From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Summary: Too Much Cake For Christmas (I have a headache) 
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:59:17 GMT

In article <BzxoAr.FL1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>In article <BzxH5r.E4C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>>>But there is much that society *should* be blamed for. 

>>You'll have to be more specific.  I don't agree. 

>>You can blame _people_, and to a limited extent you
>>can blame groups, but you cannot blame society.

>>(I come from the point of view that "if you could have 
>>prevented it, and chose not to do so, the responsibility
>>is mostly your own" anyway..) 

>There are many things that people cannot prevent. To give the most
>extreme example possible, the Nazi Holocaust. 


	Well, that's a hard one to pin down, though, isn't it?  Was it
	*society* that caused the problem or a fanatical group of 
	super-charismatic individuals using the depression and apathy of their
	followers to build a power bloc?  Further, what aspect of 
	"society" caused the problem--the forced disarmament of Germany?
	War reparations?  

	The systematic ahniliation of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and
	othersin Nazi Germany was the result of military hegemony, not 
	any flaw in society, gone amok and lead by a madman with an
	obscene amount of hate for a specific group (which was eventually
	expanded to help rid the country of other undesirables).

	Specific groups can be as fanatical as they want, insane, 
	manaical, whatever--and the Nazi's were just that.  A lot of 
	people are under the mistaken impression that Hitler just
	chose the Jews because he wanted a scapegoat for Germany's 
	problems.  It is true that he needed a scapegoat, but it is 
	also clear--and often overlooked--that he had a deep and searing
	hate of Jews.  He chose them, mostly, because _he_ hated them.

	If anything it is an example of what is wrong with *people*: 
	"I had to obey orders"--we have determined that this is NOT 
	enough of an excuse.  If Nazi Germany and the trials that followed
	taught us anything they taught us that a person is responsible for
	their own action or inaction.  

	Society?  It was the fault of individuals too cowardly to 
	take the responsibility to be human beings.  There was 
	no great social peer pressure (there were other--financial,
	safety--pressures..) to be a Nazi or a sympathizer, and there
	was no excuse. 

	A better example would be modern day Germany--rising numbers
	of violent attacks on Jews and "foreigners" (regardless of
	nationality or place of birth) may genuinely show a problem 
	with German society--but this is not concrete evidence either.
	Many of the attacks are committed by the out of work, the poor, 
	the underclass who seek people in their neighborhoods who do
	not quite fit in--how is this different from natural behavior
	we see on playgrounds?--to blame.  The pressures in Germany
	right now are simply being increased by the flow of asylum
	seekers that is (literally) flooding some parts of the country.
	Germany will either have to close it's borders (and thus amend it's
	constitution) to these people (or something limiting--less radical)
	or the situation will continue to decline.

	Imagine we had a flood of refugees from some war south of the
	border--say, several thousand per month--can you picture how
	the people would react?  While outside of the affected areas
	there would be a lot of handwaving by softy liberals, even the
	most liberal on the inside would get angry and resentful as
	he saw his neighborhood decline, crime increase and taxes
	go up to pay for the free food, shelter and medical care these
	people are getting.

	This is simple stimulus-response, nothing dark and demonic 
	that can be pinned on society.  Given enough stimulus, 
	animals react violently.  

	This doesn't _excuse_ anything, but it does pretty much
	eliminate the "Society made me do it" argument:  These people
	KNEW what they were doing was wrong.  Society is what taught
	them how to determine such.  Society did it's job--these people
	were failing to live up to their own responsibility as 
	human beings.




>Or to give another extreme example, there is some evidence the AIDS
>epidemic could have been prevented if the government had acted faster.
>I do not wish to argue this evidence; all I am saying is that if this
>*is* true, then the AIDS epidemic is to a certain extent the fault of
>these government officials. 


	Let me start by saying that I've seen every crack-pot 
	claim about AIDS that there is, and most of the arguments
	that pin it on the government (as if there's some big,
	dark entity just waiting to do harm to unsuspecting innocents) 
	make Oliver Stone's JFK look like the pinnacle of historical
	accuracy.


