Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women
Subject: Just when you think you've turned off the faucet...
Message-ID: <856@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Jul-84 20:50:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.856
Posted: Fri Jul 13 20:50:08 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Jul-84 00:57:37 EDT
References: <3790@fortune.UUCP> <2598@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 94

...the drips start coming out.

Let's take two blatantly bigoted statements:

1)  I hate black people because they're all stupid and lazy.
2)  I hate black people because their skin is darker than mine.

What's the difference between these two statements?  One states an opinion
that is based on a lie/misconception/stereotype.  The other states an
opinion based on a fact.  Now, does someone else having darker skin than
yours seem like a reasonable reason to despise someone?  Of course not.
While the second opinion is based on a fact, it's not a very logical reason
for having that opinion.

Now let's use a more general, hypothetical case:

1) I hate X's because they are A.
2) I hate X's because they are B.
3) I hate X's because they are C.

Assume X's are not A, but they are B and C.  Also assume that B is something
innocuous like "they wear blue shoes", but C is something heinous like "they
go to people's houses and murder them at random whenever they feel like it".
Apply the same tests employed in the previous example.  Which are "valid"
opinions based on the premise and its truth/falseness?

Now, one more time.

1) I don't associate with men because they're all morons.
2) I don't associate with men because they all have penises.
3) I don't associate with men because their behavior towards me and other
	women has been repulsive and defamatory to the point where I would
	feel degraded to deal with them on such a level.

Now, some might respond that "Well, that's just another generalization.  It's
not like the last example because the "C" clause just isn't true of all men
in general."

Like I said the last time, you must be living in some alternate universe.
More likely, though, you're like anybody whose behavior patterns are so
ingrained that you assume nothing wrong in them, never having been on the
receiving end of them.  Or perhaps you've never actually had a serious
conversation with a woman about how she reacts to what you accept as normal.
I thought Trish put it very well, though I wonder if anybody actually read it.
She listed a number of things common in everyday male behavior that I would
think anyone would agree were at least annoying.  (That is, if you actually
stopped to think about their effects on the other person.  Men aren't alone or
unique in often missing that quality...)  Things like:  referring to a
marriage as "losing one's freedom", *expecting* sexual "recompense" for
whatever reason, doing standard expected male things in general because
it's thought to be a requirement.

I don't want to make Trish's arguments sound flawless.  Yes, she is
generalizing, and perhaps, as someone else said some other way, if you
go out there expecting to find assholes, you'll find more than enough.
Yes, she puts direct blame on men in such a way that it sounds like it's the
result of a consensus by some governing body of malekind that can be rescinded
by a 3/4 majority.  (Men may benefit from the situation, and may propagate it,
but the problems are problems for both men and women.  Though men may be
"assholes" for doing it and some women may be "stupid" [Trish's word] for
accepting it, it's an ingrained societal behavior system, and as long as
people are taught to be sheep and go along with such roles and behaviors,
we're gonna be stuck with them!  As someone else (sorry, I should save these
items and credit people appropriately) said, it's a regenerative (Chuqui said
DEgenerative) set of behaviors that is counterproductive for everyone in the
long run.)

But what really got my goat was when a certain Mr. Driscoll stood up and put
on his Mr. Gender Defender costume, in an effort to defend to the death the
virtue of the male sex.  He berated (ridiculed?) Chuqui for not "coming to
the defense of males" after having joined him in defending gays, secretaries,
women, etc.  Alan, maybe Chuqui (and others) feel as I do:  that, no, not
all men are belligerent assholes all the time, and some are rarely that way
if at all, but that we live in a society where such behavior is considered
the status quo, and even faithful, considerate husbands/boyfriends who are
really quite nice guys in the way they behave towards their SO, will join in
on the behavior when "moved" to do so by their comrades. (Maybe just thinking
and talking rather than doing, but still going along.)  The problem isn't just
with men and women, it encompasses all role-defined behavior patterns for which
people know no alternatives!  Many assholes are probably assholes because they
know no other way to behave.  If your point is to continue to tell Trish that
she's full of crap while defending the male sex as a paragon of goodness,
truth, and apple pie (No, the male sex probably could not be considered a
paragon of motherhood, that's why it was left out :-), denying that the
behavior Trish described is the status quo, then I suggest you relax a bit
and think about whether that point is worth defending.

Lest I give you the impression that Alan Driscoll was alone in this, there
were others who also supported his point of view.  And that's the point.
It's easy to ignore the effect that one's seemingly natural (but probably
learned---and difficult to unlearn) behaviors have on other people.  I
just thought Alan (and Greg and Dick et al) would have avoided that pitfall.
-- 
"Submitted for your approval..."		  Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr