jim@ism780.UUCP (Jim Balter) (08/20/83)
Laura, I very much agree with you that people without opinions should abstain, and that people's opinions should be based on fact (or, more accurately, evidence). I was once interviewed in a door-to-door survey of opinions about a proposition on the ballot to change the usury laws in California. For several questions I said that I didn't know enough about it to have an opinion; the interviewer was genuinely surprised, and claimed I was the first person she had encountered who had no opinion. Most people seem to think that having an opinion about something like that is like having a favorite color or a favorite ball team. However, you seem once again to be offering a strawman (oops) argument. You are arguing against something never said, and missing the core concept being communicated (much as your use of the term "horsepower" as an analogy for "manpower" sidesteps the legitimate issues; as with many dishonest analogies, the degree to which it "proves the point" is directly related to the degree to which it is inappropriate). It was not said that everyone should have an opinion about everything, and you can't honestly believe that anyone using the phrase "If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem." means to say that. You are having trouble with sample spaces again. The phrase is pointed at people who are in some way taking part in or advantage of the situation, but professing neutrality. The problem is that those people are least likely to see their role, and so they will miss the point of the phrase and see it only as hostile nonsense. In that way, I agree that it is dangerous. A bad argument for something can be more damaging than a good argument against it (and may be much easier to come by). If people want to talk about how they feel when addressed by certain pronouns or titles, or are labeled in inaccurate ways, that seems like a legitimate discussion on this network. But arguments about the nature of scientific proof, ad hominem arguments about people being paranoid or insecure for disliking certain language use, ridiculous analogies (do you think of mares *and* stallions when you hear "stallionpower"?), etc., are irrelevant, misleading, arrogant, egocentric, and intellectually dishonest. Jim Balter (decvax!yale!ima!jim), Interactive Systems Corp --------
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/21/83)
The phrase "everybody who is not part of the solution is not part of the problem" is a bit of intimidating rhetoric designed to bludgeon people into taking a stand even if they truly have no opinion on the subject. If this is not what you mean when you say this phrase, then you should probably get another phrase. And I think you might thank me for pointing out what you appear to be doing. (Not that I need your thanks, mind you). Your argument about my submissions to net.women on sexist language is not relavant. I *have* an opinion on the problem. I believe that all this "sexist language" talk is an expensive waste of time. This does not mean that discrimination is a good thing, but that you are attacking the wrong problem when you are trying to repair sexism by changing the language. For those of you who like analogies (and send me mail requesting for some in explanation for things I have posted): it seems akin to "well, since most vaxen have terminals that are vt100s or vt100 compatible, all i need to do to convert this 11/70 into a vax is to throw out all the vc404s that are connected to this machine and connect vt100s up instead". If you proposed this, and I pointed out that you were making a mistake, would you consider me "arrogant and dishonest"? Analogies are not perfect. People are perfectly free to point out the defects in mine. they are a useful method of teaching, however, and for some people they are the only way they can grasp ideas. laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
jim@ism780.UUCP (Jim Balter) (08/23/83)
If WASP's were fighting for a reasonable share of the power structure, then their forming exclusive organizations for that purpose would be seen as legitimate. Women and blacks form organizations which try to further the aims and interests of their communities. Most white males have little (non-disruptive) interest in such groups, but I know of many cases where they are not excluded. To the degree that women's groups exclude blacks or gays, or black groups exclude women or gays, they are unfairly discriminatory. Most groups of white males which exclude women and blacks do so explicitly (or nearly so) on the basis of racism or chauvinism, rather than on the basis of shared interests with which blacks and women have no concern. I would be interested in concrete examples to the contrary, but this should probably be moved to net.politics unless net.women is to move in the opposite direction of net.women.only, namely net.anti-chauvinism or somesuch (which wouldn't bother me any, but I am not a woman and so I don't think I have as strong a say as to the subject of this net; I consider myself to somewhat of a guest participant). And as for Do not we as white men have the same rights as any other member of society, or must white men continue to be the second class citizens of our society, without equal rights in the judicial and political processes? If that was not a joke, then I suspect that your attitudes are too far from those of the other participants in this net, and it wouldn't profit any of us for you to enter into further debate. Jim Balter (decvax!yale!ima!jim), Interactive Systems Corp --------
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/25/83)
Jim Balter writes:
If that was not a joke, then I suspect that your attitudes are too far
from those of the other participants in this net, and it wouldn't
profit any of us for you to enter into further debate.
If he is right, then he needs to be heard more than the people who merely
reinforce each other's nonsense. If he is wrong, then he can benefit
from hearing why other people find him wrong. If it is an open question
then everyone can benefit from re-examining their beliefs (something
people can do in any case).
Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura
jim@ism780.UUCP (09/08/83)
re: I am more interested in the great expense of converting existing language forms, than the purity of language. --- Sorry for misstating your concern. However, I consider it reasonable to encourage people to change their language use and to use such changed language without forcing the change of existing materials. It seems to me that many of your attacks on people wanting to avoid terms like manpower are separate from any issue of expense. If you are upset about some specific action or actions by the University which you consider uneconomical, I suggest that you document the cost, determine that the materials changed were not subject to republication anyway, and then send them a letter. While you are at it, you might want to point out all their other uneconomical action. My choice of using the word "staffing" instead of "manpower" is not the cause of their action, and I resent the implication that it is. re: I also believe that the idea that the language needs changing is based on a non-scientific, non-tested belief, --- What does non-scientific mean? There is significant evidence for the belief. I believe that the idea that the language does not need changing is based on a non-scientific, non-tested belief. Before you expound upon such things, I suggest that you strive to understand the difference between science and policy, and that you get a better grounding in the philosophy of science. Testing is a method for obtaining evidence; evidence is used to establish the presence "of some aspect or property of the class of phenomena in question which shows a uniform correlation with some other character or property of these same phenomena or of other phenomena to which they stand related". Such establishment is not and never can be absolute; if you consider the evidence to constitute sufficient inductive confirmation of the correlation, then it is "proven" to you. Since policy requires choosing one action *instead of* another action (possibly passive retention of the status quo) it frequently must precede proof. re: and I am vehemently opposed to legislation on the basis of such beliefs. --- You gotta be kidding! Are laws against murder based upon scientific beliefs? Which ones? Do you have a scientific proof that killing is "bad"? Do you even have a scientific proof that not having such laws wouldn't yield a "better" society, whatever that means? Can you scientifically prove your own moral precepts? More importantly, though, you are arguing against a straw man; I do not favor legislation regarding the use of language, against "m*npower", "n*gg*r", or "f*ck", and I don't know of any feminist who does (although I don't doubt that there are such silly people, but talk to *them*). --- re: Note: a student of my father was prevented from having a paper published by the Hospital for Sick Children until the word 'fathering' was changed to 'parenting'. Before you language reformers get up and cheer, consider this -- --- Fine, send *them* a letter and complain. Editors are constantly making inappropriate changes because they do not read or understand the material; this is just one example of that general sort. It is a lousy argument against use of genderless or appropriate-gender language where appropriate. re: People who want to change the language wholesale had better consider these problems. --- I have read informed discussions on ways to use genderless and appropriate-gender language held by responsible people who do consider these issues. Your implication that they don't is arrogant. re: And, in the end, I believe that they are only contributing to the 'smoke screen' belief that sexism is inherant in the language. --- You and a number of others continually argue that sexism is not inherent in the language, but I have yet to see an argument by people favoring use of genderless and appropriate-gender language that it is. Current language use helps foster misconceptions and false visualizations. The new language use helps to call attention to same. "language use contributes to sexism" is not the same as "language use causes sexism", but you argue as though it were. If you ever find yourself bringing this up again without demonstrating that the other side believes that sexism is inherent in the language, then you must admit to yourself that you have a stronger desire to protect your own ego from the pain of having been in error than a desire to arrive at truth. re: If sexism is not in the language, then language reforms of this nature are a waste of time and money which could be spent studying and perhaps even attacking the real problems. --- It doesn't take much time for me to be conscious of my language when speaking and writing. Many people *are* studying and attacking other aspects of sexism and inequality; most of them also try to use genderless and appropriate-gneder language. The question is, what are *you* doing? If you fight to stop spending on language change, will you do it only on the condition that the money be spent on those other areas? If you have placed yourself in a position responsible for the spending of funds, and have chosen to spend them on the study and attack of areas of inequality which you consider to be effective, then I have the utmost respect for you. Otherwise, if all you have to say is something simplistic like "words don't hurt people, people do", then not only aren't you part of the solution, but you are a damn roadblock. Jim Balter (decvax!yale-co!ima!jim), Interactive Systems Corp --------
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (09/10/83)
The folowing is a response to Jim Balter. Balter: If you are upset about some specific action or actions by the University which you consider uneconomical, I suggest that you document the cost, determine that the materials changed were not subject to republication anyway, and then send them a letter. While you are at it, you might want to point out all their other uneconomical action. My choice of using the word "staffing" instead of "manpower" is not the cause of their action, and I resent the implication that it is. Somebody else wrote the letter. I just signed it. And your usage is part of the problem. Currently there are some people who think that words such as 'manpower' are a bad thing. if there are enough of them that it will become a bad thing by the simple strength of their numbers. This may be the case already, but I hope it is not. However, if the issue can be put to rest now, then nobody will be trying to change the language, which would be in my opinion a very good thing. laura: I also believe that the idea that the language needs changing is based on a non-scientific, non-tested belief, Balter: What does non-scientific mean? There is significant evidence for the belief. there is significant evidence that the belief exists, yes. But any grounds for the belief? I have been asking people on this net for 3 years and i haven't got any evidence yet. Hypothesis without testing is NOT SCIENCE. (or rather it is the very first step of the scientific method). Non-scientific means in not in accordance with the scientific method. Balter: Before you expound upon such things, I suggest that you strive to understand the difference between science and policy, and that you get a better grounding in the philosophy of science. Oh really. I will stand by my current grounding in the philosophy of science, which is rather extensive. Balter: Testing is a method for obtaining evidence; evidence is used to establish the presence "of some aspect or property of the class of phenomena in question which shows a uniform correlation with some other character or property of these same phenomena or of other phenomena to which they stand related". Such establishment is not and never can be absolute; if you consider the evidence to constitute sufficient inductive confirmation of the correlation, then it is "proven" to you. But NO evidence is NO evidence. If you persist in a belief without bothering to get evidence, or in the light of contrary evidence then while you may still feel what you are doing is right, I am not obligated to call it science. Balter: Since policy requires choosing one action *instead of* another action (possibly passive retention of the status quo) it frequently must precede proof. This does not mean that proof is not desirable, or that if the premise of a policy is known to be false that the policy should not be changed. And in the absense of proof you have decided to make a policy decision on how you will use language. This is your right, but when you decide to make a policy decision on how *I* will use language, and pass it off as science then i will get extremely annoyed. laura: and I am vehemently opposed to legislation on the basis of such beliefs. Balter: You gotta be kidding! Are laws against murder based upon scientific beliefs? Mine are. People are valuable. (this can be proven). Killing people deprives both themselves and others of that value. (this is obvious). therefore killing people is a bad thing, in that it deprives society (what the laws are about) of this value. On the other hand, rapists and murderers may have little or no value, and so capital punishment may be lawful. Which ones? Do you have a scientific proof that killing is "bad"? See above. Do you even have a scientific proof that not having such laws wouldn't yield a "better" society, whatever that means? Right now I am trying to bootstrap an entirely new legal system that is not based on taboos. It is a lot of work. Whether 'laws' will actually be necessary is a moot point. I personally believe that they will not but that I am living in the wrong time to see the fulfilment of all of this. Can you scientifically prove your own moral precepts? More importantly, though, you are arguing against a straw man; I do not favor legislation regarding the use of language, against "m*npower", "n*gg*r", or "f*ck", and I don't know of any feminist who does (although I don't doubt that there are such silly people, but talk to *them*). I can prove my own moral principles, yes, against all claims that are not or the sort that 'all the world is an illusion'. At that level proof becomes meaningless. Some of the fundamental points at upon which I base my moral principles are not agreed, however (For instance, I believe that man is not inherantly evil). But my moral system is true to the scientific method. I talk to such feminists far more often than I would like. I have megabytes of mail from them. It may be a straw man with respect to you, but not with respect to many. And since you decided to inaccurately present my beliefs i thought that I would outline them more fully. Laura: Note: a student of my father was prevented from having a paper published by the Hospital for Sick Children until the word 'fathering' was changed to 'parenting'. Before you language reformers get up and cheer, consider this -- Balter: Fine, send *them* a letter and complain. Editors are constantly making inappropriate changes because they do not read or understand the material; this is just one example of that general sort. It is a lousy argument against use of genderless or appropriate-gender language where appropriate. Not since the whole function of the editor was to prevent sexist language from coming out of the hospital, it wasn't. She has received lots of letters. And the hospital is still hiring her despite the loud protest of people who want her fired for her editorial changes. She claims that we are all sexist and that the human rights commision should look at the papers we produce. yet in at least one case a change that she introduced in the hands of a naive anaethetist could KILL a premature patient. You can beleive that people are pretty riled about this one. Laura: People who want to change the language wholesale had better consider these problems. Balter: I have read informed discussions on ways to use genderless and appropriate-gender language held by responsible people who do consider these issues. Your implication that they don't is arrogant. But I have suffered at the hands of those that DO NOT. Your implication that these people do not exist and wield power is stupid. Balter: Current language use helps foster misconceptions and false visualizations. The new language use helps to call attention to same. Your claim. Back it up with facts, now. Balter: "language use contributes to sexism" is not the same as "language use causes sexism", but you argue as though it were. You are using 'cause' to mean 'sole cause'. i am not. If you ever find yourself bringing this up again without demonstrating that the other side believes that sexism is inherent in the language, then you must admit to yourself that you have a stronger desire to protect your own ego from the pain of having been in error than a desire to arrive at truth. Well, i will never have to deal with this problem because i have never had to demonstrate that others believe that sexism is inherant in the language. They make that perfectly clear. Now I did not say that it was only found in the language, though, or event hat they said this (though I have met some people who believe this as well). laura: If sexism is not in the language, then language reforms of this nature are a waste of time and money which could be spent studying and perhaps even attacking the real problems. Balter: It doesn't take much time for me to be conscious of my language when speaking and writing. Many people *are* studying and attacking other aspects of sexism and inequality; most of them also try to use genderless and appropriate-gneder language. The question is, what are *you* doing? If you fight to stop spending on language change, will you do it only on the condition that the money be spent on those other areas? If you have placed yourself in a position responsible for the spending of funds, and have chosen to spend them on the study and attack of areas of inequality which you consider to be effective, then I have the utmost respect for you. Otherwise, if all you have to say is something simplistic like "words don't hurt people, people do", then not only aren't you part of the solution, but you are a damn roadblock. The only money I get to determine the spending of is my own, and that of those whom I can influence. i am trying to spend my money and effort reforming all of society which to my mind needs drastic reforms. Sexism is only a small problem from this perspective. Still, I believe that it will only be changed with a massive change in society, one that I am working towards though it is unlikely that i will see it realised within my lifetime. laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
jim@ism780.UUCP (Jim Balter) (09/23/83)
This may weaken my own arguments and a number of others I tend to agree with, but I checked with the local N.O.W. office and they said that the 59% figure, now down to 57%, was determined by the U.S. Department of Labor, and measures average per capita income for women versus the same for men. There is an Equal Pay for Equal Work campaign/movement which quotes this and other figures, so the confusion is expected and perhaps even fostered, although considering how many men there are doing menial work, and the pressure on women to show they can make it in a man's world, the comparable work number, if it were measurable, might prove to be even lower. Jim Balter (decvax!yale-co!ima!jim), Interactive Systems Corp --------
davis@hplabs.UUCP (Jim Davis) (11/16/83)
The original article: > All living people (or at least ~99% of them) have a single common female > ancestor on their purely maternal line. In other words, tracing back to > one's mother's mother's mother's ... mother will bring everyone back to > a single individual woman. She is estimated to have lived between > 50,000 and 500,000 years ago. Piet Beertema writes: > Fine! But please explain: how comes the oldest fossil > hominid skull is about 2,000,000 years old! Must have been > only males then living at that time.... I (Jim Davis) write: Piet's comment is simply ridiculous. Simply because all people are (if they are) descendants of a single individual 50,000 years ago does not imply that this individual did not have parents. I am sure that Piet will not dispute that there are no surviving members of Neanderthal Man or Homo Erectus; they are all dead now. Does the fact that they are dead imply that they never lived (the conclusion of applying Piet's logic to this problem). Michael Ward writes: > This seems to imply one of the following: > - There were no hominids before ~50K years ago. > - All hominids except one family were somehow wiped out in that time. > - Our common ancestral tribe went a-raiding and delivered their > excess women throughout the world. > - Our common ancestral tribe slaughtered all other hominids in the > world. > Since the first three options seem unlikely for one reason or another, > and the one that is left is very disconcerting to me, I would appreciate > it if someone would think up a more pleasant explanation of this. I (Jim Davis) write: It might be appropriate to discuss a similar example occuring during our own time period. There is a human cell culture called HeLa (named after its now desceased contributor). At one time there were many other human cell cultures from different donors. Recent work (I'm sorry not to give the researcher's name, but I'm forgetful) has shown that most of the currently existing cell cultures are now HeLa cultures. This does not mean that there never were any other cell cultures, nor does it mean that there were no cells cultures before HeLa (though I am not sure that there were). All that this means is that over time the HeLa strain "took over" or "crowded out" the other strains. If the slaughter that Michael Ward refers to took place over hundreds of generations, and was not necessarily caused by any form of direct conforntation, is it still as disconcerting? After all, Neanderthal Man or Homo Erectus were certainly killed off via this same "slaughter" (quoted because there was no necessity for any direct conflict). I do not find it far fetched that humanity may have shared a common female ancestor as recently as 50,000 years ago. I do find the conclusions that others draw to be quite strange. Please be sure that flames or counter replies make it to net.misc, I do not subscribe regularly to any of the other groups containing this discussion. -- Jim Davis (James W Davis) ...!ucbvax!hplabs!davis davis.HP-Labs@Rand-Relay ----------------------------------------------------------------
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (06/05/85)
In article <1646@psuvax1.UUCP>, dae@psuvax1.UUCP (Daemon) writes: > > ........... I think it is indisputable that more domestic > > violence is committed by husbands on wives than the other way > > around. (I may be wrong and you may wish to dispute it, but...) > (> --Daemon) > Physical violence, yes. I know of several situations in which > non-physical violence goes on--it's not for nothing that the > phrase "henpecked husband" came into being. Note also that in > at least one of these cases, a (female) friend of mine tended to > side with her father against her mother. I know I'll be flamed > for this digression. It's not so much a digression as evidence that you may have missed the point. Verbal "violence" in a marriage may well be inflicted on men by women, but it is as likely to happen the other way 'round. You know about women who harrassed their husbands--I can think of cases where the opposite occurred. Unless *you* wish to claim that men are half-wits or something, presumably you would agree that individuals within a couple are usually evenly matched in a battle of wits. Also, I remember that my mother was often the louder party in my parents' quarrels (which might have led outsiders to think that dad was henpecked) but he had a pretty biting, sarcastic (but quiet) way of his own which leds me to believe that they were pretty evenly matched. Neither of them got their way most of the time, at least. However, men and women are much less likely to be evenly matched physically & the major problem with male violence against women is that it is much more difficult for women to fight back in kind. (Although I don't think anyone should be forced to resort to violence in self-defense, especially not in intimate relationships.) What we're talking about (I thought) was the DISPROPORTIONATE number of men who hurt women versus the number of women who hurt men. > "relatively large number of men" -- relative to what????! I can't say what this woman means, but I mean relative to the total number of men in this country when I say relatively large number of men are violent towards women. By the way, some of the things that men have termed "annoyances," such as men pinching women are NOT merely annoyances--they are acts of violence. In Minnesota, for instance, such behavior is considered a fourth degree sexual offense & people can prosecuted and sent to jail for it. If someone you never met walked up to you & grabbed your penis (especially when people like that were consistently larger than you & had historically harrassed and raped people like you), you might understand why that is considered an act of violence and is a crime. > Before you tell me that you weren't accusing me, personally, let me > point out that you most assuredly made a very sweeping statement > above. I think it likely that I am not the only person offended by > that. Saying "relatively large number of men" implies, at least in my > mind, "large number of men relative to the number of men," or, "a large > percentage of men." In terms of domestic violence I think you do understand the use of "relative" correctly. If you do not beat up your significant other, why should you feel offended if a woman points out that a lot of men in this country are violent towards women? Do you find it less threatening if the FBI tells you that? Why do you think she means you personally? > Ok, so the number of people engaging in these admittedly vile > pastimes is even greater than the "relatively large number of men" > committing actual rape, eh? So even if we men manage to convince > ourselves you didn't mean us in your above harangue, it's sort of > hard to tell ourselves we're not under suspicion here. Look, it's just a fact that a lot of men (in all socioeconomic groups) are violent towards women. If you're not one, BRAVO!!! May your number increase!!! I don't take it personally when someone tells me that the number of married women who cheat on their husbands is increasing--it's not an insult to me that something is true. As long as I don't cheat on my husband (or even if I did) how could a *fact* be an insult? > But you didn't say it. And now I come to the real heart of what I'm > trying to say: Back a while, when the great issue was street-crossing, > somebody (Patty? Muffy?) posted an article (which I don't have handy, > yell if I'm mis-representing you) saying, in effect, "They're not *all* > nasty rapists." I can't speak for too many others, but I was very > grateful to her: I was beginning to think that I was regarded as a > murderous, crazed sex-maniac by every strange woman I passed on the > street. It was nice to hear a voice that still evinced *some* trust. I am not sure what you are driving at here. Obviously, you have never been raped. Please try for a moment to imagine what it must be like to be violently attacked *simply because* you were a woman. Imagine how it must feel to know that virtually any man could, if he chose, do that to you *again.