edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (05/08/85)
> I beg to disagree. "Fire fighter", "letter carrier" and "police officer" > were invented later and there are plenty who say "Yuck, fire fighter is > sloppy and letter carrier is ambiguous." Besides, what about "chairman"? > There are plenty of words ending in "man" that have no good equivalent. > Such as "human". (Oh, NOW I'm going to get flamed! :-) ) > > marie desjardins Yer right! As has been mentioned several times before in this group, ``human'' does *not* derive from ``man'' (although ``woman'' does :-) ). It comes from the Latin ``humanus'', the same as our word ``humane''. ``Man'' is Anglo-Saxon in origin. The syllable ``man'' in ``human'' has no connection to it. I've been following this discussion through four incarnations, now (since the first time I saw it on the net in 1983). I see the same straw men, the same folk etymologies, the ``grammarians'' who've never had a course in formal grammar since junior high school; all the childishness, self-rightiousness and downright thick-headedness that has been so brilliantly displayed in the past is still here. No, I'm not picking on you in particular, Marie. It's just that the major points here have all been made: that language bears sexism, that language has a powerful affect on people's thinking and on society, that language is constantly undergoing change, and that it behooves us to try to channel that change in a direction that reduces sexual discrimination. Few people have been arguing these points--instead they've been getting off into picayune discussions over individual words, wailing ``Yes, but *here's* a change that's *wrong* (or sounds *awful*)!'' (To which my answer is, ``Fine, suggest something better.'') And now that we've tied up all our energy in useless discussions on words, there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and dangerous claims that: 1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at least as much attention as discrimination against women. 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome discrimination. 3. Wearing ``provocative'' clothing is somehow responsible for (at least some) rape. Except for one or two mild postings, the net is *silent* in response to these and other such claims! Instead, we'll generate scores of postings on fireman vs. firefighter. Come on, people: WAKE UP! -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/10/85)
>``human'' does *not* derive from ``man'' (although ``woman'' does :-) ). I heard an interesting interpretation of the word "woman" by a woman not long ago. She said it meant "something more than just a man." A few refutations: >And now that we've tied up all our energy in useless discussions on >words, there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and >dangerous claims that: > 1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at > least as much attention as discrimination against women. I'm a white man, and I'm not being discriminated against, so I see no reason to believe that discrimination against WASP males is anywhere as serious as discrimination against women. > 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome > discrimination. Question: if individuals, by their essentially small individual actions, overcome some obstacle that obstructs them as a group, do the individuals have cause to feel proud of themselves as members of that group? I think they do. > 3. Wearing ``provocative'' clothing is somehow responsible for > (at least some) rape. I object to the word "provocative" as applied to womens' clothing, because "provocative" implies a tendency to provoke, and in clothing, which is a matter of choice, this implies a desire to provoke. Such convolutions of language may seem silly, but given that the rapist is seen by many as the victim of a woman's charms, I submit that the line of reasoning is dangerous. Use the word "attractive" instead, if you wish to show intent. > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall Thanks, Ed, for bringing these things up. --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ucbvax,ihnp4,cepu,sdcrdcf,trwspp}!ucla-cs!mccolm
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/12/85)
> And now that we've tied up all our energy in useless discussions on > words, there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and > dangerous claims that: > 1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at > least as much attention as discrimination against women. I have seen explicit, blatant, and intentional discrimination against people based on their being male. You may wish to argue that this is rare --- I have seen it. In fact, when I was in high school, attempting to find a way to afford to go to college, there were scholarships administered by a public high school that explicitly stated that race, ethnic origin, and sex were relevant criteria. If the government is going to prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, creed, and half a dozen other bases, it should be consistent and prohibit it against white males as well. If the objection to discrimination is that it is unfair to individuals, then the discrimination that is inflicted on white males is just as immoral as when it is inflicted on anyone else. > 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome > discrimination. No argument from me. > 3. Wearing ``provocative'' clothing is somehow responsible for > (at least some) rape. > Not responsible; the rapist is responsible. There may be some individual rapists who may find sexually provocative clothing an encouragement. That doesn't make it "OK" for them do such a thing; it is something to think about, in the same way that no rational person walks down a dark alley late at night alone, and unarmed. > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (05/13/85)
> > And now that we've tied up all our energy in useless discussions on > words, there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and > dangerous claims that: > 1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at > least as much attention as discrimination against women. > 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome > discrimination. > 3. Wearing ``provocative'' clothing is somehow responsible for > (at least some) rape. > > Come on, people: WAKE UP! > > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall As a matter of fact, I would make two of those claims (although the second is qualified a bit). 1) discrimination is discrimination. For any given individual, all that matters is whether he or she is discriminated against. I oppose affirmative action on exactly those grounds. Take an especially close look at minorities when hiring/promoting -- make sure they are not being overlooked, discriminated against, etc.-- but choose the candidate most qualified. Only that is fair for the individuals involved (and best for the business as well). 2) no particular argument, although I think you should be proud of what you as a person did, rather than how you fit in some arbitrary subclass of humanity. I really could care less about what white men have done in the past. I accept no pride for their accomplishments -- nor blame for their wrongdoing. I am responsible for what I have done. (This is not 100% true -- I feel a bit of pride when USA athletes do well in some meet or my football team wins, so perhaps this could be extended {it doesn't matter a bit the color or sex of the individual who did well, though; as a Miami Dolphin fan I cheered the efforts of Mark Clayton and Mark Duper (who are black) as much as those of Dan Marino (who is white)}). 3) provocative clothing probably is a contributing factor to rape. I don't have any facts to back it up, it is just a gut feeling. It certainly does not make the woman 'responsible' for the rape in any way, and it certainly does not justify the rapist at all, but there probably is a correlation. Women should not wear provacative clothing in places where the probability of rape is higher unless they are willing to risk it. I wish this were not so, but I am not real fond of gravity, either. It still influences my actions. Rape happens. This is a given. Maybe society will change to lesson this threat and maybe it won't. I am not enough of an egotist to believe that I have the answers to these problems (or that everyone would listen to be if I did). Women are affected much more by this threat than men. This is also a given. Hence to avoid rape a given individual can be most effective by taking precautions. Rape will still happen in the world, and that is regrettable, but you can at least try to make sure that it doesn't happen to YOU. geoff sherwood Discussion appreciated. Flame deplored (we are adults, aren't we?).
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/14/85)
> > And now that we've tied up all our energy in useless discussions on > words, there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and > dangerous claims that: > 1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at > least as much attention as discrimination against women. > 2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome > discrimination. > 3. Wearing ``provocative'' clothing is somehow responsible for > (at least some) rape. > > Except for one or two mild postings, the net is *silent* in response > to these and other such claims! Instead, we'll generate scores of > postings on fireman vs. firefighter. > Well, I am awake, and I do see discrimination against white males. Not nearly as organised or pervasive as discrimination against other groups, but discrimination nonetheless. Is discrimination bad or is it just bad when it is done to certain groups? You can't have it both ways. Either it's reprehensible or it's OK. Which is it? It is something to be proud of when ANYONE manages to overcome discrimination to get what they should get based on their own merit and hard work. As far as this goes, there seems to be more smoke than fire. Women shouldn't have to watch what they wear because some men seem to feel that just because a woman is wearing "provocative" (whatever that is-- my wife looks provocative to me in just about anything, including an old T-shirt and faded old jeans, and she says the same about me) clothing she is out looking to get laid and they can do to her as they please.. This is wrong; if the woman says "no", if it is against her will, it is rape. Pure and simple. Besides, this is just a setup fpr the familiar dodge that rape is somehow a crime of sex, when it is really primarily a crime of violence. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (05/14/85)
--- >3) provocative clothing probably is a contributing factor to rape. I > don't have any facts to back it up, it is just a gut feeling. This is in an article in net.WOMEN?? If this keeps up we'll have to rename it net.women.popular-myths.
gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) (05/14/85)
Can anyone define exactly what provocative clothing is? Several years ago, there was a court case from Minnesota? in which a judge decided that a teenage (14 or so) female hitchhiker who was raped "asked for it" because she was wearing "provocative clothing" -- jeans and a t-shirt. I believe the judge was later removed from the bench. The point is, provocative is going to mean different things to different people. Some people are going to think that a woman in a skirt short enough to show the ankle is provocative; for others showing the knee might be provocative. "Provocative clothing" is no excuse for rape. Don't try to blame women for someone else's lack of control (or sanity).
dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) (05/17/85)
Lets look at that word chairMAN. ___ |_____ OOPS its got that nasty part MAN Well, suppose we use chairperSON ___ |______ OOPS, goofed again, SON is also "sexed" O.K. I have got it (Flourish of trumpets ....) CHAIRPEROFFSPRING If you prefer chairwoman, there's that nasty MAN again, Q.E.D. CHAIRWOPEROFFSPRING Corollary 1. WOPEROFFSPINGager of Data Processing Corollary 2. nymphoWOPEROFFSPRINGiac etc,etc, etc. :-} BIG happy face, no flames After my company hears about this, I may not have to worry about whose opnions these are. Meanwhile, I'll claim them as my own. I once brought home a lost puppy when I was a kid. I also used to collect frogs and spiders and all sorts of things that didn't have a home so one more opinion can't hurt, can it?
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/17/85)
In article <397@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes: > >"Provocative clothing" is no excuse for rape. Don't try to >blame women for someone else's lack of control (or sanity). I know that this will probably start flames, and I wish it wouldn't: If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night, and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody mugged me, would you be shocked??? Chances are you would tell me: you should have known better. Now, this doesn't mean the robbery was right, and it doesn't represent that the society that allows for someone to mug me is protecting me from myself (given that there *are* nasties out there). So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative clothing? If I have to be careful of not being mugged, why can't the women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather micro-skirt be aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. It doesn't make her the guilty party.....it just means that *maybe* she could have avoided the problem by not dressing in a manner that is thought by many to be provocative. The problem still resides within the rapists mind, just as the above problem existed in the muggers mind. And if somebody were to say to her: "You should have known better than to dress like that..." that person would probably be labeled sexist!! Let the flames fly --- after you consider the *logic* of the above and after you get over my inherently sexist attitude for mentioning an unspeakable. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- Timeinc probably wouldn't acknowledge my existence, and has opinions of its own. I highly doubt that they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other, there better be no trade. A trade by which one gains and the other loses is a fraud." --- Dagny Taggart
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/20/85)
> In article <397@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes: > > > >"Provocative clothing" is no excuse for rape. Don't try to > >blame women for someone else's lack of control (or sanity). > > I know that this will probably start flames, and I wish it wouldn't: > > > If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night, > and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody > mugged me, would you be shocked??? No. Not particularly. > Chances are you would tell me: you should have known better. Now, this > doesn't mean the robbery was right, and it doesn't represent that the > society that allows for someone to mug me is protecting me from myself > (given that there *are* nasties out there). OK so far. > So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative > clothing? If I have to be careful of not being mugged, why can't the > women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather micro-skirt be > aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. It doesn't make > her the guilty party.....it just means that *maybe* she could have > avoided the problem by not dressing in a manner that is thought by > many to be provocative. The problem still resides within the rapists > mind, just as the above problem existed in the muggers mind. > > And if somebody were to say to her: "You should have known better than > to dress like that..." that person would probably be labeled sexist!! > > Let the flames fly --- after you consider the *logic* of the above > and after you get over my inherently sexist attitude for mentioning > an unspeakable. > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York The trouble with your analogy is that it falls apart too soon. The situations are not synonymous, to wit: Defendant: I'm sorry, Judge, but when I saw those bills hanging about of his pockets I couldn't help myself. Judge: No excuse. Take him away. *** VS. *** Defendant: I'm sorry, Judge, but when I saw her dressed like that, I just couldn't help myself. Judge: I guess so. Well, we'll just have to take the provocative dress account... The second case here still happens all too often, with the judge now musing about questions like "Did she ask for it?". In the first case, yeah, you don't go walking around in "bad areas" or after dark or whatever. But when you get robbed, that isn't really taken into account. Besides, you may not have a choice about walking thru a "bad" area-- in some cities, just about everywhere may be a bad area as far as rapes and assaults are concerned. If you're a robber, you might be able to plead mitigating circumstances if you were starving, but that doesn't (or rather shouldn't) hold in the case of rape (Honest, Officer, I just couldn't stand it any more...). Starvation, though, or perhaps an ownership dispute [I don't even want to TOUCH that one] are about the only mitigating circumstances in a robbery, and there are no corresponding mitigating circumstances for rape. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (05/21/85)
> In article <397@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes: > > > >"Provocative clothing" is no excuse for rape. Don't try to > >blame women for someone else's lack of control (or sanity). > > If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night, > and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody > mugged me, would you be shocked??? > [...] > So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative > clothing? If I have to be careful of not being mugged, why can't the > women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather micro-skirt be > aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. First of all, the original article was a letter written by a Saudi Arabian man who said that women should not be allowed in the workplace because they were dressed too provocatively. "Too provocatively" being defined as covered head to toe but (gads!) not wearing a veil. Secondly, I don't really think we're talking about see-thru clothing or "micro-skirts" (although I think those should be included!). We're (at least I am) talking about clothing anybody, male or female, might be expected to wear on a hot summer day -- t-shirt or tank top and shorts. Except, of course, that the aforementioned males don't have to bother with the top. I really dislike it when I wear a skirt and get whistled at (mainly because it SCARES me when strangers whistle at me in an empty subway station or on a dark street (or any street, for that matter)). It's ridiculous and unfair to claim that that's provocative (but there ARE men who will claim it is!) marie desjardins
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (05/21/85)
> In article <397@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes: > > > >"Provocative clothing" is no excuse for rape. Don't try to > >blame women for someone else's lack of control (or sanity). > If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night, > and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody > mugged me, would you be shocked??? > [...] > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York A third point I forgot to mention: the hypothetical woman wearing the sexy clothes has, most likely, been told (implicitly or otherwise) that wearing such clothes is the best way to get a guy (of course, she knows this is the most important thing in life :-( ). Then you turn around and tell her, no, this is wrong and you will get raped, but it's her fault if she does. marie desjardins
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/22/85)
In article <442@sftri.UUCP> mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) writes: > >The trouble with your analogy is that it falls apart too soon. The >situations are not synonymous, to wit: > >Defendant: I'm sorry, Judge, but when I saw those bills hanging about > of his pockets I couldn't help myself. > >Judge: No excuse. Take him away. > >*** VS. *** > >Defendant: I'm sorry, Judge, but when I saw her dressed like that, >I just couldn't help myself. > >Judge: I guess so. Well, we'll just have to take the provocative dress > account... > >The second case here still happens all too often, with the judge now >musing about questions like "Did she ask for it?". Really??? Mark, this might be another one of those myths that somebody was talking about becoming inherent in this group. When, in the last *ten* years have you ever heard of a case where a judge would even consider this type of foolishness?? That sort of backwardness with todays watchful media eye would have made the papers, wouldn't it?? Maybe I read the wrong papers....I haven't noticed it in the NY Times, or the Wall Street Journal. Haven't seen it in NOW Newletter or Ms. Mag. Where are you pulling these stats from? There's been a lot of talk about a case from about 20 years ago. Times are changing. And a women still, I feel, reduces her chance of being raped if she is concious that her actions might trigger the sickie out there. It still isn't *her* fault. I never meant to imply that it was. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- Timeinc probably wouldn't acknowledge my existence, and has opinions of its own. I highly doubt that they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconia
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/22/85)
Ross M. Greenberg wrote: >> If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night, >> and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody >> mugged me, would you be shocked??? > >> Chances are you would tell me: you should have known better. Now, this >> doesn't mean the robbery was right,... > >> So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative >> clothing? If I have to be careful of not being mugged, why can't the >> women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather micro-skirt be >> aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. It doesn't make >> her the guilty party.....it just means that *maybe* she could have >> avoided the problem by not dressing in a manner that is thought by >> many to be provocative. ... Mark Modig replied: >The trouble with your analogy is that it falls apart too soon. The >situations are not synonymous, to wit: > >Defendant: I'm sorry, Judge, but when I saw those bills hanging about > of his pockets I couldn't help myself. > >Judge: No excuse. Take him away. > >*** VS. *** > >Defendant: I'm sorry, Judge, but when I saw her dressed like that, >I just couldn't help myself. > >Judge: I guess so. Well, we'll just have to take the provocative dress > account... I don't beg to differ... I just differ. The two situations *are* analogous. The *real* problem is that some judges fail to consider this analogy and as a result, produce an inappropriate sentencing decisions (ie. let rapists off too easily). Feminists repeatedly insist that the choice of clothing has *nothing* to do with the likelihood of being raped. I haven't been shown much in the way of evidence. Mostly all I've seen is the "Proof by Assertion", and questions about the morality and intentions of anybody who doubts this statement. By repeating it a lot, with vehemence and moral indignation, you can convince a lot of people of this statement without resorting to evidence and reasoning. And if enough people believe it, including the judges, then the frequency of such inappropriate judgements will drop. But what if the choice of clothing *does* influence the likelihood of rape? A woman who truly believes that this is not so will see no need to be careful about how she dresses, and she'll innocently increase her chances of getting raped. If the standard feminist opinion is widely believed, but wrong, there will be more rapes. I've seen no arguments over the net that could convince a reasonable person of the truth of the feminist position. Moral indignation and dogmatic assertions prove nothing. It is important to have good evidence for such a statement, because the consequences of being wrong are serious. -- David Canzi "The Indians got revenge on the white man. They gave him tobacco."
