In article <1993Apr2.180839.14305@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes: >In <1993Apr2.064804.29008@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes: > > >>  I don't know what you as a white male did. I do know what white males, >>as a class, have done. > >>  They've invented the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, printing with >>movable type, photography, computers, the electric guitar. anasthesia, rocket >>powered space flight, the computer, electricity, the telephone, TV, motion >>pictures, penecillin(sp), telescopes, nylon, and the X-Ray machine. > >Two glaring errors here.  First, white males don't do anything as a "class."  >INDIVIDUAL white males invented those things, which means nothing to white >males as a whole.  Second, you neglected to mention Charles Manson, Hitler, >McCarthy, Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, and a whole slew of individuals who >have done horrible, evil things.  If white males can take the credit for >our fellow white males' boons, we must also take the blame for our >fellows' blights.  I claim we deserve neither credit nor blame for these >things. > > >>  We are told, by U.S. congresswoman Barbara Jordan, that we are biologically >>incapable of compassion. > >She's full of shit. > >>  We are told by Susan Brownmiller that we're all rapists and that's ALL >>we are. > >She's full of shit. > >>  We're told by Catherine Comins that a false rape charge is actually good  >>for us. > >She's full of shit. > >>  We are told by the feminist lawyers that we are not to be trusted with  >>children.  > >They're full of shit. > >>  We are told, by Newsweek magazine, that we are "poor sports" if we complain. > >Newsweek is full of shit. > >The point, ladies and gents?  Michael is not entirely correct in his theory >that because members of our race and gender made great advances, the race >and gender as a whole deserve more respect than they receive.  White males >DO deserve to be treated better than they are being treated, but not for >that reason.  And the male-bashers he quoted are repugnant hate-mongers, no >better than the chauvinists they despise.  So no one's right, as usual. > >White males need to wake up and realize that they're being unfair, yes.  But >everyone else needs to wake up and realize that being unfair right back is >disgusting, racist and sexist. > >Why can't we learn to treat everyone fairly, without generalizing?  What >stupidity gene makes this so difficult?  "I'd like to buy the world a >clue..."   	The word that is missing in this whole discourse is not the "B" word, or the "H" word, or even the "N" or "W" words. It is the "L" word - LOSER !!  	That's right. When we boil all the crap out of this argument, it is all about WINNING and LOSING, and nothing else. Let me explain.  	Remember the eighties ? No excuses. Nobody who can handle a mail buffer can claim they are "too young" to remember Ronald Reagan - yet. The eighties were about "How America Learned to Win Once Again". Then (wouldn't you know), we won so well that there was nothing left to win. No Cold War to endure. No nuclear holocaust. No more worlds to conquer (We forgot about outer space long ago). The kind of overwhelming, no holds barred success that killed Alexander the Great. Yes, there were a few "little" problems along the way - stock market meltdown here, an S&L bailout there, a few revolts and crazy Middle Eastern dictators to contend with, but as Tacitus would tell ya', the God Augustus never had it so good.   	In the meantime, there is guilt for winning, maybe a fear that one doesn't deserve one's bounty - or success. So there is a "kinder and gentler type of politician these days, Bill Clinton, affirmative action, and lots of discourse about people who "don't get it". For those of us in the winning business, this kind of talk is mildly irritating, but there is still no  suggestion of losing.  	But what do we find now ? To put it mildy, the stereotype of our  "white male" non-winner is Woody Hayes in the Rose Bowl, punching out  photojournalists when those California fruits and nuts steal another one with a "Hail Mary" pass in the Fourth Quarter. (The whole idea behind 'three yards and a cloud of dust' is to wear your opponent down until he collapses in the final period) But Woody just used his fists - Uzzies seem to be the  weapon of choice these days.  	 	Who is D-FENS, anyway ? The answer is as plain as the horn rims on  your face. The guy is MICHAEL DOUGLAS, posing as a LOSER. This  is known as controversial casting. But that baggy short-sleeved white shirt  sure does look natural on Mike doesn't it. Gordon Gekko will never look the  same. (Though Woody always dressed that way.) Did we really expect Gekko to  take it easy and enjoy that kind of wardrobe, without putting up a fuss ?  	What we are starting to lose sight of is, that bashing D-FENS is  the same game as bashing that poor African American slug that Clint Eastwood used to blow away all the time. As that arch-WASP (male gender) George C. Scott declaimed, "Americans traditionally LOVE TO WIN. They love a winner, and will  not tolerate a loser." And so on.   	The political implications are simple. If, as many socialists - and Democrats - do, you consider society a finite pie to a apportioned in some  "equitable" way, then you have to worry about who is a winner and who is a  loser to tell whose side you are on. That could be black women today, Asian homosexuals tommorrow, and yes indeed, white men some yet to be determined day when the balance of the pie has finally swung against that (39%)  minority.  	Or you can just blow the whole thing off and say - as do most conservatives and all the libertarians - and act is if you didn't care who's winning and who's losing. In some cases, you might say something about make sure the game is fair (equality of opportunity, not of condition). In the latter case, you might be able to identify yourself as a  "neoconservative" or a "neoliberal" depending on how much you want to limit the pot.  	Either way you go, the way of the Winner is no longer the way to be popular - at least after you graduate from High School (but you'll still be popular at High School reunions). But it beats being a Nerd, as I  would imagine Michael Douglas would now agree, and in the long run, it is the only way to go. (Even in Hollywood, which treats Losers worse than any other place in America except for New York and Washington, D.C. - and even in Columbus, Ohio, which produced Alex Keaton, but no champion football teams in the eighties and the first quarter of the nineties) I'd like to  see more Winners in this society, regardless of race, gender, religious  preference, and sexual orientation. Maybe we should even let a few more of  them be white men !! (We should DEFINITELY let the Buckeyes win the Rose Bowl someday)    Bill R.  --