Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yale.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!yale!marr From: marr@yale.ARPA (Leon Marr) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.women Subject: Re: Sexist article in Harvard Independant Message-ID: <517@yale.ARPA> Date: Fri, 3-May-85 21:20:45 EDT Article-I.D.: yale.517 Posted: Fri May 3 21:20:45 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 04:49:56 EDT References: <10045@tardis.UUCP> <384@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: marr@yale-comix.UUCP (Leon marr) Organization: Yale University CS Dept., New Haven CT Lines: 137 Xref: linus net.flame:8821 net.women:4452 Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: *** MUNCH, MUNCH *** > This is a letter concerning the commentary column, "I Yam What I Yam," > by David W. Bell '86, of The Harvard Independant of April 18, 1985. This > article was so degrading that I was morally obligated to write a response > and post it to our local flame group. To reduce the length of this posting, > I will replace all the comments I posted in our local flame group with just > this: > > ******** FLAME AT WILL ******** (FLAME: enabled) > > Here he proceeds to distinguish between racial and sexual discrimina- >tion, and to say that while racial discrimination is built on sand -- > Obviously "racial discrimination is built on sand"; to argue otherwise that would imply that Mr. Bell deserves to be discriminated against. >> A modern consensus also exists against sexual discrimination. But >> here the break between the groups is more fundamental. To say "I'll never >> understand women," is to repeat a tired cliche. But my reflections on the >> dining hall incident [the one with the stripper] give this saying a new and >> profound meaning: it i_s_ absolutely impossible for any man to "understand" >> women, or to share with them the community possible between members of the >> same sex but different race. Does Mr. Bell really think "it i_s_ absolutely impossible for any man to 'understand' women, or to share with them the community possible between members of the same sex but different race"? I`d like to see how much "community" he finds possible with your average Afrikaner man in East Cape Province. (Actually, with his views, they might even consider making him "an honourary white" -- they do that occasionally.) >> As different as I may be from my white roommates, there is one thing >> that we have in common, something I share with every man I ever meet or see >> on the street. Obviously, this is that we are all males, implying certain >> shared experiences and perceptions. We constitute an extended fraternity, >> if you like. Or "we are all Shi`ites", or "we are all Socialists", or "we are all Aryans". The SS considered itself an extended fraternity, too. >> And of course, society expects, even demands, that men and women behave >> differently. For instance, I don't ever have to worry about make-up or >> fingernail polish, or whether to wear a skirt or pants. >>>This guy actually thinks that "worry[ing] about make-up or fingernail polish, >>>or whether to wear a skirt or pants" can actually "trac[e] their roots >>>ultimately to the simple physical fact that men tend to be larger than women >>>and therefore physically dominant"?!?!?!?!?!?!?! They *better* be physically >>>dominant - they're clearly *mentally* somewhere below navel lint. Hear, hear, Beth. The example is exceptionally imbecilic. >> Society also has behavioral standards for Blacks. Like having "natural rhythm"? >> But the male-female social structures >> are of a much more implicit nature, tracing their roots ultimately to the >> simple physical fact that men tend to be larger than women and therefore >> physically dominant. What? Does this mean that the larger races (White, Black) should have similar "social structures... ...of a much more implicit nature" over smaller races (Yellow). >> Coming from a disad- >> vantaged minority myself, I can identify with most others who fit this >> definition. But I simply cannot fully identify with the problems and >> complaints of women. I am not surprised. His insensitivity is evident. I am somewhat surprised that he can so sweepingly argue that he can identify with most "disadvantaged minorities". Would he argue Allan Bakke`s side in court? >> Men, in their own company, >> have the ability to demean the status of women to the point at which the >> opposite sex becomes little more than at best sub-human androids, or at worst >> simple gratifiers. Might I point out that though anyone has the ability to demean the status of any subgroup, most people try to avoid such behavior? I could add the usual cracks that Yale students make about Harvard students. It would be another good example of one group "demean[ing] the status of" another. It makes just about as much sense as any other, too. >> At parties, women take on the role of prize cattle rather >> than fellow humans; . . . This is BULLSH*T. I don`t know which parties you go to. I suspect he has been to the wrong ones. I am certainly glad he has not been to any of mine. >> Ladies, I am not speaking here only of latter-day "male chauvinists" >> left over from the early '70s. Ladies, I am speaking of your otherwise >> tender, loving boyfriends and husbands. Otherwise self-righteous liberals, I >> am speaking of you. And I am speaking of myself. Speak for yourself. >> Unfortunately, I believe that men are fundamentally incapable of >> divining acceptable moral norms for dealing with women through rational >> reflection. Rational reflection does not seem to have played a great part in this analysis. > Lucius Chiaraviglio '86 > { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.UUCP | lucius@tardis.ARPA } >>>(My apologies to all you clear-thinking, decent fellows I just degraded. >>> This is a flame, not a children's textbook.) >>>--JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth) >>> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) With this much provocation, I completely understand. If I have offended anyone with my examples, I apologize profusely. The examples are given STRICTLY for the sake of argument. I believe none of them (although since Harvard admitted Mr. Bell, I may begin to believe Yale propaganda :-). Women and men are different. That`s what makes it all so much FUN! I wouldn`t have it any other way. (FLAME: disabled) --Leon Marr '85 decvax!yale-comix!marr P.S. Is it really the "Harvard Independant"? Is that the actual spelling?