Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tardis.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!wjh12!tardis!lucius From: lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Re: Sexist article in Harvard Independant Message-ID: <10047@tardis.UUCP> Date: Sun, 5-May-85 15:51:26 EDT Article-I.D.: tardis.10047 Posted: Sun May 5 15:51:26 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 21:02:57 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Harvard University, Cruft Lab (TARDIS) Lines: 156 _ It seems necessary that I clear up a few things about my original posting. I knew I was taking a risk of getting myself nuked for what David Bell wrote in the Independant, but -- well, you know how that is. So here goes my attempt to clear things up, and finally put in a few comments of my own (which I had refrained from doing, because when I did put comments in on our local flame group people complained about the length even though it was the only article that had appeared there in months). And feel free to respond, by the way -- another version of this posting got just 2 responses in our local flame group, one of which did not get past the machine it was posted on, and the other of which was just a complaint about the length ( . . . ). > > 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) (I repeat the opening of the article so that it will be easier to identify.) > > 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. > Hold it. *I* never said that racial discrimination wasn't built on sand, or that Mr. Bell deserves to be discriminated against. I was simply pointing out the fact that he is perfectly capable of reacting to discrimination against himself, but (as shown later on) cannot sympathize with the discrimination that anyone else suffers. > 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.) Well, of course you can never be absolutely without a doubt truly really positively 100% sure, but judging from his article (especially from that quote) that that is what Mr. Bell *really* thinks. > >>>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. Don't hit me with your flame -- I may happen to be male, but I don't agree with any of Mr. Bell's sexist statements, and I'm not quite burned out to the level of navel lint yet. > >> 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? I could have told you so; no, I don't think he would argue Allen (Allan?) Bakke's side in court at all. > >> 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? Uh -- based on what I have seen other people do, a large number of people try to avoid such behavior, but a very significant portion of them freely take part in it. > >> 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. I for the most part don't go to parties much, but let me point out that judging from the behavior of a significant number of people outside parties, it seems that they are likely to act that way within parties. Thus, Mr. Bell's sentiments, while clearly morally wrong, are apparently not that uncommon. > >> 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. I agree -- maybe I shouldn't have left out my comments on the article in the national netnews posting. > >> 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. I don't think it did. I really should have put my comments in originally. My apologies for following the advice of others over here (maybe one of them is getting his revenge for the time when I gave him advice on how to kill a ghost in hack that was starving him to death on level 4 which didn't work. :-) ) > > Lucius Chiaraviglio '86 > > { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.UUCP | lucius@tardis.ARPA } Remember, I didn't make the stuff up -- I just transmitted it to the net (sorry, but somebody has to do it). > Women and men are different. That`s what makes it all so much > FUN! I wouldn`t have it any other way. What do you mean? > --Leon Marr '85 > decvax!yale-comix!marr > > P.S. Is it really the "Harvard Independant"? Is that the actual spelling? Yes, I think that is the correct spelling; looking in a dictionary produces evidence that "independent" can also be spelled "independant" legally. *** UPDATE *** In a more recent issue of _The_Harvard_Independant_, two Harvard students posted very intelligent replies rebutting David Bell's article. And I am finally seeing some responses on the net. (It's still kind of slow, though, folks -- this is the kind of thing that should be generating a reactor meltdown worth of flames. What, he's only a Harvard student? Be careful, people; he might really become one of our nation's leaders in a few years.) Well, at least not everyone is going to let him get away with that kind of stuff unscathed. Lucius Chiaraviglio '86 { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.UUCP | lucius@tardis.ARPA }