Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Ed Hall speaks his mind.
Message-ID: <2502@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-May-85 00:14:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: randvax.2502
Posted: Sat May 25 00:14:39 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 01:20:07 EDT
References: <385@ttidcc.UUCP> <305@mhuxr.UUCP> <327@h-sc1.UUCP> <2473@randvax.UUCP> <1377@watdcsu.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 66
Xref: watmath net.women:5316 net.politics:9117

> 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.

I think you said it--it is wrong to have pride *over* another person.
But that's not the point.

> (Pride must be earned.)

Exactly.  And when women--even if it is just a few at first--prove
that they can overcome the handicap of living in a male-dominant
culture, I think they *all* have a right to be proud, for it is a
small step towards breaking these cultural bounds *for* *all* *women*.

This is the point: If I belong to a group that has long been held
to be innately inferior, then for one of my group to overcome this
indicates that I can, too.  And I feel proud.  And I claim it is
natural to feel this way.

Furthermore, I claim that when a group that has held a superior
position (by force, I might add) accomplishes something that this
group has always claimed, there is little cause for pride.

> 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.

I say you *are* a being sexist so far as you support the status quo as
being fair when it clearly bears sexual bias.

> 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.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here.  Can you, or someone,
enlighten me?

> 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..."  

And, of course, because I do this, and you don't, you claim the moral
high ground by pointing it out.  All you've done is substitute ``makes
sense'' and ``doesn't make sense'' for ``right'' and ``wrong'',
respectively.  I don't think there is a real difference here.

> 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.

What??? I didn't even catch anything remotely like an accusation that
I was dishonest.  I'd be upset if you had... so I guess it's best that
I missed it.

> --
> 	David Canzi

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall