trz@drume.UUCP (ZehrbachT) (05/25/85)
I guess I am one of the other five percent. I feel what you did Ellen,
given the circumstances, was the RIGHT thing to do. That guy had no right
to do what he did and it is great to hear that you stood up to him. Good
job and more power to you.
Tom Zehrbachanand@utastro.UUCP (Anand Sivaramakrishnan) (05/29/85)
I hope your attitude becomes prevalent amongst women, Ms. Eades. I believe that only then will such crimes (against women) come to an end. So no flames from me, just support! Incidentally, I am glad to see someone who is capable of defending themselves being capable of using the restraint that should accompany such ability. As someone who has taught some of the 'martial arts', I know that it is often harder to avoid action than blunder into it. It is very hard to control anger, and the the effects last for a surprisingly long time when you decide to avoid action. Ms. Eades has my sympathy.
jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (05/30/85)
In article <438@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> >> "Hey, pretty lady. Hey, momma, look over here." He started >> making kissing and heavy-breathing noises. I decided I'd had >> enough, so I turned and told him not to talk to me, very >> aggressively. He paused, somewhat taken aback, then continued. >> "Hey, look over here. Look at my cock. Hey, lady, look." >> >> I repeated it. "DON'T TALK TO ME. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS >> OFFENSIVE AND DEGRADING. DON'T TALK TO ME LIKE THAT. DON'T >> TALK TO ANY WOMAN LIKE THAT!" I kept repeating it. > >Of course this was ineffective. It didn't do a good job of showing >your anger. The guy probably didn't even understand the words >"offensive and degrading". If he did, they weren't effective on >him because they were TOO INTELLECTUAL. Besides, the guy probably >WANTED to be offensive and degrading. If you want someone to understand you, speak to them in their own language. >...enough when it comes to protecting themselves. >to invalidate your feelings, but I doubt it. Lets hope you are wrong on >this one. One thing I would like you to think about, though: how would >most men you know react if they were in the car with you the night that >this happened? Let me change that to, how would most men react to being in Ellen's position? I can certainly sympathize with being in a helpless position, but then I don't really feel that Ellen's position was helpless. First, she could have responded as Jeff Lichtman pointed out in his article. Secondly, I feel that such a situation need not neccessarily be interpreted as an affront. Of course it may be difficult to achieve such an attitude, depending on one's upbringing, or what ever. But let me use my own experiences as an example. Having several gay friends, I sometimes find myself in an overwhelimingly gay environment where I have been frequently propositioned (gay society seeming to me to be much more forward, sexually, than straight) and occaisionally accosted. Not being gay or bi myself, these propositions have little interest to me but I prefer to look upon them as compliments rather than insults. Now I know this is not the same as Ellen's incident, so here is another. On my way between home and school is a fairly wild (for this town) bar where the patrons frequently congregate in small groups on the front steps. One night whilst on my way to school, a woman on the steps yelled out to me, "Hey, cute boy!" and when I looked over at her she raised her shirt and bared her breasts to me. I was rather surprised, but this brought a smile to my face and I laughed about it for several days thereafter. I found the whole thing rather amusing and told all my friends about it. So, it would seem that I would be one of those men who would be likely to excuse the exibitionist, not because I invalidated the woman's feelings, but because the event wouldn't seem as serious to me. I can see only one significant difference between the event I just recounted and Ellen's, which is that being male, the thought of rape would never enter my mind as a possible consequence of such an event, whereas a woman would be much quicker to feel herself as attacked, be it only verbal. Forgive me if my position seems unsympathetic, but I'm willing to consider any oversights or gross genearlizations anyone can find in my remarks. -- Joe Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla
seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) (05/31/85)
>> In article <441@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> > >> >I doubt Ellen would really imprison this man or injure him because >> >he yelled nasty things at her. >> >> Why the hell not? I think you miss the point, Jeff, of how vicious this >> kind of attack is. >> -- >> Richard Mateosian >> {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA >From cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 >What ever happened to belief in free speech? I notice a disturbing >tendency in this news group to support police state approaches to problems. How can anyone say this!!?? Free speech? If you think you can say anything you like anytime you like, you living in your own world! What do the words libel and slander mean to you? You can sue someone for exercising their freedom of speech if what they say injures you. Having experienced what Ellen went through on occasion, I can tell you that what that slimeball said to Ellen did injure her. It may not have cost her money, or ruined her reputation, but it hurt her deeply. It hurt her self-respect, and she has felt a lot of frustration and pain because of the incident. So can some dumb drunk on the street say anything he wants. Well, yes he can. Is anyone suggesting scouring the streets to pick up all the obnoxious people out there? NO! Ellen is trying to impress upon you how much this has hurt her. It would seem that a lot of people have no empathy for this sort of thing. If you'd all stop over-analyzing this and look at what happened to Ellen you'd see that she's screaming out "How can someone do something like this to me, just because I'm a woman?!" This is the basic injustice in every woman's life, something we cannot avoid. We are abused because we were born female. And society so twisted up the idea of what it means to be female that a lot of people actually believe women want to be abused! That's certainly a sad comment on our society. Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb
jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (05/31/85)
>So, it would seem that I would be one of those men who would be likely to >excuse the exibitionist, not because I invalidated the woman's feelings, but >because the event wouldn't seem as serious to me. I can see only one >significant difference between the event I just recounted and Ellen's, >which is that being male, the thought of rape would never enter my mind >as a possible consequence of such an event, whereas a woman would be much >quicker to feel herself as attacked, be it only verbal. That IS the significant difference! You didn't expect the woman exhibitionist to physically attack you. That is exactly what a woman in that position could expect. I am constantly amazed at the number of men who fail to understand this. Women are not afraid of men for no reason. Almost all women have been at least verbally sexually harrassed by men and most of them have also had to deal with pinches, slaps, quick "feels", etc. We are all aware that these are mild compared with what has happened to some, unlucky, women. Too often these verbal attacks are the prelude to something much worse. Ellen's original posting didn't make it to this site -- only Joe's reply quoting it. But it sounds like she was very brave... --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullan
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/05/85)
> > >> In article <441@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: > >> > > >> >I doubt Ellen would really imprison this man or injure him because > >> >he yelled nasty things at her. > >> > >> Why the hell not? I think you miss the point, Jeff, of how vicious this > >> kind of attack is. > >> -- > >> Richard Mateosian > >> {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA > > >From cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > >What ever happened to belief in free speech? I notice a disturbing > >tendency in this news group to support police state approaches to problems. > > How can anyone say this!!?? Free speech? If you think you can > say anything you like anytime you like, you living in your own world! > What do the words libel and slander mean to you? You can sue someone > for exercising their freedom of speech if what they say injures you. > Having experienced what Ellen went through on occasion, I can tell you > that what that slimeball said to Ellen did injure her. It may not have > cost her money, or ruined her reputation, but it hurt her deeply. It > hurt her self-respect, and she has felt a lot of frustration and pain > because of the incident. In my experience, libel and slander laws are almost useless, and encourage people to believe everything they read because, "If it weren't true, they would get sued!" The crime that many Soviets have been sent to jail for is "slandering the Soviet State". Why am I uncomfortable with slander and libel laws? Second, there is a world of difference between *civil* actions, regarding libel, and the very infrequently used *criminal* libel laws --- one can send you to jail. > So can some dumb drunk on the street say anything he wants. > Well, yes he can. Is anyone suggesting scouring the streets to pick > up all the obnoxious people out there? NO! Richard Mateosian *did* suggest that it might be appropriate. > Ellen is trying to impress > upon you how much this has hurt her. It would seem that a lot of > people have no empathy for this sort of thing. If you'd all stop > over-analyzing this and look at what happened to Ellen you'd see that > she's screaming out "How can someone do something like this to me, just > because I'm a woman?!" This is the basic injustice in every woman's > life, something we cannot avoid. We are abused because we were born > female. And society so twisted up the idea of what it means to > be female that a lot of people actually believe women want to be abused! > That's certainly a sad comment on our society. > > Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb I am very sympathetic. This sort of thing is scurrilous and frightening and really disgusting --- it's even disgusting to watch this sort of behavior happening when you don't know any of the participants. My comments were directed against the idea that this should be a concern of the police --- the world is full of behavior and speech that I would distasteful (Communism, Nazism, Democratic Party politics), but I certainly don't think the government should suppress ideas I find offensive.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (06/05/85)
> I can certainly sympathize with being in a helpless position, but then > I don't really feel that Ellen's position was helpless. First, she could > have responded as Jeff Lichtman pointed out in his article. Secondly, I > feel that such a situation need not neccessarily be interpreted as an > affront. Here's where I part company with you. > Having several gay friends, I sometimes find myself in an overwhelimingly > gay environment where I have been frequently propositioned (gay society > seeming to me to be much more forward, sexually, than straight) and > occaisionally accosted. Not being gay or bi myself, these propositions > have little interest to me but I prefer to look upon them as compliments > rather than insults. Now I know this is not the same as Ellen's incident, > so here is another. It certainly is *not* the same. Imagine walking in a strange neighborhood and having a man twice your size expose himself to you and say "Hey, mister. Look at my cock. HEY! Look at my cock!" Would this scare you? Would you feel that you might have to defend yourself in just a few seconds. > On my way between home and school is a fairly wild (for this town) bar where > the patrons frequently congregate in small groups on the front steps. One > night whilst on my way to school, a woman on the steps yelled out to me, > "Hey, cute boy!" and when I looked over at her she raised her shirt and > bared her breasts to me. I was rather surprised, but this brought a smile > to my face and I laughed about it for several days thereafter. I found the > whole thing rather amusing and told all my friends about it. I don't know about you, but this would scare the hell out of me. I would be scared that the woman might rape me in a few seconds. :-) In what way did this woman threaten you? If I were in this situation, I would merely tip my hat, if I wore a hat. > So, it would seem that I would be one of those men who would be likely to > excuse the exibitionist, not because I invalidated the woman's feelings, but > because the event wouldn't seem as serious to me. I can see only one > significant difference between the event I just recounted and Ellen's, > which is that being male, the thought of rape would never enter my mind > as a possible consequence of such an event, whereas a woman would be much > quicker to feel herself as attacked, be it only verbal. Women must worry about rape in a situation like this. That is a *big* difference, not a minor one. > Forgive me if my position seems unsympathetic, but I'm willing to consider > any oversights or gross genearlizations anyone can find in my remarks. > -- > Joe Arceneaux Joe, I will try to forgive your insensitivity if you try to correct it. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (06/06/85)
I respectfully submit that the sub-humanoid males who harass women
are not deterred by anger. You object (quite naturally) to their behavior.
Fine. But they care not one iota for your feelings. So, if you intend
to lash back at them, may I humbly suggest :-)
Slime: "Hey, Lady, look at this!"
Response: choose one of: "Put that silly thing away."
"Look at what?"
<hysterical laughter> "What the hell is that?"
Seriously, folks, this is a toughie. One would think that since the vast
majority of people are toilet-trained by the time they're adults, they would
also be able to behave themselves as well. Sadly, no, this is not the case.
Blasting away at scuzzolas just wastes ammo, in my opinion, and if you want
to avoid trouble with ethical issues (or the law), perhaps something a bit
less lethal, and more smelly, would be in order. How about a high-pressure
cannister of Eau de Skunk? :-)
On the proper punishments for crimes like rape, the law has to do something
reasonable about crime, punishment, and appropriateness. This means that
in all likelihood, the victim will be disappointed with the sentence. That's
mainly because the State has all kinds of ethical responsibilities. BUT,
and this is important-- BUT, a lone woman in a dark alley, presented with
a dangerous attacker, has NO SUCH OBLIGATIONS. Except toward self-
preservation, of course.
So, if *you* (speaking mainly to female readers) are attacked in a dark
alley by some strange person, then the key phrase is ESCAPE AND SURVIVAL.
Your advantages can only be surprise, speed, training, and determination.
And if you decide to use it, firepower. Just what you do is your own affair.
Verbal assaults from pedestrians on the drivers of vehicles like the one
described are a symptom of some greater evil in society, and I am at a
loss about what to do. But someone on foot who is yelling insults at the
driver of a 2000-lb hunk of metal fully capable of dangerous speeds just
hasn't got all their marbles.
