munson@squirt.DEC (04/26/85)
My sister has a theory, which I find thought-provoking. She says, (and I
have seen elsewhere) that better than 95% of violent crimes are committed
by males; females are more likely to be victims. The situation is such
that many women feel that they cannot expect to go out alone (safely)
after a certain time of day. (If you don't believe this is true, take an
informal poll of the women you know - ask them whether they carry something
sharp like a fork, pen, or keys in a clenched fist when they have to walk
through a parking lot after dark.) This is, in effect, a curfew. My sister
contends that a curfew for men should be instituted as this would drastically
reduce violent crime.
let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman.
Respectfully,
Joanne Munson
I write from:
decvax!decwrl!rhea!squirt!munson
(if I interpreted the directions aright!)jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (04/27/85)
> My sister > contends that a curfew for men should be instituted as this would drastically > reduce violent crime. > let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. > > Respectfully, > Joanne Munson April Fools Day was nearly a month ago. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
jmsellens@watmath.UUCP (John M Sellens) (04/30/85)
In article <1848@decwrl.UUCP> Joanne Munson (munson@squirt.DEC) writes: > My sister contends that a curfew for men should be instituted as > this would drastically reduce violent crime. > Let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. Well, I don't know your sister, and this article didn't *seem* to suggest that her suggestion was meant facetiously, but I believe that most people will agree that replacing one curfew with another won't solve anything. Punishing everyone for the actions of a few (relatively) has never been a good idea. John
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/01/85)
>[From: munson@squirt.DEC, Message-ID: <1848@decwrl.UUCP>] >My sister has a theory, which I find thought-provoking. She says, (and I >have seen elsewhere) that better than 95% of violent crimes are committed >by males; females are more likely to be victims. The situation is such >that many women feel that they cannot expect to go out alone (safely) >after a certain time of day. (If you don't believe this is true, take an >informal poll of the women you know - ask them whether they carry something >sharp like a fork, pen, or keys in a clenched fist when they have to walk >through a parking lot after dark.) This is, in effect, a curfew. My sister >contends that a curfew for men should be instituted as this would >drastically reduce violent crime. >let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. > > Respectfully, > Joanne Munson This reminds me of a Sylvia cartoon in _That_Woman_Must_Be_On_Drugs_ , _A_Collection_of_Sylvia_by_Nicole_Hollander_ (copyright 1981, reprinted without permission). Sylvia's watching TV in a bar: TV: Dr. Joyce Brothers is here to tell us that there are indeed differences between men and women. Syl: Oh! Tell us Dr. Joyce. TV: Studies show that boy babies are more restless in their cribs than girl babies. Men are naturally more aggressive than women. Syl: All the more reason to keep them locked up after dark. I don't mean to denigrate Joanne's (sister's) serious (??) point. I just always sorta liked this cartoon, and this seemed like a good time to share it. -- --JB (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/02/85)
> > My sister > > contends that a curfew for men should be instituted as this would drastically > > reduce violent crime. > > let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. > > > > Respectfully, > > Joanne Munson > > April Fools Day was nearly a month ago. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) > aka Swazoo Koolak > > {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff > {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff Nahhh, just arm all the women with firearms. It might not do much for any violent crime besides rape (where it would be *real* effective), but it would certainly discourage petty harrassment. What? That's a stupid idea? Compared to a curfew for men?
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/03/85)
> > My sister has a theory, which I find thought-provoking. She says, > (and I have seen elsewhere) that better than 95% of violent crimes > are committed by males; females are more likely to be victims. ... > a curfew. My sister contends that a curfew for men should be > instituted as this would drastically reduce violent crime. > let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. > > Respectfully, > Joanne Munson Your sister's reasoning and yours (since I infer from the fact that you posted this "respectfully" you agree with what is said) contains a fatal flaw. You say that men are responsible for virtually all violent crimes and then make a tremendous and unwarranted jump to the conclusion that a curfew for men would drastically reduce violent crime. Tsk, tsk. Didn't you learn anything in school? Fact: Men are responsible for virtually all violent crime. Fact: Violent crime should be reduced where reasonably possible? From this, your conclusion is: Men should be kept in at night?????? Nonsense, the correct conclusion, since the statistics you quote say nothing about when violent crime is committed, is: Men should be kept home. Period. You'll have to give me some statistics to support your assumed conclusion that it is safe to let men out during the day. There! Now I'll just crawl back into my cage before the wife realises I've gotten out.... Respectfully submitted {:-)} Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
miche@masscomp.UUCP (Harvey) (05/03/85)
> Nahhh, just arm all the women with firearms. It might not do much for > any violent crime besides rape (where it would be *real* effective), but > it would certainly discourage petty harrassment. > What? That's a stupid idea? Compared to a curfew for men? 4 out of 5 homocide victims are women. Male murderers outnumber female murderers 16 to 1. 1 in 4 women is raped or sexually abused by the time she is 18 years old. In 70% of rapes, the rapist is known to the victim. More than 50% of rapes happen to a women in her own home, in her own bed. These are crimes of power and aggression. Maybe firearems in the hands of women would lessen the imbalance of power. You seem to think it's a joke to impose a curfew on men, but there is an effective curfew put upon women, and I don't see you 'laughing' at that. "You were raped on the street at night? What were you doing on the street at night?" "You were raped in a bar? What were you doing in a bar?" We expect women to follow a self imposed curfew, and if she doesn't, we blame HER for crimes of power and agression to which she is the victim. Our society is even unwilling to arm women with KNOWLEDGE: that the rape is NOT the woman's fault; that rape is NOT a crime of sex; that it is NOT the stranger who commits the most child sexual abuse. The up side, for those that I have depressed, is that more IS becoming known about this. Scaled-down warnings ARE getting into (some) school systems. Rape-prevention clinics ARE becoming more available. Incest survivors DO have some place to go where it is OK to talk about the trauma. My apologies for the flame-nature of this posting. Miche Baker-Harvey {ihnp4|decvax}!masscomp!galaxy!miche "Rape is as much a crime of sex as murder with a frying pan is a crime of cooking."
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (05/06/85)
> > My sister has a theory, which I find thought-provoking. She says, > > (and I have seen elsewhere) that better than 95% of violent crimes > > are committed by males; females are more likely to be victims. > ... > > a curfew. My sister contends that a curfew for men should be > > instituted as this would drastically reduce violent crime. > > let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. > > > > Respectfully, > > Joanne Munson > > Fact: Men are responsible for virtually all violent crime. > Fact: Violent crime should be reduced where reasonably possible? > From this, your conclusion is: > Men should be kept in at night?????? > Nonsense, the correct conclusion, since the statistics you quote say > nothing about when violent crime is committed, is: > Men should be kept home. Period. > > Mark Modig I think Mark is trying to inject a little levity here (I'm not quite sure). However... What about men who abuse their wives, children, girlfriends? Fact: Violent crime occurs *everywhere*, not least of all in the home. My conclusion: I'm not sure what should be done with men, or if there's really anything that can/should "be done," but I'm learning to defend myself verbally, passively, aggressively, and with whatever means comes to hand. Ellen Eades
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/06/85)
> Nonsense, the correct conclusion, since the statistics you quote say > nothing about when violent crime is committed, is: > > Men should be kept home. Period. > > You'll have to give me some statistics to support your assumed > conclusion that it is safe to let men out during the day. There! > Now I'll just crawl back into my cage before the wife realises I've > gotten out.... What makes you think men don't commit crimes at home? making trouble again, Jeff Winslow
killroy@mcnc.UUCP (John P Wysocki) (05/06/85)
In article <142@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> > My sister >> > contends that a curfew for men should be instituted as this would drastically >> > reduce violent crime. >> > let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. >> > >> > Respectfully, >> > Joanne Munson >> > >Nahhh, just arm all the women with firearms. It might not do much for >any violent crime besides rape (where it would be *real* effective), but >it would certainly discourage petty harrassment. > >What? That's a stupid idea? Compared to a curfew for men? Well I think that you two self centered people should just stop judging other people and start judging yourself first.People like you shouldn't be allowed in society in the first place.I can't stand prejudus people of any kind. JPW "killroy" (killroy was here)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/07/85)
> > Nahhh, just arm all the women with firearms. It might not do much for > > any violent crime besides rape (where it would be *real* effective), but > > it would certainly discourage petty harrassment. > > > What? That's a stupid idea? Compared to a curfew for men? > > 4 out of 5 homocide victims are women. > Male murderers outnumber female murderers 16 to 1. > 1 in 4 women is raped or sexually abused by the time she is 18 years old. > In 70% of rapes, the rapist is known to the victim. > More than 50% of rapes happen to a women in her own home, in her own bed. > These are crimes of power and aggression. Maybe firearems in > the hands of women would lessen the imbalance of power. > > You seem to think it's a joke to impose a curfew on men, but there is an > effective curfew put upon women, and I don't see you 'laughing' at > that. "You were raped on the street at night? What were you doing > on the street at night?" "You were raped in a bar? What were you > doing in a bar?" We expect women to follow a self imposed curfew, > and if she doesn't, we blame HER for crimes of power and agression > to which she is the victim. > > Our society is even unwilling to arm women with KNOWLEDGE: > that the rape is NOT the woman's fault; > that rape is NOT a crime of sex; > that it is NOT the stranger who commits the most child sexual abuse. > > The up side, for those that I have depressed, is that more IS > becoming known about this. Scaled-down warnings ARE getting into > (some) school systems. Rape-prevention clinics ARE becoming more > available. Incest survivors DO have some place to go where it is > OK to talk about the trauma. > > My apologies for the flame-nature of this posting. > > Miche Baker-Harvey > {ihnp4|decvax}!masscomp!galaxy!miche > > "Rape is as much a crime of sex as murder with a > frying pan is a crime of cooking." I'm sorry you took my light-hearted remarks so seriously. I agree completely with you that the fear women feel when they go out at night is rational and very sad. (And I wasn't kidding about arming women, and anyone else. I for one would love to see attempted rape be dealt with by the intended victim, and with great finality, since the courts don't take *any* violent crime, *including* rape, very seriously.) Considering that the remark about a curfew for men *couldn't* have been serious, my remark wasn't very serious either. I completely agree you with you about the nature of rape. Incidentally, I'm not sure where you get your statistics, but at *least* one of them is wrong. The majority of homicide victims are men, not women. Also, from the experiences of the women with whom I have discussed the percentage of molestation, I would say "1 in 4" may even be low. (It would be nice if you quoted the "1 in 7" figure that applies to men. Viewing molestation as a problem just for women is extremely chauvinistic.) Finally, I'm sorry that you are so humorless that you fail to see a sarcastic and light-hearted response to what was certainly a flippant idea.
zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (05/08/85)
> > What about men who abuse their wives, children, girlfriends? > > Fact: Violent crime occurs *everywhere*, not least of all in > the home. > > My conclusion: I'm not sure what should be done with men, or > if there's really anything that can/should "be done," but > I'm learning to defend myself verbally, passively, aggressively, > and with whatever means comes to hand. > > Ellen Eades A recent editorial I only heard the last parts of broadcast on WBBM in Chicago quoted a figure for wife beatings of one (1) beating every 18 seconds somewhere in the United States. Does anyone know if this is the result of some study which has been published or merely the pencil and paper thinking of some radio wcript writer. Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (05/09/85)
>> a curfew. My sister contends that a curfew for men should be >> instituted as this would drastically reduce violent crime. >> let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. >> Respectfully, >> Joanne Munson > >Your sister's reasoning and yours (since I infer from the fact that >you posted this "respectfully" you agree with what is said) contains >a fatal flaw. You say that men are responsible for virtually all >violent crimes and then make a tremendous and unwarranted jump to >the conclusion that a curfew for men would drastically reduce >violent crime. Tsk, tsk. Didn't you learn anything in school? >Fact: Men are responsible for virtually all violent crime. >Fact: Violent crime should be reduced where reasonably possible? >>From this, your conclusion is: >Men should be kept in at night?????? >Nonsense, the correct conclusion, since the statistics you quote say >nothing about when violent crime is committed, is: >Men should be kept home. Period. > >Respectfully submitted {:-)} >Mark Modig Your reasoning is flawed too, Mark. Statistics also show that domestic violence is the most common sort. Therefore: men should not be let *into* their homes. :-). Kenn Barry
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/09/85)
>My conclusion: I'm not sure what should be done with men, or >if there's really anything that can/should "be done," but >I'm learning to defend myself verbally, passively, aggressively, >and with whatever means comes to hand. > >Ellen Eades Don't fool yourselves, people. This is among the most intractable problems present in our society. I hear that European cities are safer at night; any comments? In the short run, women will be attacked by men as long as the men can expect to live through the encounter. Obvious solution... In the long run, women will be attacked by men for as long as the motivation for men attacking women persists. What this motivation is, is a matter of public debate. Proper education of boys will reduce, but not eliminate, the problem. But any improvement is better than none. -fini- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless ...!{ucbvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,cepu}!ucla-cs!mccolm "The world is round. Forever. With all else, it's up to us."
miche@masscomp.UUCP (Harvey) (05/09/85)
In article <155@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >> 4 out of 5 homocide victims are women. >> Male murderers outnumber female murderers 16 to 1. >> 1 in 4 women is raped or sexually abused by the time she is 18 years old. >> In 70% of rapes, the rapist is known to the victim. >> More than 50% of rapes happen to a women in her own home, in her own bed. > > Considering that the remark about >a curfew for men *couldn't* have been serious, my remark wasn't very serious >either. The remark about the curfew for men was, on one level, very serious. It was on the same level that I took your remarks seriously. The unspoken curfew on me is VERY serious. >I completely agree you with you about the nature of rape. I recognize that you do, and it was certainly not my intention to flame you, or to malign you. >Incidentally, I'm not sure where you get your statistics, but at *least* >one of them is wrong. The majority of homicide victims are men, not women. According to the FBI National Crime Statistics, 4 out of 5 homocide victims are women. >Also, from the experiences of the women with whom I have discussed the >percentage of molestation, I would say "1 in 4" may even be low. (It would >be nice if you quoted the "1 in 7" figure that applies to men. Viewing >molestation as a problem just for women is extremely chauvinistic.) You are probably right that 1 in 4 is low. The FBI (again) feels that only one in TEN sexual assaults is reported. And, certainly, 1 in 7 is also the right number of sexual assaults on men. I did not mention it in the context because, when a man is raped in a bar, no one says to him, " You got what you deserved because you shouldn't have been in a bar", or even, "But you wanted it, didn't you? Isn't that why you were in a bar?" I did not mean to imply that men were not victims of sexual assault. >Finally, I'm sorry that you are so humorless that you fail to see a >sarcastic and light-hearted response to what was certainly a flippant idea. I'm very humorful. ;-) I'm also very serious about oppression of women. It is NOT a joke. It hurts me. It zaps my energy. It keeps me out of bars ;-} Your 'light-hearted response' struck a nerve in me. I would appreciate your being sensitive enough to respect and understand that. Miche Baker-Harvey {decvax|ihnp4}!masscomp!galaxy!miche "Rape is as much a crime of sex as murder with a frying pan is a crime of cooking."
san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) (05/09/85)
> > > > What about men who abuse their wives, children, girlfriends? > > > > My conclusion: I'm not sure what should be done with men, or > > .... > > > > Ellen Eades > > A recent editorial I only heard the last parts of broadcast on > WBBM in Chicago quoted a figure for wife beatings of one (1) > beating every 18 seconds somewhere in the United States. Now that we have heard from the women on the issue of wife beatings etc. etc. I was wondering if the reverse exists - maybe not in an identical fashion but in a similar way ? Is there a study done or anything to support that wives also abuse their husbands. Don't attempt to flame as this is an innocuous inquiry with no hidden motives. Also, remember that it is very logical to raise this question - why - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Every action has an equal and opposite reaction ---- I. Newton ( this is for the hi-fi science guys , others may ignore it) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay -- Full-Name: Sanjay Tikku UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!san CSnet: san%peora.UUCP@CSNET-RELAY USnail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 Tel: (305)850-1042-Off. ; (305)851-3700-Res.
miche@masscomp.UUCP (Harvey) (05/10/85)
In article <224@ihlpa.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: > >A recent editorial I only heard the last parts of broadcast on >WBBM in Chicago quoted a figure for wife beatings of one (1) >beating every 18 seconds somewhere in the United States. >Does anyone know if this is the result of some study which >has been published or merely the pencil and paper thinking >of some radio wcript writer. > > >Jeanette Zobjeck >ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie There is a number derived from FBI national crime statistics which states that a 'woman will be beaten' every 18 seconds in the United States, but that number is not limited to 'wife beatings'. Miche Baker-Harvey {decvax|ihnp4}!masscomp!galaxy!miche
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/12/85)
> >> 4 out of 5 homocide victims are women. > >Incidentally, I'm not sure where you get your statistics, but at *least* > >one of them is wrong. The majority of homicide victims are men, not women. > > According to the FBI National Crime Statistics, 4 out of 5 homocide > victims are women. > > Miche Baker-Harvey > {decvax|ihnp4}!masscomp!galaxy!miche I'm sorry, but it is simply NOT true that four out of five homicide victims are women. In the figures I have, three out of four homicide victims are MEN. HOMICIDES IN THE U.S. Male victims Female victims 1970 15838 4594 1981 18572 5074 1982 17448 4723 This works out to about a 3 to 1 ratio in "favor" of the males. Sources: 1970 & 1981 "Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1985", Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1982 "Crime in the U.S.", 1982 edition, published Sept. 1983. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation The proportions have remained pretty constant over the last 25 years [Stat. Abstracts goes back to about 1960], I think, and I don't think the murder rates have changed so dramatically in the last two years. Perhaps you should check your sources one more time? The other figures seem reasonable to me, at least in the right ballpark, unfortunately. Anyone who wants to know anything about this country will probably find the first source pretty useful. Any local public library worth its salt will have one, usually in the reference department. Unfortunately, they seem to be a few years behind. [Actually, I wish I was that caught up myself.] Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/12/85)
> > > My sister has a theory, which I find thought-provoking. She says, > > > (and I have seen elsewhere) that better than 95% of violent crimes > > > are committed by males; females are more likely to be victims. > > ... > > > a curfew. My sister contends that a curfew for men should be > > > instituted as this would drastically reduce violent crime. > > > let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > Joanne Munson I respond: > > > > Fact: Men are responsible for virtually all violent crime. > > Fact: Violent crime should be reduced where reasonably possible? > > From this, your conclusion is: > > Men should be kept in at night?????? > > Nonsense, the correct conclusion, since the statistics you quote say > > nothing about when violent crime is committed, is: > > Men should be kept home. Period. > > > > Mark Modig > = Ellen Eades > > I think Mark is trying to inject a little levity here (I'm not > quite sure). However... > Actually, I was trying to inject a little more levity by proposing an (absurd) conclusion as a result of, in my opinion, and equally absurd suggestion. > What about men who abuse their wives, children, girlfriends? > What about them? As far as I'm concerned, men who abuse these others in their life should receive as much attention as we can give them (attention either in the form of therapy or lock them up-- I'm not sure if this sort of behavior can be cured-- in any case, such occurrences should be dealt with in short order). But I thought we were talking about "implied curfews." Aren't we straying a bit? > Fact: Violent crime occurs *everywhere*, not least of all in > the home. > So what you're saying is my proposal is essentially worthless. I grant that it does not address the problem of crime in general, but it does solve the "implied curfew" problem. :-) Seriously, what is really needed is a change in attitude in society and in people individually. > My conclusion: I'm not sure what should be done with men, or > if there's really anything that can/should "be done," but > I'm learning to defend myself verbally, passively, aggressively, > and with whatever means comes to hand. > You know what really burns me about this whole thing? The original proposal that started this whole thing was made (I assume) in all seriousness. Yet it is (at least, to me) absurd. Yet there has not even been one article in this group authored by a woman that treats this proposal as anything other than serious. The article I'm replying to refers to "doing something" with men. Is this what you people really feel? Do you women all really feel SERIOUSLY that such a curfew would be a good idea, or at least worth trying? I haven't seen anything said that would lead me to believe anything to the contrary. How would you all like it if a group of men started an apparently serious discussion on the net proposing that women who are raped are "asking for it"?? You probably wouldn't like that too much, and if you take that feeling and look at it, maybe you can begin to see a bit how I feel about this whole thing. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/13/85)
From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig), Message-ID: <431@sftri.UUCP>: > > > My sister has a theory, which I find thought-provoking. She says, > > > (and I have seen elsewhere) that better than 95% of violent crimes > > > are committed by males; females are more likely to be victims. > > ... > > > a curfew. My sister contends that a curfew for men should be > > > instituted as this would drastically reduce violent crime. > > > let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > Joanne Munson >[...] >> = Ellen Eades >> >> I think Mark is trying to inject a little levity here (I'm not >> quite sure). However... >> >Actually, I was trying to inject a little more levity by proposing >an (absurd) conclusion as a result of, in my opinion, and equally >absurd suggestion. > >[....] >> My conclusion: I'm not sure what should be done with men, or >> if there's really anything that can/should "be done," but >> I'm learning to defend myself verbally, passively, aggressively, >> and with whatever means comes to hand. >> >You know what really burns me about this whole thing? The original >proposal that started this whole thing was made (I assume) in all >seriousness. Yet it is (at least, to me) absurd. Yet there has not >even been one article in this group authored by a woman that treats >this proposal as anything other than serious. The article I'm >replying to refers to "doing something" with men. Is this what you >people really feel? Do you women all really feel SERIOUSLY that >such a curfew would be a good idea, or at least worth trying? I >haven't seen anything said that would lead me to believe anything to >the contrary. How would you all like it if a group of men started >an apparently serious discussion on the net proposing >that women who are raped are "asking for it"?? You probably wouldn't >like that too much, and if you take that feeling and look at it, >maybe you can begin to see a bit how I feel about this whole thing. > >Mark Modig >ihnp4!sftri!mom Mark, you're trying to get us to see the ridiculousness of suggesting a curfew for men by asking how we'd feel "if a group of men started an apparently serious discussion on the net proposing that women who are raped are 'asking for it'". You're right, we'd be pretty d... pissed. In fact, we *are* pretty d... pissed, because, although it isn't posted to net.women, men *do* propose that very thing. Why didn't you just ask how we'd feel if men started an apparently serious discussion proposing that women be subject to a curfew? Is it because earlier in the dis- cussion it was stated that men (and Phyllis Schlafly's) *do* propose such a thing? Women are the *victims* here, and the best suggestion that men have come up with is "if you don't want to be hassled, don't go anywhere where men might hassle you." Sensible enough. Unfortunately, *they* mean for *us*, the victims, to live under curfew. Well, we're getting ready to take they're sensible advice. But we'd like a little better arrangement, thank you. We'd like for the *offenders* to live under curfew, and *then* we won't go where they are. We'll go out and party and not be afraid to do what we enjoy. We have not done anything wrong, and we don't want to pay for the offenses of others. If there has to be a curfew, why not set it up so more offenders than victims pay? Why *not* make the men pay more than the women? After all, they contribute more to the problem. What's that? You don't want to live under curfew either? It upsets you to think that *you* might have to pay for someone else's offenses? Well, no offense intended Mark, but GOOD! That means there's only one step left. If I may borrow your own words: "if you take that feeling and look at it, maybe you can begin to see a bit how I feel about this whole thing." Once we understand each other, once you feel *outraged* that people who have done *nothing* wrong have to pay for the actions of some real jerks, then maybe we can work together so *no* innocent people pay. Until such time, however, yes, I think women seriously want more offenders than victims to be penalized. Sorry if that's a problem for you. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (05/13/85)
> What about them? As far as I'm concerned, men who abuse these > others in their life should receive as much attention as we can give > them (attention either in the form of therapy or lock them up-- I'm > not sure if this sort of behavior can be cured-- in any case, such > occurrences should be dealt with in short order). A study performed by the Minneapolis police department recently showed that abusive men were far less likely to become repeat offenders if they spent the night (at least) in jail & were prosecuted. The police theorized that this occurred because abusive men think that they have some sort of "right" to abuse "their" women. When the society (in the form of the law) stepped in & officially & undeniably asserted that men did not have that "right," the abusive men were willing to listen. > You know what really burns me about this whole thing? The original > proposal that started this whole thing was made (I assume) in all > seriousness. Yet it is (at least, to me) absurd. Yet there has not > even been one article in this group authored by a woman that treats > this proposal as anything other than serious. The article I'm > replying to refers to "doing something" with men. Is this what you > people really feel? I, for one, have IMMENSELY enjoyed seeing the shoe on the other foot. For years, women have been explicitly & implicitly told that rape is their fault & that they must never be without male "protection" (from other men!). Of course, as the discussion above re: domestic violence suggests, the men many women look to (or are instructed to look to) are the ones least qualified to give it. In terms of violence, there is no getting around the fact that men don't treat women very well at all. I would suggest, Mr. Modig, that at least some of the women are half-serious & for good reason. When Golda Meir was premier of Israel, a Cabinet member [seriously] suggested that women be kept off the streets after sundown to cut down on the incidence of rape. Meir suggested keeping the men off the streets since they were the ones doing the raping. The subject was not brought up again. The woman who submitted her sister's suggestion did so in response to a posting that suggested women caused men to commit sins (in their own minds, at least) at work. He suggested prohibiting women from working with men. Many people on the net were a bit smug about the fact that the person who wrote the letter was Arabic. But for centuries, Western men have been talking about "doing something with women" and the "woman question." How could any woman who knew her sex's history resist discussing the idea of a male curfew seriously & in front of men? We've had to endure over 5000 years of subjugation & here you guys squirm over a little discussion on a computer network. Tsk, tsk. Aren't we supposed to be the "weaker" sex? If we could take it for 5000 years, why can't you stand to read about it for a month or so? >Do you women all really feel SERIOUSLY that > such a curfew would be a good idea, or at least worth trying? If you think you are going to get all women to agree on anything any more than you can get all men to agree on anything, you're crazy. I think there's a certain sort of poetic justice to the idea of not letting men out on the streets. I also don't think it would be practical, nor is it, in some absolute sense, just. I hope that makes you feel better. >... an apparently serious discussion on the net proposing > that women who are raped are "asking for it"?? When we can still hear such proclamations from individual police officers & society as a whole, why should we have to endure one on the net? But where else could YOU (or any other man) hear a discussion of male curfews? Don't tell us to put ourselves in your place--if you thought about it, you'd realize that we just forced you to put yourself in ours. And THAT is a rare occurrence in a country where 33% of college freshman would rape a woman if they thought they could get away with it & one out of 3 women will be victims of rape before they die. > Mark Modig C. E. Jackson ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (05/14/85)
What's this curfew everyone is complaining about? I haven't seen any signs
around saying, "WOMEN MUST BE INDOORS FROM DUSK TO DAWN". Women are free to
do as they please, go where they want, etc. The "curfew" you are talking about
is an unwritten law, actually, which says that you don't go anywhere where you
might get hurt. That applies to everyone, not just women.
You think men can go everywhere they want? Tell that to a black man who wants
to go for a walk in South Boston, or a white man who wants to walk across 110th
Street in Harlem. There are some places *I* don't even go, because I know it
is unsafe to go there.
If you want to go places, learn how to protect yourselves. I know lots of wo-
men who take self defense classes. Men, too. You don't need to be afraid to
go out. You can also use the Goetzian method of self defense (just make sure
you have your gun registered, and know what to do with it). But the bottom
line is, it's tough all over, and men may not have to fear rape, but they can
still get knifed, etc.
If you want to impose legislation on the men who commit crimes against women,
write to your state government and have them lock these guys up and throw away
the key, but PLEASE don't go imposing any curfews on ME, or any man I know who
would never do such a thing to anybody. The innocent should not have to pay
for the crimes of the guilty, even if they belong to the same sex as the guil-
ty.
--
She's on fire, 'cause dancin' takes her higher than anything else she knows!
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpajcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (05/14/85)
> > Now that we have heard from the women on the issue of wife beatings etc. etc. > I was wondering if the reverse exists - maybe not in an identical fashion > but in a similar way ? Is there a study done or anything to support that > wives also abuse their husbands. > It is in fact true that there is a fair amount of husband-beating going on out there somewhere. It's hard to say how prevelant this is, mostly because the majority of male victims are too ashamed to say anything. One should keep in mind that many spouse-abusers were abused as children, and learn that violence is an acceptable means to deal with members of one's family, and that this applies to both sexes. Women are probably abused more because they are often physically weaker and because society teaches women to submit. -- jcpatilla "'Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill !'"
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/14/85)
> >> = Ellen Eades > >> My conclusion: I'm not sure what should be done with men, or > >> if there's really anything that can/should "be done," but > >> I'm learning to defend myself verbally, passively, aggressively, > >> and with whatever means comes to hand. > >> > >You know what really burns me about this whole thing? The original > >proposal that started this whole thing was made (I assume) in all > >seriousness. Yet it is (at least, to me) absurd. Yet there has not > >even been one article in this group authored by a woman that treats > >this proposal as anything other than serious. The article I'm > >replying to refers to "doing something" with men. Is this what you > >people really feel? Do you women all really feel SERIOUSLY that > >such a curfew would be a good idea, or at least worth trying? I > >haven't seen anything said that would lead me to believe anything to > >the contrary. How would you all like it if a group of men started > >an apparently serious discussion on the net proposing > >that women who are raped are "asking for it"?? You probably wouldn't > >like that too much, and if you take that feeling and look at it, > >maybe you can begin to see a bit how I feel about this whole thing. > > > >Mark Modig > >ihnp4!sftri!mom > > Mark, you're trying to get us to see the ridiculousness of suggesting > a curfew for men by asking how we'd feel "if a group of men started an > apparently serious discussion on the net proposing that women who are > raped are 'asking for it'". You're right, we'd be pretty d... pissed. > In fact, we *are* pretty d... pissed, because, although it isn't posted > to net.women, men *do* propose that very thing. So what? This isn't the only place I've heard the idea of a curfew for men broached either. My main gripe was the solidarity, which is still unbroken as far as I can see, that took this proposal at complete face value. > Why didn't you just ask > how we'd feel if men started an apparently serious discussion proposing > that women be subject to a curfew? Is it because earlier in the dis- > cussion it was stated that men (and Phyllis Schlafly's) *do* propose > such a thing? Well, actually this was hashed over a while back when the subject of walking down deserted streets came up. There were a lot of men who basically said women shouldn't be out at late hours, alone on dark streets, etc., but there were also a lot of male respondees who were more sympathetic. And, anyway, [here we go again] *men* do not propose such a thing. > > Women are the *victims* here, and the best suggestion that men have come > up with is "if you don't want to be hassled, don't go anywhere where men > might hassle you." It's a pity I didn't save the articles from that earlier discussion; I think there were more sensible suggestions than that. Yeah, it's a good idea to be careful and watchful, but sometimes you just have to be someplace you would rather not. Some other suggestions offered included self-defense classes and working for tougher laws on violent crimes that don't walk all over the victim and press for stronger enforcement. > Sensible enough. Unfortunately, *they* mean for *us*, > the victims, to live under curfew. [...] >If there has to be a curfew, why not set it up > so more offenders than victims pay? Why *not* make the men pay more than > the women? After all, they contribute more to the problem. Not so fast, not so fasssst! You think that because a (relatively) small number of men commit almost all of the violent crimes in America that all men should be subject to this just to make sure you get them all? Sounds like you haven't been a victim long enough if you're willing to inflict the same situation on someone else who is also innocent. > > What's that? You don't want to live under curfew either? It upsets you to > think that *you* might have to pay for someone else's offenses? Well, no > offense intended Mark, but GOOD! That means there's only one step left. > If I may borrow your own words: "if you take that feeling and look at it, > maybe you can begin to see a bit how I feel about this whole thing." Once > we understand each other, once you feel *outraged* that people who have done > *nothing* wrong have to pay for the actions of some real jerks, then maybe > we can work together so *no* innocent people pay. Until such time, however, > yes, I think women seriously want more offenders than victims to be penalized. > Sorry if that's a problem for you. Well, seeing as how I don't feel I have done anything to deserve such treatment, yes, the curfew would be a problem for me. But it will be much easier for me to take knowing I have your sympathy. <sniff!> Seriously, I'm not arguing that there isn't a problem; I'm upset by it, too. I'm also upset with the proposed solution that you all seem to think is just fine-- or at least a good start. That's what I don't understand-- women have lived handcuffed by the sort of ideas contained in such gems for posterity as "A woman's place is in the home", and "Well, she asked for it." When there is a proposal that such oppression be used by them on someone else, it seems just fine and dandy. I would think that having experienced such oppression would cause some reluctance to inflict it on other innocents. [N. B. Revenge is something else entirely.] Guess not. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (05/14/85)
> A study performed by the Minneapolis police department > recently showed that abusive men were far less likely to > become repeat offenders if they spent the night (at least) in > jail & were prosecuted. The police theorized that this occurred > because abusive men think that they have some sort of "right" to abuse "their" > women. When the society (in the form of the law) stepped in & > officially & undeniably asserted that men did not have that > "right," the abusive men were willing to listen. sounds like a very good idea. > For years, women have been explicitly & implicitly told that > rape is their fault & that they must never be without male > "protection" (from other men!). Of course, as the discussion > above re: domestic violence suggests, the men many women look > to (or are instructed to look to) are the ones least qualified > to give it. In terms of violence, there is no getting > around the fact that men don't treat women very well at all. standard complaint about the generic 'men' as opposed to 'some men' > > I would suggest, Mr. Modig, that at least some of the women > are half-serious & for good reason. When Golda Meir was > premier of Israel, a Cabinet member [seriously] suggested that > women be kept off the streets after sundown to cut down on > the incidence of rape. Meir suggested keeping the men off the > streets since they were the ones doing the raping. The subject > was not brought up again. Yes, it showed the idiocy of both suggestions. > with women" and the "woman question." How could any woman who > knew her sex's history resist discussing the idea of a male > curfew seriously & in front of men? We've had to endure over > 5000 years of subjugation & here you guys squirm over a little > discussion on a computer network. Tsk, tsk. > Aren't we supposed to be the "weaker" sex? If we could take it > for 5000 years, why can't you stand to read about it for a > month or so? If you have been dealing with it for 5000 years, many foundations on aging would *love* to speak with you. YOU did not suffer 5000 years of subjugation. If you are going to wear a badge of your suffering, at least make it your own. > I think there's a certain sort of poetic justice to the idea > of not letting men out on the streets. I also don't think it > would be practical, nor is it, in some absolute sense, just. > I hope that makes you feel better. mildly. > When we can still hear such proclamations from individual > police officers & society as a whole, why should we have to > endure one on the net? But where else could YOU (or any other > man) hear a discussion of male curfews? Don't tell us to put > ourselves in your place--if you thought about it, you'd > realize that we just forced you to put yourself in ours. If I wear a real nice suit and walk through a bad part of town at night, I am 'asking for' trouble. It has nothing to do with the right of anyone to attack me, nor with my desire to be attacked. However, I would be placing myself in a risky situation which perhaps I could have avoided. (hint: I don't DO that). I could get killed, which is likely to ruin my day. A women's situation varies in degree, but not in kind. I don't think that everyone in a 'bad' section of town should be locked up at night, though. There is an element of risk in everything you do, no matter how small. It behooves me not to take unnecessary ones. > And THAT is a rare occurrence in a country where 33% of > college freshman would rape a woman if they thought they could > get away with it & one out of 3 women will be victims of rape > before they die. It is a sad commentary on freshmen that 33% of college freshmen SAY they would rape a woman, but most of that is bravado, showing off for their buddies, etc. (although I have a difficult time understanding that point of view, I know it is prevalent). Whether they actually would or not is a completely different question. Also, to judge men on the comments of adolescents just out of high school doesn't seem particularly valid. Projections like 'one out of 3 women will be victims of rape before they die' are inflamatory, but unrealistic. How are these victims spread out demographically, what economic level, etc. I am not saying that it is justified for any women to be raped (obviously). Miami is considered to be a relatively dangerous city. There are quite a few murders there. An awful lot of them are Mariel Cubans (Castro dumped his jails and insane asylums during the Mariel boat lifts) killing other Mariel Cubans. If you are not a Mariel Cuban (and don't hang out where they do) your odds are MUCH better than a simple aggregate statistic would indicate. This is not meant to justify anything, but just to point out that if you are a woman reading this, your odds are very likely much lower than the 1 in 3 mentioned (but not non-existant; rape can and does happen everywhere). As does murder. > C. E. Jackson > ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above > [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it) geoff sherwood
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/14/85)
> >You know what really burns me about this whole thing? The original > >proposal that started this whole thing was made (I assume) in all > >seriousness. Yet it is (at least, to me) absurd. Yet there has not > >even been one article in this group authored by a woman that treats > >this proposal as anything other than serious. The article I'm > >replying to refers to "doing something" with men. Is this what you > >people really feel? Do you women all really feel SERIOUSLY that > >such a curfew would be a good idea, or at least worth trying? I > >haven't seen anything said that would lead me to believe anything to > >the contrary. How would you all like it if a group of men started > >an apparently serious discussion on the net proposing > >that women who are raped are "asking for it"?? You probably wouldn't > >like that too much, and if you take that feeling and look at it, > >maybe you can begin to see a bit how I feel about this whole thing. > > > >Mark Modig > >ihnp4!sftri!mom > > Mark, you're trying to get us to see the ridiculousness of suggesting > a curfew for men by asking how we'd feel "if a group of men started an > apparently serious discussion on the net proposing that women who are > raped are 'asking for it'". You're right, we'd be pretty d... pissed. > In fact, we *are* pretty d... pissed, because, although it isn't posted > to net.women, men *do* propose that very thing. Why didn't you just ask > how we'd feel if men started an apparently serious discussion proposing > that women be subject to a curfew? Is it because earlier in the dis- > cussion it was stated that men (and Phyllis Schlafly's) *do* propose > such a thing? > > Women are the *victims* here, and the best suggestion that men have come > up with is "if you don't want to be hassled, don't go anywhere where men > might hassle you." Sensible enough. Unfortunately, *they* mean for *us*, > the victims, to live under curfew. Well, we're getting ready to take > they're sensible advice. But we'd like a little better arrangement, thank > you. We'd like for the *offenders* to live under curfew, and *then* we > won't go where they are. We'll go out and party and not be afraid to do > what we enjoy. We have not done anything wrong, and we don't want to pay > for the offenses of others. If there has to be a curfew, why not set it up > so more offenders than victims pay? Why *not* make the men pay more than > the women? After all, they contribute more to the problem. > > What's that? You don't want to live under curfew either? It upsets you to > think that *you* might have to pay for someone else's offenses? Well, no > offense intended Mark, but GOOD! That means there's only one step left. > If I may borrow your own words: "if you take that feeling and look at it, > maybe you can begin to see a bit how I feel about this whole thing." Once > we understand each other, once you feel *outraged* that people who have done > *nothing* wrong have to pay for the actions of some real jerks, then maybe > we can work together so *no* innocent people pay. Until such time, however, > yes, I think women seriously want more offenders than victims to be penalized. > Sorry if that's a problem for you. > > -- > Better yet, why don't we just get all the men on one side of the <unspecified space>, all the women on the other, equip them with machine guns, and let them blast away at each other?! Much more harm than good is done by redefining a criminal-victim confrontation as a man-woman confrontation. And it's women that do that. (This statment is just as true as "men propose a curfew for women".) Don't say you're sorry when you're obviously not. Jeff Winslow
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (05/14/85)
Miche says: >>> 4 out of 5 homocide victims are women. > Clayton says: >>Incidentally, I'm not sure where you get your statistics, but at *least* >>one of them is wrong. The majority of homicide victims are men, not women. > Miche says: >According to the FBI National Crime Statistics, 4 out of 5 homocide >victims are women. > From 'Statistical Abstracts of the United States 1984' p.180 table 294: Homicide Victims (excludes deaths of nonresidents of the US) Male Female 1970 13,278 3,570 1977 15,355 4,613 1978 15,838 4,594 1979 17,628 4,922 1980 19,088 5,190 From table 293: Rates per 100,000 resident population in specified group for 1980 Homicide Victims Homicide Rate white white black black white white black black male female male female male female male female 10,381 3,177 8,385 1,808 10.9 3.2 66.6 13.5 Sounds to me like if Miche is really worried about homicides, we should see him change so that he is not so nearly worried about the homicide problems of women, as he is of black men. Al Algustyniak p.s. No, i'm not really back actively on the net yet. I still don't have the time to post (except very occasionally), much less keep up a dialogue on an issue. I'm dying to get back to it, especially net.politics. I am still reading the net, tho. To Ken Aren't: Thanks muchly for your motion to give me an award, but i am quite undeserving. My one mistake was to try to reply to an ARPAnet site. I wish i could say that someday i hope to have the opportunity to you what *you* deserve, but i see that you *already* live in New England. p.s. I never *did* receive the star program, *&^%$#@!
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/14/85)
> I, for one, have IMMENSELY enjoyed seeing the shoe on the other foot. Well, I'm glad at least someone is getting their jollies from all this. > For years, women have been explicitly & implicitly told that > rape is their fault & that they must never be without male > "protection" (from other men!). Of course, as the discussion > above re: domestic violence suggests, the men many women look > to (or are instructed to look to) are the ones least qualified > to give it. In terms of violence, there is no getting > around the fact that men don't treat women very well at all. > Blanket statements like those above completely ignore the changes taking place in our society, and serve to anger and dishearten those of us who are interested in helping to change some of the things that are wrong in our society today through realistic solutions on the one hand while serving as cold comfort to the victims on the other. We've heard this all before; one more time isn't going to change anyone's mind. Rather unproductive, wouldn't you say? > The woman who submitted her sister's suggestion did so in > response to a posting that suggested women caused men to > commit sins (in their own minds, at least) at work. > He suggested prohibiting women from working with men. > Many people on the net were a bit smug about the fact that the > person who wrote the letter was Arabic. But for > centuries, Western men have been talking about "doing something > with women" and the "woman question." How could any woman who > knew her sex's history resist discussing the idea of a male > curfew seriously & in front of men? My mistake. I thought you were really interested in changes and working towards equality and understanding. What you really want is power and the chance to do a little gloating. Hey, this is a free country (or so we're told); go right ahead. > We've had to endure over > 5000 years of subjugation & here you guys squirm over a little > discussion on a computer network. Tsk, tsk. > Aren't we supposed to be the "weaker" sex? Who says? Certainly not me (I?). Again, blanket generations are dangerous and distorting. It depends what you define as "strong" and "weak". If you think that uncomplaining, unemotional stoicism (a traditionally male trait) is good and strong, I suppose that one could make a case that women are the stronger sex. I'm not willing to concede that such a trait is a sign of strength, I don't focus on one single trait, and I try to evaluate people on the basis of their actions, not their sex or race. > If we could take it > for 5000 years, why can't you stand to read about it for a > month or so? Why should we? If a suggestion is unjust to us, why should we have to put up with it? I am surprised that a victim of such oppression has so much trouble recognising it when it is proposed to make others victims. You finally begin to see some signs of change, some signs that progress is being made, and you see nothing wrong with suggestions that you know full well are going to cause difficulty with nothing really to show for it? After all, men are here to stay (too bad, eh?), and not all of us are necessarily interested in perpetuating the oppressive agenda handed down to us by our forefathers. What is the point of all these useless proposals? > I think there's a certain sort of poetic justice to the idea > of not letting men out on the streets. I also don't think it > would be practical, nor is it, in some absolute sense, just. > I hope that makes you feel better. Given what you have said here and elsewhere, I can't really say that it does. If you're still into working out your bitterness and anger (which, mind you, is a perfectly justifiable and understandable reaction), I'll just have to wait until it blows over, I guess. > >... an apparently serious discussion on the net proposing > > that women who are raped are "asking for it"?? > > When we can still hear such proclamations from individual > police officers & society as a whole, why should we have to > endure one on the net? But where else could YOU (or any other > man) hear a discussion of male curfews? Well, as it happens, I have encountered this and similar ideas in reading through some books and pamphlets, but I always thought it was just a bit way out and not a real idea. I guess I was wrong. > Don't tell us to put > ourselves in your place--if you thought about it, you'd > realize that we just forced you to put yourself in ours. > And THAT is a rare occurrence in a country where 33% of > college freshman would rape a woman if they thought they could > get away with it & one out of 3 women will be victims of rape > before they die. Before any real work can be accomplished by people working together, it helps to understand one another. I've talked some of these problems over with my wife before and I've seen how it has limited my mother, who is very bright and could probably have done some real wonderful things with the proper education and opportunities, though I think she would say, and I agree, that she's done pretty darn well anyway. I've read a little, though by no means as much as the real experts. So I'm no stranger to these problems. Your attitude does not encourage me very much-- you "force" me into your shoes, to see your problems, yet you're not willing to step into mine. And that's ok; it was my mistake in the first place to think that there was wide interest in discussing real solutions to the problems facing us today. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom P.S. And as far as the wonderful numbers concerning the freshmen are concerned, spare me. I'm willing to bet that one could get comparable response rates on just about anything (theft, even probably murder) if you knew you wouldn't get caught. What does that prove? People are really out for themselves; we're still self-indulgent savages with just a (very) thin layer of civility on top.
mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (05/15/85)
Y'know, we have heare two people quoting statistics at each other, and
yelling that the other must be wrong because ``my sources are right''.
Are these stats talking about the same thing? About all homicides, or
only those that resulted in proescution or conviction for murder (as
opposed to manslaughter or involuntary homicide of some sort)? Are they
bisaed by including or not including deaths that occur as the result of
some other crime? What's the meaning behind the numbers?
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) (05/15/85)
> > If I wear a real nice suit and walk through a bad part of town at night, I am > 'asking for' trouble. It has nothing to do with the right of anyone to > attack me, nor with my desire to be attacked. However, I would be placing > myself in a risky situation which perhaps I could have avoided. (hint: I > don't DO that). I could get killed, which is likely to ruin my day. > A women's situation varies in degree, but not in kind. I don't think that > everyone in a 'bad' section of town should be locked up at night, though. > There is an element of risk in everything you do, no matter how small. > It behooves me not to take unnecessary ones. I agree with you up to a point. Granted, I (a woman) would be pretty stupid and "asking for" trouble if I were to go out alone in lonely, unlit "dangerous" parts of town. I wouldn't be surprized in the least if I were attacked and robbed or even worse, raped or killed. I think the issue here is the fact that women are raped (usually by men) a whole lot more than men are. When was the last time you were physically molested? Now, ask your female friends how many times they have been molested. I don't just mean raped in the literal sense. How many times have you UNWILLINGLY been pinched on the rear-end? How many times has a woman purposedly bumped up against you to "cop a feel". The point I'm trying to make is that not only do women and men SHARE the common danger of being robbed and/or shot/knifed/etc (which is a whole other issue we should all address) but we women have the added danger of being physically violated. These violations don't just occur on dark, lonely streets. They happen in broad daylight in well populated areas. I know where of I speak. I was walking through a family-type park in Minneapolis. The park was about one square block. There were many women and children scattered around. It was mid-afternoon in early summer (still quite light out). I was wearing mens jeans (rather loose) and a man's short-sleeved shirt (also rather loose). I had no purse and no wallet. This was NOT a robery attempt. A man came up to me from behind and grabbed my breasts. He tried to throw me to the ground. I don't even want to think what he would have done if he had succeeded! I managed to kick him in the groin and ran. I was lucky. How many men do you know who have had something like that happen? Now do you understand our (women's) anger toward men? I haven't even brought up the issue of spousal and/or date rape which usually goes unreported because the woman is made to feel that she "asked" for it and won't be believed by most courts. > Projections like 'one out of 3 women will be victims of rape before they die' > are inflamatory, but unrealistic. I don't think this is unrealistic at all. Try taking an informal poll of the women you know. Be sure to include any instances of spousal or date rapes. (The Random House College Dictionary defines rape as "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person). I'd be interested to know what you come up with. THEN, ask your male friends! > How are these victims spread out > demographically, what economic level, etc. I am not saying that it is > justified for any women to be raped (obviously)..... > > C. E. Jackson > > ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above > > [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it) > > geoff sherwood Sarah E. Dugan (no clever lines)
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (05/15/85)
> When was the last time you were physically molested? Now, ask your female > friends how many times they have been molested. I don't just mean raped in > the literal sense. How many times have you UNWILLINGLY been pinched on the > rear-end? How many times has a woman purposedly bumped up against you to "cop > a feel". You have a point. This behavior is juvenile. I have had it happen (VERY rarely) and while it WAS annoying, I didn't get particularly upset about it. Perhaps if it were a constant thing, I would. I don't know. > > The point I'm trying to make is that not only do women and men SHARE > the common danger of being robbed and/or shot/knifed/etc (which is a whole > other issue we should all address) but we women have the added danger of being > physically violated. These violations don't just occur on dark, lonely > streets. They happen in broad daylight in well populated areas. I know where > of I speak. I was walking through a family-type park in Minneapolis. The > park was about one square block. There were many women and children scattered > around. It was mid-afternoon in early summer (still quite light out). I was > wearing mens jeans (rather loose) and a man's short-sleeved shirt (also rather > loose). I had no purse and no wallet. This was NOT a robery attempt. A man > came up to me from behind and grabbed my breasts. He tried to throw me to the > ground. I don't even want to think what he would have done if he had > succeeded! I managed to kick him in the groin and ran. I was lucky. How > many men do you know who have had something like that happen? Now do you > understand our (women's) anger toward men? Good for you. I hope you made his eyes pop out of his sockets with the kick. Nonetheless, there is a very small segment of society (yes, the vast majority of which are men) who do these things. I really don't understand your(plural) anger towards men. If some <ethnic> robbed me, I would not be angry towards all <ethnic>s. I am sorry this happened (at all), and I am sorry it happened (to you), but there are a lot of bad things that happen in this world. To your earlier points, yes women have an added danger. Life is like that. Women also live longer than men (on the average), and I am not real fond of that. Life is like that, too. These things ARE, and wishing won't change them. > > I haven't even brought up the issue of spousal and/or date rape which usually > goes unreported because the woman is made to feel that she "asked" for it and > won't be believed by most courts. > This is in a different catagory. Most rape is an act of violence, not sex. I think this would be more of sex. Women must realize the emotions they can spark in men are VERY powerful and men can get carried away. I am not saying it should be this way (it shouldn't). I am saying it is a different situation than the standard rape scenario. Jealous men and women both have done very nasty things when their emotions were out of control. Any powerful emotion can cause people to react in ways other than they ordinarily would. This does not excuse rape, murder, or whatever, but it is a mitigating circumstance. I will probably be flamed for this (well, probably the whole article) but here goes: I have met numerous women (mostly college age) who seemed to take great delight in teasing men as far as they can, and then shutting them down. With the forgoing paragraph in mind, they are playing with fire. { no, I don't mean that all 'date rape' cases are like this, or that all women play those games, etc, etc. } > Sarah E. Dugan > (no clever lines) geoff sherwood
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/15/85)
> And THAT is a rare occurrence in a country where 33% of > college freshman would rape a woman if they thought they could > get away with it ... > > C. E. Jackson And the bullshit rolls on and on... In what way does spreading this hasty and inflammatory conclusion (which, I seem to remember from an earlier discussion of the very same study, was not even made by the people who ran it) help solve the problems women and men face in dealing with each other in this society? I sometimes am left to wonder if some women *enjoy* feeling like victims... that way they can feel justified in wreaking whatever havoc they wish on random males in their vicinity. After all, it's fun to beat up people, right? :-? Jeff Winslow
disc@hou2h.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever) (05/15/85)
Seems to me that in desiring more offenders than victims to "suffer" (i.e. a curfew), you're just creating a whole new class of victims... SJB
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (05/15/85)
> > >You know what really burns me about this whole thing? The original > > >proposal that started this whole thing was made (I assume) in all > > >seriousness. Yet it is (at least, to me) absurd. Yet there has not > > >even been one article in this group authored by a woman that treats > > >this proposal as anything other than serious. The article I'm > > >replying to refers to "doing something" with men. Is this what you > > >people really feel? Do you women all really feel SERIOUSLY that > > >such a curfew would be a good idea, or at least worth trying? > > Well, actually this was hashed over a while back when the subject of > walking down deserted streets came up. There were a lot of men who > basically said women shouldn't be out at late hours, alone on dark > streets, etc., but there were also a lot of male respondees who were > more sympathetic. And, anyway, [here we go again] *men* do not > propose such a thing. > > > > Women are the *victims* here, and the best suggestion that men have come > > up with is "if you don't want to be hassled, don't go anywhere where men > > might hassle you." > > Not so fast, not so fasssst! You think that because a (relatively) > small number of men commit almost all of the violent crimes in America > that all men should be subject to this just to make sure you get > them all? Sounds like you haven't been a victim long enough if > you're willing to inflict the same situation on someone else who is > also innocent. > What bothers me about this latest comment by Mark is the assumption that "innocence" equals not-crime-committing, and that "a (relatively) small number of men commit almost all of the violent crimes in America." First of all, someone else cited the statistic that 33% of all male college freshmen/students would rape if they were certain they would get away with it. Secondly, most police bureaus and crime statisticians agree that between 1 and 3 in 10 of all domestic violence is reported, leaving the other 70-90% unreported. 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...) These two things in combination make me feel that probably that "(relatively) small number" -- relative to what????! -- is actually a relatively large number of men, who regularly or irregularly beat their wives or girlfriends, subject their female coworkers to harassment, abuse women verbally on the street believing themselves to be complimenting her on her sexual attractiveness, pressure dates into putting out sexually, or, more infrequently, go so far as to actually rape or assault a woman not their wife or girlfriend. I think the problem is less the actual number of rapists -- admittedly pretty damn large at this point -- but the number of men who *think* they have the right to demand sex of an SO, or who derive pleasure from rape fantasies, or who in any way violate a woman's privacy of mind or body unasked. Until the thinking changes -- and maybe a curfew would put the shoe on the other foot, though I doubt it -- men are going to continue to rape and be self-righteous about it. That's why I would seriously consider the curfew suggestion. Now, about the "innocent male victims" accusation: If women are guilty of inviting rape merely by going out on the street at night...maybe men should be guilty by association too. Right now, men have a lot more political and economic power than women in general. Does that mean they support the current situation, and the current rape statistics? Probably not, but still... I would like to say I apologize for offending, but I hope I've made at least one person think hard. Ellen Eades
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (05/15/85)
In article <> san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) writes: > I was wondering if the reverse exists - maybe not in an identical fashion > but in a similar way ? Is there a study done or anything to support that > wives also abuse their husbands. > i don't know about physical abuse, but boy, if a stare could kill... i'd be dead long ago. -- ---------- "Is anything really real?" ...akgua!galbp!bing
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/16/85)
In article <431@sftri.UUCP> mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) writes: >> > > My sister has a theory, which I find thought-provoking. She says, >> > > (and I have seen elsewhere) that better than 95% of violent crimes >> > > are committed by males; females are more likely to be victims. >> > ... >> > > a curfew. My sister contends that a curfew for men should be >> > > instituted as this would drastically reduce violent crime. >> > > let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. >> > > >> > > Respectfully, >> > > Joanne Munson >You know what really burns me about this whole thing? The original >proposal that started this whole thing was made (I assume) in all >seriousness. Yet it is (at least, to me) absurd. Yet there has not >even been one article in this group authored by a woman that treats >this proposal as anything other than serious. The article I'm >replying to refers to "doing something" with men. Is this what you >people really feel? Do you women all really feel SERIOUSLY that >such a curfew would be a good idea, or at least worth trying?.... > To men, Joannes comment is funny because it is completely ludicrous. To women, it is no laughing matter. It might be safe to say that the original comment is seen by most women as a joke, but that the later comments were not. Women are *very* short on humor on the subject of rape. Comes with being a target. But let's not snarl at each other over this. Those who replied to levity with seriousness were trying to reach kindred spirits who, they felt, needed the opinions of another woman on a terrifying issue. No hostility toward other netlanders was meant. Let's leave it at that. But no-one really wants to lock all men up in their houses at night, or in cages at all times, or other such things. We would rather that the night was safe for *both* sexes. Even Feminist Secessionists (a label, and I know it's wrong to use labels) do not wish to imprison men. Just to get rid of us. Humanely, if possible. I consider the joke witty, because it is counter-culture. If it was told by men about women, I would be offended. Why? Because it would be a bit too near the truth. p.s. If rapists test NORMAL on personality tests, then I'm glad I'm crazy. --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ucbvax,cepu,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: I'll remember it when they make up their minds.
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/16/85)
Geoff Sherwood on 'date rape': > This is in a different catagory. Most rape is an act of violence, not sex. > I think this would be more of sex. Women must realize the emotions they > can spark in men are VERY powerful and men can get carried away. I am not > saying it should be this way (it shouldn't). I am saying it is a different > situation than the standard rape scenario. Jealous men and women both have > done very nasty things when their emotions were out of control. Any powerful > emotion can cause people to react in ways other than they ordinarily would. > This does not excuse rape, murder, or whatever, but it is a mitigating > circumstance. BULLSHIT! A person is responsible for their actions. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Time has passed, and now it seems that everybody's having those dreams. Everybody sees himself walking around with no one else." - Dylan
sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) (05/16/85)
> In article <> san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) writes: > > I was wondering if the reverse exists - maybe not in an identical fashion > > but in a similar way ? Is there a study done or anything to support that > > wives also abuse their husbands. > > Yes there are women who physically abuse their husbands. The reason we usually don't hear about it is that the men are afraid of how it would make them look. (You know, "What kind of a sissy man would get beat up by a woman?") Sarah E. Dugan (no clever lines)
jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (05/16/85)
>> How many times have you UNWILLINGLY been pinched on the rear-end? >> How many times has a woman purposedly bumped up against you to "cop >> a feel". >You have a point. This behavior is juvenile. I have had it happen (VERY >rarely) and while it WAS annoying, I didn't get particularly upset >about it. >Perhaps if it were a constant thing, I would. I don't know. We have been through this one before, in net.women. The behaviour is worse than juvenile. It is threatening and frightening. If you were merely annoyed I'll bet the one annoying you was not a physical threat (i.e. not obviously physically superior). MOST men are stronger than MOST women. So -- both parties know who can threaten whom. Even when a woman is well-trained in self-defense (or in some offensive technique!) it is not obvious and she would still be (initially) seen as likely to be able to be overcome. Experience says that the first threat (or whatever one would call it) is sometimes followed by some- thing worse, unless you can stop it or get away. Whether it is a 'constant thing' is another whole story. I've had months go by when none of this happens but when I was taking the subway to work and walking the streets of a big city a lot, I'd be happy if a week went by without some jerk shouting a smart remark or leering (mildest stuff). Let us just say that it happens a lot throughout a woman's life. (To those who are helpful, no need to post the advice to take a self-defense course, or whatever. We have hashed the whole thing out, already. I deal with it in the best way for me.) --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullan
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/17/85)
