[UA] UA unintenionally sexist? (LONG!)

[Timothy Ferguson]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick O'Duffy" <redfern at thehub.com.au>

> > I'm not ranting at you--but this is exactly what I was complaining about
in
> > my other post.  There's a real casualty to all of this back-n-forth
> > bullshit, and that's to do deprive people of their dissenting opinion;
to
> > silence them; and to take their voice.
>
> You mean, like the way people on this list instantly disagreed with Jo's
opinion
> and dismissed her objections because she "just doesn't get it"?

She simply may not.  It's entirely possible to be deeply read and erudite,
and yet not intergrate an underlying concept into one's view.  This is one
of the bases of the Eliot model of information science.  Just because you
observe does not mean you have data.  Just because you  have data doesn't
mean you have information, just because you have information does not make
you informed, just because you are informed does not mean you have wisdom
(meaning intergration of knowledge into a worldview....the term is
less-than-useful, because it includes "wisdoms" such as white supremacy.)
To go from knowledge to emotive understanding is a process different from
collation of data into knowledge.

I'm not all that stupid, but I simply don't "get" football.  I understand
it, I just don't intergrate it with pleasure into my worldview and as such,
don't "get" it, don't "feel" it.  This is also part of the Eliot model.
Once you've "got" certain things, you then, regardless of how good your data
is, can't "get" certain other things except if you get rid of the first
thing.  As such, the more educated you are, in certain creative fields,
the -less- likely you are to be innovative.  Gibson's description of the
internet, or Bradbury's discussion of virtual reality and virtual happiness,
were both founded on ignorance of a paradigm, because in certain ways,
education moulds the educated.

To assume, "she just doesn't get it" is a poorly-thought-out response may
not be fair.

> This is discussion, not a fight; I don't think anyone is interested in
denying
> the other side their voice.  As I've said, I _don't_ agree with Joanna's
> argument; I don't think UA qualifies as a 'sexist' game.  But I also think
it's
> a topic worthy of exploration and discussion, which is why I'm doign my
best to
> champion the cause of someone I disagree with.

I realise this, but it meas we are getting a double filter, and that makes
you-as-Joanna extremely difficult to read.

> > My opinion: we're all unintentionally rascist, we're all unintentionally
> > sexist, because we're
> > trying to protect *our* group, its instinct, we're born to fear those
who
> > are different, because in the past, those who were different usually
wanted
> > to take our food, or overpower us.
>
> And this isn't something that's worth trying to overcome?  It's not a
_good_
> thing to question our assumptions, our biases out positive and negative
> prejudices?
>
> Humans beings are intrinsically flawed (fuck knows I am); that's not a
good
> excuse for leaving one's life unexamined.

I agree.

> >  I think if we could admit that, we'd get
> > over this stupid hump of name-calling.
>
> What name calling?  I don't think there's been any name calling thus far.



_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua