LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  July 1999

CELTIC-L July 1999

Subject:

Re: Who wants a fight?

From:

mike brown <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

mike brown <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:31:07 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (275 lines)

Nice to see your back, Neil. Personally, I've had to work non-stop so a
holiday to Nova Scotia sounds about right.

>>Neil,
>>
>>>From one intelligent guy to...a Canadian. Based on your observations of
>>life, the cartoon world I live in seems alot more realistic than the Mary
>>Poppins world you exist in (I asked who wanted a fight!).
>
>
>   Well Mike, if the gloves are off...

You have to admit that a bit of mental-jousting is good for the soul


>... may I ask how extensive is your
>acquaintance with people of African descent, given that they are not
>numerous in either Wales or Australia?

Extensive enough to know that structural racism exists. I grew up and went
to school with many blacks. Cardiff is a port city with one of the oldest
black settlements (ghettoes) in Britain. I also served with American blacks
in Berlin (who chose to hang out with us (Brits) because colour for us was
less of an issue).



> When you refer to them being
>lynched all the time (!) are you not actually attempting to refer to
>blacks in North America, and if so, could you tell us exactly what you
>know about life of any sort in North America, other than what you see
>on the telly?

I don't believe that I stated that blacks in the US are lynched "all the
time", but even so, all the books I've read, all the pictures I've seen and
all the documentaries I've watched all show blackmen hanging from trees -
not whitemen.

Further, are you implying that the only form of knowledge on a subject can
only be valid if you've seen something firsthand? For example, I've never
been to Tibet, but I know that the Tibetans are oppressed by the Chinese etc
etc.

>>I'll admit that the concept of 'power' can be problematic - there are many
>>different theories.
>
>
>   How very heterodox of you!  Almost open-minded, but not quite.

Open-minded *and* well-read.


>>However, the concept of it that I'll stick with here is the one
>>which tackles your assertion that there aren't any classes with it, or
>>without it. This is clearly absurd. You can walk home from a night-club at 3
>>in the morning in a totally different frame of mind to that of your
>>girlfriend, sister or mother.
>
>
>   How so, given that as a man I'm twice as likely to become a victim of
>violent crime as a woman is?  (Check the stats).

Check what the women on this list are telling you - far more valid than stats.


>>Likewise, if a women is sexually assaulted the
>>legal system (dominated by men) takes over and defines what rape is etc.
>
>
>   Yes, and the men insist on a lot of nonsense about the rapist being
>innocent until proven guilty, due process of law etc.  The bastards!

My point is that it is men who define what 'rape' is and what is an
acceptable defence (see all those cases which rely on what a women wears as
being provocation etc).


>>Men dominate all forms of discourse in our society (do you dispute that
>>knowledge is power) such as science, philosophy, religion etc.
>
>
>   I do dispute that knowledge is power -- access to knowledge is not the
>same thing as access to power.

When you are the person who names and hence defines something - then you
control that thing. For example, psychiatrists have defined 'madness' and
have tremendous power over their clients and what defines madness/illness in
our society. It doesn't take too much imagination to see how this can be
applied in all forms of social life.


> Ultimately power rests on force, and force
>is not necessarily going to yield to a superior education.

Now "force" is an interesting word. We have a police "force", but most
citizens follow the law for reasons other than fear of the force which might
be applied to them eg, social contract; obligations etc. Superior education
and knowledge are not necessarily synonomous. Knowledge can be gained from
experience.

>  As far as men
>"dominating" discourse, what exactly are you referring to -- that they set
>the preconditions that the vast majority of women appear happy to go along
>with?

They set the preconditions, certainly. But many women are not happy. For
example, within the scientific field many women are criticising just what
constitutes a scientific subject. This has traditionally been the preserve
of men - its not that science is subjective (ie physics), but that what has
been viewed worthy of study has been set by men.


>  I don't notice that huge numbers of women are substantially unhappy
>with "science, philosophy, religion" etc. (there seem to be more women than
>men in churches and universities these days for example).

See above. And when it comes to numbers of women in university etc., then
yes things are changing.

> I suppose they're
>all suffering from "false consciousness",

Male hegemony.

> like those Welsh voters who won't
>support Plaid Cymru?

They're not Welsh!

>>Brother, the language you and I both speak puts women into the margins
>(eg. >'man suckles his young from an early age' type of language).
>
>
>   Nonsense.  This is a literary device known as "metonymy" and is used
>extensively throughout the English language -- referring to QEII as "the
>Crown" doesn't mean we're marginalizing the head and shoulders she puts
>the crown on, when we say "all hands on deck" we're not asking for a series
>of bloody amputations, and similarly nobody who talks about "the future of
>mankind" is referring to a world without women.

These examples are not all gender specific, so I can't see their relevance.
But it's not difficult to see how a sentence construction like, "the
policeman stopped the motorist" excludes the chances that the *"police
officer"* is a women.


>>You will no doubt be thinking of exceptions, such as having a third dan
>>black-belted sister who carries a sub-machine gun. But the reason or symptom
>>that causes fear in women still exists.
>
>
>   What on earth makes you think that women, on the whole, are more scared
>of life's problems than men are -- or have more reason to be scared?

I don't. I just believe women when they say they have more reason to fear
men than we do of them.

> Isn't
>it actually the case that when the casualty rates are totted up, it's more
>dangerous to be a man than a woman in our society, and that if men aren't
>continually articulating their fear and despair it's not because everything
>is A-OK for them but because they are not encouraged to do so?

I don't dispute this, but it's certainly not the case that all our fears are
the same (men and women), but men just don't articulate them.

>>Likewise, you say that you have no power and want no power. This choice is
>a >form of power itself.
>
>
>    Having no power is a form of having power -- what was that I said about
>"heads-you-lose, tails-I-win" logic?

That's just the way it is. As a white middle-class male you have a distinct
advantage over others if you choose to excercise certain choices. That you
personally don't succeed does not negate the advantage you hold (no-one said
a win was guaranteed).

>  As it happens, I'm making exactly the
>same choices as my wife is making -- and she was a woman last time I checked.

Well, I hope you haven't got that wrong!

>>Can you really argue that if you decided to aim high in public/commercial
>>life, that you wouldn't enjoy a significant advantage over many
>marginalised >groups?
>
>
>    Can you really argue that I would?  Again, this is where thinking of
>people as belonging to monolithic racial or gender groups has led you
>astray.  There are important *personal* reasons why I would never succeed
>in public or commercial life, for example because I have a low tolerance
>for stress and small talk and submitting to authority.

Isn't that a new category in the special Olympics? These personal
idiosyncracies might well inhibit your chances of promotion or success in
getting a job etc. But they are not *inherent* to your gender. Women,
however, get pregnant - this is one well known factor in job discrimination
that goes beyond personal factors.

> So if I were to
>"aim high" I would never succeed, because it would become very apparent
>that I couldn't do the job required of me.  I know this and am quite
>content to live a quiet happy life instead.  Now, are you honestly going
>to allege that the only reason that there are white men out there who are
>unemployed or poor is because they're not trying hard enough?

No, this is a class and social issue. There aren't enough jobs to employ all
men who want to work. However, full time unemployment is higher amongst
women and other marginalised groups than it is for certain others.

>Are you
>actually a Thatcherite where white men are concerned?

Why compare me to Thatcher? Thatcher was a white male.

>>Life is a struggle for most of us. Otherwise, how do you explain the many
>>civil right movements in our society (not many white middle class male
>>activist groups though).
>
>
>    Well there are, but of course they are known as "hate groups".  They
>are however activist in the sense that they have a predetermined list of
>political aims that they are working towards.

Such as the "Keeping women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" movement.

>>Just because you had a female Jamaican boss doesn't prove your argument
>
>
>    And just because you never had one, or just because they don't fit into
>your Grand Unified Theory of Oppression, doesn't prove your argument either.
>
>
>>(I hope your professor didn't teach you how to prove the
>>norm by citing the exception - that's a law professors trick!).
>
>
>    By "the exception" I take it you believe that I'm the only person in the
>history of Canada ever to have had a black woman as a manager?

No, just that you're the only person in Canada to believe that you face
structural problems in equal measure to her.

>>How many female Jamaicans are there in your parliament?
>
>
>    Two I think -- which is proportionally just about right.

And how many women? Would that number be proportionally right - ie half?

>>Back to things celtic. This comes round full circle. I still stand by my
>>assertion that to be a Gael and anti-English is not the same thing (in terms
>>of political/cultural consequences) as it is to be English and anti-Gael.
>
>
>    It is the same morally.  What is your conception of morality, >Mike?

What do morals have to do with this statement/fact?? I submit that
English governments have (and have excercised) the power to cause cultural
grief to her neighbours because it has the power to do so. Conversely, the
Celtic nations cannot reciprocate because they don't have the same power. I
don't advocate that they should have this power to do the same thing back -
just the power to sort out their own affairs. Hardly a morally bankrupt
proposition.


>That if they do it to us, it's evil and they're bastards, but if we do it
>to them, it's OK and we're the Chosen People?  This is the recipe for
>conflict and chaos, and always has been: see for instance Northern Ireland.

Well, we are the Chosen People, but what has Wales done to England - except
survive against incredible odds?

Cofion gorau - Mike.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager