From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:17:27 GMT

clary@iastate.edu (Jeffrey S Clary) writes:

>Perhaps we can get a little clarification from Susan?

	Indeed we can.

>In <2213@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>>In article <brian.703289269@coombs>, brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>> cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
>>< >>   Another wommin proves that she either can't read, or that she is
>>< >> incapable of distinguishing between being the victim of criminal assault
>>< >> and provoking a fight.  If she means what she says (hard to believe)
>>< >> then she really is saying that a rape victim shouldn't resist, but 
>>< >> instead just don't protect her/his "honour", swallow his/her price
>>< >> and let the rape proceed.  Otherwise the victim would be guilty of
>>< >> "provoking a fight".

>>< >That's EXACTLY what she's saying.  She's already explicitly said that gays and
>>< >minorities should "pity" skinheads trying to kill them rather than resist. It's
>>< >obviously her point of view that one's mere existence can be a provocation. It
>>< >is that sort of assumption which underlies the holocaust and a dozen other
>>< >egregious acts of wanton slaughter....
>> 
>>< 	Did Susan explicitly state that "minorities should "pity" skinheads
>>< trying to kill them rather than resist" Christopher or are you assuming 
>>< something which she never said?
>> 
>>< 	I think its the later.  As far as I can tell, Susan has never 
>>< suggested that.  What she has suggested is that indeed, people who do
>>< attack others because of some imagined prejudice should be pitied, _not_
>>< that they shouldn't be resisted.
>> 
>>< 	If you can't provide a direct quote, as someone has suggested to
>>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>< Dave upon occassion, "put up or shut up" Christopher.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>In article <susan.702167234@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>>< cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
>>< >2) If somebody just wants to beat you up, "not getting into a fight" is kind
>>< >of moot advice.  Or do you think that homosexuals and minorities who are 
>>< >attacked somehow bring it on themselves?  Is a homosexual unnecessarily
>>< >provoking his assailant by BEING homosexual?  Am I inciting violence by being
>>< >Black?  Should I stop being Black to avoid violence...?

>>< 	Stop bring in unnecessary complications Chris.  We are talking about
>>< a brawl, you know a "fight" where it takes two or more people to tango?
>>< Even so, in most of the cases you cite, the person who is being picked on
>>< usually has, at a very early stage of the altercation a chance to walk away.
>   *******
>>< Such bigots should be pitied and ignored, not physically fought against.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>< All that will do will inflame the situation even worse.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>[NOTE: The *** emphasis is mine, the ^^^^ is C.D.'s.]

>Susan, I think what we are trying to figure out is what action you would
>advocate in those "unusual" situations where there is no chance to walk
>away.  Are you are a hard-core pacifist who would just take a beating or
>worse?  That philosophy has been advocated by some pretty famous thinkers,
>so I, at least, am not setting you up for ridicule (even if I don't share
>your opinion).

	Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, however, when taken in
the context of what that post was about ("Someone picking a fight") those
words make a little more sense.  When I wrote them, I meant, and what
obviously Chris decided to ignore, either intentionally or unintentionally,
was that I mean that when someone provokes a fight if you return in kind,
all you are doing is playing directly into their hands.  They WANTED that
fight and here you are providing them with the opportunity to beat you
up.
	When I said "such bigots should be pitied and ignored, not
physically fought against" I mean that people when faced with a provocation
of that type (ie, "Hey, you, you poofta/lesbian/queer/nigger!") should
not out of some mistaken (IMO) sence of honour get into a fight with them.
Instead they should ignore the provocation and actually pity the person who
has made it because of some misguided bigotry.

>As far as fights that can be avoided, I personally agree that walking away
>(or running, if necessary) is the way to go.  How about the rest of you
>"violent gun-nuts" out there?

	Well, we have seen several, suggest that when someone poured a beer
over the head of Dave that if they had been faced with the same sort of
situation, would not have ignored the insult, but would have instead "fought"
(and you can place what ever contitation you like on that word).
	To me, that makes an assumption that they were placed in a situation
where a fight COULD have been AVOIDED, yet chose instead to actually get into
a fight with someone.
	To Christopher and others, it seems that such a suggestion as actually
avoiding a fight, rather than allowing others to provoke it and fulfill their
wishes for a fight, is anethema.  To me, at least, that is more the thinking
of small boys who have to prove their "toughness" than mature adults who
don't go looking for fights if they can avoid them.




--
|  *   |We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free... |
|*    *|as under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory. That |
|    ' |function gives women such wisdom and power as no male ever can       |
|   *  |possess. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton____________________________________|