jdh@hou5g.UUCP (Julia Harper) (01/15/85)
<> > Now certainly there is a lot of petty crime there, and >a lot of burglery too, but mugging was unheard of, and in order >to get shot or stabbed you had to frequent the wrong bars or >the wrong people's wives. Here is a perfect example of the societal norm of assuming that people are men. Here, too, is a perfect example of the societal norm of identifying women only through their role as connected with someone else, instead of as people in their own right. You've got a long way to go yet, baby, to reach true equality. -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!hou5g!jdh
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/17/85)
Reply to Julia Harper: These are the lines of the article Julia is upset with: Now certainly there is a lot of petty crime there, and a lot of burglery too, but mugging was unheard of, and in order to get shot or stabbed you had to frequent the wrong bars or the wrong people's wives. Julia says that this is a perfect example of the societal norm of assuming that people are men, and identifying women only through their role as connected with someone else. Julia, can you read, or are you only looking for excuses for a favourite argument? Whoever (I forget whom) posted this was pointing out that this was the only way to get shot or stabbed. Presumably, thare means that whereever that was there is at least 2 (notice the plural: wives) people who will shoot or stab those who frequent their wives. What is your beef? That people shouldn't get so steamed about adultery? Well, I agree, but that sure doesn't sound like what you said. Point of fact it sounds like you are the one that are making the sexual generalisations... You may think that women are only being viewed as a role but in assuming that it wasn't a lesbian woman (or a bi-sexual woman) you are assuming that Gays ``don't exist''. Gays have been complaining of this for a while... What, say you .. the reality is that men shoot men for frequenting their wives and they don't shoot their wives' girlfriends? Bingo. You are now asserting exactly what the original person said: the reality is that frequenting certain bars and certain people's wives was how one got shot in that town. But then, reality is never so much fun as finding an excuse to voice a favoured hatred. . . whether it is the feminist hatred, or the gun hatred, or the Christian hatred... laura creighton utzoo!laura
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/17/85)
> > Now certainly there is a lot of petty crime there, and > >a lot of burglery too, but mugging was unheard of, and in order > >to get shot or stabbed you had to frequent the wrong bars or > >the wrong people's wives. > > Here is a perfect example of the societal norm of assuming that > people are men. > > Here, too, is a perfect example of the societal norm of identifying > women only through their role as connected with someone else, > instead of as people in their own right. > > You've got a long way to go yet, baby, to reach true equality. No, you've got it all wrong! The author of the above article obviously understands that people can also be women, but in the case of a woman frequenting the wrong woman's husband, he realizes that, being a woman and thus less prone to violent displays of macho, the victimized spouse would be much less likely to fly into a rage and kill her husband's lover. You are certainly right that men have a long way to go to reach equality, but it's obvious that the above poster recognises this fact. Wayne
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/18/85)
> <> > > Now certainly there is a lot of petty crime there, and > >a lot of burglery too, but mugging was unheard of, and in order > >to get shot or stabbed you had to frequent the wrong bars or > >the wrong people's wives. > > Here is a perfect example of the societal norm of assuming that > people are men. Here is a perfect example of the societal norm of assuming that people are heterosexual. > Here, too, is a perfect example of the societal norm of identifying > women only through their role as connected with someone else, > instead of as people in their own right. Women were never mentioned in the portion of the article you reprinted. > You've got a long way to go yet, baby, to reach true equality. Here is a perfect example of the societal norm of assuming that infants are reading the net :-) > Julia Harper > [ihnp4,ariel]!hou5g!jdh The article was pointing out that in Albuquerque it is not uncommon for deaths to be related to jealousy (explicitly husband were mentioned but there are also quite a few boyfriends involved). You might not like it but that is what happens around here. Taking someone to task for presenting the information as it is does not help further equality. It might do more to point out that with respect to violent crimes women are statistically superior (assuming lack of commision of v.c. is good) to men. --Cliff
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/18/85)
> > You've got a long way to go yet, baby, to reach true equality. > "God made men and women. Samuel Colt made them equal."