Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Ed Hall speaks his mind.
Message-ID: <1377@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-May-85 20:46:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1377
Posted: Tue May 14 20:46:39 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 15-May-85 00:37:20 EDT
References: <385@ttidcc.UUCP> <305@mhuxr.UUCP> <327@h-sc1.UUCP> <2473@randvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath net.women:5041 net.politics:8976
Summary: 

(Originally from net.women, but I decided to put it in net.politics too)

In article <2473@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
>    ...there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and
>dangerous claims that:
>  1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at
>     least as much attention as discrimination against women.
>  2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome
>     discrimination.
>  3. Wearing ``provocative'' clothing is somehow responsible for
>     (at least some) rape.
>
>Except for one or two mild postings, the net is *silent* in response
>to these and other such claims!

I'm only going to deal with point 2, Ed, because it looks like a
distorted version of something I've been saying, and I think I'd
like to go into some detail about how it's been distorted.  

First, I've been trying to argue (poorly, I admit) that it makes no
sense for one person to feel pride over another person's
accomplishments just because that other person happens to be of the
same race, sex, nationality, or handedness.  (Pride must be earned.)
But carefully selecting one of the beliefs this implies, ie. that it
makes no sense for women to feel pride over the accomplishments of
other women, and stating it in isolation is a good way to make it look
like I'm something I am not, ie. a sexist.

Second, as I understand Ed's statement, (he will correct me if I'm
wrong), Ed is defending the practice of being proud of other people's
accomplishments on the basis of an (irrelevant, in my point of view)
resemblance, *for* *women*.  But his statement is ambiguous, and can be
taken to mean that I consider it incorrect for a woman to be proud when
she has overcome discrimination.  Be very careful, Ed, what your
statements imply, or can be taken to imply, or you may move me to
resentment.

Third, Ed introduces moralistic language to a statement that had no
moralistic language.  Ie. where I said "it makes no sense to..." Ed
said "shouldn't..."  

Of course, if Ed was not referring to what I've been saying, then I
apologize for any nasty implications about his honesty that people
may mistakenly derive from the above.
--
	David Canzi

It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in
order to save us.
	Peter De Vries