Infamous Statue Update #1

[John Baglow]

Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> There is a statue in Minto Place paid for by the taxpayer and is a
> result of a femeninist lobby group. It is my contention that the
> wording constitues hate propaganda and I have initiated a movement
> to either have the wording changed or remove the statue altogether.
> With the email resources at my disposal and considerable male and
> female support, I'm wondering before I give my commitment to the
> project whether I am correct in my assumptions.
> It reads:
>
> To Honour and to Grieve
> All Women
> Abused and Murdered by Men
> Envision a world without violence
> Where Women are Respected
> &
> Free
>
> There is a very simple test which proves, logically, that the
> wording is abusive and hateful: substitute _any_ identifiable
> group of people for the word "Men". Try Abused and Murdered by
> Gays. Abused and Murdered by Negroes. Jews.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.

Sure. Gays, "Negroes" and Jews have all been historical victims of hate
crimes and institutional violence. Your analogy is imperfect.

If a statue were erected in Mississippi mourning the victims of lynchings,
would you seriously argue that this is "hate propaganda" against whites?
Get serious.

--
Cheers, He totara wahi rua he kai na te ahi.
John

[Aubrey Taylor]

ษออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออป
บ Armstrong & Taylor บ
บ Retirement and Estate Planning Services บ
บ 4219 Viewbank Road, RR1, บ
บ Kars, Ont, K0A 2E0 บ
บ Tel. (613) 692-6085 บ
บ Fax. (613) 692-1640 บ
ศออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออออผ

There is a statue in Minto Place paid for by the taxpayer and is a
result of a femeninist lobby group. It is my contention that the
wording constitues hate propaganda and I have initiated a movement
to either have the wording changed or remove the statue altogether.
With the email resources at my disposal and considerable male and
female support, I'm wondering before I give my commitment to the
project whether I am correct in my assumptions.
It reads:

To Honour and to Grieve
All Women
Abused and Murdered by Men
Envision a world without violence
Where Women are Respected
&
Free

There is a very simple test which proves, logically, that the
wording is abusive and hateful: substitute _any_ identifiable
group of people for the word "Men". Try Abused and Murdered by
Gays. Abused and Murdered by Negroes. Jews.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Cheers,
Aubrey

--
Aubs guide for a positive outlook.
I never read the newspaper in the morning. If things are that bad,
someone will tell me. A person who tells you you have to be realistic
is really saying "Be negative like me". Aubrey Taylor

[Candace Lain Faucher]

John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:

> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>
>> There is a statue in Minto Place paid for by the taxpayer and is a
>> result of a femeninist lobby group. It is my contention that the
>> wording constitues hate propaganda and I have initiated a movement
>> to either have the wording changed or remove the statue altogether.
>> With the email resources at my disposal and considerable male and
>> female support, I'm wondering before I give my commitment to the
>> project whether I am correct in my assumptions.
>> It reads:
>>
>> To Honour and to Grieve
>> All Women
>> Abused and Murdered by Men
>> Envision a world without violence
>> Where Women are Respected
>> &
>> Free
>>
>> There is a very simple test which proves, logically, that the
>> wording is abusive and hateful: substitute _any_ identifiable
>> group of people for the word "Men". Try Abused and Murdered by
>> Gays. Abused and Murdered by Negroes. Jews.
>>
>> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
>

> Sure. Gays, "Negroes" and Jews have all been historical victims of hate
> crimes and institutional violence. Your analogy is imperfect.
>
> If a statue were erected in Mississippi mourning the victims of lynchings,
> would you seriously argue that this is "hate propaganda" against whites?
> Get serious.

The issue at hand is the reality that pointing our fingers at one
another -
is redundant and unproductive. Whether that be pointing a finger at males
or pointing a finger at females, or pointing a finger at whites etc etc
etc.

As soon as we acknowledge that we must work together on the issue of
violence/abuse - we have entered step one.

Unless of course you want to fill an entire park area with statues
dedicated to all of the people abused by each other .... this one being
for the Jews - this one being for the witches - this one being for the
blacks - this one being for the children - this one being for the Chinese -
this one being for the mentally challenged - this one being for ...........
Not my idea of the type of park I would go out of my way to stroll through.

Nor is it any kind of indication of achieving anything other than spending
money foolishly.

