Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Re .0: Jane Eyre? Really? I seem to recall it was Mr. Rochester who
    wanted to try for an "irregular arrangement", and Jane who stuck to her
    guns and wouldn't become a bigamous wife. In fact, I remember Jane as a
    stickler for rules, proprieties, etc., most of the time, even when she
    was bemoaning her own "rebellious" nature.
    
    Or were there other rules to which you were referring?
    
    I do have an impression that lots of novels that feature women breaking the
    rules then have them pay the penalty for it, whereas men who break the
    rules sometimes pay and sometimes win; this is just an impression,
    though, so I may come up with different results if I actually try to
    count examples.
    
    Re the "rules" issue: I think the problem is usually that society set
    up different rules for men and women, so when they tried to play at the
    same game they'd wind up breaking rules without knowing they existed...
    
    -b

        I think the idea of men playing by the rules is what is behind
        the differences in the equity vs. equality topic.  Going back
        to the Constitution and even as far back as the Magna Carta
        you see men trying to restrict the government to stay within
        certain rules.  The Constitution has changed from the list of
        what the government can do to the list of what the people can
        do.  But as long as the same rules apply to everyone ...
        "equality" ... it will still have some popular support.  But
        now in the name of "equity" some people want to rewrite the
        rules so that anyone who happens to be white and male is
        discriminated against, whether they had anything to do with
        past discrimination or not.  A lot of people who have all
        their lives played within the rules aren't going to tolerate
        that type of rule.
        
        Dan

    re.0
    
    Interesting.
    
    I would have bet the mortgage that it would be women who would stick to
    the rules.
    
    But it could be that we're talking about different rules.  
    
    I'm going to have to look into this further ...
    
    

    
    Please Read Carol Gilligan's "In a Different Voice".
    
    It's much easier than my trying to paraphrase it.
    
    -Jody
    

        >some people want to rewrite the rules so that anyone who happens 
        >to be white and male is discriminated against, whether they had 
        >anything to do with past discrimination or not.  
    
    I think we had an issue recently, Dan, regarding "past" discrimination
    and the fact that "current" discrimination is probably more relevant.
    But that aside, the rules as they stand now are written so that anyone 
    female is discriminated against, whether they had anything to do with 
    discrimination, past or present, or not.  I can easily understand why a 
    man might prefer the "old", or more accurately, the "current" rules. 
    But they are no better than the new ones you are saying the equitists
    are proposing.  It just may look worse because 'the gun' is pointed at
    you instead of at someone else.
    
    >A lot of people who have all their lives played within the rules aren't 
    >going to tolerate that type of rule.
        
    But we've found out that it can be done anyway, since a lot of women 
    who've played within the rules all *their* lives still get discriminated 
    against by the current rules.  Or perhaps you're suggesting the ongoing 
    discrimination is because women just haven't been "intolerant" enough, as 
    you're saying white males would be in a similar situation.  Are you?  I'd 
    love to hear what you're thinking of when you speak of tolerating rules.  
    How might white men communicate that intolerance?  Might they become 
    "strident"?  No problem!  We can just write them off as glass-chewing, 
    woman-hating masculinists who probably have small equipment anyway and are 
    just jealous of those few white men we adore and we can all just go on 
    with the *real* business of our lives.
    
    We can take this offline if you like, it is a bit of a tangent.  But I
    get my best points in that way because people say things they wouldn't
    otherwise say if they knew they were discussing the subject from the
    angle I was.  I don't want to give this a new topic because once it
    comes into focus, we'll just get more lip service and theoretical
    examples of ideal situations.  I like the unguarded truth when it slips
    out.
    
    Back to the topic at hand...
    
    Sandy Ciccolini

    
    i believe that moral rules are an aspect of rational ethics and
    that rational ethics is an artifact of the patriarchy. it seems
    clear to me that, in general, men are more comfortable with this
    approach.
    
    as it happens, i tend to think that the basis for determinations 
    of good and evil is, in fact, not rational and that therefore
    rational or rule-based ethics is weak. i think many men, but
    fewer women, are uncomfortable with this notion.
    
    

    ...what Joe said!!
    
