dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (06/01/85)
In article <264@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > Would net.{unix, lang.c, auto, religion.christian, motss} allow > those who hate {unix, C, cars, christianity, gays} to overwhelm > their bandwidth with the kind of antithetical sentiments > corresponding to those below: > > *Provocative clothing is a major factor in rape. Nobody, as far as I know has been saying that provocative clothing is a *major* factor in rape. Some people have been suggesting that it may be a factor. The word "major" here appears to be entirely the product of your own imagination. It is an exaggeration of what people have actually been saying. So, for that matter, is the word "is" when it replaces "may be". > *Women have no business being proud when other women overcome the > historical male prejudice in our society. Once again, briefly. I have been suggesting that it doesn't make sense for men/women/blacks to go around being proud/ashamed of the deeds/misdeeds of other members of their sex/race. A special case of this is that it makes no sense for women to be proud, etc... By quoting this special case out of the context of the generality, you can create a false impression of what was being said. > *Quotas to improve women's chances of employment in traditionally > male dominated fields are harmful because they make men feel guilty. Feh! What has been said was that the arguments for quotas are often based on making people feel guilty for the actions of other people of the same race or sex. Your version has sort of a distant resemblance to what was really said. > *Today's high incidence of rape is a fact of life that women should > fatalistically learn to live with. > > *The proposed nonsexist language is a waste of time, is ambiguous, > will remove useful distinctions from the language... I haven't been able to keep up with the volume of postings, so I'm unable to comment on these. (I hear a collective sigh of relief.) > *Women use too much toilet paper. Maybe they do. Twist, twist, distort, distort, Mr. Ellis. Why is it that you can't bring yourself to oppose what some people are really saying without exaggerating it beyond all recognition? Is it impossible for you to work up quite the right level of righteous rage if the statements are left as is? Do you feel, perhaps, that in order to prove that the angels are on your side, you have to portray your opponents as having horns and tails? -- David Canzi A dollar is better than nothing. Nothing is better than the love of God. Therefore, a dollar is better than the love of God.
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/03/85)
> In article <264@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > > > Would net.{unix, lang.c, auto, religion.christian, motss} allow > > those who hate {unix, C, cars, christianity, gays} to overwhelm > > their bandwidth with the kind of antithetical sentiments > > corresponding to those below: > > > > *Provocative clothing is a major factor in rape. > > Nobody, as far as I know has been saying that provocative clothing is > a *major* factor in rape. Some people have been suggesting that it > may be a factor. The word "major" here appears to be entirely the > product of your own imagination. It is an exaggeration of what people > have actually been saying. So, for that matter, is the word "is" > when it replaces "may be". Ok, so if it is not that major a factor, why is it discussed so intensely here? why don't we just agree that it can be a factor and leave it at that? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/07/85)
> > > *Provocative clothing is a major factor in rape. > > > > Nobody, as far as I know has been saying that provocative clothing is > > a *major* factor in rape. Some people have been suggesting that it > > may be a factor. The word "major" here appears to be entirely the > > product of your own imagination. It is an exaggeration of what people > > have actually been saying. So, for that matter, is the word "is" > > when it replaces "may be". > > Ok, so if it is not that major a factor, why is it discussed so intensely > here? why don't we just agree that it can be a factor and leave it at > that? > -- > Sophie Quigley > {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie First, to what degree does provocative clothing lead to rape? Second, Why should women allow the possibility of rape to determine their fashions for them? Chris Andersen
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/10/85)
> Ok, so if it is not that major a factor, why is it discussed so intensely > here? why don't we just agree that it can be a factor and leave it at > that? > -- > Sophie Quigley > {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie I'm willing to agree to that statement --- a lot of other people here on net.women refuse to acknowledge that this might be even a small factor.
gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) (06/13/85)
In article <221@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> Ok, so if it is not that major a factor, why is it discussed so intensely >> here? why don't we just agree that it can be a factor and leave it at >> that? >> -- >> Sophie Quigley >> {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie > >I'm willing to agree to that statement --- a lot of other people here >on net.women refuse to acknowledge that this might be even a small factor. [the "factor" under discussion here is "provocative clothing"] I'm willing to concede that it *might* be a factor in *some* rapes. (Who can ever really know what goes through a rapist's mind?) But the amount of discussion of this subject has put a lot of emphasis on it, almost to the point of implying that if a woman is raped it is her fault. (Please note that I haven't said that anyone else said, or even implied, such a thing!) I object to that emphasis, and I suspect that a lot of other people will agree. -- Gail Bayley Hanrahan Calma Company, San Diego {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (06/13/85)
> > In article <264@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > > > > > Would net.{unix, lang.c, auto, religion.christian, motss} allow > > > those who hate {unix, C, cars, christianity, gays} to overwhelm > > > their bandwidth with the kind of antithetical sentiments > > > corresponding to those below: > > > > > > *Provocative clothing is a major factor in rape. > > > > Nobody, as far as I know has been saying that provocative clothing is > > a *major* factor in rape. Some people have been suggesting that it > > may be a factor. The word "major" here appears to be entirely the > > product of your own imagination. It is an exaggeration of what people > > have actually been saying. So, for that matter, is the word "is" > > when it replaces "may be". > > Ok, so if it is not that major a factor, why is it discussed so intensely > here? why don't we just agree that it can be a factor and leave it at > that? > -- Because it is human nature to argue most violently over the least significant matters. Especially on the net. Yeah, I know, gross oversimplification and all that... Jeff Winslow