Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    And how long ago was the Katyn Forest massacre?  the Holocaust?
    
    Our rememberances are not pathological indwellings, they are
    the necessary lessons we *must* undertake to understand our past.
    Never can these be forgotten or covered up.  Having overcome, the
    memory gives strength.
    
    DougO

    
    	I suggest that you read _The Handmaid's Tale_, by Margaret Atwood,
	for an example of what can happen if we all not eternally 
    	vigilant about the freedoms which we today take for granted.
    
    	I believe that if we aren't often reminded of how things were
    	(are), we might find some of those "little" things which we
    	have achieved, slowly slipping away from us.
	
    	And what of the generations that are just now learning of the
    	past?  If we did not "dwell" (which I don't believe we do!)
    	on past issues, such as women's sufferage, how can they ever
    	begin to build on our hard won history?
    
    	What about the rest of history?  Should we not "dwell" on
    	the Holocaust because things are better today?  Never!  We 
    	should constantly remind HUMANkind of just what depths we can
    	descend to, if we allow it to happen.
    
    	Should we not "dwell" on civil rights?  How about war?  Sure,
    	"progress has been made" -- but why stop here?  And, as cliche
    	as it sounds, "Those who do not know history are bound to repeat
    	it".
    
    	Sharon


    

    re:< Note 114.0 by YODA::BARANSKI "Searching the Clouds for Rainbows" >
                -< Dwelling on the past / Beating a Dead Horse >-


�What I am curious about is what is the sense in dwelling on the past, especially
�issues which have been changed in the present?  Wouldn't it be more productive
�to examine today and work on the future then dwelling on the past? 



�               <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
�                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
�================================================================================
�Note 95.22               Invalidating Unhealthy Feelings                22 of 85
�YODA::BARANSKI "Searching the Clouds for Rainbows"   35 lines   8-AUG-1988 08:35
�                      -< outside of 'special' situations >-
�--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�
�
�But we ARE supposed to be able to learn from other people's experiences, right?
�That's what DEC pays senior engineers etc. higher salaries for, right?  I
�wouldn't want to spend my whole life reinventing the wheel... 

    

    re: .3  touch�

Should we learn of what mistakes have occurred in history so that we are not
doomed to repeat it?  Yes.  Should we dwell on it to the point that some Jews
hate germans who were not even born yet during WW II? No.  Should men have to
feel the anger of women today for acts that happened before either one of them
were born? No. 

"I suggest that you read _The Handmaid's Tale_, by Margaret Atwood, for an
example of what can happen if we all not eternally vigilant about the freedoms
which we today take for granted."

I have read it.  I see a point in the book which it seems that you have missed.
One point in the book is that it is possible to be TOO vigilant in persueing
"freedom from", and end up giving up "freedom too".

In all honesty, I see the possibility of the atmosphere of 'The Handmaid's Tale'
being made reality by radical zealot feminists, as well as by brainwashing
fundamentalist zealots. 

JMB

    Jim,
    
    It's perfectly reasonable for you to decide what you wish to feel.
    But please don't tell the rest of us what we should or should not
    be dwelling on, thinking about, or considering.
    
    Thank you,
    Liz Augustine

    re: .6
    
    I had the same impression of the Handmaid's Tale, Jim -- that at
    least in the early stages, the fundamentalists and the radical
    feminists fell in together in their desire to protect women from
    men's unpleasant attentions, abuse, and so on.  Then the
    fundamentalists took over. 
    
    We've already seen this coalition in action in Minneapolis and in
    several other cities regarding anti-pornography laws.  

    I can see how dwelling on the negative aspects of sexual
    discrimination might contribute to the attitude that women have to
    be protected from men.  It's unfair that we can't drive without
    fear of being raped by someone lying to us about the condition of
    our car, and it's reasonable to discuss precautions to take, but
    that same concern tends to distract from the positive fact that we
    can own and drive our own cars without anyone thinking anything of
    it. My grandfather's neighbors used to criticize him for letting
    my grandmother drive his car. 

    Personally, I don't want to be protected from the real world --
    that's too much like cotton wool.  I want the right to go out into
    the real world and fight for myself, and the right to raise my
    daughter to have the skills to fight successfully, and the right
    of all the daughters and sons of this generation to learn new
    skills that will let them cooperate in a new way. 
    
    --bonnie

I beg your pardon Liz, I meant to express an opinion, not order you around.

'handmaid's tale'

The very good point is made in the book about the difference between "freedom
from", and "freedom to".  In chasing after freedom from danger, the people have
given up all their freedom to be free.  Even the lead male member of the ruling
class didn't seem too happy about that. 

