[1036] in peace2
Re: battered wife?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph Reagle)
Wed Sep 26 15:58:28 2001
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: reagle@MIT.EDU
To: "Jimmy_B,MajMoola,MechWarrior,etc._Chien-ta Wu" <jimmbswu@MIT.EDU>,
peace-list@MIT.EDU
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:58:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <200109261836.OAA04550@barker-6-9.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <20010926195807.AE67487439@policy.w3.org>
On Wednesday 26 September 2001 14:36,
Jimmy_B,MajMoola,MechWarrior,etc._Chien-ta Wu wrote:
> Thus, if we change our ways to get them to stop bombing us, that would
> be like a battered wife changing her behavior to get her husband to beat
> her less.. That is, it seems like she's doing something with a direct
> effect, but HE's really the one in control if he can get her to do
> things through negative and positive reinforcement.
His argument is one of pride, "we surrender control of the most important
part of the sequence." He, and many who act with violence, want control.
The metaphor of the abusive husband is closer to the scenario than that of
the battered wife: "Imagine yourself as a husband and your spiteful wife
burns your dinner again..."
Sometimes I think world politicians should study martial arts and eastern
philosophy. We do *not* have complete control of the world, and we never
will. A nation, as much as a person, needs to understand the relationships
between actions -- and their predicate beliefs. We can be attacked; we have
been attacked. The path to freedom, liberty, and all those other words that
leap quickly to politicians lips is not traveled in jackbooted steps of
prideful control and coercion.