>It is most definitely not the fault of 
>individuals who have suffered an untimely death, because of activities
>there was no reason to know *at the time* were a health risk.


	It was pretty clear by '85 that unprotected sexual contact was
	a bad idea.  Even before then, there was VD and Herpes (I remember
	the old Herpes paranoia) to encourage responsibility.  

	Even getting away from that, of the three largest groups--only
	one of them (hemophiliacs) was not engaging in what was--even
	ignoring AIDS--risky behavior.  There was rampant promiscuity
	in the homosexual community--and it continued even in *spite* 
	of AIDS for several years (the SF bathhouses come to mind) until
	the deaths started to come.  The other group, IV drug users--is
	there anything to say? 

	AIDS is hard to spread.  Regular precautions against *other*
	health threats would have left the homosexual community much
	better off than it is today--and AIDS would be where it has
	probably always been--a relatively rare disease that caused
	mysterious deaths.  [Which, in fact, would not have been
	so mysterious some 50 years ago when people died of a number
	of illnesses--cancer, pnemonia, TB, tetnus, polio--when the
	cause of death is a rare melanoma, why bother to investigate
	further?  The only reason we are aware of AIDS today is that
	we were able to keep people alive through bouts with diseases
	that would have just killed outright ten or twenty years before,
	and noticed that there was something "wrong" with these people
	*other* than the sickness that was actually killing them]. 


> (Of
>course, I am not talking about individuals who conduct risky activities
>currently.)


	Glad to see we agree there.  


>And let me also remind you, that it is not only physical abuse that is
>scarring; emotional abuse is too. And emotional abuse is not equally
>prevalent in all cultures. I therefore suspect that it too, can be to a
>certain extent minimized.


	I think, point for point, there is equality of suffering across 
	cultures.  As far as I know, there are no utopias--no cultures
	where the obvious (looks, brains) do not play a large, if not
	disproportionate, part of social interaction.

	I can't cite evidence because I'm trying to prove a
	negative--you could try and cite some, and I could
	take shots at it.  Otherwise, we're both speculating.



>I certainly do not blame myself, for the abuse I suffered as a young
>person due to being learning disabled. I do blame some individuals, and
>I do to a certain extent blame the cultural climate of the time.


	Well, there is that.  But is that *society* or *people*?
	
	Was everyone around you abusive?  If the answer is no,
	or at least, "not the majority," then society is not to blame.

	Perhaps we're having a problem of conflicting definitions.

	I define "society" as the minimal set of conventions (mores)
	for a given group of people.  Abusiveness, laziness, self-centeredness
	are not caused by society, but by the results of interactions
	with others.  Society cannot be blamed for something, as much
	as many people would like to point their fingers at it like some
	demonic boogeyman, because society is a reflection of US.  If there's
	a problem that is seen IN society,the problem is with PEOPLE.



>>>>>Entrenched? It's amazing how many institutions and values that seemed
>>>>>entrenched, in 1992, will have disappeared by 2022.
>>>
>>>>	Wishful thinking.
>>>
>>>If you remember this exchange in 2022, you're going to be very 
>>>embarassed. 
>
>>	I see gradual change, but nothing radical.  the basics--
>>	"good wholesome Xtian values" (..) will still be a strong
>>	force--if not stronger.
>
>Let me put it this way -- I think there will be much more cultural
>change in the next 30 years than there's been in the past 30 years. And
>I think you don't really have a feeling, for how great the changes in 
>the past 30 years have been! 


	I'm more interested in technology.  Computers and biotech
	(IMHO) will be the greatest equalizers of all time because they
	allow  anyone who is willing to work to succeed.  (For the
	most part).  I don't think any amount of protesting or silly
	"Take back the night" marches will change anything.

	Well, equality for all but the stupid.  Perhaps not as perfect
	as it might seem.



>>I don't agree at all.  In these situations, the teachers are
>>trying to impress and cajole their target, not just pressure.
>>You don't do this by making yourself look like a mean bastard.