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (05/22/85)
> >"Provocative clothing" is no excuse for rape. Don't try to > >blame women for someone else's lack of control (or sanity). > > why can't the women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather > micro-skirt be aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. What she *is* is displaying herself. She didn't expect not to be looked at. The diamonds and gold in the window of a jewelry store are displayed too. But neither she nor the jewelry store owner expect to be robbed of what they are displaying. Or are you suggesting that the jewelry store is provoking robbers thieves and burglers (sickies)? -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (05/23/85)
>So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative >clothing? If I have to be careful of not being mugged, why can't the >women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather micro-skirt be >aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. It doesn't make >her the guilty party.....it just means that *maybe* she could have >avoided the problem by not dressing in a manner that is thought by >many to be provocative. The problem I have with this is that I don't think the sickies' minds work the same as mine, or yours. I do know the provocative clothing can incite lustful thinking within myself (yes, it's true, I do lust in my heart also |-) and I would imagine that other men have experienced this phenomena. It is part of looking at women as sex objects I guess, but is not (I hope) particularly evil or dehumanizing by itself. I don't think that rape starts as lustful thoughts, I think it starts with demented thoughts of power and aggresion - thoughts that the victim probably has nothing to do with. It is conceivable there is a corelation between how women dress and which ones the sickies decide to rape but my guess is that it is second order at best. I'm virtually positive that the situation where a man sees a provocatively clad women and then decides, on that basis, to rape her, is extremely rare. When I worry about being mugged, I don't worry about walking down the "wrong" street with bills dangling from my pockets, I worry about situations that I can't avoid. All of us are at some risk as regards mugging, but if we get mugged it is because someone wanted our money (or other possesion). But a woman is at risk regarding rape because someone wants to dominate her because of what she is (a woman) rather than what she has (money). Furthermore, all too often this dominator turns out to be a man the woman knows, and perhaps even respected. How do like it when your friend steals from you? The question of provocatation just seems pointless in the big picture. Peter Barbee P.S. The question of lustful thoughts is interesting, maybe it is a good topic to once again try to start up mail.men.
gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) (05/24/85)
> In article <442@sftri.UUCP> mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) writes: > > > >The trouble with your analogy is that it falls apart too soon. The > >situations are not synonymous, to wit: > > > >Defendant: I'm sorry, Judge, but when I saw those bills hanging about > > of his pockets I couldn't help myself. > > > >Judge: No excuse. Take him away. > > > >*** VS. *** > > > >Defendant: I'm sorry, Judge, but when I saw her dressed like that, > >I just couldn't help myself. > > > >Judge: I guess so. Well, we'll just have to take the provocative dress > > account... > > > >The second case here still happens all too often, with the judge now > >musing about questions like "Did she ask for it?". > > Really??? Mark, this might be another one of those myths that > somebody was talking about becoming inherent in this group. When, in > the last *ten* years have you ever heard of a case where a judge would > even consider this type of foolishness?? It happens. About 1-2 months ago, there was a furor over a judge here in Ontario who made some rather sexist remarks before sentencing a man for raping an exotic dancer. I don't remember the details exactly, but the gist of it is: The woman worked in an occupation which inspired lust in men and was therefore in a high risk occupation for rape to happen. (This totally ignoring the fact that the man accused of raping her had waited for some time outside the stage door, so how could lust have had anything to do with it?) Result of the trial? The accused was given a light sentence -- I guess the judge felt that there were extenuating circumstances (he couldn't help himself [the accused, not the judge]?). I don't know if the sentence has been reconsidered, but there was definitely a review of the judge's appointment to the bench. I think, but am not sure, that he is no longer sitting in judgement. (Three cheers if that is true.) Please, no remarks about Canada being a backwards nation -- we aren't. -- Geoff Loker Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Toronto, ON M5S 1A4 USENET: {ihnp4 decwrl utzoo uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!gkloker CSNET: gkloker@toronto ARPANET: gkloker.toronto@csnet-relay
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (05/27/85)
In article <198@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >And a woman still, I feel, reduces her chance of >being raped if she is concious that her actions might trigger >the sickie out there. It still isn't *her* fault. In all the responses to Ross's article about "provocative clothing", no one seems to have challenged its basic premise. Do you have any evidence at all, Ross, that the kind of clothing a woman wears has any effect whatsoever on her chance of being raped? -- Richard Mateosian {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (05/27/85)
In article <1395@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: > >But what if the choice of clothing *does* influence the likelihood of >rape? A woman who truly believes that this is not so will see no need >to be careful about how she dresses, and she'll innocently increase her >chances of getting raped. > >It is important to have good evidence for such a statement, because >the consequences of being wrong are serious. This is like saying that you should invest substantial portions of your life's energy in the observance of certain religious forms, because you might just go to Hell if you don't. -- Richard Mateosian {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/29/85)
> >In all the responses to Ross's article about "provocative clothing", no one >seems to have challenged its basic premise. Do you have any evidence at all, >Ross, that the kind of clothing a woman wears has any effect whatsoever on >her chance of being raped? >-- >Richard Mateosian >{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA As a matter of fact yes, albeit a limited quantity. A friend of mine worked with rapists in prisons for quite a while, doing research on rape, and the causes of rape. Although I have only her rough draft here, I'll recite the stats as I interpret them, rounding up or down by five percent. A total of close to eight hundred rapists were interviewed, so maybe that *is* statistically significant. As one further note, my friend was raped herself and really questioned why this happened to her before she started asking the inmates. The below is only regarding male rape of female victims: 80% of all rape was committed against someone the rapist knew. So called "date-rape". ~5% of al rape was committed against the very old or the very young 50% of all rape was committed against someone +/- four years the rapists age 90% of all rape was committed against someone +/- ten years the rapists age 10% of rape involved weapons of any sort 60% of the rapists had committed rape at least once before without being caught 30% had committed rape "numerous" times before without getting caught. 20% had committed rape, been prosecuted, and not convicted. of this twenty percent, 40% got off due to the women never showing up at the trial, 30% got off due to "mitigating circumstances", and the remaining 30% got off legit: they had not raped the women, but she had pressed charges. Less than 1% claimed that they were innocent, but my friend was convinced that they were in fact innocent. Reasons for rape: about 30% said that the women was "asking for it" or that "she deserved it". This was indicative of date rape more than of out-of-the-bushes rape. Lot of rejection ("she was fucking everyone but me" type of stuff) and power trips ("I'll show the litte bitch") about 50% were reminded of someone that they knew (mother? spouse? ) and wanted to "get even" about 20% wanted to rape. This was both a power-play (violence and not sex) and sexual desire. Rape, in this case, I feel, should be considered a crime of sex: they wanted to rape, to have sex, with a women that they desired. They were able to overpower the women in some form and because they were able to overpower/get away with it, they had sex with a women who had no desire to have sex with them. The purpose of the rape was not to overpower and intimidate the women, it was to have intercourse with a women that would not otherwise have intercourse with them. It is this last category which brought me to talking about "provocative clothing". These rapists decided to rape a given women because they were desirous of having sex with her. They made this decision based on a number of factors, one of which was sexual desire for that women. What made their choice for the date-rape type of rape? The key words here are *sexual desire*. A rapist would be desirous of sex with the women he was "out" with, but was rejected. What helped him in feeling sexual desire for the women? 30% of all rapists claimed the looks of the women were of either primary of secondary importance. The other contributing factor appeared to be the ability of "getting" away with it. Remember that we are not speaking here of the stereo-typical rapist: we are speaking here of (60%) high-school graduates that already knew the women they were raping. Actual numbers that claimed that some of the women were raped because of their appeararance was an astounding 40%!! Now, it is up to the reader here to determine whether "appearance" includes dress. I have interpreted these numbers to indicate that "provocative dress", whilst never responsible for the actual rape (he rapist is responsible for the rape), may be a contributing factor in determining whether a woman gets raped or not. If I can dig up a copy of the paper in its finished form, I'll publish it here on the net. I'm sorry for the length of this, but maybe this is stuff that should be printed here before future discussion goes on. Comments??? Send them to me, and I'll compile them for the net. (I tried to do a decent job of interpreting my friends raw notes: there are over 200K of them on my KAYPRO, so please bear with me.) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconia
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/29/85)
>But what if the choice of clothing *does* influence the likelihood of >rape? A woman who truly believes that this is not so will see no need >to be careful about how she dresses, and she'll innocently increase her >chances of getting raped. > >It is important to have good evidence for such a statement, because >the consequences of being wrong are serious. -- David Canzi Do you suppose that a woman in traditional feminine clothing, such as high-heels, skirt, frilly blouse, and flowers in her hair, all thoroughly modest by conservative standards, has minimized her chances of rape? I doubt it. Considering that the violation of `pristine feminine virtue' is such a common theme in stereotypical male porno literature, I suspect that dressing like Marie Osmond likely INCREASES one's chance of rape. Recent allusion to `exposed flesh' and `tight leather' strikes me as a flimsy, though probably unconscious, attempt to divert the blame away from APPALLINGLY UGLY MALE PEER GROUP ATTITUDES to `provocative clothing'. Such thinking overlooks the fact that true rape-preventative dress probably consists of Army boots, football shoulder pads, construction work clothing, and a marine haircut with optional fake facial hair (recommended). Simply being PERCEIVED as a woman is to provoke a rapist. I believe this is the nature of the loss of freedom women experience. -michael
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (05/29/85)
Living on the south side of Chicago, and keeping late graduate-student hours, all I do is dress like a guy, keep my hair short, and nobody has bothered me in three years. Yes I *do* walk alone after dark *frequently*. I'm really tired of this provocative clothing, high-heel sneaker and rape discussion, when it's pretty clear what the solution is: look like a guy and nobody will bother you. This does not entail any loss of "femininity"--it's only a disguise, an appearance. It's like my friend Jim who lives in an apartment on Manhattan's lower east side...before he gets on the subway, he puts on a shabby coat and a pair of ratty gloves with the fingers torn off, and pretends he's nodding out and twitching on various drugs for the whole ride. *NOBODY* has ever bothered him. He considers this simple street-smarts, not some painful sacrifice of his old-moneyed inner being. As for me, I'm convinced enough of my femininity that I *don't* have to *prove* it with clothing *OR* shrill rhetoric about *bad* men are.
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (05/30/85)
> about 20% wanted to rape. This was both a power-play (violence and not > sex) and sexual desire. Rape, in this case, I feel, should > be considered a crime of sex: they wanted to rape, to have sex, with > a women that they desired. They were able to overpower the women in some > form and because they were able to overpower/get away with it, they > had sex with a women who had no desire to have sex with them. The purpose > of the rape was not to overpower and intimidate the women, it was to > have intercourse with a women that would not otherwise have intercourse with > them. What makes you think a convicted rapist is the best judge of his own motives? If psychology has taught us anything, it's that the roots of behavior are quite complex.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (05/30/85)
In article <2769@nsc.UUCP> srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) writes: >In article <1395@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >> >>But what if the choice of clothing *does* influence the likelihood of >>rape? A woman who truly believes that this is not so will see no need >>to be careful about how she dresses, and she'll innocently increase her >>chances of getting raped. >> >>It is important to have good evidence for such a statement, because >>the consequences of being wrong are serious. > >This is like saying that you should invest substantial portions of your >life's energy in the observance of certain religious forms, because you >might just go to Hell if you don't. Unlike the question of whether God and Hell exist, the question of what effect, if any, choice of clothing has on the likelihood of being raped, can be defined and scientifically investigated. Statistics can be collected on the types of clothing worn by rape victims, and on random samples of women walking past sites where rapes have occurred, and then they can be compared. When I see people dogmatically asserting that choice of clothing has *no* effect on the likelihood of being raped, it is hard for me to avoid the impression that a scientific question is being dealt with by religious means. You seem so *certain* of your belief. You must have some reason for believing it. What is your reason? -- David Canzi "All in all you're just another prick in the stall." -- men's room graffiti
hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) (05/30/85)
> >The second case here still happens all too often, with the judge now > >musing about questions like "Did she ask for it?". > > Really??? Mark, this might be another one of those myths that > somebody was talking about becoming inherent in this group. When, in > the last *ten* years have you ever heard of a case where a judge would > even consider this type of foolishness?? Last year, when I was on Jury Duty. > That sort of backwardness with todays watchful media eye would have > made the papers, wouldn't it?? Maybe I read the wrong papers....I haven't > noticed it in the NY Times, or the Wall Street Journal. Haven't seen > it in NOW Newletter or Ms. Mag. Where are you pulling these stats from? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York > --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- My personal experience. (Of course, I'm not Mark.) Granted, it is not always the Judge who asks these questions; it is often the jury or the public. The effect is the same. Two examples: 1. My stint on jury duty included an attempted rape case. I heard all the testimony, etc., because I was originally chosen for the jury, but disallowed at the end (long story, legal mumbo jumbo). Given all the facts of the case I and the other two jurors who were chosen as alternates and thus not voting members of the jury were absolutely convinced that the boy was guilty. The voting members of the jury, who were mostly older women who had no real contact with the outside world on a regular basis (long hours of talking in the jury room while waiting established this point), plus a few young men, decided that, although the girl had screamed and called for help for over 15 minutes (witnesses for that), the boy was not guilty of attempted rape because the girl had "probably said 'yes' and then changed her mind." The charge was "attempted rape" only because the neighbors who listened to her screaming finally decided to call the police and the boy was interrupted. Even the Judge (later, in a private conversation) expressed shock that the jury let the boy (18 years old) off without even opting for a lesser charge. So it wasn't the judge, but the result was the same. [A related flame - if every professional who is called for jury duty gets out of it because we have the wherewithal to do so, then juries are made up of people with nothing else to do, something I find terrifying if I'm ever up in front of one.] 2. Not that I ever want to discuss this again, but the Big Dan's gang rape case in New Bedford Massachusetts, in which a woman was raped by 4 men and "fondled" by 2 more for two hours in a bar, surrounded by a crowd of cheering onlookers, was a hotbed of "what was she doing in that bar in the first place?" crap. In fact, there were marches where thousands of people marched *in support* of the *rapists*!!!!! The men were convicted, but given reduced sentences due, I'm sure, to the public pressure. That case was two years ago, well within your ten-year time limit. -- --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5} rayssd!hxe -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this article are obviously my own. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ain't life a brook... Sometimes I feel just like a polished stone" -Ferron
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/31/85)
In article <773@rayssd.UUCP> hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) writes: > >2. Not that I ever want to discuss this again, but the Big Dan's gang > rape case in New Bedford Massachusetts, in which a woman was raped > by 4 men and "fondled" by 2 more for two hours in a bar, surrounded > by a crowd of cheering onlookers, was a hotbed of "what was she > doing in that bar in the first place?" crap. In fact, there were > marches where thousands of people marched *in support* of the > *rapists*!!!!! The men were convicted, but given reduced sentences > due, I'm sure, to the public pressure. That case was two years > ago, well within your ten-year time limit. >-- >--Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5} rayssd!hxe Heather, from what I recall of the case, it was proven during the court hearing that, although she was raped by either one or two men (and these were the men who were convicted), there was no "cheering" going on, and that this was just a sensationalist story that the victim first told that was immediately picked up by our trustworthy media. I really would rather not get into this again, but please get your facts straight. Any rape is bad enough, but the New Bedford one raised two many raw nerves due to each "side" in the net.women argument choosing to believe their own facts. Additionally the parade was because the people in the community felt that this was an issue of ethic prejudice (being a mostly Portugeese township, and the women being American). They were marching because they felt that the men were going to be railroaded due to their nationality and ethnic backround. As for a jury deciding to almost let a rapist off: What do you suggest as a better alternative than twelve people deciding the rapists fate? The victim? She might be a little biased. The jurors have their own biases too, but that is what jury trials are all about: being tried by a small segment of society. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconia
jimi@SCINEWS.UUCP (Jim Ingram/Todd Jones) (06/04/85)
> > > Living on the south side of Chicago, and keeping late graduate-student hours, > all I do is dress like a guy, keep my hair short, and nobody has bothered me > in three years. Yes I *do* walk alone after dark *frequently*. I'm really > tired of this provocative clothing, high-heel sneaker and rape discussion, when > it's pretty clear what the solution is: look like a guy and nobody will bother > you. This does not entail any loss of "femininity"--it's only a disguise, an > appearance. It's like my friend Jim who lives in an apartment on Manhattan's > lower east side...before he gets on the subway, he puts on a shabby coat and > a pair of ratty gloves with the fingers torn off, and pretends he's nodding > out and twitching on various drugs for the whole ride. *NOBODY* has ever > bothered him. He considers this simple street-smarts, not some painful > sacrifice of his old-moneyed inner being. > > As for me, I'm convinced enough of my femininity that I *don't* have to *prove* > it with clothing *OR* shrill rhetoric about *bad* men are. As many other flames in net.women have pointed out, society expects certain behaviors from women, including their appearance. To expect women to dress in such a constrained manner to avoid sexual assault is as unreasonable as to expect them to parade around in high heels and low-cut dresses. Women should not be expected to behave in any particular fashion. This, as I understand it, is the fundamental position of feminism and a position I support.
chabot@miles.DEC (High Anxiety Workstations) (06/06/85)
The protest marches about the Big Dan's case may have been held to protest racial discrimination, but the people marching were quoted as saying "These boys did nothing wrong." A rather ambiguous statement--do they mean that these particular young men didn't do it, or that what they did wasn't wrong. I think the newspaper/newsradio media in this case played up the ambiguity for that extra thrill. Perhaps some have gotten the wrong impression of this case, but with help like this from the news, well. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) (06/10/85)
This is me: > > > >2. Not that I ever want to discuss this again, but the Big Dan's gang > > rape case in New Bedford Massachusetts, in which a woman was raped > > by 4 men and "fondled" by 2 more for two hours in a bar, surrounded > > by a crowd of cheering onlookers, was a hotbed of "what was she > > doing in that bar in the first place?" crap. In fact, there were > > marches where thousands of people marched *in support* of the > > *rapists*!!!!! The men were convicted, but given reduced sentences > > due, I'm sure, to the public pressure. That case was two years > > ago, well within your ten-year time limit. Ross Greenberg: > Heather, from what I recall of the case, it was proven during > the court hearing that, although she was raped by either one > or two men (and these were the men who were convicted), there > was no "cheering" going on, and that this was just a sensationalist > story that the victim first told that was immediately > picked up by our trustworthy media. In fact, she was raped by four men, who were convicted, and held down and "fondled" by two more, who were not convicted. The onlookers (yes, not everyone in the bar, but a significant number surrounding the pool table) were 'encouraging' the rapists. > I really would rather not get into this again, but please get > your facts straight. Any rape is bad enough, but the > New Bedford one raised two many raw nerves due to each > "side" in the net.women argument choosing to believe their own facts. I have my facts straight. I *live* here, two towns over from New Bedford. We got a *lot* of coverage that wasn't presented on any national media. I had to live with this case day and night for months, including all sorts of opinions from male coworkers that made it very difficult to be a non-man-hating woman. (I succeeded.) > Additionally the parade was because the people in the community > felt that this was an issue of ethic prejudice (being a mostly > Portugeese township, and the women being American). They > were marching because they felt that the men were going to be > railroaded due to their nationality and ethnic backround. Yes, it's true that they felt that it was somehow a Portuguese issue rather than a straightforward rape case, but the reasons presented for letting the men off were suspect at best. Few of them denied that the men had engaged in intercourse with the woman; their protest was that the defendants shouldn't have to pay for "one little mistake" and that "she asked for it." Yes, even young Portuguese women were questioning the victim's right to be in that bar. As it was explained to me by many of my Portuguese friends (who were embarrassed by this misplaced Portuguese 'pride'), there is a strong cultural bias against women doing anything but "women" sort of things; ergo the poor men were only doing what anyone would do with that sort of woman in that sort of situation and thus shouldn't be singled out. The fact that there is a cultural history doesn't excuse the rape or the defense of the rapists. Also, not often pointed out on the national news, is the fact that the jury was almost completely Portuguese, so the racism argument should have been tossed out the window. All I know is that the gut feeling brought on by the sight of a candlelight march *IN SUPPORT OF CONVICTED RAPISTS* is one I hope none of you ever have to share. > As for a jury deciding to almost let a rapist off: > What do you suggest as a better alternative than twelve > people deciding the rapists fate? The victim? She might be a little > biased. The jurors have their own biases too, but that is what > jury trials are all about: being tried by a small segment of > society. I'm not sure what you mean here. In the Big Dan's case, at least, the jury convicted four of the six men. It was the Judge who passed a reduced/light sentence. It is my understanding that the jury never passes the sentence. And yes, I still believe that the jury/judge justice system is best (although I have flamed about the *quality* of juries based on the fact that aware professionals always get out of jury duty leaving who knows what to fill in). I also believe that *most* judges pass fair sentences, and are much more qualified to do so than juries or anyone else. In this case, specifically, I felt that the judge bowed to public pressure when passing sentence. -- --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, ccice5} rayssd!hxe -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this article are obviously my own. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ain't life a brook... Sometimes I feel just like a polished stone" -Ferron
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/11/85)
In article <110@SCINEWS.UUCP>, jimi@SCINEWS.UUCP (Jim Ingram/Todd Jones) writes [in response to an article about women going about in disguise to prevent being attacked]: > As many other flames in net.women have pointed out, society > expects certain behaviors from women, including their appearance. > To expect women to dress in such a constrained manner to avoid > sexual assault is as unreasonable as to expect them to parade > around in high heels and low-cut dresses. Women should not > be expected to behave in any particular fashion. No one expects women to go around in disguise -- that's one of the things that makes the disguise effective. Talking about what "Society expects" in this context demonstrates an unnerving tendency to lump all issues into the "society vs. women" category. Most postings to net.women actually concentrate one of these issues; ethics, tactics, strategy, and bigotry. ETHICAL issues have to do with what's right and wrong -- how to live a correct or moral life. There are really only two ethical issues that appear in net.women with any frequency: individual rights and government regulation (whether it's right for a person to discriminate against another, and whether it's right to use police power to prevent it). I believe that ethical issues get short shrift in net.women, since flaming is more fun. TACTICAL issues deal with surviving in a botched world. The basic premise here is that you have to make allowances for the trials and tribulations of the world, at least until the promised Utopia arrives. Going about in disguise to avoid being assaulted is a tactical decision. So is having an escort, a doberman, or a Sherman tank. It doesn't change the world situation, but it keeps you alive. STRATEGIC issues deal with changing the world from its current botched state into something more palatable. Crime and punishment, education, nonsexist language, etc. are all strategic issues, since they're (allegedly) working towards some kind of long-term goal. BIGOTRY is actually an ethical argument (should both men and women be treated as human beings? Just men? Just women? Or should judgement be passed on some other criteria (if at all)?). Bigotry is THE issue in net.women, though, so I give it a separate category. Let's keep the arguments from sliding around, okay? Complaining that a tactical decision like self-defense training doesn't change society is a waste of time. **** PET PEEVES *** NO INDIVIDUALS -- JUST GROUPS "Society" expects women to dress a certain way? What do you mean, "society?" Every person on earth? Every W.A.S.P.? Your parents? The government? The real issues are two-fold: How the government treats individuals, and how individuals treat each other. By speaking ambiguously, and using broad terms as much as possible, you can make incredibly false and bigoted statements. "Blacks are oppressed by whites. You're white; I'm black. You are oppressing me." Such statements (intentionally, I think) deny the value of individual effort by punishing the innocent along with the guilty -- "Men are all alike; even if you didn't rape her, you would have if you had had the chance." This is the basis of bigotry. THE SOLUTION TO DISCRIMINATION IS COUNTER-DISCRIMINATION "You did it to us, now we'll do it to you!" This is the fun way to equality -- "social justice" and revenge at the same time! Too bad it's morally bankrupt. MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT ONLY EQUAL, BUT IDENTICAL The "anything you can do, I can do better" routine doesn't actually have any bearing on individual rights. The criterion should be, "Are you human?" If the answer is yes, you're intitled to life, liberty, and property, just like the man said. After all, the ORIGINAL idea was that people should be treated on the basis of their INDIVIDUAL merits, not because they belong to the current power group, or wear fashionable clothes. Far too much has been put onto the net about methods of acheiving "equality" with methods that are designed to weaken the value of individual skill, and strengthen the role played by race and gender. This is seen as a "counterbalancing" action, in the tune of "two wrongs make a right." IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A WOMAN TO MAKE HEADWAY AGAINST PREJUDICE The women who've posted such pessimistic articles to the net recently all seem to be in the wrong part of the country, working for the worst kind of jerks. There are princes as well as ogres in the world; with effort you can manage to associate with one and not the other. Enough of this! I have to go home and cook dinner for my wife... -- -- Robert Plamondon {ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex}!weitek!robertp
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (06/11/85)
Heather:
Thank you for filling me in on some pertinant facts that,
as you surmised, were not covered by our local media here.
I apologize for doubting you. It's just that I'm used to people going
off half-baked with inadequate data (like I did!).
Just one more thought, though: You seem to feel that the jury, being
primarily Portugeese, might have been lenient with the rapists. Isn't
it supposed to be a jury of your peers? In this case it was. If I'm
ever tried for a crime, I would hope to be tried by computer professional
types.
The odds of that are low, though, as we seem to be able to "get out off"
jury duty pretty easily...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{ihnp4 | vax15}!timeinc!greenber<---------
I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
------
"There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one
has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconiajs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/12/85)
> Just one more thought, though: You seem to feel that the jury, being > primarily Portugeese, might have been lenient with the rapists. Isn't > it supposed to be a jury of your peers? In this case it was. If I'm > ever tried for a crime, I would hope to be tried by computer professional > types. > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York I was never sure just what they meant by that phrase - 'a jury of your peers'. Surely we wouldn't convene a jury of rapists to try a rapist, would we? Of course not. Did the phrase arise in reaction to historical practices of choosing a jury entirely from upper-crust types or what? Does anyone have any actual knowlege of this (or even likely sounding theories?)? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "It's a hard rain a-gonna fall." - Dylan
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/13/85)
I wasn't around reading the net when the Big Dan's case was so hotly
discussed, but I'd appreciate mail about that discussion. I lived in
Fall River, where the trial and the marches took place, until 1977
when I left for college. I remember the time, and talks I had with
people back there; it was scary.
Heather Emanuel and Lisa Chabot are right about the tone taken by the
organizers of the march and by the Portuguese community in general.
The woman was Portuguese, not American. Still she got death threats
and had to move out of New Bedford. I recall that the penalty was
considered fair and harsh by most of the press. The judge got a lot
of press credit for running a fair trial.
The Portuguese community there is sort-of a Cuban-style enclave. Any
Portuguese woman who stays in that community lives a life dominated
by local patriarchy. However, she can move out. The moment of
adulthood when a woman decides to join or stay in that community is
a very hard time. I wish the high schools in Fall River and New
Bedford helped women to make those choices.
The special problem of the trial was that the traditional Portuguese
in Southeastern Mass had political reactions and organizational norms
better fitting the Azores before the end of Portugal's Salazar period
-- a corrupt and vicious dictatorship -- than of the US where they now
live. Massive emigration from the Azores which reached its height
in the 60's probably gave an impression to many poorer immigrants
that they could succeed in completely transporting their culture, lock
stock and barrel, to the new country.
And then came Big Dan's.
Portuguese stick together against outsiders, and the more traditional
they are, the more they stick together. Perhaps in Portugal,
politics was both corrupt and deadly serious, so that only by
presenting an united front could a community beat the regime. In
Fall River I often sensed threats of violence if I pushed an issue
too far. It's as if people felt they might have to defend their
whole way of life with their fists if necessary.
In my senior year at the Fall River public high school, the administration
tried to impose a discipline code that would reduce a student's grade
for skipping class. Three days after the announcement, the entire
school walked out, but the organizers of the walkout, mostly business
students -- nearly all Portuguese women, since the men mostly drop out
to work -- remained hidden from the administration. They never spoke
up once except to show what they could do.
I remember that time vividly because one of my teachers threatened that
if I joined the walkout, he would send nasty letters about me to the
colleges to which I had applied. So I didn't go.
I suspect the legwork behind organizing the trial march was mostly
done by women -- a mother spoke as if she were one of its leaders.
As in my high school, likely the women acted on principles, in this
case to defend their men.
From living in Fall River, I (surprisingly, perhaps) take a harsher
stance on what happened than many outside. Women and children are so
oppressed by the traditional structure that schools should provide
external assistance to defend them and help them choose what futures
they want to follow. But that would amount to an invasion on what
are often considered community prerogatives, local rule, etc..
Fat chance that will happen.
On the other hand, I didn't appreciate getting into fights because I
was willing to argue with people that abortion was ok. And at the time
of the Big Dan's case, I wouldn't have appreciated getting threatened
by stares if I mentioned the case, as happened to my parents. People
who want to lead their own lives, free, have to lay low to survive
in Southeastern Mass.. I'm glad I left.
Tony Wuersch (for now a Californian)
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonywzubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/13/85)
> > I was never sure just what they meant by that phrase - 'a jury of your > peers'. Surely we wouldn't convene a jury of rapists to try a rapist, > would we? Of course not. Did the phrase arise in reaction to historical > practices of choosing a jury entirely from upper-crust types or what? Does > anyone have any actual knowlege of this (or even likely sounding theories?)? > -- > Jeff Sonntag In England the wording (as also found in the US Constitution) of the Magna Carta specifies that a jury of ones peers be required since feudalism had made the entire province of determining guilt or innocence a **right** of the aristocracy. Since the founders of the US were essentially european the constitution was drawn attempting to use as much of the good law then in existance as they could, ie to give the "colonies" a basis at least as strong as the best then available and then onto this they added the things which they felt were lacking in existing law. The result is the United States Consitution. jeanette l. zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie