>Mary wrote: "It also seems that whenever anyone tries to propose an
>alternative to the status quo of injustice, racism, sexism, classism, there
>is a loud chorus of "NO, won't work", "not feasable","too utopian". from the
>ultra-privileged, and
>sometimes ultra-sensitive members of this list. How are changes EVER made if
>not by a few brave souls who decide to do it anyway despite the odds, despite
>the discomfort, despite the uncertainty of the outcome?"
>
>This response strikes me as somewhat inflammatory,
I think Mary's response was constructive and yours Wendy to be somewhat
inflammatory. Now why do we disagree on this? Could it be that people are
different and percieve things differently? Why is there so little patience
given to people on this list. I have recently received the most
inflammatory mail privately accusing me of all sorts of distastful things.
I don't believe in this form of privacy. IMHO we should have discussions
in the open where I'll bet people would not write the sort of nasty and
disgusting things they do privately. This sort of privacy reminds me of
domestic violence.
and certainly
>non-constructive: by implication you have categorized those who disagree as
>'ultra-privileged' and 'sometimes ultra-senstive', while at the same time
>classifying yourself as a 'brave soul.' How do you know who among us is
>"ultra privileged"?
>
>As far as the last part of your message, I challenge you to find one example
>in history of someone making a meaningful social change without considering
>the 'hows' of it. To put it another way: those who actually implement
>meaningful social change--those who suffer "despite the odds, despite the
>discomfort, despite the uncertainty of the outcome"--didn't do it by sending
>e mails. Simply recognizing injustice does not make someone a brave soul.
> Anyone can sit back and talk about how unfair everything is--the "brave
>souls" as you put it are those who actually work through the details.
History is full of people who thought and discussed the problems before
they thought about the details. Those who are holding up change are those
that would stifle the discourse with crys of 'if you can't immediately
think up some solutions stop talking about it.'
>
>I think if you read back through this discussion you will find that what you
>are categorizing as 'the loud chorus [of the ultra privileged naysayers]'
>etc.. is a sincere effort to address the 'how's' of ameliorating injustice.
>>From what I have seen on this list there is some diversity of opinion but in
>almost every case sincerity on the the part of the participants in societal
>and environmental improvement. IMHO, when someone raises an objection or a
>'that won't work because..' statement, this is an opportunity for you to
>explain why it would work, or how it can work.
Quite apart from the naysayers addressing the how's, all they are doing is
complaining that it can't be done. I don't find this constructive.
Especially as a few people on this list obviously don't want the status quo
to change - vis a vis some people being the haves and some the have nots.
Perhaps these people are after gender equality for the middle class only.
>
>regards,
>
>Wendy
Respectfully,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Interesting: Your people glorified organised violence for 40 centuries,
but you imprison those who employ it privately."
Mr Spock. Star Trek 'Dagger of the Mind'
