Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway From: mlm@cs.brown.EDU (Moises Lejter) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: the *isms Message-ID: Date: 7 May 91 17:23:48 GMT References: <14622@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> Reply-To: mlm@cs.brown.EDU Organization: Department of Computer Science, Brown University Lines: 68 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu In article <14622@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu (lisa ann farmer) writes: The point was made that it is useless to say that you aren't *ist, because some time in your life you probably had a *ist thought even if it wasn't conscious. True, perhaps even trivially true, as long we live in a sexist society. What I question there is the usefulness of calling a person #ist because they thought a #ist thought *unconsciously*. Consider two people Pat and Chris. Pat is *consciously* #ist - Pat has thought about the issues involved and it is Pat's considered opinion that #ism is "correct". Chris on the other hand may sometimes do things that would be called #ist, simply because Chris acted without thought (ie, "unconsciously") - upon later reflection, or due to external input, Chris would come to realize Chris acted in a #ist manner and would decide no longer to fall into that particular trap. I find it useful to distinguish between those two attitudes: Pat I would call a #ist, but Chris I would not. For example, I have walked around campus at night quite a bit and if I see a male I get a little nervous- hold my keys tighter, etc. But if I see a black male I am more nervous. Different people perceive things in different ways, I guess. To me, apparent economic class is a much more relevant indicator: I would fear more the more destitute person. Color for me would be a secondary indicator (though I confess I would use it, too). So I admit that I am racist because the power structure has taught me to think that this black man is more dangerous than a white man. (This may be due to my lack of familiarity with the term "power structure", but) I would have said that in my case that belief was created by the society around me (the attitudes of my family and immediate social group, "vox populi" re individuals responsible for specific crimes, personal experience re: crimes involving me). To me the phrase "the power structure" has strong connotations towards the institutions that exert power and the group that actually controls them, and "has taught me" suggests an active intention to impart that belief on their part. Neither of these seems to me to be altogether true. I can never say that I am no longer racist because I don't know how deep what I have been taught goes. True according to your usage of the term above. Not particularly useful, in my opinion, as per my response above. I think that the purpose of the seminar was to question your actions, your speech to see if it is *ist and to take the time to try and change those things in your life that are *ist. I believe you are right, and in that context, the statement "You are #ist" is useful. If the purpose of the seminar is to have the participants question their actions, challenging them to think about what they think and do and honestly evaluate their reasons for so doing is a valuable step. The mistake then is to take that statement out of that context and consider it to be true. Lisa farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.edu Moises -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet/CSnet: mlm@cs.brown.edu BITNET: mlm@browncs.BITNET UUCP: ...!uunet!cs.brown.edu!mlm Phone: (401)863-7664 USmail: Moises Lejter, Box 1910 Brown University, Providence RI 02912