>Read the Ms. article! You will be amazed how *un*suave these teachers
>are. (This article is sad, but very very funny!)

	I'll take a look.  <It'll be awhile--I'm not going to *buy* it,
	but I'll go to the library>.  OTOH, I think it's pretty much
	to be expected that they're mostly clods--what kind of man
	really wants a highschool girl?  


>And I do note that the very same professors who are overly willing to
>favor a cute female are -- almost always -- the very ones who are the
>most likely to treat an un-cute female as an un-person. Believe me!


	Meanwhile they ignore all of the boys or treat them hostilely--
	as competitors.


>>>Also note that much more looks prejudice is directed at women; and that,
>>>in general, women encounter much more inappropriate discrimination based
>>>on looks then men. (Although the female T.A. drooling at the football
>>>player is not an unknown spectacle -- and just as disgusting!)
>
>>	you'll have to back this assertion up--from my own observation
>>	it's pretty much even on both sides of the coin.  Worse in
>>	certain classes (though, the classes I've taken with misandrists
>>	far outweigh the two I've taken with misogynists)
>
>I was talking specifically about *looks* discrimination.


	So was I.  I havenot observed any real difference.  There is 
	looks discrimination, but it is pretty much applied evenly--the
	good looking, tall, handsome, beautiful, whatever--are 
	given deference while the less than attractive are "politely"
	ignored, or whatever.  (Tho, I have seen the opposite a couple
	of times)


>>No need to.  anyone who has taken a WMST class knows *exactly*
>>what I am referring to:
>
>I've never taken a WMST class, and never intend to. I avoid "voodoo"
>studies in general, whether taught by left or right wingers.


	I am not particularly interested in debating the sexism you
	get in the voodoo studies.  I have little or no respect for
	those who teach them, and even less for the self-important
	PCnazi's and behavior-watchers ("just like everybody's grandmother")
	who take such classes or major in them.


>>  the entire class is conducted in an
>>	atmosphere hostile to men.  The teachers routinely ignore the
>>	male students when they attempt to ask questions, or when they
>>	bother to reply, they give an answer like "You can't understand
>>	because you're part of the oppression".  Further, they tend to
>>	grade unfairly (believe me, I saw some of the "A" papers) 
>>	and will often refuse the male students the same courtesies
>>	they extend to their female students.  (What, missed a quiz?
>>	Tough.  So what if I let Janet retake it because she got a low
>>	grade and Jane because she missed the same day you did--I'm not
>>	*required* to do so).. 
>
>Please give some more specific examples (for the benefit of us
>technocrats). 


	Seems adequate to me.  Oh, well, there was the time 
	the teacher came in with a dildo that was mutilated
	and had it sitting on her desk for the period (mutilated==
	stuck with pins, needles, a knife).


>Let me note as a side issue, that the ethical quality of an academic
>discipline seems to be higher, the less "warm and human" the discipline
>is -- and the more based on fact.


	Very much agreed.  I tend to feel that schools should get back
	to teaching knowledge and stop bothering with the social
	diciplines.  (Note that all of the hard sciences--those derived
	from philosophy--psychology, linguistics, math, chemistry, physics,
	history
	biology, computer science, cog sci--are fine for college.  Sociology
	is just watered down psych without the science and with a lot
	of political garbage--so it, and it's relations (AmerStudies,
	WomensStudies) are out)...


>>>I sure have. Though, I must admit, it varies tremendously from
>>>institution to institution.
>
>>	Care to post a comparison inside and outside the academic world?
>
>I think *sexism* in specific is not much more prevalent either in
>academia or the business world. I think academia tends to run to 
>extremes a little more.


	I was thinking of "working in academia" vs "working in
	private industry" (but then, there's really a lot of 
	different categories of the later,and at least three of
	the former, so perhaps it's not a very useful question)

-- 
	This weakness that you've told us of, it must be very comforting
	to have some make-believe specter on which to lay your blame.

	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.abortion.inequity