CLF

> Cheers, He totara wahi rua he
kai na te ahi. > John

--
"Your standard of giving is more important than you standard of living."

[Hans]

Aubrey Taylor wrote in message <68dobo$d...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...

>There is a statue in Minto Place paid for by the taxpayer and is a
>result of a femeninist lobby group. It is my contention that the
>

> To Honour and to Grieve
> All Women
> Abused and Murdered by Men
> Envision a world without violence
> Where Women are Respected
> &
> Free
>
>There is a very simple test which proves, logically, that the
>wording is abusive and hateful: substitute _any_ identifiable

Hello Aubrey,

Now that I finally have read the inscription, I can undestand why it should
be considered hate propanganda directed against and insulting to the male
gender. I am both surprised and not surprised that such words were allowed
to be
carved into stone for the whole world to see in the first place. You're
right, your test
is a good one, and surely were such substitutions made as you suggest, there
would
be much outcry and protest indeed, and much talk in the media. Thank you for
sharing
this with us all; you've done a good thing I believe.

The implication is clear. Men are bad, worse, evil. Not specific men, but
the gender per
se. I think their point could just as powerfully be made without referencing
"men"
specifically. If we are to move towards a truly just and egalitarian
society, such blatant
forms of discrimination should be censored in order to maintain the
dignities of all.

I recently read a fine book called the "Myth of Male Power", by a Ph. D, Mr.
Farell I
seem to recall. Very poignant and impressive tellings of the discrimination
towards
men throughout not only recent times, but historically. Thought you and
others here
might be interested in locating such an eye-opener of a book.

Best in the new year, for all folks...

Hans.

[John Baglow]

Zachary Klaas (bh...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:

> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Sure. Gays, "Negroes" and Jews have all been historical victims of hate
>> crimes and institutional violence. Your analogy is imperfect.
>>
>> If a statue were erected in Mississippi mourning the victims of lynchings,
>> would you seriously argue that this is "hate propaganda" against whites?
>> Get serious.

> As I understand this counter-argument, it is the fact the violence
> occurred at a mass scale which justifies this not being hate propaganda.
>
> Fine, so let's explore this idea. Suppose one lone white was lynched in
> Mississippi by a group of blacks. Suppose further this white had a statue
> made in his honour, decrying "black" violence against whites. Is that
> hate propaganda? The murder occurred.
>
> I suppose it would still be hate propaganda because of the cheek of
> someone to believe that this one puny murder of whites counts in light of the
> comparatively larger number of murders of blacks. So let's make it two
> whites. Three? Four? How many do there have to be before this sort of
> language on a statue is "okay"?

First, there was an institutional and cultural phenomenon (still is) of
racism in the Southern US. At one end of the spectrum were such relatively
trivial matters as calling a Black man "boy." At the other end were
lynchings. But all of this was a seamless web, and to understand why it
was happening it is helpful to try to understand the institution of
racism. If some of the oppressor population were occasionally the victims
of reverse hate crimes, this too stemmed from the original institution and
culture of racism.

Now, by analogy, some Southern Whites would be sure to cry: "We aren't all
KKK members! All violence is wrong! Why blame all of us for the crimes of
a few?" (And, in a whisper that some of them couldn't even hear, "We
aren't responsible. We have nothing to do with any of this. It's someone
else's problem, not mine. I can't help being born White. I wish those
loudmouth whining extremist Blacks would shut the hell up. None of that
stuff is my fault!")

Well, there may be people on this SIG who would agree with every whispered
word, for both Blacks and women who have been the subject, not of violence
in the abstract, but of violence *because* they were Blacks or women. And
some of us, to the contrary, would think that perhaps understanding
racism and sexism, its cultural and institutional subtlety and
interconnectedness, is a worthwhile social pursuit.

> I agree, if the language on such a statue represents historical fact,
> there may be a legitimate argument that it is not hate propaganda. A
> statue for all the Jews killed by Germans would be correct more than
> an unfair aspersion on all Germans. So, too, would a statue for all blacks
> lynched in the American South by whites. And so too, I suppose, would the
> statue we are all debating here.
>
> The point I'd like to make is that it is the violence, not the
> perpetrators of the violence, that is being condemned here, and if people
> want to get that message across, well, maybe they should condemn the
> violence and not a broad category of humans many of whom had nothing to do
> with it in the first place.
>

And a point *I* would like to make is that there are many kinds of and
motives for violence. Simply condemning violence in the abstract may make
one feel good, but does little to determine its various causes and means
of putting a stop to it.

