From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Yet another sleepless night
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:29:38 GMT

	"I think a lot of what I thought I was disagreeing with Marie
about was semantic.  Basically, to me, "male-dominated" seemed to
imply that males, by virtue of their gender, had some power to rule
over society denied to females.  Since I don't see myself having such
power, it didn't strike me as all that reasonable.  But I'm beginning
to see (and please correct me if I'm just being confused again, Marie)
that she's using the term more to describe a situation in which
society accords (pretty much regardless of the wills of particular
individuals involved) certain advantages to one sex and not to the
other.  Obviously, `society' is simply the sum total of a bunch of
individual actions, but no individual is capable of more than a minor
change in that total, so that in some ways society can be treated as
an entity in itself.

	"Marie, I do still think that your earlier phrasing did seem
to indicate that men had a greater ability to _change_ those norms
than women do, and that's something I'm not sure is the case,
particularly now.  Certain people in positions of power have
disproportionate ability to do so, surely, and for now, most of those
people are still men.  But the fact that the President and the vast
majority of Congress are men really doesn't give a random man any
advantages in getting laws changed-- though it may give particular men
an easier time in reaching those positions of power themselves, since
the men in power may well take males more seriously than females.  In
fact, your more recent posts make it clear that you understand the
distinction, and I was simply not reading you clearly.

	"BTW, as far as that disproportionate influence in Congress
goes, it looks like I'll be using the tiny influence I have in an
attempt to change that slightly.  Basically, my district's
representative of thirty-plus years is retiring this year.  As you
might expect, there's a succession struggle.  Unfortunately, living
outside the district makes it difficult to get information on local
races, but I've at least gotten a bit of information on the candidates
for the Republican nomination (my district is a pretty safely
Republican one, though the Dems are hoping for a break this year).  In
any case, the Republicans have differentiated themselves by their
stands on abortion.  Knollenberg, the outgoing Representative's
former campaign manager, is pro-life.  David Honigman, currently my
state senator, is trying for a middle position, favoring parental
consent laws and such.  Judge Alice Gilbert is running on a pro-choice
platform.

	"Again, other than this, my information is limited, but I'm
probably voting for Ms. Gilbert.  Basically, I tend to like the
Republicans' emphasis on smaller government and individual
responsibility more than the more socially conservative part of their
platform, and a Republican who is pro-choice is more likely, I think,
to tend to the former than the latter.  She's been a federal judge for
several decades (the most celebrated case she's been involved with
that I know of is the Kevorkian suicide machine case).  Besides,
Honigman's a Boomer, and (with all due respect to the coots and
cootessas present) given that the next Congress will probably be the
first to have a Boomer plurality anyway, I figure I might as well try
to offset it a bit.  :-)  (Gilbert's a good, solid Silent if I've
figured her age right.)

	"In short, as far as I can tell she's the best person for the
job, and at least one article I read said she had a decent chance of
winning.  We shall see.  (Heck, if the Republicans would emphasize
their economics and de-emphasize their moralizing across the board,
they might convince me to sign up with them.  Of course, they're
hardly going to jettison a few million hardshell religious
right-wingers to get me, but one can dream.  :-) )  It _will_ be nice
if this November I can cast a vote for _one_ candidate who I actually
think will do a _good_ job, and not simply be the least unpleasant
mediocrity-- that's not going to happen with the Presidential race,
that's for sure.

	"Far as that goes, I just keep telling myself that the chance
to choose which of two directionless mediocrities will have the
opportunity to try to ruin the country for four years is something
that has moved people to face tanks with thrown rocks or brave the
high seas in small, leaky boats, or spend years enduring persecution
in their homelands.  It helps, but Churchill said it best when he said
`Democracy is the worst form of government-- except for all the
others.'"

	Michael steps up to the chalk line: "To democracy!  May we
never be deprived of the privilege of selecting between the lesser of
two evils, lest we discover how great an evil it is _not_ to have that
privilege!"

	>>>**CRASH**<<<

-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Workers of the world, forgive me.
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 You had more to lose than I thought."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Karl Marx (1990) as imagined by
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Jim Koncz (konc@midway.uchicago.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans