is a sad thing.

>    Dworkinism?  Andrea Dworkin is insane.  I don't think any rational
>    person considers her anything but insane or demented.  It's interesting
>    that you bring her up.

  Indeed -- as I said, believing in the what you do for the ultimate
answers is akin to believing in her.  It's almost heartening to see that
you have some grasp on some things, even if you miss most of what others
try to communicate with you.

 -- d
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6605 soc.men:21863 soc.women:21941