    D!

        re .6,
        
>>    as it happens, i tend to think that the basis for determinations 
>>    of good and evil is, in fact, not rational and that therefore
        
        One thing that separates us from "the animals" is our
        faculty for rational thought.  But, yes, using it is
        voluntary, and some people choose not to, even for such
        important matters as deciding right from wrong.  That
        is very unfortunate.
        
        Dan

    
    "Games Mother Never Taught You" offers an explanation for this.  Men,
    it says, are *brought up* to play in organized sports. Even those
    individuals who excel in individualized sports like track,
    probably still play touch football in their off hours. 
    
    Because men do this from an early age they internalize the need for
    rules,teams, and structures.
    
    Women on the other hand, play games like jacks, and can make new rules
    up as they go along. 
    
    It was a pretty simplistic example; you can decide if it has merit.
    
    Jamd
    BTW, the book is prety good reading, IMO

  >>  Back to the topic at hand...  

  >>  We can just write them off as glass-chewing, 
  >> woman-hating masculinists who probably have small equipment anyway and are 
  >> just jealous of those few white men we adore and we can all just go on 
  >> with the *real* business of our lives.
    
    
  >>Sandy Ciccolini


Sandy...is this the "topic at hand" you want to get back to?

pem

    No Paul,  ;>  back to "rulebound versus situational".  I should have
    pulled out the comments and cross posted them into the topic I was
    thinking about when I read them.  Mods, can I do that?  Or is it kind of
    like tape recording someone when they don't know it?
                                     
    Sorry for diverting the topic.
    
    Sandy

        
>        One thing that separates us from "the animals" is our
>        faculty for rational thought. 
    
    i'm not convinced that we are 'separated' from the animals nor
    that it's healthy to think that way.
    
    > But, yes, using it is
    >    voluntary, and some people choose not to, even for such
    >    important matters as deciding right from wrong. 
    
    it is usually counterproductive to use the wrong tool for a job.
     
    >That is very unfortunate.
        
    i think we can do better.
    
    

I agree with joe in that we're not so far separated from the animals as
our vanity would have us believe.

Koko is a lowland gorilla who speaks a version of American Sign Language
because she cannot vocalize well enough to use sound speech.  Koko is
clearly aware of abstraction.  In addition to the signs she has been
taught, she has created her own signs for objects and concepts she was
never taught.  Several years ago, when she was introduced to Michael,
a younger gorilla, she taught ASL to him.  The two were not allowed to
be together at all times - Michael visited Koko on some days.  On one
occasion she struck him hard enough to injure him.  He was removed from
her presence, and she then said she was sorry she had hurt him.  She
paused a bit and then asked if he would be able to come to see her the
next day.  This is an obvious example of situational abstraction,
demonstrating a degree of intelligence most people simply do not want to
concede to animals.

-d

    re.6 >rational ethics is an artifact of the patriarchy.
    
    Gimme a break. The need for rules of conduct among people 
    derives from our nature as beings with volition. (Remember
    Twain's remark on blushing?) Humans do not have a hardwired,
    automatic system of living (what we call 'instinct'.) We have
    to make choices, based on reasoning. We have the the 
    capability to choose to do wrong, to violate another. Without
    a view of each other as reasoning beings, each with the right 
    to choose his/her lifestyle, without a code of ethics following
    logically from this premise, we end up in anarchy, which is
    the irrational translated to the ethical and political.
    

    
    - .1
    
    But patriarchal ethics, and (for lack of a better term) matriarchal
    ethics, may not be one and the same. See .4.
    
    Dorian

    
	>Humans do not have a hardwired,
    >automatic system of living (what we call 'instinct'.) 
    
    i'm not convinced of this.
    
    >We have
    >to make choices, based on reasoning. We have the 
    >capability to choose to do wrong...
    
    i would submit that we make choices of good and evil based on 
    something other than reason. *then* we make up rules- which lend 
    themselves to rational manipulation- which become a kind of ethical 
    crutch. relying too much on these, like any other crutches, runs 
    the risk of ethical weakness and atrophy of our moral sense.
    

re. Note 863.17                 Rulebound vs. Situational                   17 of 17
DECWET::JWHITE "from the flotation tank..."          16 lines  10-JUN-1991 12:39
    
>	>Humans do not have a hardwired,
>    >automatic system of living (what we call 'instinct'.) 
    