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
"Brevity is Wit; Politics is Obscenity; Relativity is Maddening."srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (06/07/85)
>> >I doubt Ellen would really imprison this man or injure him because >> >he yelled nasty things at her. >> Why the hell not? ...Richard Mateosian >> Is anyone suggesting scouring the streets to pick >> up all the obnoxious people out there? NO! >Richard Mateosian *did* suggest that it might be appropriate. No, I didn't. The case in question is clearly (prima facie) a case of assault. Due process of law can lead to imprisonment for assault. As for injury, I think that any male friend of Ellen's who witnessed the incident would feel an urge to injure the attacker. Some might actually do so, and most would not condemn that action. No suggestion of picking up obnoxious people was intended. Sorry if you misunderstood. -- Richard Mateosian {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/07/85)
I find it interesting that very many men who have answered the "what to do?" question re the jerk on the street calling out various nasty things to the woman in the car have all urged response. Isn't response presumably what the jerk is after? Doesn't he therefore get what he is looking for? Isn't he therefore pleased with his action? I have handled a similar incident by walking bang up to the guy and asking him how he'd feel if that evening his son brought his girl friend home for dinner to be introduced to his parents, and the girl friend happened to be me. The guy was non-plussed, though I have no way of knowing how it affected any of his future behaviour. However, it was also broad daylight, near a construction site, I was on foot, there were plenty of people about and he wasn't a drunk. So, this course of action wouldn't have helped the lady in question at all. Seems to me there are times when response can help (i.e., help the woman deal with her response to the assault), but that isn't always so. What to do when responding with some "cute" line only creates more invective? Short of chasing him with your car, I mean :-). Adrienne Regard
dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) (06/08/85)
Legally, assult involves touching another person. If you don't touch them, you haven't assulted them. Yelling at someone is a disorderly persons offense. If repeated, it becomes harrassment. I cannot see anything other than a fine for a drunk yelling out obscenities. Dale All opinions are my own, and not AT&Ts.
jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (06/10/85)
Jeff Lichtman writes: > > It certainly is *not* the same. Imagine walking in a strange neighborhood > and having a man twice your size expose himself to you and say "Hey, mister. > Look at my cock. HEY! Look at my cock!" Would this scare you? Would you > feel that you might have to defend yourself in just a few seconds. Neither is your example the same; Ellen was a bit removed from the exibitionist, and in her car. Had your example indeed happened to me, yes I would feel that I might have to defend myself shortly, but then I would have realized that when I went into the area. Occaisionally I do find myself in situations where the chance for weird and possibly violent phenomena is considerable, but I accept that and would rather be prepared to deal with the risks than significantly alter my behavior just to avoid them. >> ... >> night whilst on my way to school, a woman on the steps yelled out to me, >> "Hey, cute boy!" and when I looked over at her she raised her shirt and >> bared her breasts to me. I was rather surprised, but this brought a smile >> to my face and I laughed about it for several days thereafter. I found the >> whole thing rather amusing and told all my friends about it. > > I don't know about you, but this would scare the hell out of me. I would be > scared that the woman might rape me in a few seconds. :-) In what way did > this woman threaten you? If I were in this situation, I would merely tip > my hat, if I wore a hat. Indeed, and in what way was Ellen threatened? None that I can see. Actually, for a moment it seemed you were making fun of Ellen's incident, but then later, with regard to my statement that the effect of such an event would weigh much more heavily on a woman's mind than a man' because the idea of rape would be less likely to occur to him, you say: > Women must worry about rape in a situation like this. That is a *big* > difference, not a minor one. And Judy McMullan writes: > ... > That IS the significant difference! You didn't expect the woman exhibitionist > to physically attack you. That is exactly what a woman in that position could > expect. I am constantly amazed at the number of men who fail to understand > this. Women are not afraid of men for no reason. Almost all women have been > ... Now, I *really understand* that women worry about the possibility of rape in such situations. But was there such a possibility in Ellen's case? It doesn't seem so from what I remember (she was in her car, removed from the potential assailent). My point is the difference in attitude toward the same situation between a male and a female. The male attitude, as demonstrated by both Jeff and myself, is one of amusement. The female attitude as illustrated by Ellen's incident, is one of fear and anger. I realize that the fear of rape in almost any encounter with a male, engendered by incidents such as those recounted recently in this newsgroup, can make such a difference. But isn't the ideal such that there would BE NO DIFFERENCE in the male and female attitude to such an incident? It seems to me that Ellen's attitude exacerbates the difference by assuming the negative, pessimistic posture regarding the situation when it was really an insignificant thing. Here's what I mean: Assuming that the ideal is in fact that a male and a female (of equivalent moral positions) would respond with the same attitude, would it be better for them to both be fearful and angry, or to both find the encounter amusing? Personally, I opt for the latter. I have one other thing to say regarding MY attitude to this incident, which is that I have several friends who live in the French Quarter of New Orleans where such incidents as Ellens happen not infrequently (both male and female) and so I admit that my attitude may be biased towards the lighter side. But really, I'd rather laugh about something than be upset about it. > Joe, I will try to forgive your insensitivity if you try to correct it. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) > aka Swazoo Koolak I imagine I may now seem more unsympathetic than ever, but that's not so. I sympathize with Ellen's anger and if she were a friend I'd do my best to comfort her, but I cannot *empathize* with her position as I do not really understand it. -- Joe Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (06/10/85)
>Legally, assult involves touching another person. >If you don't touch them, you haven't assulted them. You're confusing assault and battery. -- Richard Mateosian {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/10/85)
> >Legally, assult involves touching another person. > >If you don't touch them, you haven't assulted them. > > You're confusing assault and battery. > -- > Richard Mateosian > {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA In California (and I presume most other states), if you threaten or menace a person, even without touching them, it is assault. If you actually injury them, it is battery.
9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (06/10/85)
-->
-->Legally, assult involves touching another person.
-->If you don't touch them, you haven't assulted them.
-->
1) Not so, yelling a threat is assault ! If the threat
is followed up then the action is "assault & battery".
-->Yelling at someone is a disorderly persons offense.
-->If repeated, it becomes harrassment.
-->
2) Agreed, if what is yelled is not of a threatening nature
(see 1 above).
-->
-->Dale
I don't recall what Ellen stated the drunk
shouted so I can't say whether 1) or 2) applies.
Unfortunately with the criminal justice system as it is, even
if the police filed an assault charge against the drunk in
all probability the DA would probably accept a guilty plea
on a reduced charge(disorderly conduct). This is all assuming
that they'd even prosecute on the basis that it's one persons
word against another.
I doubt that the above would be a satifactory conclusion to the
case for Ellen or any other person in her position. However I
don't claim to know the answer, perhaps a similar group to MADD
would be a start(one may exist and if it does we should help
expand awareness of it's presence and it's aims).
Dave Peak
@ !hotel!dxp
"My buddy..................Buddy Bear !" - Jimmy Buffethollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (06/10/85)
In article <819@mtgzz.UUCP> dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes: > >Legally, assult involves touching another person. >If you don't touch them, you haven't assulted them. > >Yelling at someone is a disorderly persons offense. >If repeated, it becomes harrassment. Sorry, not true. Assault is _attempting_ to harm someone. Touching another person is battery. Pointing a gun at someone is assault with a deadly weapon even if no shots are fired. If a person waves a gun around in the presence of a crowd they can be charged with a separate deadly weapon assault count for every person in range. Verbal assault is certainly not as serious a crime as armed assault, but it can do real psychological damage. In theory, the perpetrator would be open to civil as well as legal charges. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI "How goes the rat race?" 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. "The rats are winning." Santa Monica, CA 90405 -- Paul Lynde (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
jpt@edison.UUCP (Joan P. Taylor) (06/11/85)
> Legally, assult involves touching another person. > If you don't touch them, you haven't assulted them. > > Yelling at someone is a disorderly persons offense. > If repeated, it becomes harrassment. > > Dale definition of assault (not assult) ..3. (Law) An unlawful _attempt_ or _threat_ to injure another physically. American Heritage Dictionary Nothing about touching here!!
zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/12/85)
> removed from the potential assailent). My point is the difference in > attitude toward the same situation between a male and a female. The > male attitude, as demonstrated by both Jeff and myself, is one of > amusement. The female attitude as illustrated by Ellen's incident, > is one of fear and anger. I realize that the fear of rape in almost > any encounter with a male, engendered by incidents such as those > recounted recently in this newsgroup, can make such a difference. > But isn't the ideal such that there would BE NO DIFFERENCE in the > male and female attitude to such an incident? It seems to me that > Ellen's attitude exacerbates the difference by assuming the > negative, pessimistic posture regarding the situation when it was > really an insignificant thing. INSIGNIFICANT!!!! You Blithering fool. Maybe you just cant think let alone read. The primary reason that it was NOT insignificant is the simple fact that women have been 2nd class people for so long that you simply cant imagine what the difference is!!! > > Here's what I mean: Assuming that the ideal is in fact that a male > and a female (of equivalent moral positions) would respond with the > same attitude, would it be better for them to both be fearful and > angry, or to both find the encounter amusing? Personally, I opt for > the latter. That orientation is expectable from men because if the polarities were not so divergent the ability to understand would be universal. > > I have one other thing to say regarding MY attitude to this incident, > which is that I have several friends who live in the French Quarter > of New Orleans where such incidents as Ellens happen not infrequently > (both male and female) and so I admit that my attitude may be biased > towards the lighter side. But really, I'd rather laugh about > something than be upset about it. > we all would but there is nothing laughable about it. > I imagine I may now seem more unsympathetic than ever, but that's not > so. I sympathize with Ellen's anger and if she were a friend I'd do > my best to comfort her, but I cannot *empathize* with her position as I > do not really understand it. > -- > Joe Arceneaux > No, Joe, you are not unsympathetic - just pathetic. If Ellen were your friend I would expect that you would be ready and desirous of much more than comforting here. You posting clearly indicates that not only do you not understand the situation and its implications for women it also indicates that you don't give a damn either. That is the real pity of the whole damn mess. To many men are in you position and holding your attitudes about women. This is the primary reason that sexual bias still exists at all. jeanette l. zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie ================================================================================ handle at your own risk!!. someone might think you actually share my opinions. ================================================================================
CJC@psuvm.BITNET (06/13/85)
> >I respectfully submit that the sub-humanoid males who harass women >are not deterred by anger. You object (quite naturally) to their behavior. > (some lines later) >Blasting away at scuzzolas just wastes ammo, in my opinion, and if you want >to avoid trouble with ethical issues (or the law), perhaps something a bit >less lethal, and more smelly, would be in order. How about a high-pressure >cannister of Eau de Skunk? :-) > I like it, I like it, I like it!! Seriously, it's worked well for the skunk (which is a placid peaceful little creature except when attacked). A spray container of concentrated essence of skunk could be quite small (the skunk's apparatus is), and a spray would surely discourage any but the most deranged attacker, also the attacker would be marked for later identification (our dog tangled with a skunk *once*, it's *hard* to get off). However I've never heard that skunk oil is in any way dangerous to people so it could be used even in borderline cases. Has this ever been seriously studied? If so what were the disadvantages? Note - I am *not* proposing collecting the essence from real skunks - I like them. Just synthetic stuff. --Carolyn J. Clark Bitnet: CJC at PSUVM UUCP : :allegra, akgua, ihnp4:!psuvax!CJC@PSUVM.BITNET ARPA : cjc%psuvm.BITNET@Berkeley
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (06/25/85)
<My machine can't find Reed College (2 tries), so I'm posting...it's long.>
[ ">>" = I don't remember (male); ">" = Ellen's followup; "" = a pet vole]
<comment about effectiveness of berating a harasser.>
>> Of course this was ineffective. It didn't do a good job of showing
>> your anger.
I think you probably did a good job of showing your anger, but
not in a way that caused the other person to stop the offensive
behavior.
>> Besides, the guy probably WANTED to be offensive and degrading.
But then, that only reflects on *him*.
>>...If you had hit at him the way he hit at you,
>> you would probably feel a lot better at this point.
Well, a man would have felt smugly satisfied with himself at that point.
>I've gotten a lot of mailed responses to my posting, and many of
>the men suggest that I respond in this manner; none of the
>women.
I find this reassuring, to some degree. While my response was intended
in jest, I immediately thought in terms of punishing the other person
for the offensive behavior he engaged in. I take it the more common
female response was that it never should have happened at all.
>> ...I really think most women aren't mean
>> enough when it comes to protecting themselves.
> Jeff may be right that women don't get enough "meanness
>training"; however, I disagree with him, and I want to explain
>why, while I support aggressiveness in women, meanness is not
>what I would want to see us developing.
Would it be fair to say you support the development of self-assuredness
or self-confidence in women, instead of aggressiveness? I've always
associated the words "aggressiveness" and "arrogance". And I for one
do not see meanness as a desirable trait.
>It's common for many men in our society to play verbal
>one-upmanship games with each other, a kind of pecking order.
>Occasionally, someone will take offense and turn it into a
>physical confrontation, but it usually stays verbal, often even
>outwardly kidding, with a lot of "playful" put-downs.
Pecking order? Pfui. It's the remaining method of enforcement by which
people exert their dominance over each other. Why do you think that
superiors, bosses, and thugs hate to be talked back to? Because it
embarasses them, and asserts your parity with them in the hierarchy.
> ...I do not want to escalate that situation.
This is, of course, the primary reason for not being nasty to a person
on a dark streetcorner in a city. Anything short of overwhelming (and
inappropriate) force will just make him mad, and the use of such force
would make things very official very quickly.
>Above all else, I want to STOP the action, not make it worse.
>I think I succeeded in doing that.
Well, I don't know. I think you LEFT the situation instead of making
it worse. While this shows wisdom and restraint, it does nothing to
prevent other women from being harassed by this same person later.
>The other reason is simply that, were I to return his insults at
>his level of intelligence, it would say a lot about my lack of maturity.
Problem: he will get mad if you return at his level, and won't understand
if you don't. So what do you do? I would mutter something about tilting
at windmills, and write him off as unworthy of my anger. Then again,
if he makes me angry, that's not *my* fault, and *I* (or rather, you)
shouldn't have to go around putting up with this.
>...However, I would be angry no matter what action I took,
This is important, because it shows that no matter what action
you took, you would not "win" in the male sense (including that of the
other person), because there is no way that you could exert dominance
over him. (If you had wanted to, which I doubt.)
>because my anger is directed less at this
>man as an individual than at the society which bred him and his
>kind of jerks, and allows them to flourish. I feel strong about
>the action I took, and I feel that I would not change anything I
>did. I don't want to fight him like a man, I want to fight him
>like a woman: with strong words, not insults, and with
>self-confidence, not one-upmanship.
>
>Ellen Eades
I have three sets of feelings about the last sentence:
1) It shows a more constructive attitude than I would expect from a man
(including myself),
2) However truthful, the phrasing is insulting to men as a class,
3) I think you would have preferred not fighting him at all, and you are
thus angered _because_it_was_a_bad_situation. And one that, by all
rights, you should not have been forced to deal with.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way to opt out of the male dominance-motivated
bickering syndrome. The rules for this bickering are such that to attempt
to opt out brings on a feeling of superiority in the other person, and leads
to an attempt to exert dominance, not to recognize it's inapplicability.
Reiterating my call for the 263rd time for a more holistically oriented
social education of our youngsters. However, what do we do to improve
the situation for the *current* generation?
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
"To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare)
"I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes
"<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)summers@druca.UUCP (SummersCK) (08/16/85)
Free speech also implies personal responsibility for what one says. If one
wishes to use their "right" for free speech in an irresponsible, or even
highly vicious manner -- fine, but it does NOT say that the person attacked
has no right to defense, or legal recourse. Freedom and responsibility are
tightly linked.
Charles K. Summers
{ihnp4|allegra}!druca!summers
[P.S. Do NOT respond to this in net.women -- discussions about free speech
probably SHOULD go in net.philosophy or net.politics]