regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/22/85)
>>> ....Presumably, if some man >>> is at a party, he's known to the hosts and others there.... >>> ...if he misbehaves he's in deep shit with his peer group. >>Is he truly in trouble with his peer group, or only if the rapee is an >>intimate of one of the men in his peer group? >How silly of me. I've always been concerned with women getting raped, >whether friend, aquaintance, stranger, or intimate. Now Sunny speaks, >and tells me that I'm only concerned if the women is an intimate of mine. Geez, Ross, lighten up! You can read it from a slant and get steamed, but you can also read it from another slant and get the gist of the legitimate question: if the woman is outside the peer group, there may well be a suspicion that she has (1) falsly accused this good friend of all these guys (2) asked for it (3) is framing him because he _didn't_ do something (4) etc., etc. It's also possible that the peer group will never know of the charge against "their friend" unless the woman is also a member of the peer group. Sunny didn't say a damn thing about what you thought, Ross. You went way out on the deep end and jumped in, all by yourself. Then went on at some length about how Sunny, personally, is somehow morally irresponsible in her postings and opinions. That's nasty. I'd apologize. >YOU TELL US HOW TO DO IT. GIVE CONCRETE EXAMPLES THAT ARE ALREADY >PROVEN TO WORK, AND TO WORK IMMEDIATELY. AND TO WORK FOR ALL SOCIETIES, >AND ALL WOMEN. Numerous people have made suggestions, Sunny included. This kind of raving set up is. . .well, probably is embarrassing to you right now, so I'll not bother going on. >The population has more women than men in it. The US is run sorta >like a democracy. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILTY >INHERENT IN BEING A PERSON? If women wanted something badly enough, they >could easily sweep the polls. There are already laws against rape, Ross. For what additional legislation should women "sweep the polls". For "the betterment of society?" with laws that legislate ideas and attitudes? I think you got up on the wrong side of the bed. Sorry you're having such a hard time with the courts. Adrienne Regard
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/26/85)
In article <581@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: (Quoting me): >>How silly of me. I've always been concerned with women getting raped, >>whether friend, aquaintance, stranger, or intimate. Now Sunny speaks, >>and tells me that I'm only concerned if the women is an intimate of mine. > >Geez, Ross, lighten up! You can read it from a slant and get steamed, but >you can also read it from another slant and get the gist of the legitimate >question.... I do get steamed! When I see a remark that tells me that 1) men haven't changed at all, that we are only concerned about our "property", and that women are nothing but innocent pawns in life. The main point here is that I did not (and do not!) see what Sunny was saying as being a "legitimate question". > >..... Then went on at some >length about how Sunny, personally, is somehow morally irresponsible in >her postings and opinions. That's nasty. I'd apologize. > It might be nasty. I'll apologize for being nasty in public. I usually do not attack a person personally. However, unless my memory is serving me a curve, I seem to remember that most of Sunny's postings in the past always seem to have the same viewpoint: that men are responsible for the problems of the world, and that men abrogate all responsibility for the problems of the world. I don't like her generalizations, and I'm just getting tired of it. I should have mailed my feeling to her. (I demand that Sunny give some ideas and not just place the blame) > >Numerous people have made suggestions, Sunny included. This kind of raving >set up is. . .well, probably is embarrassing to you right now, so I'll not >bother going on. > I don't embarrass easily, but thanks for the consideration. Again, my memory seems to fail me: what kind of suggestions are we speaking of that have already proven themselves to work? If they worked, then we wouldn't have our current problems. Since we do, then they haven't worked. Simply saying "What you're doing isn't good enough" doesn't add anything to a discussion. The only thing it does is make me angry. >>The population has more women than men in it..... >>.... If women wanted something badly enough, they >>could easily sweep the polls. > >There are already laws against rape, Ross. For what additional legislation >should women "sweep the polls". For "the betterment of society?" with laws >that legislate ideas and attitudes? > Whoa!!! This brings up the idea of chicken-and-egg games. Do laws legislate morality, or do mores make laws. What is reality, anyway? :-) Sunny made a complaint about the current *legal* system. This can be changed by a popular vote. If every women wrote to the powers that be and demanded a change, there would be a change, either in the laws, or the powers that be (if every women voted!). I resist the idea that *I*, as a man, am solely responsible for the state of society. Society does have a component of women, you know! >I think you got up on the wrong side of the bed. Sorry you're having such >a hard time with the courts. > <Sigh>.....maybe I did. And the silly court games I'm playing have probably tempered my judgement lately with dis-temper. I'll try to be the calm, cool, great guy I usually am from now on! :-) Thanks for keeping an eye on me, Adrienne....really. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I saw _Lassie_. It took me four shows to figure out why the hairy kid never spoke. I mean, he could roll over and all that, but did that deserve a series?"