Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!hercules!sparkyfs!usasoc.soc.mil!aero!nadel
From: nadel@aerospace.aero.org (Miriam H. Nadel)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men&women: same or different?
Message-ID: <86046@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 19 Sep 90 14:26:32 GMT
References: <9009112047.AA09791@Arezzo.ORC.Olivetti.Com> <27088@usc.edu>
Reply-To: jan@orc.olivetti.com
Followup-To: soc.femisism
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 60
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


In article <27088@usc.edu> gazit%oberon.usc.edu@usc.edu (Hillel) writes:
>Why the examples of non-aggressive societies are always based on *old* 
>societies
>that did not leave too many records behind?  Why nobody presents a clear
>example, where there is enough data to know how the society *really* worked?

Partly because previous destroyers deliberately destroyed the records,
partly because records may be less necessary in a society that doesn't
collect tribute or taxes, and partly because when I was a kid we were taught 
as though such societies never existed, so even those few things which we
*do* know for sure about them are enough to break the monopoly of the
idea that our way is the only way.

>>If a person says that success by brutal competition in business is the
>>"best" system solely because it can be, and has been, imposed by
>>force, then I reserve the right to use any force to fight against it.
>>Including AA, socialism, or anything else.  
>
>The idea behind Affirmative Action is to put men in a situation where
>they have to try *harder*, while women can take it more easy.

I was around in the sixties, when the idea was being discussed, and that's
not what they said.  You and I have both posted on this, and differ in
our views, but I was not aware that you knew people who said this
is their reason for promoting AA.  Or are you claiming to be able to
read others' minds?

Anyway, my use of it here is not to support it (which I do in some cases
and not in others, depending on implementation) but to point out that
we need to agree on a definition of "fair and equitable" or "desireable"
before we can decide what a fair or desireable world would would look like.  
In the absence of such consensus, each side will work for its own good, 
and each side will rightly point out that the other side is doing exactly 
that.  Saying it is OK for the system of modern business to unconsciously
select for male traits might be right or wrong, but it cannot be presumed 
to be a "natural" law in the sense of inevitability because there are other 
systems possible.

>>If survival of the
>>survivor is the ONLY criterion, and morality doesn't enter into it,
>>then I have the right to lie, cheat, steal, and anything else to
>>change the system, as I am at war with it.

>No, you just reinforce the system in a more ugly way.

Depends on whether or not critical mass is reached.  Was Lenin reinforcing
Monarchy?

Anyway, I wasn't recommending this course of action, but pointing out that the
mere existence of a system is not sufficient proof that it is good or
desireable.  As soon as other proofs are offered, they must be judged
somehow, and that's where the fun starts.


-- 
"Beware of prophets wearing rubber clothing"  - William Nealy

Miriam (bored with statistics) Nadel
nadel@aerospace.aero.org