Conference turris::womannotes-v2

1075.0. "SRO: Untitled" by JARETH::EDP (Always mount a scratch monkey.) Wed Apr 04 1990 18:10

    [This is a new version of the original note, with some edits suggested
    by Sandy Ciccolini.  Although Sandy Ciccolini does not object to being
    mentioned, this topic should not focus upon her.]

    
                               Prologue

    To make this more understandable to people, I am going to explain a few
    things about where I am coming from.  That will be the first part of
    this note.  Because of my experiences in this conference, I am going to
    include a warning:  I am providing some information about my
    motivations for your information and NOT FOR DISCUSSION.  You can
    accept my statements about my motivations or not.  If you do, fine.  If
    you do not, keep it to yourself.  I have tried to ensure that the
    remainder of my note discusses people's actions, not motivations of
    specific people -- make sure you know the difference.  I will not
    tolerate any implications that I am dishonest or have ulterior motives. 
    Be advised that such statements will be formally considered offensive.

                          Part I -- Eric Postpischil

    Freedom has always been important to me.  Why?  Well, let's just say I
    want to do my own things, and they aren't the same things that most
    people do -- or that many people do.  I want to live my life my way,
    making my own choices.  I do not want somebody else controlling my
    actions.  Obviously, I can achieve this only if I have the freedom to
    be different.

    Next, I strongly believe that if the freedom of any person, including
    myself, is to be preserved, then it is absolutely NECESSARY that the
    freedom of everybody be defended.  What I know of history and human
    nature tells me that there are forces that act to limit freedom.  At
    some points in history, it is corrupt uses of power.  Other times, it
    is blind forces acting to encourage conformity and discourage
    individuality.  Sometimes it is just selfish people passing laws to
    support their own preferences or ignorant people passing laws without
    being aware of the effects on people different from themselves.  Or it
    can be the simple economics of mass production making things cheaper
    for the common and more expensive for the rare.  It is my belief that
    freedom will be eroded away unless people act, either continually or
    periodically, to keep freedom.

    In addition to believing it is necessary to defend freedom for other
    people, I hate oppression.  Perhaps I empathize with the oppressed,
    perhaps I can feel the oppression myself, or perhaps I have simply
    developed this feeling as a result of the above.  The report in another
    note of a judge ordering a person to undergo a Ceasarian sickened me --
    the disgust for a judge ordering a knife to slice open a human being is
    nearly palpable to me.

    I have a track record of standing by the above beliefs.  I have
    repeatedly defended other people's freedom when my own freedom was not
    at issue.  I have, since high school at least, attempted to use
    non-sexist language and have encouraged others to do the same.  In
    Soapbox, I have defended the right to free speech by flag burners but I
    have no desire to burn a flag myself.  I defend the right of people to
    make their own choices about drugs, even though I use almost no drugs
    myself -- nothing illegal, no alcohol, and caffeine only in sodas not
    available without.  I think that in the last six months, I have taken
    only one dose of one prescription medicine and no non-prescription
    medicines.  I have less to fear personally from drug tests than Nancy
    Reagan, yet I wrote a 20-page letter to Digital expressing concerns
    about drug testing and collected signatures for the letter.  No
    collection of records by government agencies or correlation of
    different records could reveal incriminating evidence about me, but I
    defended people's right to privacy when the New Hampshire Department of
    Safety violated the Privacy Act -- I spent my time on letters, phone
    calls, trips to Concord, and testimony at a legislative hearing.  I
    have consistently put effort into defending freedom in general, not
    just my own.

    I defend freedom and oppose oppression on principle, because freedom is
    good and oppression is bad.  That is all the reason I need -- and it is
    all you need to know to know that I have honorable motives.  As far as
    I am concerned that settles the matter:  There will be NO statements
    accusing me of ulterior motives or saying that my opposition to
    something is due to selfish reasons.

                            Part II -- Womannotes

    I have explained my interest in opposing oppression.  In some forms,
    sexism is oppression.  In other forms, sexism causes oppression.  Since
    I have an interest in opposing oppression, I have an interest in
    opposing sexism.  I came to this conference expecting to find people
    with similar interests.

    That is not what I found.

    Sexism is rampant in this conference.  There are some good notes that
    oppose sexism or that are informative about sexism, but they are
    occluded by the greater number of notes that exercise sexism.  The
    conference is for issues of interest to women.  I thought that equality
    for the genders would be of interest to women.  I am sure it is, but
    also of interest seems to be returning hate and sexism of their own.
    Why should we expect that women are any less susceptible than men to
    human failings:  prejudice, lack of empathy, stubborness, revenge,
    selfishness?  Why should we expect that women are any more motivated
    than men to seek fairness for all rather than fairness for themselves?
    The things that cause sexism in men exist in equal amounts in women.

    This conference is rife with sexist ideas.  "Male justice" and "female
    justice" is nonsense.  The differences between individuals of any
    combination of genders varies far beyond the difference between the
    averages of the genders.  Even one individual's concept of justice can
    easily vary more in their lifetime than the difference between the
    averages of the genders.

    Maybe some participants think they are reversing sexism that they have
    been subjected to.  But there are people who have been treated
    negatively for reasons other than sexism -- women have no monopoly on
    injustice.  And to such a person, sexism by women to men is not a
    reversal of anything; it is just more of the same discrimination heaped
    upon this person.  Nothing is reversed to this person; they are not
    getting back anything they have given other people -- they are just
    getting more of the same discrimination but from a different source.

    Somebody wallowing in the mud was throwing mud on you, so you decided
    to get in the mud yourself and throw some back.  But in the process,
    you are throwing mud on innocent people.  You're not getting revenge or
    getting even; you are participating in an unworthy act.  A number of
    notes in this conference do not oppose sexism -- rather than opposing
    the battle, they have joined it; they have entered the sexist fight,
    on the side against men.  Both sides in the sexist battle are bad.

    Participants in this conference have as much as demanded that a person
    justify themselves before they are accepted as a person.  A person
    cannot ask questions or make simple statements without their motives
    being attacked groundlessly.  Participants may know nothing at all
    about a person's motives, but they make judgements.  That is prejudice. 
    This conference is filled with it.  Participants demand that a person
    explain who they are, that they reveal personal things before their
    words are accepted as the words of any human being should be.  I do not
    have a name for it, but this denial of human recognition is common to
    sexism, racism, religious discrimination, politics, and all forms of
    discrimination -- people deny others acceptance as human until the
    others have passed some sort of test.  A gender test, a race test,
    whatever.  It is done by sexists, by racists, and by participants in
    this conference.  Tell us who you are so we can judge your worth as a
    person -- until then, we refuse to grant you equal rights.

    It is disgusting.  It is the thing which lets people treat human beings
    as non-human -- as slaves, as inferiors, as medical experiments, as
    people whose feelings do not matter.  It is one of the filthiest
    characteristics of human nature.  It is present in this conference.

                              Part III -- Sexism

    Sexism is making a choice based upon gender when the choice is not
    supported by physical differences between the genders.  Sexism is also
    supporting false beliefs about genders.  Together, those sentences are
    a definition of sexism.  There could be definitions phrased differently;
    I express the definition as I do because to me it illustrates the
    fundamental error of sexism.  To wit, a choice based upon gender that
    is not supported by physical differences is a choice that can be
    incorrect.  The choice has been made based upon false information. 
    Using false information can lead to false conclusions.  Making
    decisions based upon false conclusions can cause damage -- harm,
    oppression, limiting the enjoyment of life, et cetera.  Those are
    results.  The definition I gave expresses the cause of those results.

                          Things That Are Not Sexist

    Physical differences between genders are significant in choosing dating
    partners, so such choices are not sexist.  Separate rest rooms and
    changing areas are methods of dealing with human sexual attraction, so
    they are not sexist.  Designing some different articles of clothing for
    different genders is a result of physical body differences, so it is
    not sexist.  Choosing models for such clothing based on gender is not
    sexist.

                            Things That Are Sexist

    Although it is not sexist to choose people for a particular role, such
    as modeling, based on gender, it is sexist to limit people to roles
    based on gender.  This applies to both roles chosen based on gender and
    roles not chosen based on gender.  It is not sexist to choose a model
    based upon gender, but it would be sexist to stereotype a gender as
    qualified only for modeling, thus limiting people of that gender.

    Making decisions about general employment based on gender is sexist. 
    So is choosing to whom to provide or deny services or sales. 
    Stereotyping characteristics to gender which are not actually
    differences between genders is sexist.  This extends to language that
    perpetuates thought patterns that treat genders differently.  Choosing
    who can vote based on gender is sexist.

    I have opposed sexism in language because I know that protests that it
    is just words are incorrect.  I know that protests that "he" means "he
    or she" are incorrect.  It has been scientifically established that
    "he" does not communicate "he or she".  I know that language shapes
    beliefs and communicates ideas.  Language perpetuates sexism.  Small
    things add up -- people are repeatedly within each day to standards of
    dress, commercials pitched with sexist appeals, and all manner of
    unconscious tugs.  So claims that something is so small as to be
    irrelevant are false.  Sexism is bad in any amount and in any form. 
    Sexism is just as bad from female to male as it is from male to female.
    It all adds up to detriment to human life.

    Where it appears, sexism SHOULD be opposed.  Good intentions are not an
    excuse.

                           Part IV -- Note 1019.21

    A good part of the impetus for this note was provided by Sandy
    Ciccolini's 1019.21.  Sandy declares that women are challenged with
    making sexist statements and men are not.  Her own notes belie this;
    she throws challenges aplenty and is cheered.

    Sandy declares there is a double standard.  But there is not enough
    substance behind this charge.  What we have in this conference is a
    limited number of people.  Let us grant that Sandy is correct that some
    men challenge some women.  That is one half of the double standard. 
    But now I ask where is the other half?  Who is to challenge these men? 
    Certainly they are not to challenge themselves.  If they transgress, it
    is up to somebody else to challenge them.  What then is the double
    standard -- one half is the men who challenge the women and the other
    half is some people who should be challenging the men but are not?

    No.  That is not a double standard.  A double standard would be a
    person having one standard for one group (men) and the SAME PERSON
    having another standard for another group (women).  That is not what we
    have here.  We have _different_ groups of people with _different_
    standards each -- not one group or person with two standards, but two
    groups with different standards each.  That's not the hypocritical case
    that "double standard" describes; it is a simple, and possibly honest,
    disagreement.

    What is the solution to this situation?  Sandy Ciccolini says that a
    person who has been caught violating the rules is guilty.  It is not a
    desirable state to have some people permitted to break the rules and
    some people not permitted to break the rules.  That leaves us with two
    choices:

         all persons are permitted to break the rules, or

         all persons are not permitted to break the rules.

    Sandy Ciccolini declares that she will break the rules and not accept
    correction.  That is the wrong choice.  Between the two choices, the
    preferable choice is the latter, that all persons should not be
    permitted to break the rules.

    Who then is responsible for this?  Each person is responsible for not
    breaking the rules, but people transgress.  According to Sandy
    Ciccolini's analogy, people on both sides have broken the rules.  Given
    that people do not always live up to their responsibility, who then is
    responsible for challenging them?

    Nobody.  That is the way the universe is; there is no natural force
    that provides justice.

    But when a challenge is appropriate, there is a way to effect a
    challenge, even though nobody is responsible for doing so.  Make the
    challenge yourself.

    Above, I described the desirable situation:  Nobody is permitted to
    break the rules.  Now I have explained how to achieve that situation: 
    Make the challenges yourself.

    It is how we get from here to there.  It is what needs to be done.  The
    challenges do not need to be acrimonious or personal.  But if the
    desirable situation is to be achieved, they need to be made -- and
    nobody is responsible for making them.

                           Not Everything is Sexist

    Sandy Ciccolini states that women are not accorded respect in
    Womannotes.  She states that ". . . we are asked over and over again 
    to PROVE . . .", and she declares this to be sexist.  This is a
    prejudgement, made based only the fact that men are asking women to
    prove here and without taking into account the additional information
    that  people are asked in many conferences to prove, over and over
    again.  People of both genders ask proof or support or explanation from
    people of either gender or unknown gender.  It is not a female/male
    thing; it is common to all combinations of genders of the participants.

    Sandy's claim of a double standard is a lie.  What we have here is not
    a pattern of people applying different standards to males and females. 
    There are a few people with different styles each.  Some of the people
    who have spoken against Sandy are male.  Since it is male against
    female, Sandy can make a claim of sexism.  The claim is not necessarily
    true, but Sandy can make it.  It is to her advantage, particularly in
    this conference.  But just because there are men opposing women does
    not mean there is sexism.  People are and always will be individuals,
    and some of them will be male and some will be female, and individual
    human clashes, not sexist clashes, will occur.  But Sandy cries sexism
    regardless -- she cries sexism not because there is sexism but because
    her opponents are male.  She discriminates on the basis of gender.  Her
    charges are sexist.  Her sexism hurts other people.

    Sandy declares that unwritten cultural rules firmly control a woman's
    response.  Her own notes scream that she is not so restrained.  Like a
    person who screams that they are not screaming, Sandy must be wrong. 
    While there are unwritten cultural rules, they are not restraining
    Sandy Ciccolini in these notes.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  And sometimes a person says Sandy
    Ciccolini is wrong because Sandy Ciccolini is wrong.  Just because a
    person says Sandy Ciccolini is wrong does not mean the person is
    sexist.

    Sandy Ciccolini is wrong.


				-- edp

    
    Impressive article, Eric...
    
    You should consider putting out a newletter..