Hyerdahl wrote:
> bluesmama wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Viking wrote:
> > > > On 1 Apr 2005 12:37:08 -0800, "Hyerdahl"

> wrote:
> > > >(edit)
> > > >
> >Again, I have no reason to condemn women for making the same kinds
> > > of
> > > > >films and jokes and magazine contributions about men that men
> make
> > > > >about women.
> > > >
> > > > a) You're a lunatic. There are no movies made about men beating
> up
> > > > women unless the idea is that the woman gets revenge.
> > >
> > > Sure there are.  There are many, many films about serial killers
> > > torturing and killing women and it's about those men and the cops
> > that chase them and NOT about the woman getting revenge.
> > > >
> > > > b) Your argument is ridiculous; one should condemn things that
> are
> > > > wrong. How about this rewriting of your assertion:
> > > >
> > >   So you want me to condemn a splinter in one eye while the beam
is
> > in the other?  :-)  I don't think so.  That would be a bit like
> > condemning> men for shoplifting.  ;-)
> > > >
> >
> > Can't you condemn them both, if you think the behavior is wrong?
>
> When you compare the behavior of criminals, there is an objective
> element and a subjective one, bluesmama.  We look at the actions
> objectivily, i.e. would a reasonable person do "x" and then we look
at
> it subjectively, i.e. would a person in this person's circumstances
do
> "x".

I understand the distinction, and while I might be more understanding
of someone's actions if they had provocation, I still would consider
their action as wrong as a similar action by someone who had no
provocation. If denigration is wrong, it's wrong on all counts; though
it might be understandable in some cases, it's not excusable.

> Where men are concerned they started denigrating women, shortly after
> Eve ate the alleged apple, and they haven't stopped since.  Women are
> now doing the same thing (and it's been a relatively short period of
> time, historically).  I think the reason women have decided to slam
men
> is not so much in retaliation as it is a back fire to fight back.
> Women have decided that it's men's turn to be humbled so that they
> understand how it feels.  Perhaps, in that way, sexism will turn
around
> a bit faster.

Women have been denigrating men as long as men have been denigrating
women, I think. Of course, I haven't been around since the dawn of time
(it only feels that way sometimes) so I can't say for sure.

If we're talking about socially acceptable denigration, then yes, I
would agree with you and say men have been 'able' to do it longer than
women, and it is only recently that women have had the upper hand in
that area. Women are still portrayed in all sorts of derogatory ways in
the media, and now men are too. Guess that's some people's version of
fair and equal treatment; it's just not mine.

> No, I don't condemn these women any more than I would condemn a
> firefighter for starting a back fire to fight an out-of-control
blaze.
> OTOH, Lilith may have no need to fight back; she simply left the
> garden. :-)

Then it seems like Lilith was acting as a moral adult, removing herself
from a bad situation rather than making it worse.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/4/05 1:01:03 PM ---