quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
Everyone: this has gotten rather nasty, and I hope everyone here will calm down and use good manners.

---

Was surprised to later get a welcome as I felt a bit vituperative after posting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
The only study of this I know of (The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom by Herbert George Gutman) found that black families were much more stable than today under slavery and freedom till about 1960. I think the evidence is that the U.S. welfare system was what disrupted black family life.

---

Literally did not understand your first sentence. Prob' too late night, too early morn.
Please explicate. 2nd sentence quite interesting if supportable. My friends who
I referred to who clued me in were all black women who were shared the characteristics
of fierceness and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

Regards Malcom X:

As I recall (and it's probably been 5 years now, but I used to read it every 1-2 years as I found/find
him quite inspiring), he was top student in Michigan in Junior High. Think his Dad was murdered when
he was around 8th or 9th grade, and he jumped into the cesspool after.

Despite going down that rat hole myself, I really don't want to get into a debate about
the labels conservative and liberal. Oops. I can't help it.

OK, so liberal stance is oft stupid. But I beg to differ on conservatives. I don't believe
in coddling. But I do believe in supportnig those who want to lift themselves. The
republican party has demonstrated amply over and over and over again (actions count much LOUDER
than words), that they're essentially a classist party. Rich over poor.

Hopefully this'll be the last I'm tempted to say about this.

Astrid:

Men/boys. You're right.

At same time, I find it hard to call anybody an adult who isn't acting like an adult.
Perhaps that's part of it. And (probably stepping on toes), one's more of a kid than an adult
at 23 -- though I definitely didn't think so at the time. If this was a 45 year old cop, he *might*
have meant it completely benign. I see kids in college now, and most of them look like 12 year olds to me.

Ack. Previous paragraph irrelevant when I think about it. All the same you're right
about men/boy and denial. If he worked with that population, and used that term, either
he was implying a put-down or was not speaking in a practical manner and was just
stupid.

There are many reasons for calling a 23 year old boy. For instance, the police officer quoted was a squad commander. Not a job given to a young man i'm sure, so to guess at his age, i'd say somewhere between 45 and 60 years old. I know many people in that age range, and many of them would call a 23 year old, a boy.

No racial slurs intended.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
I don't stand behind the words you put in Astrid' mouth.� I find it infuriating when anyone does that to me -- regardless of intent or content.

---

quote:

---

. Govt can't do much but can do some.

---

quote:

---

. Grossly penalize overt racism. (not as easy to prove as one'd desire)

---

quote:

---

. Act to raise minimal level of education.� Status quo is probably racist, and is near certainly classist.

At bare minimum, the piss poor education in some quarters is f***ing stupid. Even were one uncaring of raising children to be thugs and such, one should in one's own self interest want to educate other kids.

---

quote:

---

I wish somehow the word 'conservative' could be reclaimed from the bigotted as**oles.

---

quote:

---

Easier for me to believe that people are malicious than *that* stupid.

---

"Never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence" -- author forgotten.

I get the feeling that you're in your teens or early twenties.� You haven't seen very many examples of the effects of perverse incentives yet.� Believe me, a lot of this stuff is easily explained by the general inability of large groups of humans to pursue single goals without carving out their own territory and protecting their own interests (in other words, engaging in politics).� This manifests itself on a scale as small as individual companies; to expect a nation to be immune to it is completely unrealistic.

And while I'm at it, welcome.

Misattribution of golden rule.
Our world would be a much sorrier place if we simply provided a mirror of other's unfairness/nastiness/etc.

Great quotes otherwise. No, I'm not a teeny bopper. You're off by several decades (minimum).

Misunderstood regards my stance wrto govt:
I think only qualified folk should be hired.
No racial motivated selection -- pro or con.
Hard to enforce, however.

Regards education: Can't ever help those that don't help themselves. Hard to know what to do with 15-60 yr olds. But younger...we can work to break some of these cycles.

Perverse incentives == maliciousness, not stupidity.

When one does what one knows is wrong, it's malicious.

Actually, I have seen a lot of stupidity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
Misattribution of golden rule.
Our world would be a much sorrier place if we simply provided a mirror of other's unfairness/nastiness/etc.

---

quote:

---

I think only qualified folk should be hired.  No racial motivated selection -- pro or con.  Hard to enforce, however.

---

quote:

---

Perverse incentives == maliciousness, not stupidity.

When one does what one knows is wrong, it's malicious.

---

1. What if a person is faced with a choice between doing what is right for some large group and doing what is right for him/herself, and the two are pretty much opposites?
2. What if the people making the rules are so far removed from the problem that they routinely give the people who have to live under and carry out the rules this exact kind of perverse incentive?

quote:

---

Actually, I have seen a lot of stupidity.

---

"Mister President, isn't there something we could appear to be doing?"
-- Henry Cabot Lodge

quote:

---

D*mn, your post almost paints me as an optimist. Which I'd like to think, but really I'm mostly the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pawn:
The interesting thing here Astrid, is the fact that not once, in the article posted by Saintonge, was the "23 year old boy" mentioned as being black. There are many, many white people living in Brooklyn, but you jumped to the conclusion that he was black because he was called boy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CyberGoddess:
It's rather sexist to assume that my company only caters to the male population.

---

quote:

---

And based on your comments against the male gender, you probably would see nothing wrong with men exposing themselves. Why should women be any different?

---

quote:

---

Here's a tip: Get off your moral high horse and stop "preaching" to the rest of us. You're no better than we are, sweetheart, and frankly I'm tired of you acting like you are.