>    i'm not convinced of this.
    
    OK, simple experiment: take a 6-month-old human baby and leave it alone
    in the woods. Will it survive? Take any other 6-month-old critter
    and repeat. It _will_ survive.
    
>    >We have
>   >to make choices, based on reasoning. We have the 
>    >capability to choose to do wrong...
    
>    i would submit that we make choices of good and evil based on 
>    something other than reason. *then* we make up rules- which lend 
>    themselves to rational manipulation- which become a kind of ethical 
>    crutch. relying too much on these, like any other crutches, runs 
>    the risk of ethical weakness and atrophy of our moral sense.
    
    You're confusing reasoning with rationalization. You're not alone,
    most of the world can't tell the difference. And even those who
    can frequently lapse. (Myself most assuredly included ;-)/2 )
    
    Dana

    
>    OK, simple experiment: take a 6-month-old human baby and leave it alone
>    in the woods. Will it survive? Take any other 6-month-old critter
>    and repeat. It _will_ survive.
 
    this is a simplistic view of instinct.
       
>    You're confusing reasoning with rationalization. 
    
    nope. i meant what i said. don't worry. it's a tough concept ;^)
    

    A 6 month old domestic animal will *not* survive, and most large
    wild animals will not either. Small animals like squirrels, birds
    etc. will, but they have a short life span and much of their survival
    is proprogramed as instinct.
    
    Turn a human loose at an equivalent level of maturity, in an area
    where there is sufficent food and shelter and it will also survive.
    
    
    Humans take longer to reach an equivalent level of maturity, but
    can out survive most wild animals with a few simple tools.
    
    Bonnie

Buddhist philosophy in general has a different veiwpoint than Dana's.
The central premise, which can be verified by yourself, is that people
really do know what is "the right thing" but get confused from various
thinking and ideas that occur as you are socially conditioned.

So just like if you see a tiger, you run away.  If you are truly
scared, then you know what to do without thinking. This is like the
time I fell into the ice on a pond.  I didn't have to think about what
to do.  Buddhist (and other) systems say that cultivating awareness and
cutting through thinking is in fact a valid way of living.  It seems
to lead to increased inter-awareness of other people, the earth, of
everything.  The "empty" mind, which is full of the whole universe,
knows what to do at every moment.  

If thinking and logic were capability of solving things, one would
have thought the world would be in a lot better shape than it is now
seeing how much thinking and tomes on morality and ethics have been
written.  I think the important thing is to experience this
inter-being or inter-awareness and not so much having concepts about
how things should be or coming up with systems of how everyone should
be.

peace,
john

Thanks, John, that was great!

I don't down-play the necessity of logic - in fact, as anyone who knows
me will tell you, logic is my favorite game.  however, I think there is a
lot of merit to the idea of Right and Wrong below a logical level.

In fact, in logical discussions involving morality, the standard way to
"disprove" an ethical rule (such as "the greastest benefit for the greatest
number") is to prove that when that rule is applied to some given situation,
that it doesn't provide the "right" result. The rightness of the result
is considered self-evident, and is used as an *axiom* in proving or
disproving the rightness of the moral rule.  

(For instance, the situation of punishing the innocent when in benefits
everyone else is often cited as a "disproof" of Utilitarianism.)

D!

    I think rules serve for most, not all, cases.
    
    Exceptions must be expected, even though they can't necessarily be
    foreseen.
    
    I agree with John that a lot of what is going on these days is
    short-term gain with long-term payment (morally speaking).  if people
    did what, in their heart, they knew was right, they may be going
    against all the RULES they ever learned, but the rules never took into
    account win-win, mutual good, long-term gain, and personal growth.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    if a moral rule has exceptions, what is the value of the rule?
    

    For the intellectually lazy, joe!
    
    You've heard 'em say it - "Dem's da roolz!"
    
    :>
    
    S.