Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: willis@photon.tamu.EDU (Willis Marti)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: the *isms
Message-ID: <16079@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 10 May 91 00:09:42 GMT
References: <14622@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> <9105050838.1718@mydog.UUCP> <14801@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Lines: 100
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanche.ics.uci.edu

In article <14801@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, farmerl@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (lisa ann farmer) writes:
|>
|> In article <9105050838.1718@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
[Gordon's example deleted]

|> The problem is people _believe_ the above statements about blacks
|> _committing_ more crimes.  But the truth is blacks are _convicted_ of
|> violent crimes more often then whites.

Quite true, but you're avoiding the point of what the correlation is
between "commit" and "convict".  It might support your position, but you
shouldn't just ignore the correlation.

|> Okay now I am going to justify some of the power theory...(I hope I am
|> keeping this in the realm of soc.feminism).  For many years science
|> has been our foundation (of laws, of society, etc).  For many years
|> science has been a

Don't forget religion, that bastion of white(?) male chauvinism.. 8-)

|> field open only to white,educated, males. (For proof of this read
|> _Women of
             *only* !?! Bushwa.  I've read the book & understand (I
hope) your point.  I also believe you think lying ("hyperbole"?) is OK
if it furthers your cause.  I've also read history books approved by
the "power structure" that mention women in science even before this
currently enlightened age.

|> Science_ edited by Kass-Simon and Farnes) NOw, our society looks to
|> science as this all-knowing entity. We think that if it is proven
|> scientifically, it must be part of the Truth.  Funny, though, how most
|> of this Truth says that women and minorities are inferior.  Who
|> figured out that blacks commit more crimes than whites?  A black man,
|> black woman - I doubt it.  Most likely some

Actually, the "proof" is that blacks are more likely -- given data
that says in a population with X% blacks/minorities, (X+n)% of the
violent offenders are blacks/minorities. {Kinda reminds you of the
arguments as to why women should be afraid of rape by *all* men,
doesn't it.}

|> white person with the hypothesis that black people were/are bad set
|> about to

Your statement is racist and sexist, whether you think you're part of
some power structure or not.  You offer no proof, no objective way of
measuring truth.

|> prove that. You may or may not know that statistics are easily
|> manipulated to show the side that best benefits the group using them.

Not easily.  And only if one ignores the details of the data. (I would
guess, from looking at the politicians we elect, most people do ignore
the details. So, in that sense, you're correct)

|> Who gives money to the scientists to do research?  Govermental grants
|> are a good source of money, I would say.  Now if our government is
|> predominantly white males, who is going to get a good portion of the
|> money and for what reasons?  To promote the power structure is a
|> pretty good guess.

A pretty bad guess and *sheer* speculation.

|> My point is I don't know how much of what I was taught is "true".
|> Therefore I can never say that I am _not_ racist because the power
|> structure is racist.

If you don't think you can question what you're told, what are you
doing here in this News group?  How do know any of *these* articles
are True?  Who taught you that there is only one power structure?  Or
that individuals don't have "power"?

|> Now if I was black and being told all this stuff 1)I would beleive it
|> to be true and become that way. 2)I would believe it to be not true
|> and try to prove I am not that way.
|>
|> Why a person can't be an *ist when they aren't in power?  I can say
|> all I want about how much I hate men, what scums they are etc. but the
|> difference is I don't have the scientific community backing me up with
|> the Truth on this issue.

The key problem is your implication that there is only one power
structure, that membership is granted by race and gender (not money or
family, as possible counterexamples), that individuals have no power,
and that people not of the correct race/gender can have no power. AND
that only people with power can be *ist.  The opposing view is that
*ist thought/action is based upon using * as the sole/primary
discriminator when other criteria ought to apply (like in hiring,
schooling etc.).

If the "monolithic" power structure only benefits white males, how did
women or minorites *ever* get *any* benefits?  You need to recognize
that you don't advance equality by saying "I can do this, but you
can't, 'cause you're *ist".  That's not equal. If you want to act this
way, then there is less reason for me {that powerful member of the
Ruling Elite} to treat you as an equal.  Don't tell me you're unequal
and want to stay that way; tell me you're unequal but want to be equal
and this is how *we* help that change.

[rest of diatribe deleted]