* Think what it must be like to go through life vulnerable in that way. Especially if once you got the courage to talk about your experience, you found that many, many of your friends had been through the same experience--that there were many, many men who hated women enough to brutalize them that way? People are pretty tolerant/understanding of the fact that people who have been torture victims are apprehensive around uniformed workers, especially police, even when they are in a new country--why don't you understand that about women who have been attacked? I know on a rational level that not every man is out to attack me, but on some deeper level, I find it very difficult to trust strange men at first. If you think I'm being unfair because of that, all I can say is that I do try to overcome it, but it's hard, especially since I still feel that to totally overcome that sense of wariness would compromise my safety. I used to trust men almost automatically, and a man very violently killed that trust. Why are you getting mad at women like *me* because *he* did that to *me?* Why don't you get mad at *him*? > Should you have constructive suggestions as to what I and other men > should be doing to protect women from all and any sorts of sexual > harassment, please feel free to speak with us. You have heard a lot of women here talk about the kinds of behaviors that they consider abhorrent & threatening. You should have some idea of what scares a lot of women. And the idea originally started all this--that men live under a curfew--I hope has made you aware of how women feel about being subjected to an unofficial curfew. So why don't you talk to other men about this? Aren't there men whom you know who behave in ways that women consider intimidating? If you really think men are so basically good-natured underneath perhaps you could persuade these good natured men to stop those behaviors--or at least think about what they mean to the victims. > Think hard (angry) thoughts, yes. "You win more flies with honey > than with vinegar." This is an insulting statement. For centuries, women have been reproved for not asking for change in a "ladylike" manner, so women have asked for change & it hasn't gotten us very far. If you get angry at the suggestion that you shouldn't be on the streets after dark, why shouldn't *we* be angry--we've heard it all our lives! And that unofficial curfew is real--not a flip remark,--& it's been enforced in some brutal ways. Our anger has made people like you listen. I don't think a more "feminine" appeal would have done the same--what are we supposed to say--"If you don't mind, please stop raping, harrassing & beating us, and if you aren't really doing that to us, would you mind possibly asking your friends? Thank you ever so much for any shred of courtesy you offer us--we all rely on the kindness of strangers." What is it that you're really mad at? Our less than sweet way of talking or the brutality that has so embittered & circumscribed our lives? If you're really mad at the latter, don't quibble about the former. C. E. Jackson ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/13/85)
<NIL>
I've never been partial to fillet of crow, but at least it's not overcooked.
I included a short closing paragraph on my last posting which allowed for
the possibility of a disorder called "rapism". I made no claims about the
disorder, so I am a bit surprised that the reaction was both so rapid and
voluminous. I also was surprised that the comments all dealt with a rather
unexciting paragraph on the end of a long and (I thought) controversial
posting. Well, at least I'm glad you read that far.
Most of the responses have been along the line of "Yes, much is known, and
is included in book X." Fine. I've heard of some of these books, and not
heard of others, but it seems to me that there is currently a jigsaw puzzle
of theories about the causes of rape, with no consistent central theory
that to me sounds reasonable. I could be wrong, and it's possible that
the truth of the matter sounds silly to me, but then, how would I know?
There was one curious posting that seemed to imply that my naming something
(probably redundantly, by the way) also served as an excuse for it.
Consider this then: If I call the tendency to rape "rapism", that does not
give it sanction, just as if I call a pile of pigsh*t "manure" does not
make it gourmet food. There is much power in the name of a thing, but not
that much.
By the way, I must assume that *despite all sociological machinations*, there
is still something terribly wrong with the rapist. Why? I consider rape
to be a social evil entirely devoid of redeeming qualities. And I grew up
in the same society with the rapists, I assume. They rape, and I will not.
Either I must be crazy, or they are. I must assume it is they.
However, for the comment that very little is known about the causes and
motivations of rape, I stand (or rather, sit) corrected. Let me revise this:
very little is known about the causes and motivations of rape *by me*.
And at least from this flurry, I learned something.
Two things bother me, though. My E-mail box remained empty throughout this
bit, and I wonder if this has some significance. Secondly, some of you
quoted a posting by Sophie Quigley that seemed to form the basis of the
rebuttals. Sorry, Ms. Quigley, but that posting never got here. Sigh.
In closing, and just to get me in trouble again, a short thought:
Change the rapist, and you have one less rapist.
Change society, and you have no more rapists.
But how do you know what to change? Only the rapist can tell you.
And he doesn't know what he knows.
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: 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)