In The Fountainhead, Toohey has convinced his circle that there is no such
thing as free will, and the 'will (and taste) of the masses' is the best
thing since sliced bread.

"In essence, freedom and compulsion are one.  Traffic lights restain your
freedom to cross a street whenever you wish.  But this restraint gives you the
freedom from being run over by a truck.  If you were assigned to a job and
prohibited from leaving it, it would restrain the freedom of your career. But it
would ngive you freedom from the fear of unemployment.  Whenever a new
compulsion is imposed upon us, we automatically gain a new freedom." [TF]

I feel that the more laws and regulations we have to try to *make* people do
what is 'right', the closer we get to this attitude, and the Handmaid's Tale.
Not that we shouldn't 'Do The Right Thing', but that everything such a law is
passed, we lose a little more 'freedom to', such a law usually ends up cutting
both ways, AND those actions it is most supposed to prevent, are the actions
that will easily find a way to get around the law. 

Actually, when I wrote .0, I had in mind part the sort of thing of Affirmative
Action Equal Employment Opportunity.  This is a good example of a law that cuts
both ways; we lose a little more 'freedom to' hire the most qualified person,
and those with the most prejudice can usually get around the law.  

It is also a good example of still trying to change the past that has already
happened in the present.  Because education of minorities was uneven in the
past, there are not as many qualified minorities in important jobs by virtue of
the prejudiced Holmesian deduction that minorities are not qualified.   The fix
of the present in the future is to give everyone equal opportunities for
education instead of trying to fix the past by mandating in effect hiring
unqualified minorities trying to equalize employment. 
 
JMB 

    re: .9
    
    I think your statement about currently 'hiring unqualified minorities' to
    compensate for past discrimination demonstrates exactly why we need
    EEO/AA laws.  The fact that you can view ALL minorities (as your
    statement implies) as unqualified is very telling.  I, for one,
    would never want to be a minority person being interviewed by you
    for a job opportunity.
    
    And just how many more years, decades, centuries will minorities
    have to wait before equal opportunity education becomes available?
    So let's not hire any minorities until it happens, right?
                                                              
    Perhaps we should have a lively discussion about all the unqualified
    white males in jobs who have those precious little jobs only because
    of the color of their skin and the fact that they can stand up to
    pee (no smiley faces intended).  If you want a smiley face to
    enlightenment, check out Robin Tyler's album (she is a dynamite
    feminist comic).
    
    re. 114.0, etc.
    
    Why should we remain vigilant?  One example that readily comes to
    mind...the moron majority and their campaign to have abortion made
    illegal.  
    
    How about some more suggested reading...(a continuation from note
    98.27 - I think)...
    
    "Pornography" by Adrea Dworkin or the autobiography of Margaret
    Sanger.  Read anything by Mary Daly.
    
    This 'not dwelling on the past' seems to be a recurring theme for
    you.  In terms of presenting yourself as an 'enlightened' male,
    seems like you talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
    

"The fact that you can view ALL minorities (as your statement implies) as
unqualified is very telling.  I, for one, would never want to be a minority
person being interviewed by you for a job opportunity."

I never said that, and I don't believe that. 

"Perhaps we should have a lively discussion about all the unqualified white
males in jobs who have those precious little jobs only because of the color of
their skin and the fact that they can stand up to pee"

Fine, lets.  I don't believe that such shallow reasons for hiring someone are of
a matter of course.  I think the most blatent and common reason for hiring an
unqualified person is because they are a relative.  Sure, there are plenty of
unqualified bozos of any stripe, but then again, 90% of everything is sh!t. 

Jim.

    re: .11
    
        I would suggest that you go back and read your own note 114.9...
    
        "The fix of the present in the future is to give everyone equal
         opportunities for education instead of trying to fix the past
         by mandating in effect hiring unqualified minorities trying
         to equalize employment."
    
    And I return to my original question in 114.10, so do we not hire
    minorities until there is equal opportunity in education?  Given
    our track record at equal opportunity, we would in fact, effectively
    keep minorities out of jobs waiting for equal education to happen.
    
    But that's really a minor point since everything is 90% sh*t.  I'm
    really relieved to know that this existence of ours is so trivial.
    Goodby to two cubic tons of stress just knowing that life is almost
    meaningless.
                   

So I said ...

"The fix of the present in the future is to give everyone equal opportunities
for education instead of trying to fix the past by mandating in effect hiring
unqualified minorities trying to equalize employment." JMB

So what...  That does not mean that I ...

"The fact that you can view ALL minorities (as your statement implies) as
unqualified is very telling.  I, for one, would never want to be a minority
person being interviewed by you for a job opportunity." E

JMB.