---

I haven't been judging you, and I don't. I've been voicing opinions contrary to yours, and declining to accept your rebuttals, which have tended to be a bit tunnel-visioned (e.g. interpreting "exploitation" in strictly financial terms), or your rationalisations (e.g. porn is acceptable because it reduces the incidence of infidelity... a claim that I can't believe without serious statistical evidence, as I don't see any connection between the two whatsoever).

quote:

---

And, for the record, statistics will show that many rapists are the men you'd least expect.. not the drunken slobs you mentioned who go to strip clubs.

---

(Whoo, I'm getting into Astrid territory here, but my degree is actually in psychology, not CS, and I did my senior research in sexual development and gender studies, so it's not as if I'm just making all this up.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
Thanks, Mind, but actually I made that assumption because, in context, to have posted the quote if it wasn't about black communities would have been completely pointless!

---

------------------
An email address alteration a day keeps the spammers away!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
Whatever. You're talking out of your hat.
I dispute that we all share an 'evil disposition' -- what a negative outlook.

Free will, sure. Do people do bad things, yes. But 'share an evil disposition'?
Don't talk about my children that way.

---

Personally, I don't even accept that if the Judeo-Christian god were proven to exist, and proven to have been our creator, that this necessarily means he is wiser than we or entitled to impose his moral judgments on us. If he does indeed control what happens to us after death, and will happily send those of us who disagree with him to a very unpleasant place for all eternity, this still isn't evidence of any moral authority, merely evidence of his power to push us around, no different (except in degree) from a "protection racket".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
Please don't use 'Judeo-Christian'.
It's such a stupid, wrong phrase.

Judaism and Christianity are not so similar.
Judaism has no formal notion of what
happens after death. There's definitely no hell.

---

While there certainly are significant differences between Judaism and Christianity (otherwise they wouldn't be separate religions), it is rather undeniable that Christianity originated from ancient Judaism and shares with it the Old Testament, from which Christianity's basic notions of divinity are derived. (Before objecting that the New Testament's idea of god is a bit different, try comparing either to, say, the Hindu deities, which are much more fundamentally different.)

If you dislike the phrase "Judeo-Christian", you must really hate "Abrahamic", which refers to not only Judaism and Christianity, but also Islam, and provides a useful term for contrasting Middle Eastern monotheism in general with other systems.

Now, specifically with regard to the message of mine that you're replying to, yes, I probably should have just said "Christian god".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
F*ck diplomacy. I'd rather have truth.
...
If we were all honest, we'd get a lot farther a lot faster.

---

Fine. Actually Abrahamic more palatable.
More panoramic.

And as a tree, much diff with other family tres.

Hereafter diff still holds though. Starting
in the earliest days of the religon in Rome.
FUNDAMENTAL difference.

Mecka:

Seriously, it is a fascinating subject.  It is also really interesting to examine the distinction between "the other" and "us".  There are a lot of taboos about falsehoods and deceptions, including legal ones (perjury).  Deceptions are one reason why so many people are really happy that Slick Willy is leaving office (and I'm one of them).

I'm sure Astrid and Mindy are sick and tired of males treating them as "the other" (when you get down to it, it appears to form the core of their complaints).  It's hard to be sure, but it looks like they've become so accustomed to attempts to deceive them that they expect them before they actually happen.  Giving people a chance to prove themselves honest is all I've ever argued for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
We as individuals all have choice.

---

And I'm sick of people who insist that everyone state their opinions. Big fucking deal if someone decides to put another person's feelings over the "truth." You can behave in any manner you wish, but don't expect other people to do the same, no matter how right you are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
That quote is more interesting than you think ....

Perhaps, Saintonge, the police would have better relationships with the black community if they stopped calling 23 year old black men "boys"?

This is what I mean by being "in denial", by the way; this officer almost certainly doesn't realise what he's doing.

---

Possibly, if the cops rigourously referred every male in Brooklyn over the age of 18 as "Men" instead of "Boys," there would be someone willing to come forth and and testify against the murderer of the youth. And then again, maybe what's wrong in Brooklyn goes a bit deeper than cops referring to 23 year olds as boys.

The one thing I am sure of is that people willing to let their friends murderer walk free, either because they think the cops are racist, or for some other reason, are in deep shit, socially.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
You're talking out of your hat. I dispute that we all share an 'evil disposition' -- what a negative outlook.

Free will, sure. Do people do bad things, yes. But 'share an evil disposition'? Don't talk about my children that way.

---

So, your position is that people have no disposition to do evil to others, but they just up and decide one day to rape, murder, rob, and destroy without any prior impulse in that direction?

How do you come to this conclusion? Or have I misunderstood you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
The problem is that this runs up against race-baiters who yell "racism" when one group scores poorly, teacher's unions who work to protect the jobs of utterly incompetent teachers because they are of the proper skin color (and throw out good teachers because they're the wrong color), and other special interests protecting their turf. When the system is rigged to demand a lot of white students by grading them hard, and expect nothing of black students by passing them for inadequate work because tough standards "disrespect them" or some nonsense, failure of the latter is all but guaranteed.

---

I must disagree. The U. S. teachers� unions are utterly non-racist in their protection of the incompetent, persecution of the good teachers, and subversion of standards for all. The public fool system is a travesty of education, something so bad that �if foreigners had imposed it on us, we would rightly regard it as an act of war,� but it�s largely color-blind in its hostility to excellence, or even competance.

quote:

---

Tau Zero:
The Republican party is cast as the corps of plutocrats, but if you look at the number of the extremely wealthy who back the Democrats (Rockefellers, anyone?) it stops looking like much of a difference.

---

Bill Gates is a life-long Democrat, and of course so are most of Hollywood and a lot of Silicon Valley�s moguls. And from Johnson to Clinton, the Democratic Party has produced people who spend their entire lives in �public service,� with low pay a matter of public record, who somehow manage to retire quite rich. As far as I can see, the difference between Democrats and Republicans concerning money is that the Republican�s greed is a bit more honestly displayed.

quote:

---

"Never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence" -- author forgotten.

---

quote:

---

You should remember Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). It was originally intended to help widows with small children, so families with able-bodied men in the house were excluded from benefits. This created a perverse incentive to have children out of wedlock and not have dad living at home. The result was perfectly predictable in hindsight, but not at all obvious when the rules were being written.

---

Actually, it was forseen. The legislation was not supposed to apply to women who hadn�t been married, precisely because the Congress didn't want to create an incentive for bastardry. But it was passed during the Roosevelt administration, and some of the many leftists who�d infiltrated the govt. changed it administratively, with malice aforethough. They wanted to destroy the bourgeois family. And right now, there are those trying to undercut the reform of four years ago, and re-expand the welfare rolls. I wonder why

When I was a lad, I lived in a city (Albany, N.Y.) where they came around pretty openly and paid you to vote for the ruling party. That was illegal. The welfare deal (�We�re on your side. Vote for us, we�ll get your benefits increased,� is legal, much more expensive, and much harder on the suckers who fall for it. What�s hard to decide is whether or not it shows greater contempt for the citizenry than the old-style grafters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
I think you're right, he was quoting it because it was relevant, which would seem to imply that the "boy" was black, since the context was a discussion of racism and he presumably wanted to provide evidence for his views on the true nature of the problems in the black communities of the USA, that the blacks, in effect, would rather stay just as they are rather than be "oreos", even to the point of refusing to assist police officers investigating the murder of a black man. (Saintonge did not say who the killer was, but since he has said previously that most crimes against blacks are perpetrated by other blacks, perhaps it is not too outrageous to suggest that this is the case here, and that one reason the black community is not helping the police is that they don't want to turn in one of their own.)

---

The story never said anything about the murder victim's race. ( [URL=http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_3_america] ) Because my impression is that Brooklyn is now largely black, I also assumed the kid who was killed was black, but didn't really care, as I was writing about underclass behavior, not racial traits. (And by the way, I have heard older men refer to those much younger as �Boys� a fair number of times in my life, frequently a white oldster referring to a white �tween.� It was apparently fairly standard in the U.S. military, where men like the squad commander are likely to have served. I am also told that it was once standard in the Irish community, and the Irish stamp on the NYPD was profound). Rather more important, I think, is that the boy/man/whatever was killed, and his friends know who did it, and hate the police so much that they will let the murderer go.

Or perhaps they intend to kill him themselves. We could get a nice little blood feud going, what fun.

Seven years ago, the Mayor of New York was a black man, David Dinkins. He was sensitive and concerned and earnest, and he wouldn�t have called a 23 year old black male �boy� unless there was a gun at his head. During his time in office, there were about 5 murders a day in New York City, most of the victims being black or brown. Today, the rate is down to about 2. Something like 3800 to 7600 people, mostly black and hispanic, are alive today because the �insensitive,� perhaps racist cops took the killers off the street, risking their own lives to do it. So who are the racists: the squad commanders who may dismissingly refer to 23 year old blacks as �boys,� but want to keep them alive, and bring anyone who murders them to justice, or those who use the proper terminology while letting thousands of preventable murders of non-whites take place?

I did think of posting the story of the young woman, daughter of a drunken welfare mother, who ran away from home as a teen, lived in an abandoned subway train car, became a panhandler, occasional mugger, and crack addict, and who has now managed to grow up and pull her life together. You can make your own guess as to whether she�s white or black, but I don�t think the color of her skin matters. What matters is the fact that she was once headed for an early grave while destroying the environment she lived in, and is now a good citizen. If the old Tina had lived near me, I�d have burned her and her druggy friends shelter to the ground rather than let them destroy my neighborhood. The current edition is welcome where I live.

A personal request: Mindy, please stop writing about how I think 'the blacks in the U.S.' this or that. This country is far too large and diverse to make such general observations, except the relatively trivial ones (almost all blacks in the U.S. have 46 chromosomes). I do NOT think that blacks [fill in the blank]. I think that statistically, we can distinguish various groups by various criteria, and say that on the average, members of group X are more this-or-that than members of group Y, but the normal distribution always ensures that there are plenty of exceptions, sub-groups, special circumstances, etc.

Also, while I don't wish to offend you by writing this, but your talk of 'blacks being this way or that' is unpleasantly close to racism.

quote:

---

Mindy:
People aren't inherently evil, nor do they "have an evil streak". People, like everything else, just are, and classifying what they do as "good" or "bad" is necessarily relative to cultural definitions. To believe otherwise requires an external, universal definition of "good" and "evil", which basically requires an explicitly religious (perhaps even monotheistic) viewpoint, which I for one certainly don't share.

---

So you�re saying that if, for instance, I dislike being around cigarette smokers, my mother disliked people using �foul language� in her presence, Astrid dislikes Boer racists, and you dislike men who rape, torture and murder women, well, they�re all just personal and cultural preferences, there was never anything inherently wrong with, say, Jack the Ripper�s killing whores, or Linda Lovelace�s alleged on-camera rape, or the actions of the �kaffir gangs� who break into houses, beat up the men, and gangbang the women?

Well, it is a position, and can even be held consistently, but I really can�t take it seriously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sad:
We as individuals all have choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeckaMon:
But it's not our choice what other people think, and I'm not sure about you, but lying a little bit to keep everyone happy is usually beneficial. I know all too well the harmful side effects of being overly honest. That's why general feelings of hatred toward me exist in my school; I freely admit that I don't like certain people and explain why I don't.

---

It is not necessary to be dishonest to be polite. And the people who state they are just 'telling it like it is' are frequently concealing their desire to hurt others. They'd be batterers if they had balls.

As Miss Manners said, 'I don't want people to treat others 'sincerely.' I want them to treat people decently.' (quote approximate)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
So, your position is that people have no disposition to do evil to others, but they just up and decide one day to rape, murder, rob, and destroy without any prior impulse in that direction?

---

quote:

---

Also, while I don't wish to offend you by writing this, but your talk of 'blacks being this way or that' is unpleasantly close to racism.

---

quote:

---

So you�re saying that if, for instance, I dislike being around cigarette smokers, my mother disliked people using �foul language� in her presence, Astrid dislikes Boer racists, and you dislike men who rape, torture and murder women, well, they�re all just personal and cultural preferences...?

---

This all ties together, you see. I don't think of men as evil for the same reason I don't think of hurricanes as evil.

quote:

---

So you�re saying that if, for instance, I dislike being around cigarette smokers, my mother disliked people using �foul language� in her presence, Astrid dislikes Boer racists, and you dislike men who rape, torture and murder women, well, they�re all just personal and cultural preferences...?

---

*Just* personal and cultural preferences!?!?! What the heck else is there but personal and cultural preferences. The entire point of this whole discussion is that the social and political world is shaped by the personal and cultural preferences of white men, not by anyone else. And as a result, criticism of the cultural and personal preferences of white men (and their enactment into social, political and economic reality) is valid, while all other critique of non-privileged groups is oppressive and contributes to the ongoing domination of those groups by white men. That's what the words "sexism" and "racism" mean; the preferences of white men.

Some of the people on this thread talk as if all the women and blacks have to do is to start acting like white men, and suddenly they'll own a fair share of the economy, and start being treated as equals by white men. Get real.

Yes, my take on evil was misunderstood.
However, I definitely don't place all
on a plane of relativism.

People are not evil. People do evil things.
People are not predisposed to evil.
People have free will.

People can *choose* to do bad/evil things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
That's what the words "sexism" and "racism" mean; the preferences of white men.

---

That's just bullsh*t.
That's just a clear, unvarnished presentation of exactly what's pissed so many off here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:

Some of the people on this thread talk as if all the women and blacks have to do is to start acting like white men, and suddenly they'll own a fair share of the economy, and start being treated as equals by white men. Get real.

---

I don't think anybody's saying that. I'm not, for example. I think we need to focus on education and economic betterment, on one hand.

Tests ARE biased against minorities. I can tell you that in my own experience. One of my friends at school gets great grades, studies hard, is the president of more than one student group, and is the smartest person I know. She's black, and her SAT scores are 200 points lower than mine: enough to guarantee that she won't get into a top-tier school.

Black woman are the strong points in the family becuase of the structure of slavery in the past. Men were only good as field hands (and sometimes butlers). Women could get the desirable position of "House slaves" much more often (as cooks, maids, nurses, etc.). House slaves got more food, better clothes, and could generally take care of their children better. Some people believe that African-American men started feeling inadequate, and didn't bother trying to protect their families anymore. (Btw, 63% of black households have no father.)

Here's my deal with affirmative action: You have two people who are equally qualified on paper, and one is black and one is white. The black person had to work a heck of a lot harder to get there, and thus is more qualified in real life. (These are all generalization, BTW.) The Black person grew up without a dad, with no cultural role models, struggling against teachers who didn't care, and students who held him back. The white person got handed everything on a silver platter. As an employer, I would WANT to take the black (or hispanic or Indian) guy or girl, because that's the kind of determination that will keep my company competitive.
In schools, the whole picture is different. College is supposed to be a training guard for life, where you teach people who may come from a totally homogenized high school what the REAL U.S. is. In California, the admissions office wants two things; totally merit based admissions, and a college that reflects the country in which we live. THE TWO ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, and the big old question is WHY.

(OT-the deal with Asians is that they are not just a minority in this country, but a majority in other countries where an overseas American University is fashionable. That means that there are a lot more Asians applying to colleges (some of whom manage to pretend to be Americans. One of my other best friends is from Hong Kong, but managed to get a Canadian passport to apply for schools).

The thing about "watch your mouth" is that often, people are really saying "Get out, the MEN are trying to talk here." It is hard, when you are on the recieving end, to tell the difference. IOW, Go Astrid!

I want to include a dislaimer here: I am an Hispanic girl, and I do think that I have experienced a lot of discrimination in this country. (More of it because of the gender than the race, which I have always found curious.) Affirmative action programs might well have helped me get into the amazing college that I am lucky enough to be going to in one week (yay!).
I understand completely how Astrid fells about programmers, if not from experience than from reading this and other forums, ie Slashdot. Many hi-tech types really believe that they are being gender, race neutral and at the same time treat people differently. I taught at computer camp last summer, and while I readily admit I was not the most qualified person there, I really feel like I was treated as a secretary. Alot. That's life, and I know that I probably won't end up majoring in CS, no matter how much I like it, because I'm just too sensitive. Anyway, I am rambling now, so I'll just shut up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
LOL out the men expecting a sign language translation done by your breasts!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
Thanks, but it wasn't really meant to be funny. I guess this is one of those "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus" things.

---

What made me laugh was the image of breasts twitching up in down in American Sign Language, translating your words into something a male could understand.

Equally funny is the idea of the puzzled male geek, seriously wondering what you're trying to say, and expecting your breasts to tell him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
So, your position is that people have no disposition to do evil to others, but they just up and decide one day to rape, murder, rob, and destroy without any prior impulse in that direction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindy Viridis:
Now who's distorting other people's statements? I didn't think he said that at all. You had claimed that all people share an evil disposition or evil streak; Sad (and I) disagreed. I'm not sure whether Sad meant only that not all people are inherently evil, or whether he would agree with me that evil is a social construct; either way, your interpretation of his words is clearly not what he meant. (We seem to be having a lot of that around here.)

---

I did not distort his position. I did not understand his position, so I rephrased what I thought he was thinking, and then asked if I had his view correct. I'll do this till he or I get bored with the topic, or till we reach 'second order understanding' (where you don't necessarily agree, but can state the other person's position in terms the other person agrees are accurate).

quote:

---

Saintonge:Also, while I don't wish to offend you by writing this, but your talk of 'blacks being this way or that' is unpleasantly close to racism.

---

quote:

---

Mindy:
But I was paraphrasing you. Now, of course, as a South African I tend to see class issues as racial issues, but I think a review of your postings in this thread will show that you haven't been entirely color-blind either, despite your more recent focus on the underclass in general.

---

No, you are ascribing views to me that I specifically repudiate.

I just went and reviewed this thread. cras asked "Where are the chicks?" An objection was made that this is sexist language. supaboy made a joke about paper recycling bins. Astrid jumped in with remarks about racism, and the thread took a decisive turn. You, as a South African living in the U.S. expressed puzzlement about differences between the U.S. and .za, particularly in regard to race, and some of us tried to explain how things are here.

What didn't happen is me saying 'all blacks are thus and so.' Still, I hate to disapoint. Thus sayeth Zarasaintongestra: 'All blacks are carbon based life forms.

Seriously, I think you're trying to see the U.S. through the lens of .za, and it doesn't work. Even the U.S. south of 1920, perhaps the height of "Jim Crow," was signifigantly different than .za under apartheid.

quote:

---

Saintonge: So you�re saying that if, for instance, I dislike being around cigarette smokers, my mother disliked people using �foul language� in her presence, Astrid dislikes Boer racists, and you dislike men who rape, torture and murder women, well, they�re all just personal and cultural preferences...?

---

quote:

---

Mindy:In a broader context, yes. Gazelles probably thinks cheetahs are evil, too, though from our perspective we can see it as a natural predator/prey relationship. Similarly, we can see social function in the domination contests of baboons and gorillas, though the weaker baboons probably think the stronger ones are just bullies. I don't think I care to get too much into the possible evolutionary significance of rape, but I doubt it would happen at all if there weren't some purpose to it.

This all ties together, you see. I don't think of men as evil for the same reason I don't think of hurricanes as evil.

---

Of course there's a purpose to rape! But it is still inherently evil.

I also don't think of hurricanes as evil. Hurricanes are not conscious, and have no desires, awareness, control or their acts, or moral standing, as far as we know anyway. Murderers and rapists do. They are moral agents.

Sad: While my views may indeed be bullshit, saying so doesn't make it so, and I don't appear to have pissed you off enough to motivate any actual arguments. No need to modify your language just because there are "ladies present", by the way.

And Saintonge (will reply on "other matters" when have time):

quote:

---

Seriously, I think you're trying to see the U.S. through the lens of .za, and it doesn't work. Even the U.S. south of 1920, perhaps the height of "Jim Crow," was signifigantly differant than .za under apartheid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
Thanks, rainbowfyre; it's nice to know that this isn't just a boys' club. But think how many women less robust than you and me are being scared off from posting here by the way in which they're treated; I've received email from a number of lurkers.

Sad: While my views may indeed be bullshit, saying so doesn't make it so, and I don't appear to have pissed you off enough to motivate any actual arguments. No need to modify your language just because there are "ladies present", by the way.

---

You're amazing. This is the first post of your's that truly angered me.

First off, I didn't call out all your views.
Just one utterance. 2nd, I didn't see the need to present actual argument, as what you wrote was soooo plainly racist, sexist, and clueless -- if it wasn't just baiting that I couldn't hardly believe it.

This is what I called bullsh*t:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:

That's what the words "sexism" and "racism" mean; the preferences of white men.

---

If you don't honestly think the above is itself sexist and racist, then there's little basis for discussion. Read a dictionary, eh?

It's just unbelievable. You're obviously
very sharp. If you really think that only
white guys can be racist, that only guys can be sexist....blech. What a bleak reminder of the myopic nature of humanity. We're doomed.

I'm not arguing about who's usually or even overwhelmingly sexist/racist, just what it is.

Surely a black person, or a woman or a black woman is capable of sexism and/or racism.
Why, in fact, yourself, with the above statement.

Do you honestly believe what you wrote? Or are you just baiting?

From the dictionary:

ra�cism (rszm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

sex�ism (skszm)
n.

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Simple but pretty concise and to the point.

And the comment about modifying language, what's with that? Are you talking out of both sides of your mouth? Wanna have your cake and eat it to? If it really doesn't matter, then why the comment? If it really does matter, then why? Your statement was disengenous.

At the moment, I don't feel that you're entering this discussion from a perspective of honesty and inquiry. I'm inclined to relegate you to 'troll' in my book.

I didn't respond at length before because what you wrote was so inherently contradictory -- it stood on its own wo/further argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
And Saintonge (will reply on "other matters" when have time):

[b] In what way? I don't think it was. Blacks weren't allowed the vote, miscegenation was illegal, there was segregation and the level of economic deprivation was pretty equal. And, I'm told, racial discrimination was just as bad in Northern states where formal apartheid wasn't enforced.

---

I'm curious to hear more of this discussion. I find myself swinging back and forth.

Rainbow:

quote:

---

If you really think that only
white guys can be racist, that only guys can be sexist

---

If that's what I really thought, that, dear Sad, is what I would have really said. Since I didn't, please stop putting words in my mouth.

quote:

---

Read a dictionary, eh?

---

Read my words. I'm saying that sexism and racism are part of the white male power structure, which is embedded in our language. Since it's embedded in the language, it is, unsurprisingly, in the dictionary too. You're sounding like a Creationist appealing to the Bible.

quote:

---

Surely a black person, or a woman or a black woman is capable of sexism and/or racism.

---

Yes, but not in the way you think. A black person like Thomas Sowell is a racist, because he collaborates with the white power structure. A woman like ... I dunno Margaret Thatcher, is sexist because she collaborates with the male power structure.

But a black man like Nelson Mandela is not being racist when he says that white South Africa is wrong and bad. A black man like the Reverend Al Sharpton is not racist when he says that white America is not giving black America a fair deal. A woman like Germaine Greer is not being sexist when she notes that men fundamentally hate women and want to exploit them.

The reason for this is that black people and women are the oppressed in the power structure, not the oppressors. Your simplistic, symmetrical definitions don't take account of this political and social reality. I'm reclaiming these words and giving them a meaning which is relevant to the real world. In an imaginary planet where the dominant power was black hermaphrodites, racism and sexism would refer to the preferences of black hermaphrodites.

"Discrimination" is a silly, weasel word aiming at making all sorts of racial or sexual preferences taboo. I'm not sexually attracted to black guys. I tend not to want to work with other saleswomen. I don't like Boers. That's discrimination. But it's also my personal preference, and my right to decide what I do with my own life. It's not *oppression*. When white guys, as a group (and they *do* act as a group) make similar "preferences", the result is oppression. And that's racism and sexism. All this talk about "discrimination" is jsut so much patronising white-liberal bullshit, trying to say "oh we can all agree that discrimination is bad", while ignoring the real source of the problem -- white men.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
What made me laugh was the image of breasts twitching up in down in American Sign Language, translating your words into something a male could understand.

Equally funny is the idea of the puzzled male geek, seriously wondering what you're trying to say, and expecting your breasts to tell him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:So you�re saying that if, for instance, I dislike being around cigarette smokers, my mother disliked people using �foul language� in her presence, Astrid dislikes Boer racists, and you dislike men who rape, torture and murder women, well, they�re all just personal and cultural preferences...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
*Just* personal and cultural preferences!?!?! What the heck else is there but personal and cultural preferences. The entire point of this whole discussion is that the social and political world is shaped by the personal and cultural preferences of white men, not by anyone else. And as a result, criticism of the cultural and personal preferences of white men (and their enactment into social, political and economic reality) is valid, while all other critique of non-privileged groups is oppressive and contributes to the ongoing domination of those groups by white men. That's what the words "sexism" and "racism" mean; the preferences of white men.

Some of the people on this thread talk as if all the women and blacks have to do is to start acting like white men, and suddenly they'll own a fair share of the economy, and start being treated as equals by white men. Get real.

---

To the extent that I can make out any meaning in your words, I mostly disagree.

There's lots of things in the world besides personal and cultural preferences. Laws of nature, for example.

White men dominate the world? So what? If you believe in an overriding personal standard saying that domination is wrong, then I could understand your criticism. As it is, you seem to be saying "everything is subjective preference, but some people's subjective preferences should be considered 'valid' (1.Well grounded; just: a valid objection. 2.Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods. 3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title. 4.Logic. a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument. b.Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.), and others not. Why?

As for 'acting like white men': I don't know what you know of the U.S., but that's what the Jews did, and they went from very poor and discriminated against to the richest ethnic group in USAmerica within two to three generations. It's what the Japanese Americans did, and they come in second in the wealth sweepstakes. And the Chinese, who are above average in wealth. It's what the Koreans and Vietnamese are doing, and rising rapidly as a result.

You previously asked why there are so few women and blacks in tech jobs. I ask you, how do you expect anyone to do a tech job, except by 'acting white,' that is, studying and mastering the knowledge required for the job?

quote:

---

Astrid Leuer:
In what way [was the US South signifigantly different from South Africa]? I don't think it was. Blacks weren't allowed the vote, miscegenation was illegal, there was segregation and the level of economic deprivation was pretty equal. And, I'm told, racial discrimination was just as bad in Northern states where formal apartheid wasn't enforced.

---

Taking the last point first, you were told wrong. Race relations differed signifigantly in the North and South, and in various regions of the North (I know of no Northern region that kept blacks from voting, e.g.).

As for the South vs. SA: no Boer/Afrikaans vs. British/English differences. Whites were in the majority in most of the South. No black groups speaking several non-English languages. No official racial classification system. No immigration of foreign blacks into the South after 1865 till about the 1960s. No laws keeping blacks from owning real estate in the South, which I understand was the case in SA. No higher education of any kind for blacks, which there was in the South, sorta. There were probably others that I don't know enough about SA to spot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
I did not distort his position. I did not understand his position, so I rephrased what I thought he was thinking...

---

quote:

---

No, you are ascribing views to me that I specifically repudiate.

---

quote:

---

Seriously, I think you're trying to see the U.S. through the lens of .za, and it doesn't work.

---

quote:

---

Of course there's a purpose to rape! But it is still inherently evil.

---

quote:

---

I also don't think of hurricanes as evil. Hurricanes are not conscious, and have no desires, awareness, control or their acts, or moral standing, as far as we know anyway. Murderers and rapists do. They are moral agents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
There's lots of things in the world besides personal and cultural preferences. Laws of nature, for example.

---

Besides, I think Astrid could have more precisely said, what else besides personal and cultural preferences is there that could provide a basis for moral judgments. As a religious person, I suppose you could bring God into this, but I'm sure you realize that atheists are unlikely to find such an argument convincing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:

As for the South vs. SA: no Boer/Afrikaans vs. British/English differences.

---

quote:

---

Whites were in the majority in most of the South.

---

quote:

---

No black groups speaking several non-English languages.

---

quote:

---

No official racial classification system.

---

quote:

---

No immigration of foreign blacks into the South after 1865 till about the 1960s.

---

quote:

---

No laws keeping blacks from owning real estate in the South, which I understand was the case in SA.

---

quote:

---

To the extent that I can make out any meaning in your words, I mostly disagree.

---

(I'm slightly sorry to be so touchy about everything, but I've made the decision to point out and respond to *every* *single* little sexist snipe. Geekculture.com has a reputation as a "woman-friendly" board, but even so, a lot of people need their consciousness raising about how little things they say and do have the effect of patronising and intimidating women.)

quote:

---

White men dominate the world? So what?

---

quote:

---

1.Well grounded; just: a valid objection. 2.Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods. 3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title. 4.Logic. a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument. b.Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.),

---

Saintonge, you've participated in a number of discussion threads with me. You know that I've got a degree in Philosophy and Art, and that I'm more than capable of arguing my points. Why are you reproducing dictionary definitions of English words to me?

1) You're trying to insult my intelligence.
2) You're trying to force me to use words in the way that *you* and other white men use them. Which has the useful consequence that it's very difficult to talk about a sexist, racist culture using the language of that sexist, racist culture. This linguistic fascism is exactly what Orwell's Newspeak was meant to satirise.

quote:

---

I don't know what you know of the U.S., but that's what the Jews did, and they went from very poor and discriminated against to the richest ethnic group in USAmerica within two to three generations. It's what the Japanese Americans did, and they come in second in the wealth sweepstakes. And the Chinese, who are above average in wealth. It's what the Koreans and Vietnamese are doing, and rising rapidly as a result.

---

I hope you're not trying to compare Black Americans to immigrant populations ....

But a black man like Nelson Mandela is not being racist when he says that white South Africa is wrong and bad. A black man like the Reverend Al Sharpton is not racist when he says that white America is not giving black America a fair deal. A woman like Germaine Greer is not being sexist when she notes that men fundamentally hate women and want to exploit them.

OK, "That word you're using. I don't think it means what you think it means." -- misquoted from _The Princess Bride_

If you feel that racism is only oriented to the "white power structure", then any discussion is pretty pointless. I'm sure it must be a relief to the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda that their mutual genocide cannot be racist in nature....

A black man described racism to me: ~"It's tribalism. Doesn't matter about the color or the religion. There's 'us' and there's 'them'. ~"

Ptl

quote:

---

The entire point of this whole discussion is that the social and political world is shaped by the personal and cultural preferences of white men, not by anyone else. And as a result, criticism of the cultural and personal preferences of white men (and their enactment into social, political and economic reality) is valid, while all other critique of non-privileged groups is oppressive and contributes to the ongoing domination of those groups by white men. That's what the words "sexism" and "racism" mean; the preferences of white men.

---

I was going to reply to this before, but I thought the same thing Sad did, that it was just too much of a bait. Let's go on for a bit, before I give a response..

quote:

---

Read my words. I'm saying that sexism and racism are part of the white male power structure, which is embedded in our language. Since it's embedded in the language, it is, unsurprisingly, in the dictionary too. You're sounding like a Creationist appealing to the Bible.

---

Aside - if English/American is a sexist and racist language (as the above collapses to), then am I being racist and sexist every time I speak?

quote:

---

So, there's not much point spending any time talking about how black people and women are being "racist", is there? The standard racist's and sexists' definition of the words has to do with "discrimination", which is an activity that anyone can do. A more realistic and better defintion would be in terms of "oppression", which is something that only the dominant grocan do.

---

quote:

---

You're trying to force me to use words in the way that *you* and other white men use them. Which has the useful consequence that it's very difficult to talk about a sexist, racist culture using the language of that sexist, racist culture. This linguistic fascism is exactly what Orwell's Newspeak was meant to satirise.

---

Noone is forcing anyone to use words in any certain way. However, the only way language can /work/ is if those who use it agree on what it means. Dictionaries are simply a compilation of the agreed-on meanings of words.

Now. Sexism and racism have meanings that are agreed upon. If you feel that the meanings are wrong, trying to ascribe your own meaning to them and expecting everyone to say "Oh, of course!" is not going to help matters much. If it's that important, coin a new word.

Yes, yes, I know that words change meaning over time. I don't want to get into a debate over linguistics, it's not the point.

Sure, anyone can discriminate. I can discriminate between people based on their favourite colour, and that's not illegal. There's probably not even a word for it. However, different forms of discrimination have been given words of their own, including racism and sexism. Oppression happens, yes, but it's an effect of racism/sexism. Oppression of someone based on sex includes sexism, but is not sexism. If you want to coin a word for it, go ahead.

To give a couple examples (examples are such fun):

If a Japanese person turns down a Chinese person for a job because he/she is Chinese, is that racism?

If a man can't get a job as a waiter at Hooters [a USian restaurant known for its large-breasted waitresses]), is that sexism?

If racism and sexism mean the preferences of white men, what words describe the preferences of black women or asian men or hispanic women or...

I don't think you can limit the definitions of racism and sexism to a certain race and sex. Doing that in itself could be considered racist and sexist by the popular, acknowledged definitions of the words.

After all, if I could just decide that "white" really means "black" and "men" really means "women", then this discussion would be really turned around..

Well, there ya go. I'm not angry, or needing to cool down, or whatever, I'm pretty calm, just rambling a little =)

Disclaimer: I am a white male between the ages of 18 and 40. I don't consider myself a racist, sexist, or oppressor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainbowfyre:
Tests ARE biased against minorities. I can tell you that in my own experience. One of my friends at school gets great grades, studies hard, is the president of more than one student group, and is the smartest person I know. She's black, and her SAT scores are 200 points lower than mine: enough to guarantee that she won't get into a top-tier school.

---

Interesting. What is it about your friend that makes you think she is smarter than you? What can you tell us about the alleged bias of the tests, aside from the fact that she got lower scores than you?

quote:

---

rainbowfyre:
Black woman are the strong points in the family becaUse of the structure of slavery in the past.

---

As I tried to indicated in my post of August 30, 2000 2:57 AM, the only academic study on this question I know of came to the conclusion that slavery had little effect on black family structure, which remained largely intact from 1865 till the 1950s.

quote:

---

rainbowfyre:
Here's my deal with affirmative action: You have two people who are equally qualified on paper, and one is black and one is white. The black person had to work a heck of a lot harder to get there, and thus is more qualified in real life. (These are all generalization, BTW.) The Black person grew up without a dad, with no cultural role models, struggling against teachers who didn't care, and students who held him back. The white person got handed everything on a silver platter. As an employer, I would WANT to take the black (or hispanic or Indian) guy or girl, because that's the kind of determination that will keep my company competitive.

---

There are two problems with this: 1) You can't hire a generalization, only a specific person. 2)It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action, as AA proclaims that failure to hire a minimum quota of blacks, hispanics, women, and whatever else they require is presumptive evidence of discrimination, regardless of how qualified people are on paper.

quote:

---

rainbowfyre:
In schools, the whole picture is different. ... In California, the admissions office wants two things; totally merit based admissions, and a college that reflects the country in which we live. THE TWO ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, and the big old question is WHY.

---

Agreed. The problem with AA is that it proclaims it has the answer (white racism), and then proclaims that anyone who questions their answer is indulging in white racism. This is arguing in a circle.

quote:

---

rainbowfyre:
(OT-the deal with Asians is that they are not just a minority in this country, but a majority in other countries where an overseas American University is fashionable. That means that there are a lot more Asians applying to colleges (some of whom manage to pretend to be Americans. One of my other best friends is from Hong Kong, but managed to get a Canadian passport to apply for schools).

---

So? Women are a majority in the United States, Hispanics in Mexico, blacks in Africa, South Pacific Islanders in the South Pacific. Why the difference in treatment?

quote:

---

rainbowfyre:
The thing about "watch your mouth" is that often, people are really saying "Get out, the MEN are trying to talk here." It is hard, when you are on the recieving end, to tell the difference. IOW, Go Astrid!

I want to include a dislaimer here: I am an Hispanic girl, and I do think that I have experienced a lot of discrimination in this country. (More of it because of the gender than the race, which I have always found curious.) Affirmative action programs might well have helped me get into the amazing college that I am lucky enough to be going to in one week (yay!).

I understand completely how Astrid fells about programmers, if not from experience than from reading this and other forums, ie Slashdot. Many hi-tech types really believe that they are being gender, race neutral and at the same time treat people differently. I taught at computer camp last summer, and while I readily admit I was not the most qualified person there, I really feel like I was treated as a secretary. Alot. That's life, and I know that I probably won't end up majoring in CS, no matter how much I like it, because I'm just too sensitive. Anyway, I am rambling now, so I'll just shut up.

-rainbowfyre

---

I hope you reconsider. We white males can't oppress you nearly as easily if you stay out of the programming field. If you don't bet, you can't win. If you do, and don't win, you can try to change the rules, e.g. by starting your own business.

Good luck in school. Let me tell you from experience: no high school I was ever at prepared anyone for the sheer amount of work that college imposes. HIT THE GROUND RUNNING! YOU'LL NEED IT.

------------------
Saintonge

Now I'm a reasonable man ... ka-click!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
I'm saying that sexism and racism are part of the white male power structure, which is embedded in our language. Since it's embedded in the language, it is, unsurprisingly, in the dictionary too. ...I'm reclaiming these words and giving them a meaning which is relevant to the real world.

---

The problem with this that it destroys all possibility of meaning and conversation. If I wish to know what such words and phrases as

"calm down" "wild accusations" "threatened" "politely" "please stop putting words in my mouth" "appealing" "Nelson Mandela is not being racist when he says" "men fundamentally hate women and want to exploit them" "oppressed" "oppressors" "the power structure" "dominant" "my right to decide what I do with my own life" "white guys" "problem"

mean in standard English, I can look them up in a dictionary. But since you attach different meanings to words, I have no idea what you are talking about.

A further problem: I suppose I could suggest that you cut all your posts, look up every word in them, and indicate which ones have standard meanings, and which ones don't; then define the ones with non-standard meanings in terms of words you use with standard meanings, so that we can understand you. But that assumes that you understand me in the first place, and if I assume that, I should also assume that you knew what we who used the term racism in its standard meaning were talking about, and deliberately chose to use the word in a non-standard meaning for purposes other than communication.

If you can see any way out of this impasse, please let me know.

------------------
Saintonge

Now I'm a reasonable man ... ka-click!