> People who indulge in collective theories of guilt are the problem here
> more than anything else. I just hope there isn't a statue someday which
> reads "To honour all the people who were born considered guilty of crimes
> they themselves did not commit and unjustly punished."

This is a red herring. I don't feel guilty. But I do feel responsible in
the sense of needing to do something about it and to check my own
attitudes from time to time.

Happy New Year.

--

[John Baglow]

Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:

> The issue at hand is the reality that pointing our fingers at one
> another -
> is redundant and unproductive. Whether that be pointing a finger at males
> or pointing a finger at females, or pointing a finger at whites etc etc
> etc.
>
> As soon as we acknowledge that we must work together on the issue of
> violence/abuse - we have entered step one.

Yeah, "Why can't we all just get along." All this analysis and examination
is so much bother. Why can't we all just be sweet? What a wonderful world
it would be then!

> Unless of course you want to fill an entire park area with statues
> dedicated to all of the people abused by each other .... this one being
> for the Jews - this one being for the witches - this one being for the
> blacks - this one being for the children - this one being for the Chinese -
> this one being for the mentally challenged - this one being for ...........
> Not my idea of the type of park I would go out of my way to stroll through.

Well, statues are in fact a tactic. We are at a stage now in gender
relations when it makes some sense to have such a monument. Judging by the
comments of some on this SIG, who are more pissed off with women being
upset by the Montreal Massacre than they were by Marc Lepine, I hope the
stones are there for a while longer yet.

But it would indeed be nice if we all just loved each other, and no one
had power over anyone else...

[Zachary Klaas]

John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Sure. Gays, "Negroes" and Jews have all been historical victims of hate
> crimes and institutional violence. Your analogy is imperfect.
>
> If a statue were erected in Mississippi mourning the victims of lynchings,
> would you seriously argue that this is "hate propaganda" against whites?
> Get serious.
As I understand this counter-argument, it is the fact the violence
occurred at a mass scale which justifies this not being hate propaganda.

Fine, so let's explore this idea. Suppose one lone white was lynched in
Mississippi by a group of blacks. Suppose further this white had a statue
made in his honour, decrying "black" violence against whites. Is that
hate propaganda? The murder occurred.

I suppose it would still be hate propaganda because of the cheek of
someone to believe that this one puny murder of whites counts in light of the
comparatively larger number of murders of blacks. So let's make it two
whites. Three? Four? How many do there have to be before this sort of
language on a statue is "okay"?

I agree, if the language on such a statue represents historical fact,

there may be a legitimate argument that it is not hate propaganda. A
statue for all the Jews killed by Germans would be correct more than
an unfair aspersion on all Germans. So, too, would a statue for all blacks
lynched in the American South by whites. And so too, I suppose, would the
statue we are all debating here.

The point I'd like to make is that it is the violence, not the
perpetrators of the violence, that is being condemned here, and if people
want to get that message across, well, maybe they should condemn the
violence and not a broad category of humans many of whom had nothing to do
with it in the first place.

Perhaps a better example of why "truth in labeling" on these statues is
not acceptable could be shown if there were a statue, say, in my former
home of New Orleans, honouring the victims of violent urban crime in the
city. These crimes are overwhelmingly committed by young black males.
Might as well say so, right? It's the truth.

However, I contend it is criminals - not all young black males - that we
should blame for violent urban crime. Likewise, it is criminals - not all
men - that we should blame for crimes against women.

People who indulge in collective theories of guilt are the problem here
more than anything else. I just hope there isn't a statue someday which
reads "To honour all the people who were born considered guilty of crimes
they themselves did not commit and unjustly punished."

--
Zachary Klaas, Master of Urban and Regional Planning
Now exported to Canada. (Blame NAFTA.)
Swell web page: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bh022/
Ottawa, Ontario: "The road to Hull paved with good intentions."

[Zachary Klaas]

John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> First, there was an institutional and cultural phenomenon (still is) of
> racism in the Southern US. At one end of the spectrum were such relatively
> trivial matters as calling a Black man "boy." At the other end were
> lynchings. But all of this was a seamless web, and to understand why it
> was happening it is helpful to try to understand the institution of
> racism. If some of the oppressor population were occasionally the victims
> of reverse hate crimes, this too stemmed from the original institution and
> culture of racism.

Ah, that makes it clear then...people who don't like being blamed for
something they didn't do are just people who haven't studied injustice enough.
When they have done so, they learn they should keep their mouths shut and
respect other people's pain more than any of their own. The neat thing
about this logic is that anyone who disagrees with it is begging to be
shown up as part of the problem.

> Now, by analogy, some Southern Whites would be sure to cry: "We aren't all
> KKK members! All violence is wrong! Why blame all of us for the crimes of
> a few?" (And, in a whisper that some of them couldn't even hear, "We
> aren't responsible. We have nothing to do with any of this. It's someone
> else's problem, not mine. I can't help being born White. I wish those
> loudmouth whining extremist Blacks would shut the hell up. None of that
> stuff is my fault!")

Let's start off with my main reaction to this, which is that I lived in
Louisiana this past 7 years, and racism - not collective-guilt-racism, but
real I-hate-black-people-racism - is alive and well in that state. Maybe
this is why I hate this crap so much...people are so busy making some
white liberals feel like they should allow themselves to be sacrificed on
the altar of retribution, they forget that the cross burners feel fine and
are down the road plying their trade. You want to deal with racism, deal
with _real_ racists.

All violence _is_ wrong. It may be the least wrong thing on occasion, but
this kind of badgering comment generally comes from people who want others to
forget for a moment that it's even the least bit wrong. One thing that
always impressed me, for example, about the ANC's decision to commit to an
armed struggle in South Africa, was that the decision was made with some
gravity, and constant appeals for peace were made even afterwards. The
ANC never stopped believing violence was wrong, they were simply
desperate. The result of keeping the faith in nonviolence is the peace we
see in South Africa today. Nelson Mandela would never allow the kind of
insulting monument we are now debating to be erected in South Africa, no
matter how true it was.

People should not be blamed for crimes they themselves did not commit.
People who blame themselves for the acts of others usually do so to
convince people that they ought to be treated well in the new order. "Look at
me, I've come to terms with my evil oppressor heritage - so don't I deserve
special treatment for being an enlightened soul? Let the others suffer for
not confessing. I condemn myself so you don't have to. Aren't I helpful?"
The Chinese know all about this - the main people they punish are people
who plead innocence. Those who admit they are born enemies of the people
are given more lenient punishment, because they've performed a useful
service for the ruling elite, who will always make sure there is more
guilt to be apologized for tomorrow.

> Well, there may be people on this SIG who would agree with every whispered
> word, for both Blacks and women who have been the subject, not of violence
> in the abstract, but of violence *because* they were Blacks or women. And
> some of us, to the contrary, would think that perhaps understanding
> racism and sexism, its cultural and institutional subtlety and
> interconnectedness, is a worthwhile social pursuit.

Violence _never_ occurs in the abstract. You assume that I and other
people who resent being implicated in collective guilt are just sitting
around a table, talking about something we don't understand. So let's be
clear on this. I understand people can be pushed too far and respond
violently, and I am loathe to condemn violence harshly when it clearly is
the result of pushing people beyond rational limits. I also know that not
all violence is the result of this sort of thing. Sometimes violence is
about power - it's about establishing one's will by force, because one
can. Racism and sexism can push people to violence as an act of
desperation, but it can also be used as a convenient excuse by those
wishing to establish their will by force.

> And a point *I* would like to make is that there are many kinds of and
> motives for violence. Simply condemning violence in the abstract may make
> one feel good, but does little to determine its various causes and means
> of putting a stop to it.

Violence's "cause" is the choice to be violent. Period.

> This is a red herring. I don't feel guilty. But I do feel responsible in
> the sense of needing to do something about it and to check my own
> attitudes from time to time.

What _can_ you do about other people's past crimes? Seriously. You can't
erase them. Period. And whereas it's good to be sensitive to other
people's pasts, this touchy-feely Bill Clinton "I feel your pain" stuff
never really accomplishes anything but, well, electing people like Bill
Clinton.

[John Baglow]

Zachary Klaas (bh...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> First, there was an institutional and cultural phenomenon (still is) of
>> racism in the Southern US. At one end of the spectrum were such relatively
>> trivial matters as calling a Black man "boy." At the other end were
>> lynchings. But all of this was a seamless web, and to understand why it
>> was happening it is helpful to try to understand the institution of
>> racism. If some of the oppressor population were occasionally the victims
>> of reverse hate crimes, this too stemmed from the original institution and
>> culture of racism.
> Ah, that makes it clear then...people who don't like being blamed for
> something they didn't do are just people who haven't studied injustice enough.
> When they have done so, they learn they should keep their mouths shut and
> respect other people's pain more than any of their own. The neat thing
> about this logic is that anyone who disagrees with it is begging to be
> shown up as part of the problem.

More red herrings. I don't believe in "blame" as a category. "Blame" has
absolutely bugger all to do with the problem. "Blame" is a reverse
feel-good exercise. What I do believe is that racism and sexism are social
constructs. For that matter, "male" and "female" are social constructs
too. So examining the nature of those constructs--deconstructing them, if
you will--seems like an intelligent project if you want to come to grips
with the nature of oppression. Please leave your silly attempts to attach
moral constructs to what I say at the door.

>> Now, by analogy, some Southern Whites would be sure to cry: "We aren't all
>> KKK members! All violence is wrong! Why blame all of us for the crimes of
>> a few?" (And, in a whisper that some of them couldn't even hear, "We
>> aren't responsible. We have nothing to do with any of this. It's someone
>> else's problem, not mine. I can't help being born White. I wish those
>> loudmouth whining extremist Blacks would shut the hell up. None of that
>> stuff is my fault!")
> Let's start off with my main reaction to this, which is that I lived in
> Louisiana this past 7 years, and racism - not collective-guilt-racism, but
> real I-hate-black-people-racism - is alive and well in that state. Maybe
> this is why I hate this crap so much...people are so busy making some
> white liberals feel like they should allow themselves to be sacrificed on
> the altar of retribution, they forget that the cross burners feel fine and
> are down the road plying their trade. You want to deal with racism, deal
> with _real_ racists.

More of the same nonsense. I don't want to be sacrificed on any altar, and
I'm not a liberal. But you open an interesting avenue when you refer to
"real" racists. Do you seriously believe that anything as complex as
racism is confined to people running around in bedsheets?

>
> All violence _is_ wrong. It may be the least wrong thing on occasion, but
> this kind of badgering comment generally comes from people who want others to
> forget for a moment that it's even the least bit wrong. One thing that
> always impressed me, for example, about the ANC's decision to commit to an
> armed struggle in South Africa, was that the decision was made with some
> gravity, and constant appeals for peace were made even afterwards. The
> ANC never stopped believing violence was wrong, they were simply
> desperate. The result of keeping the faith in nonviolence is the peace we
> see in South Africa today. Nelson Mandela would never allow the kind of
> insulting monument we are now debating to be erected in South Africa, no
> matter how true it was.
>

I don't believe that violence is inherently wrong or right, so I don't see
where the "badgering comment" comment comes from. What I do beleive is
that violence is often used by one class or gender or race to keep another
"in its place." Marc Lepine shot "feminists"--do you suppose for a minute
that he knew anything about feminism? What he meant was, "women who want
to be engineers."

> People should not be blamed for crimes they themselves did not commit.
> People who blame themselves for the acts of others usually do so to
> convince people that they ought to be treated well in the new order. "Look at
> me, I've come to terms with my evil oppressor heritage - so don't I deserve
> special treatment for being an enlightened soul? Let the others suffer for
> not confessing. I condemn myself so you don't have to. Aren't I helpful?"
> The Chinese know all about this - the main people they punish are people
> who plead innocence. Those who admit they are born enemies of the people
> are given more lenient punishment, because they've performed a useful
> service for the ruling elite, who will always make sure there is more
> guilt to be apologized for tomorrow.

Again--drop the "blame" crap, OK?

>
>> Well, there may be people on this SIG who would agree with every whispered
>> word, for both Blacks and women who have been the subject, not of violence
>> in the abstract, but of violence *because* they were Blacks or women. And
>> some of us, to the contrary, would think that perhaps understanding
>> racism and sexism, its cultural and institutional subtlety and
>> interconnectedness, is a worthwhile social pursuit.
> Violence _never_ occurs in the abstract. You assume that I and other
> people who resent being implicated in collective guilt are just sitting
> around a table, talking about something we don't understand. So let's be
> clear on this. I understand people can be pushed too far and respond
> violently, and I am loathe to condemn violence harshly when it clearly is
> the result of pushing people beyond rational limits. I also know that not
> all violence is the result of this sort of thing. Sometimes violence is
> about power - it's about establishing one's will by force, because one
> can. Racism and sexism can push people to violence as an act of
> desperation, but it can also be used as a convenient excuse by those
> wishing to establish their will by force.
>

Well, on this we seem to agree, if you are referring to institutionally
privileged race, gender or class.

>> And a point *I* would like to make is that there are many kinds of and
>> motives for violence. Simply condemning violence in the abstract may make
>> one feel good, but does little to determine its various causes and means
>> of putting a stop to it.
> Violence's "cause" is the choice to be violent. Period.
>

Nonsense. Do you really think that a mugging, a rape and a lynching are
all the same thing? That the context and motives and culture are irrelevant?
If so, I shall not look to you for serious solutions to the multifaceted
problems we have been discussing. Violence is the expression of an
attitude. Doesn't the nature of that attitude intrigue you--just a little?

>> This is a red herring. I don't feel guilty. But I do feel responsible in
>> the sense of needing to do something about it and to check my own
>> attitudes from time to time.
> What _can_ you do about other people's past crimes? Seriously. You can't
> erase them. Period. And whereas it's good to be sensitive to other
> people's pasts, this touchy-feely Bill Clinton "I feel your pain" stuff
> never really accomplishes anything but, well, electing people like Bill
> Clinton.

You are an expert at red herrings, it would appear. I don't give a shit
about people's past crimes, except as material for analysis so that future
crimes are not committed. As for feeling people's pain, it's called
empathy, its a good and decent human emotion--so long as one doesn't
fetishize it. I don't.

[Darren Spratt]

This discussion on violence is very interesting. I thought Zach made some
interesting points from a position of actually having lived admidst the
problem. John, for his part, countered in his usual fashion. John thinks
he's contributing something important in the effort to understand violence
in society - and in that respect, I suppose he is - constructing, deconstructing,
reconstructing the human organism. Split the atom and dance around the
nucleus. 'These are not moral constructs that we are talking about, these are
social constructs. I don't believe in "blame" as a category, but I do think
it's important to understand the nature of oppression.' But perhaps understanding
the nature of oppression, racism, sexism, or any of the other "isms" out there
that we see as an evil, of necessity, involves understanding the nature of and
the reasons for such attitudes as blame. Something you seem to disregard. And
in this sense, I think you intellectually dishonest.

Marc Lepine didn't blame feminists for screwing up his life, as I remember
he indicated in the note he left after he picked up a gun and shot 14 women.
What he meant was, according to you, that he had a problem specifically with
"women who want to be engineers". Hogwash! What did he say in his tell-tale
note to the world, as indication of the motive behind his horrid deed: 'I hate
"feminists"'. Did he say he was killing those women who wanted to be engineers?
Nay. They could have easily have been female students studying law. Medicine.
Hell, who knows, it could have been young women working at McDonalds who he
*blamed* for his life's ruin! Had they represented those "feminists" who Lepine
hated and in some way represented a threat to him, they no doubt would have been
his targets, and we would have been mourning them yearly, instead of those female
engineering students who died.

You sit on your throne of intellectual superiority, John, and judge the world
using the standards and rules that you dictate are valid, yet you, yourself, are
part of that "institutionally privileged race, gender or class" that you hold
guilty, and your drone about seeking "serious solutions" to various societal
problems such as violence wears condescendingly thin.

I know that you believe that understanding racism and sexism is a worthwhile
social pursuit, and you don't believe in such things as "blame, and you are not
motivated by such things as guilt or shame. The same as I believe those people
who see starving kids in Africa on the TV are not motivated by these same things.
Hell, I'm sure their call to action comes from pure, cold intellect alone; they
feel responsible for doing something, as you do, and the pleas of the television
commentator along with the soft, tender music in the background, the look on the
many kid's faces they traipse through the hour long television program, and the
sewage dumps where they live are sufficient and calculated to pull on the
heart-strings of even the coldest, emotionless, headiest of individuals. They
break down and become foster parents and send their $27 a month to help support
some poor kid half way across the planet. Meanwhile, by North American
standards, these same kids who live across the street and are not featured on
TV, can go to school hungry, and then come home to a cold home and an alcoholic
mother and a fridge full of ketchup, and these same people who were so motivated
by a television program do nothing. They didn't know, afterall, and no one shows
them the need by neatly packaging up these kid's stories on a nifty TV show.

The principles are pretty much the same no matter which cause you choose: highlight
a need and they will act. Why not act simply because it's just the right thing
to do? Instead, sad case after sad case has to be stacked upon stacks of other
sad cases, and finally people are motivated to do something. It is a feel-good
excercise, isn't it, John, because in the case of one condemning, for example,
such highly publicized and problematic issues as societal violence involving
women, one can sit loftily on their high thones and pat themselves on the back
for taking responsibility by doing *something*, even if that something is to
ignore all other acts of violence being committed within society, and all other
persons claiming to be its recipients.

In this regard, Zachary was correct, because such ones are really motivated by
nothing more noble than keeping ahead of their own consciences: "look at me, I've
come to terms with my evil oppressor heritage.. so don't I deserve special
treatment for being an enlightened soul?" 'Aren't I better than all those
others of my kind'-type mentality. It's the classic case of the leopard trying
to remove its spots. But can the leopard remove its spots? I know how you
dislike moral constructs, John, but after all, aren't you not more than just a
walking intellect?!

I love these people who think they not only have need to check their own
attitudes, but everyone elses, also. They run around, checking everyone's
attitudes and they think they are really doing something great. They don't seem
to realize that other people have given the subject or their attitudes any
consideration, but here they go sticking their nose up your nose. Do you think the
hard core wife beater, or the ranting mad racist is going to be reformed by your
foolish efforts? You might help change those weak-willed ninnies who will drive
their own sexist or racist attitudes under cover, but you won't do anything
worthwhile. Because what you help drive down by such tactics as you use, are only
there waiting to rear their ugly head later. And when they do, they will be twice
as ugly as before you got involved in the doing of your something. You'd be
better to spend your time trying to eradicate real inequalities in society, wherethey exist, and then, maybe, you'd be doing something worthwhile. Or at least,
watch what your efforts do to your own attitudes: do they help to actually change
them or do they merely cause you to hide them a little better?

But that is not the way of persons like John, and his ilk. It's OK for women to
erect monuments condemning all men for violence, as it would be OK for Blacks in
the Southern States to erect a monument condemning White hatred toward Blacks.
Throw the stones a little while longer. Stir the pot just a little more. See
how long people take it in return before things explode. This is John's
"solution" to resolving and stopping violence toward women. It's a good one.
Nevermind that you may just be painting a whole group of people in the same
brushstroke, who may not have agreed with the treatment of women or Blacks in the
first place. Never mind that you may be condemning a whole new generation that
never did anything right or wrong to either of these groups, it's all the
same to you. Tar them all, because I'm sitting pretty! It does make
you look good, John! Not!

Again, I think Zachery was correct. Had Mandella used such tactics in South
Africa that you advocate, after their hard fought fight for racial equality, they
might have had a civil war with many, many more killed.

All this talk of women being killed because they are women; Blacks being killed
because they are Blacks. I don't know if I completely agree with that. People
are killed, I believe, because someone else has power over them to do so. A
woman who has power and the mind to kill is just as likely to kill as a man. A
Black who has the power and has the mind to kill is just as likely to kill as a
White. We make such a big issue of Black, White, man, and woman. I really don't
think we are all that much different, and yet, the divisions that are within ALL
of us, sets up as walls these differences with which we differentiate. I
really don't know if a person who feels powerful kills, or if a person kills to
feel powerful, implying that they didn't feel powerful in the first place. I do
believe it's what we do with that power once we have it that defines each
person. Abusing power once you have it, and then excusing it because you
can make it relate back to the other guy, does not seem like the way to solve
anything.

Darren

--