> > For years, women have been explicitly & implicitly told that > > rape is their fault & that they must never be without male > > "protection" (from other men!). Of course, as the discussion > > above re: domestic violence suggests, the men many women look > > to (or are instructed to look to) are the ones least qualified > > to give it. In terms of violence, there is no getting > > around the fact that men don't treat women very well at all. > > > Blanket statements like those above completely ignore the changes > taking place in our society, and serve to anger and dishearten > those of us who are interested in helping to change some of the > things that are wrong in our society today through realistic > solutions on the one hand while serving as cold comfort to the > victims on the other. We've heard this all before; one more time > isn't going to change anyone's mind. Rather unproductive, wouldn't > you say? Those statements are not intended as "cold comfort for the victims"; there is no comfort is realising that one is so vulnerable. The intent of such statements is to give people a jolt of reality so that they start doing something about the problem instead of continuing to dream away thinking that things will not happen to them. That's productive! Methinks that people who are disheartened or offended when they hear the truth about the behaviour of men as a group towards women as a group, are very easily disheartened, and very easily offendable. Why are YOU angry? if anybody should be angry, it is us. We are the ones who have the most to fear and the most to loose from the current situation. We are the ones who should be disheartened because it looks as though there is so little hope for improvement, and there has been so little improvement. If YOU give up so easily when YOU have so little to lose, how can you expect us not to, and how can you expect any change to happen? > > The woman who submitted her sister's suggestion did so in > > response to a posting that suggested women caused men to > > commit sins (in their own minds, at least) at work. > > He suggested prohibiting women from working with men. > > Many people on the net were a bit smug about the fact that the > > person who wrote the letter was Arabic. But for > > centuries, Western men have been talking about "doing something > > with women" and the "woman question." How could any woman who > > knew her sex's history resist discussing the idea of a male > > curfew seriously & in front of men? > > My mistake. I thought you were really interested in changes and > working towards equality and understanding. What you really want is > power and the chance to do a little gloating. Hey, this is a free > country (or so we're told); go right ahead. Change includes getting some power. Power is not a dirty word. What we want is not ALL the power, but a fair share of it. > > If we could take it > > for 5000 years, why can't you stand to read about it for a > > month or so? > > Why should we? If a suggestion is unjust to us, why should we have > to put up with it? I am surprised that a victim of such oppression > has so much trouble recognising it when it is proposed to make > others victims. Why shouldn't you? Nobody is proposing to make victims out of anybody. The suggestion was an interesting one in that it hopefully helped some men understand a little better what women have to go through daily. Talking about a curfew for men is NOT the same as imposing one. What I really don't understand about this whole affair is that you know very well that nobody ever took this suggestion seriously. Why are you reacting so violently? Pardon the unappropriateness of the term for your case, but you are being hysterical about this. > You finally begin to see some signs of change, > some signs that progress is being made, and you see nothing wrong > with suggestions that you know full well are going to cause > difficulty with nothing really to show for it? After all, men are > here to stay (too bad, eh?), and not all of us are necessarily > interested in perpetuating the oppressive agenda handed down to us > by our forefathers. What is the point of all these useless proposals? > The point that was mentioned time and time again is that it is a useful exercise to put oneself in other people's shoes once in a while. Maybe you are so enlightened about the way women feel that you don't need it. Good for you. Since there is still so much violence around, there are obviously some people who need to do this more often. Hopefully this exercise has been of some help. > > I think there's a certain sort of poetic justice to the idea > > of not letting men out on the streets. I also don't think it > > would be practical, nor is it, in some absolute sense, just. > > I hope that makes you feel better. > > Given what you have said here and elsewhere, I can't really say that > it does. If you're still into working out your bitterness and anger > (which, mind you, is a perfectly justifiable and understandable reaction), > I'll just have to wait until it blows over, I guess. > This time you got it. Yes, we are still into working out our bitterness and anger, and yes, it is a perfectly justifiable and understandable reaction, and not too much harm is done in the process, so it is probably a good thing overall. YOU can wait or you can help, it's up to you. > > >... an apparently serious discussion on the net proposing > > > that women who are raped are "asking for it"?? > > > > When we can still hear such proclamations from individual > > police officers & society as a whole, why should we have to > > endure one on the net? But where else could YOU (or any other > > man) hear a discussion of male curfews? > > Well, as it happens, I have encountered this and similar ideas in > reading through some books and pamphlets, but I always thought it > was just a bit way out and not a real idea. I guess I was wrong. > (girls, should I tell him?) (<- flame bait!) No, you were right. It isn't a real idea, but as the poster above mentioned it has a certain poetic justice to it, and it makes us laugh and feel better about the whole thing. > > Don't tell us to put > > ourselves in your place--if you thought about it, you'd > > realize that we just forced you to put yourself in ours. > > And THAT is a rare occurrence in a country where 33% of > > college freshman would rape a woman if they thought they could > > get away with it & one out of 3 women will be victims of rape > > before they die. > > Before any real work can be accomplished by people working together, > it helps to understand one another. I've talked some of these problems > over with my wife before and I've seen how it has limited > my mother, who is very bright and could probably have done some real > wonderful things with the proper education and opportunities, though > I think she would say, and I agree, that she's done pretty darn well > anyway. I've read a little, though by no means as much as the real > experts. So I'm no stranger to these problems. Your attitude does > not encourage me very much-- you "force" me into your shoes, to see > your problems, yet you're not willing to step into mine. And that's > ok; it was my mistake in the first place to think that there was > wide interest in discussing real solutions to the problems facing us > today. > What "real experts"? the "real experts" have probably read less on the topic than you, but unfortunately for them, lived it more. That's the whole point of this whole exercise, to make you realise that you cannot gain a deep understanding of other people's suffering at a distance by doing simple things like reading about it (although reading about it is a start). You have to experience it too. What you were subjected to on the net is very mild compared to what we are subjected to. I usually don't like analogies, but I can't resist this time (so people, please forgive me for the corniness of what follows). This is all very much like injecting you with a vaccine. You need a bit of the illness in you so that you can create antibodies that will be there to fight the real illness when it attacks you. > Mark Modig > ihnp4!sftri!mom > > P.S. And as far as the wonderful numbers concerning the freshmen > are concerned, spare me. I'm willing to bet that one could get > comparable response rates on just about anything (theft, even > probably murder) if you knew you wouldn't get caught. What does > that prove? People are really out for themselves; we're still > self-indulgent savages with just a (very) thin layer of civility on top. Rape is self-indulgence, eh? that's an interesting concept. And war is peace and freedom is slavery and all those good things too, I bet. You know, Mark, your message was ok before that. I could have taken you seriously as a super-sensitive guy who is just reacting very badly to a little dose of reality. But, you know, hey, I like sensitive men 'cause I'm sensitive myself, so I can relate to that, and I thought that all you needed to pull through was just a little help. You seemed so earnest in your efforts to understand all these problems and cooperate with us women to get rid of them. I guess it's going to be harder than I thought. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/17/85)
> I, for one, have IMMENSELY enjoyed seeing the shoe on the other foot. > For years, women have been explicitly & implicitly told that > rape is their fault & that they must never be without male > "protection" (from other men!). Of course, as the discussion > above re: domestic violence suggests, the men many women look > to (or are instructed to look to) are the ones least qualified > to give it. In terms of violence, there is no getting > around the fact that men don't treat women very well at all. > > C. E. Jackson *Some* men don't treat *some* women very well at all. One of the reasons that the label *feminist* leaves a bad taste in my mouth is a tendency by some self-proclaimed feminists to lump all men and all women into classes, and view rape, spouse abuse, and violence as "class struggle" issues. Each of us is an individual, and deserves to be treated as an individual, *not* as a member of a class, sex, or group.
dae@psuvax1.UUCP (05/17/85)
>> C. E. Jackson ...ihnp4!lznv!cja >> And THAT is a rare occurrence in a country where 33% of >> college freshman would rape a woman if they thought they could >> get away with it & one out of 3 women will be victims of rape >> before they die. > > geoff@burl.UUCP in <691@burl.UUCP> >It is a sad commentary on freshmen that 33% of college freshmen SAY they >would rape a woman...[elided].... Also, to judge men on the comments of >adolescents just out of high school doesn't seem particularly valid. [and now for a sad commentary on geoff] *****FLAME ON***** Ok, geoff. Everybody just out of, or (Horrors!) still _IN_, high school is a perverted maniac. Fine. Sure hope you don't have any kids. I mean, as long as we're saying that women are provocative, men are dangerous to women, why _NOT_ add that *every*body (well, that's what *you* implied!) younger than X years is immature (not to mention not a "man", whatever *that* is)? BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT *****TRUE*****, YOU ASININE BIGOT! *****FLAME OFF***** --Daemon [One of the _OTHER_ 77% :-]
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (05/18/85)
> > Not so fast, not so fasssst! You think that because a (relatively) > > small number of men commit almost all of the violent crimes in America > > that all men should be subject to this just to make sure you get > > them all? Sounds like you haven't been a victim long enough if > > you're willing to inflict the same situation on someone else who is > > also innocent. > > > > What bothers me about this latest comment by Mark is the > assumption that "innocence" equals not-crime-committing, and > that "a (relatively) small number of men commit almost all of > the violent crimes in America." > > First of all, someone else cited the statistic that 33% of all > male college freshmen/students would rape if they were certain > they would get away with it. Secondly, most police bureaus and > crime statisticians agree that between 1 and 3 in 10 of all > domestic violence is reported, leaving the other 70-90% > unreported. 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...) > > These two things in combination make me feel that probably that > "(relatively) small number" -- relative to what????! -- is > actually a relatively large number of men, who regularly or > irregularly beat their wives or girlfriends, subject their > female coworkers to harassment, abuse women verbally on the > street believing themselves to be complimenting her on her > sexual attractiveness, pressure dates into putting out > sexually, or, more infrequently, go so far as to > actually rape or assault a woman not their wife or girlfriend. > Just because a large number of crimes go unreported doesn't mean that the crimes are committed by a relatively large (relative to what???) number of men. It seems quite likely to me that the men who commit the reported crimes also commit the unreported ones. To illustrate my point, let's consider burglary (no, I don't mean to imply that burglary is in any way comparable to rape). Most burglaries are reported, but a small percentage of them are solved. Does this mean that almost everyone you know must be a burglar, even though only a few people get prosecuted for it? No, it means that the same people commit burglary over and over, and get prosecuted for only a small fraction of their crimes. As for the statistic that 33% of male college freshmen would commit rape if they thought they could get away with it, I have never heard it before. How was the figure arrived at? If it was done by a poll, how was the question phrased? How many students were asked? Which campuses did they come from? When was the study done, and who did it? It just seems incredible to me that anyone would actually say this about himself. One thing that bothers me about Ellen's argument is her comment about innocence. She says that innocence isn't the same as "not-crime-committing". As examples, she lists a number of obnoxious behaviors, such as making rude comments about women's attractiveness and pressuring dates to have sex. Are these grounds for a curfew? Even if we ignore the fact a curfew would not solve these problems (because they happen during the daytime or on dates), one should remember that obnoxiousness is not a criminal act. From her arguments it seems that Ellen thinks of men as a class of criminals. In order to bolster her belief, she lumps together obnoxiousness with true criminal acts, and makes assumptions about the number of men who actually commit violent crimes. > I think the problem is less the actual number of rapists -- > admittedly pretty damn large at this point -- but the number of > men who *think* they have the right to demand sex of an SO, or > who derive pleasure from rape fantasies, or who in any way > violate a woman's privacy of mind or body unasked. Until the > thinking changes -- and maybe a curfew would put the shoe on the > other foot, though I doubt it -- men are going to continue to > rape and be self-righteous about it. That's why I would > seriously consider the curfew suggestion. This is getting pretty close to the concept of thoughtcrime. To think bad thoughts (e.g. to have rape fantasies) is grounds for legal punishment. You would lock me up at night because of what goes on inside my head, or even for what goes on inside someone else's head. *Some* men rape and are self-righteous about it. I contend that most men do not rape, and don't think of rape as a good thing. > Now, about the "innocent male victims" accusation: If women are > guilty of inviting rape merely by going out on the street at > night...maybe men should be guilty by association too. Right > now, men have a lot more political and economic power than women > in general. Does that mean they support the current situation, > and the current rape statistics? Probably not, but still... First of all, the argument that women invite rape by going out on the street, as disgusting and false as it is, is not an argument of guilt by association. Second, it seems that you are saying that since (some) men use a false argument against women, it should be O.K. for you to use a false argument against men. This may be a valid technique for pointing out a logical fallacy, but it isn't a valid way to argue for your real point, which is that men should not be allowed out at night. > I would like to say I apologize for offending, but I hope I've > made at least one person think hard. > > Ellen Eades You did make me think hard. One of the things I've realized since I made my flippant follow-up to the original posting on this subject is that the suggestion of a curfew for men has good rhetorical value. It really makes one think how it would be if one were not allowed to go out at night, which is similar to being afraid to go out at night. The are some things I can think of that men could do that might help matters. If you ever see a woman in a bad situation (e.g. being assaulted), help her out. I did this once; I shook afterwards, but felt good about doing the right thing. When you hear a man making crude comments or otherwise being vile towards a woman or women, tell the guy you think he's being a jerk (with wit, of course). How about it guys? Since we're objecting to being locked up at night, let's try making some constructive suggestions for improving things so women will no longer be afraid to go out at night. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/19/85)
> = Sophie Quigley >> = me > > > to give it. In terms of violence, there is no getting > > > around the fact that men don't treat women very well at all. > > > > > Blanket statements like those above completely ignore the changes > > taking place in our society, and serve to anger and dishearten > > those of us who are interested in helping to change some of the > > things that are wrong in our society today through realistic > > solutions on the one hand while serving as cold comfort to the > > Methinks that people who are disheartened or offended when they hear > the truth about the behaviour of men as a group towards women as a > group, are very easily disheartened, and very easily offendable. I still resist the assertion that the behaviors being discussed here can be applied to all men as a group. I would appreciate some numbers to back up such a claim-- it is quite possible I am wrong, since I have not really had much luck finding anything close to reliable that would support either your claim or my feelings. Also, what I was most concerned about was the seriousness of the suggestion. > Why are YOU angry? I thot I covered this sufficiently. OK, one more time. I was upset because everyone appeared to be taking the proposal seriously, at face value. Since then, several people have come forward and said that they were indeed serious, while others have said they didn't take it seriously. I am still troubled that anyone should take such a suggestion seriously, as opposed to saying yeah, I'd really like to put one over on them for a change, but seriously that's not an option--you know, like if a driver cuts you off you think you would like them to wrap their car around the next tree, but when you cool off you aren't in such a nasty mood. (Hmmm.. I hope that was clear; I don't know how to make my point any clearer) > if anybody should be angry, it is us. We are the ones > who have the most to fear and the most to loose from the current > situation. We are the ones who should be disheartened because it looks > as though there is so little hope for improvement, and there has been > so little improvement. If YOU give up so easily when YOU have so > little to lose, how can you expect us not to, and how can you expect > any change to happen? As I have said elsewhere, the anger is a normal reaction, and to be expected (in fact, I would think it rather odd if you weren't angry). AS for giving up, disheartened and giving up are two different things. I NEVER give up... well, hardly ever. If I was interested in giving up I'd hardly be taking the trouble to try to answer your articles on the net, now would I? [...] > > > with women" and the "woman question." How could any woman who > > > knew her sex's history resist discussing the idea of a male > > > curfew seriously & in front of men? > > > > My mistake. I thought you were really interested in changes and > > working towards equality and understanding. What you really want is > > power and the chance to do a little gloating. Hey, this is a free > > country (or so we're told); go right ahead. > > Change includes getting some power. Power is not a dirty word. What we > want is not ALL the power, but a fair share of it. You are right. My response in this case was somewhat of a cheap shot. I apologize. > > > If we could take it > > > for 5000 years, why can't you stand to read about it for a > > > month or so? > > > > Why should we? If a suggestion is unjust to us, why should we have > > to put up with it? I am surprised that a victim of such oppression > > has so much trouble recognising it when it is proposed to make > > others victims. > > Why shouldn't you? > Nobody is proposing to make victims out of anybody. The suggestion was > an interesting one in that it hopefully helped some men understand a > little better what women have to go through daily. Talking about a > curfew for men is NOT the same as imposing one. What I really don't > understand about this whole affair is that you know very well that > nobody ever took this suggestion seriously. Why are you reacting so > violently? Pardon the unappropriateness of the term for your case, but > you are being hysterical about this. Ah, but I DON'T know that nobody ever took the suggestion seriously. And no I don't think that talking about a curfew is the same as imposing one, nor is such an idea likely to be imposed in the near future. But when people say they take the proposal seriously, I take them at their word. > > > by our forefathers. What is the point of all these useless proposals? > > > The point that was mentioned time and time again is that it is a useful > exercise to put oneself in other people's shoes once in a while. Maybe > you are so enlightened about the way women feel that you don't need it. Well I know about some of the problems my wife has experienced, but really on the contrary, I'm probably as big an ignoramus as they come. But at least I KNOW I'm an ignoramus. > Good for you. [Thank you. -MOM] Since there is still so much > violence around, there are > obviously some people who need to do this more often. Hopefully this > exercise has been of some help. > > > > >... an apparently serious discussion on the net proposing > > > > that women who are raped are "asking for it"?? > > > > > > endure one on the net? But where else could YOU (or any other > > > man) hear a discussion of male curfews? > > > > Well, as it happens, I have encountered this and similar ideas in > > reading through some books and pamphlets, but I always thought it > > was just a bit way out and not a real idea. I guess I was wrong. > > > (girls, should I tell him?) (<- flame bait!) > No, you were right. It isn't a real idea, but as the poster above > mentioned it has a certain poetic justice to it, and it makes us laugh > and feel better about the whole thing. If that's all you're interested in as far as the proposal is concerned, I certainly have no cause for alarm. > > > Don't tell us to put > > > ourselves in your place--if you thought about it, you'd > > > realize that we just forced you to put yourself in ours. > > > And THAT is a rare occurrence in a country where 33% of > > > college freshman would rape a woman if they thought they could > > > get away with it & one out of 3 women will be victims of rape > > > before they die. > > > > Before any real work can be accomplished by people working together, > > it helps to understand one another. I've talked some of these problems > > over with my wife before and I've seen how it has limited > > my mother, who is very bright and could probably have done some real > > wonderful things with the proper education and opportunities, though > > I think she would say, and I agree, that she's done pretty darn well > > anyway. I've read a little, though by no means as much as the real > > experts... > What "real experts"? the "real experts" have probably read less on the > topic than you, but unfortunately for them, lived it more. That's the > whole point of this whole exercise, to make you realise that you > cannot gain a deep understanding of other people's suffering at a > distance by doing simple things like reading about it (although reading > about it is a start). You have to experience it too. What you were > subjected to on the net is very mild compared to what we are subjected > to. I didn't learn more about all this by reading first and then "experiencing" it; it was more the other way round. My wife works in New York City; she has to take the trains and subways to get to work. You can guess what kind of stories she has to tell about the infrequent but still no less disturbing incidents that happen during the morning and evening commutes. That's what really has accelerated my interests in this area. (including an occasional reading) > > that prove? People are really out for themselves; we're still > > self-indulgent savages with just a (very) thin layer of civility on top. > > Rape is self-indulgence, eh? that's an interesting concept. And war > is peace and freedom is slavery and all those good things too, I bet. Uh, wait a minute. Is this my stop, or did I miss it? My guess is you're upset because you thought I was trying to sneakily assert that rape is something other than a crime of violence and dominance. Sorry if I misled you. My point is really that people are self-indulgent in their actions, and all too often are unconcerned with the feelings and rights of others. So in a sense I guess you could argue that rape is self-indulgence: a rapist chooses to indulge his desires for expressing dominance over women and for doing violence to them without considering the rights and feelings of his victims. > You know, Mark, your message was ok before that. Just ok???? Not even OK??? Boy, now I'm RRREEAALLLY angry!! :-) Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
dae@psuvax1.UUCP (Daemon) (05/20/85)
First of all, let me say that this one sat for nearly a day between when I decided to reply to it and when I did. >> = Mark Modig, I (Daemon) believe. >> Not so fast, not so fasssst! You think that because a (relatively) >> small number of men commit almost all of the violent crimes in America >> that all men should be subject to this just to make sure you get >> them all? Sounds like you haven't been a victim long enough if >> you're willing to inflict the same situation on someone else who is >> also innocent. >> > = Ellen Eades (ellen@reade.uucp) in <1536@reed.uucp> > What bothers me about this latest comment by Mark is the > assumption that "innocence" equals not-crime-committing, and > that "a (relatively) small number of men commit almost all of > the violent crimes in America." I'm not at all sure what the quotes around "innocence" mean. To me (and I may well be stupid or something), one meaning of "innocence" is "lack of guilt," including in crime. > ........... 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...) 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. > These two things in combination make me feel that probably that > "(relatively) small number" -- relative to what????! -- is > actually a relatively large number of men, who regularly or "relatively large number of men" -- relative to what????! [Hoist by your own petard] > irregularly beat their wives or girlfriends, subject their > female coworkers to harassment, abuse women verbally on the > street believing themselves to be complimenting her on her > sexual attractiveness, pressure dates into putting out > sexually, or, more infrequently, go so far as to > actually rape or assault a woman not their wife or girlfriend. I, personally, am guilty of none of the above. In fact, I go to great lengths to make the women I come in contact with comfortable around me and confident I will engage in none of the above. To date, I have had no complaints. 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." If I'm wrong, how *DO* you mean that? I seem to be as confused by your usage of "relative" as you were by Mark's. > I think the problem is less the actual number of rapists -- > admittedly pretty damn large at this point -- but the number of Admittedly *far* too high (greater than 0). > men who *think* they have the right to demand sex of an SO, or > who derive pleasure from rape fantasies, or who in any way > violate a woman's privacy of mind or body unasked. Until the > thinking changes -- and maybe a curfew would put the shoe on the > other foot, though I doubt it -- men are going to continue to > rape and be self-righteous about it. That's why I would > seriously consider the curfew suggestion. 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. > Now, about the "innocent male victims" accusation: If women are > guilty of inviting rape merely by going out on the street at > night...maybe men should be guilty by association too. Right > now, men have a lot more political and economic power than women > in general. Does that mean they support the current situation, > and the current rape statistics? Probably not, but still... D*mn well right not! Perhaps you may not have noticed; perhaps you may not have looked: There are those of us who have been asked or offered to walk/drive/generic_transport_method friends of ours home. I have never refused. Many times when I have offered I have been refused. Have you ever asked a politically and/or economically more powerful male (Wow. *You* said it!) to escort you home and been refused? > I would like to say I apologize for offending, 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. 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. On the other hand, should you have nothing of more worth than flames insinuating that a majority of men at least "violate a woman's privacy of mind or body unasked," I think you're really doing your cause more harm than good. > ...but I hope I've made at least one person think hard. Think hard (angry) thoughts, yes. "You win more flies with honey than with vinegar." > Ellen Eades --Daemon
aftel@aecom.UUCP (Jeffrey Aftel) (05/20/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** >>>My sister >>>contends that a curfew for men should be instituted as this would drastical ly >>>reduce violent crime. >>>let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> Joanne Munson >> >> April Fools Day was nearly a month ago. >>-- >> Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc. ) >> aka swazoo koolak >> >> {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff > > Nahhh, just arm all the women with firearms. It might not do much for > any violent crimes besides rape (where it would br *real* effeective), but > it would certainly discourage petty harrassment. > > What? That's a stupid idea? Compared to a curfew for men? To engage in actual debate as to the validity of your sister's idea would only succeed in giving it even an ounce of validity, a value it does nothing to deserve. However, if you are so intent on subduing the male gendre of our species, why no make it manditory for all males, old and newborn, to submit to partial lobotomy in order to curb their agressive Mr. Hydes'? But you might say " This is not fair to the *vast majority* of men who have no violent tendencies "? Well goody for you, and you figured it out all by yourself, just like " The Mature Adult-like Woman " I'm sure you think you are. Or maybe you are afraid that with lobotomies men won't be able to do the only things they are really good for ie: mowing the lawn, fixing the roof, sex, and anything else that suits women. Well we all must set our priorities, I guess this is one you will have to get through all by yourself. I have full confidence in you that you can handle it. If this is an example of a liberated woman's beliefs ( which I'm sure it isn't, I believe in thee idea and have no qualms with any of its proponents my sister and mother inclusive ) then in the immortal words of Col. Sherman T. Potter (M*AS*H*) " I'd just as soon chuck the whole kit and kabootle " ( or something to that effect ). And to the woman who had the ignorance and/or stupidity to post her sister's idea I can only say " don't let your blood control your brain "
aftel@aecom.UUCP (Jeffrey Aftel) (05/22/85)
> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** > >>>My sister > >>>contends that a curfew for men should be instituted as this would drastical > ly > >>>reduce violent crime. > >>>let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman. > >>> > >>> Respectfully, > >>> Joanne Munson > >> > >> April Fools Day was nearly a month ago. > >>-- > >> Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc. ) > >> aka swazoo koolak > >> > >> {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff > > > > Nahhh, just arm all the women with firearms. It might not do much for > > any violent crimes besides rape (where it would br *real* effeective), but > > it would certainly discourage petty harrassment. > > > > What? That's a stupid idea? Compared to a curfew for men? > > To engage in actual debate as to the validity of your sister's idea would only > succeed in giving it even an ounce of validity, a value it does nothing to > deserve. However, if you are so intent on subduing the male gendre of our > species, why no make it manditory for all males, old and newborn, to submit > to partial lobotomy in order to curb their agressive Mr. Hydes'? But you might > say " This is not fair to the *vast majority* of men who have no violent > tendencies "? Well goody for you, and you figured it out all by yourself, > just like " The Mature Adult-like Woman " I'm sure you think you are. Or maybe > you are afraid that with lobotomies men won't be able to do the only things > they are really good for ie: mowing the lawn, fixing the roof, sex, and > anything else that suits women. Well we all must set our priorities, I guess > this is one you will have to get through all by yourself. I have full > confidence in you that you can handle it. > If this is an example of a liberated woman's beliefs ( which I'm sure it > isn't, I believe in thee idea and have no qualms with any of its proponents > my sister and mother inclusive ) then in the immortal words of Col. Sherman > T. Potter (M*AS*H*) " I'd just as soon chuck the whole kit and kabootle " > ( or something to that effect ). And to the woman who had the ignorance and/or > stupidity to post her sister's idea I can only say " don't let your blood > control your brain " PLEASE READ ON ! P.S. I think we all need a lesson in justice and crime/punishment. The idea in America is innocent * until * proven guilty not vice versa or on the basis of any statistical evidence. Its very nice to bring proof that men cause most violent crimes but for those of us who would never contemplate such an act the proposal is highly insulting. To say women have had to live with the crewdness of some men does not give anyone permishion to bestow upon men the very same injustice no matter what the evidence against him. To quote a cliche " two wrongs don't make a right ". Jeff the Passive
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (05/22/85)
> The are some things I can think of that men could do that might help matters. > If you ever see a woman in a bad situation (e.g. being assaulted), help her > out. I did this once; I shook afterwards, but felt good about doing the right > thing. When you hear a man making crude comments or otherwise being vile > towards a woman or women, tell the guy you think he's being a jerk (with wit, > of course). > > How about it guys? Since we're objecting to being locked up at night, let's > try making some constructive suggestions for improving things so women will > no longer be afraid to go out at night. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) Three cheers ! It's about time. Don't just stand there like a cigar store Indian - stand up for the rights of your fellow humans to some respect. -- jcpatilla "'Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill !'"
zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (05/22/85)
> > To engage in actual debate as to the validity of your sister's idea would only > succeed in giving it even an ounce of validity, a value it does nothing to > deserve. However, if you are so intent on subduing the male gendre of our > species, why no make it manditory for all males, old and newborn, to submit > to partial lobotomy in order to curb their agressive Mr. Hydes'? But you might > say " This is not fair to the *vast majority* of men who have no violent > tendencies "? Well goody for you, and you figured it out all by yourself, > just like " The Mature Adult-like Woman " I'm sure you think you are. Or maybe > you are afraid that with lobotomies men won't be able to do the only things > they are really good for ie: mowing the lawn, fixing the roof, sex, and > anything else that suits women. Well we all must set our priorities, I guess > this is one you will have to get through all by yourself. I have full > confidence in you that you can handle it. > If this is an example of a liberated woman's beliefs ( which I'm sure it > isn't, I believe in thee idea and have no qualms with any of its proponents > my sister and mother inclusive ) then in the immortal words of Col. Sherman > T. Potter (M*AS*H*) " I'd just as soon chuck the whole kit and kabootle " > ( or something to that effect ). And to the woman who had the ignorance and/or > stupidity to post her sister's idea I can only say " don't let your blood > control your brain " When was the lsat time you walked down the street,any old time of day will do, and had some woman drive by and yell an obscenity at you . When was the last time a woman walked up to you and insisted that she knew you from somewhere and why not share a drink for "Old Times Sake" I am also sure that most women are physically larger and stronger than you so that any strange woman approaching you makes you wonder which way would be the best direction to run in as you go from your plasce of work to your vehicle after working late of an evening. Your obvious insensitivity to the issue makes me wonder if perhaps you are not one of those individuals who would demand that his wife stay home and be a housewife while you went of to work because after all "A Woman's Place ......." While I don't necessarily advocate a male curfew I do think that some action of this sort would not be unreasonable because it is already implicit in our society that such a contrivance exists for women. If you decide that you want to stroll down to the corner bar for a quick brew, well that is just fine and no eyebrows are raise as you enter the local pub but for an unescorted woman to do the same thing usually evokes at least the mild thought that "this woman is no lady" or some such foolishness. The arguement that this would not be FAIR to the majaority of honest moral and sensitive men is irrelavant because fairness per se is not available on the other side of the question. The day that I can really do as I please with my liesure time without being concerned about the consequences of merely being a woman I will also concede that fairness towards men is necessary. If your don't like the concept as stated then perhaps you would be better off working to change the status quo instead of berating as stupid and ignorant anyone who at least has the courage to put out an idea which they feel might be unpopular but which does highlight a valuable concept. Jeanette L. Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie ================================================================================ All opinions expressed herein are strictly my own. I doubt that my employer would be interested in expressing anything in a similar fashion. anyone who agrees with me does so on their own and at their own risk. ================================================================================
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (05/23/85)
>My sister >contends that a curfew for men should be instituted as this would drastically >reduce violent crime. Right on! First, blame a group for your past problems. Then point to a continued conspiracy on their part, and make it difficult for them to get a job (Affirmative Action) to "even things out." Next, point to that group's criminal tendencies, and restrict their actions. Finally, make them wear yellow stars on their clothing, put them in concentration camps, and murder them. Nice to see that people aren't letting themselves get bogged down by such trivia ethics or the lessons of history. -- Robert
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/24/85)
> Now, about the "innocent male victims" accusation: If women are > guilty of inviting rape merely by going out on the street at > night...maybe men should be guilty by association too. Right > now, men have a lot more political and economic power than women > in general. Does that mean they support the current situation, > and the current rape statistics? Probably not, but still... > > Ellen Eades No one on net.women has claimed that "women are guilty of inviting rape merely by going out on the street at night". No responsible person in our society believes that. This belief that Ellen has in "guilty by association" is a clear demonstration of *why* feminism is perceived by many people in this country as an excuse for man-hating, in much the same way that the KKK promotes general hatred of blacks because of the criminal actions of a few blacks. I would think a person would be embarrassed to promote ideas like the ones Ellen Eades posted.
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (05/25/85)
> Actually, I think the problem of rampant rape has more to do with > a basic lack of respect on the part of A LARGE NUMBER, possibly MOST men, > for MOST women. .... > I've heard lots of reaons advanced for this, including some > interesting ones: > > 1) Women have lost the respect of men by not fulfilling the > 'traditional' roles men have in their minds for them. > Since they haven't really established 'new traditional' > roles, they aren't respected for them either, hence > less respect in general. I find this unbelievably twisted. Tell me, *when* have the ``traditional'' female roles been given much respect by men? Has not the term ``womanish'' long been a derogatory one among men? Hasn't the highest ``traditional'' calling of women been to bear and raise their husbands' children? With respect like this, it might be better to be despised! I may be off-base, but I thought that many men were beginning to begrudgingly give women some respect for being able to do the ``important'' things only men could do until now. Of course, some men might feel that women are beginning to get *too* much respect, and now want to ``put them in their place''. This makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? > 2) The widespread availability of sex (in comparison to say > 30 years ago), in a casual manner has led men to > 'expect' that women in general are 'easy to get', hence > 'cheapening' them as a class of people. *WHEW*!! Does this ever *REEK* of a double standard! Who cheapens whom, here? Since ``easy'' women are so plentiful, why is there *ever* a need for men to rape? The answer to the latter question has been given several times before, but it bears repeating: rape is a crime of violence, not sex. Why? Sex is not a crime! Violating someone's body *is*!! > 3) General societal rot - since the morals that used to go > from generation to generation have been pretty much > blown out of the sky, there is a vacuum that encourages > amoral/immoral activities (including rape and other things). And this year's TV programs are worse than last year. The murder rate here in LA is one of the highest in the world--but it is less than 1/40th what it was in the early 1800's. The crime rate goes up and down--it rose from the turn of this century through the 1920's, dropped in the 1930's through the early 1950's, then started to rise in the 1960's. It seems to have leveled off, and for the past three years seems to be going down, at least for serious crimes (those that make the FBI Crime Index). Rape is the only crime that hasn't been dropping (though there appears to be an increase in reporting that accounts for some of this--in part due to the modest (i.e. incomplete) reforms in the way rape victims are treated by the law). What's my point? We live in what is surely one of the most violent of ``civilized'' nations. It's a very bad problem. But it isn't a worsening one, at least in the long term. ``Prophets'' have been forcasting the moral demise of society for all of recorded history. But more to the point: rape is *not* a recent problem. It is a 5000- year-old (at least) problem, part of a 5000-year-old pattern of male domination of women. This is not to suggest that we give up one tiny bit in our struggle to eradicate it. Slavery had a long history, too. > Now, NOTE BEFORE FLAMING, that these aren't justifications, just > possible explanations, which have utterly nothing to do with the legality > of rape or how it should be punished. It is only thru understanding the > causes of behavior that it can be modified, however. Personally, I think > probably all 3 of these contribute, and these are effects that apply > uniquely to Western society as we know it. I think you have identified 3 MYTHS, smokescreens that have been used to conceal rape for what it is: terrorism of men against women. And as long as we: (1) cling to a rigid set of sex roles, (2) support a double standard for sexual behavior and other inequalities, and (3) blindly blame our problems on forsaking ill-fitting institutions that never really were what we claim them to be--as long as we allow these and other myths to plague us, rape will exist. > (If you haven't noticed, > rape & sexual assault are UNKNOWN by American standards in even the > most backward third world countries, (even Moslem ones, where women hold > almost NO status in society, they don't even have souls! (really, ask > a religious Moslem, its right in the book in black and white!)) With such a state of violence against women built-in to their society, what would they need rape for? Male domination isn't being challenged. We have something special here in the US. We call it freedom. It's imperfect, but for all its imperfections, it is precious. I'm not implying that some other countries don't have it, or that we're better at it. There is a price for freedom--and in an imperfect society, crime is one of the prices. We should attack crime any way we can-- just so long as we *don't* attack freedom. (A tough job, to be sure.) The main point of the ``men's curfew'' articles is this: women are less free than men. Some men--too many men--are trying to keep it that way. It is precisely like there were a curfew for women. But women have a RIGHT to be JUST as free as men! A curfew for men would be silly. SO LET'S WORK TO REMOVE THE CURFEW WOMEN NOW FACE. > I won't get into the obligatory comments about how disgusting > rape is, and how it opresses women, etc., as you already know that... > -JCP- -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (05/27/85)
> >> = Mark Modig, I (Daemon) believe. > >> Not so fast, not so fasssst! You think that because a (relatively) > >> small number of men commit almost all of the violent crimes in America > >> that all men should be subject to this just to make sure you get > >> them all? Sounds like you haven't been a victim long enough if > >> you're willing to inflict the same situation on someone else who is > >> also innocent. > >> > > = Ellen Eades (ellen@reade.uucp) in <1536@reed.uucp> > > What bothers me about this latest comment by Mark is the > > assumption that "innocence" equals not-crime-committing, and > > that "a (relatively) small number of men commit almost all of > > the violent crimes in America." > = Daemon > I'm not at all sure what the quotes around "innocence" mean. > To me (and I may well be stupid or something), one meaning of > "innocence" is "lack of guilt," including in crime. > What I wanted to suggest here was that "innocent" in the sense of not-having-committed-a-crime is not the same thing as "innocent" in the sense of in-no-way-tacitly-or-otherwise supporting said crime's committal, including verbal implications or hints in speech or attitude. It is this definition of "innocent" which I believe we need to strive for, since as long as caveman jokes and similar stereotypes are perpetrated, people will foster the attitude without seeing the connection with the actual criminal act of rape. > > ........... 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...) > > 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. > > > These two things in combination make me feel that probably that > > "(relatively) small number" -- relative to what????! -- is > > actually a relatively large number of men, who regularly or > > "relatively large number of men" -- relative to what????! > [Hoist by your own petard] This criticism seems largely rhetorical, but I'll attempt to answer it. I will omit the word "relatively." I feel that a large number of men regularly or... > > > irregularly beat their wives or girlfriends, subject their > > female coworkers to harassment, abuse women verbally on the > > street believing themselves to be complimenting her on her > > sexual attractiveness, pressure dates into putting out > > sexually, or, more infrequently, go so far as to > > actually rape or assault a woman not their wife or girlfriend. > > I, personally, am guilty of none of the above. In fact, I go to great > lengths to make the women I come in contact with comfortable around me > and confident I will engage in none of the above. To date, I have had > no complaints. > > 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." If I'm wrong, how *DO* you mean that? I seem to > be as confused by your usage of "relative" as you were by Mark's. > Here, I think, is the crux of our disagreement. Firstly, I deliberately made that a sweeping statement. I intended to imply large numbers. You, Daemon, identified yourself as belonging to that large group in my estimation and proceeded to argue that. Please note that I also imply that there are a small number of men who do not do any of these things. You may feel free to place yourself within that category. I did not want to say "large numbers of men excluding (A, B, C, or D)." And I think that, although I'm sorry you feel offended, I did not say "all men," and thus I don't think I was unfair to you. Since I don't know you, I can't judge you; and frankly I don't want to. My purpose here was simply to state an opinion that large numbers of men -- in fact most men -- tacitly contribute to the abuse of women. > > I think the problem is less the actual number of rapists -- > > admittedly pretty damn large at this point -- but the number of > > Admittedly *far* too high (greater than 0). > > > men who *think* they have the right to demand sex of an SO, or > > who derive pleasure from rape fantasies, or who in any way > > violate a woman's privacy of mind or body unasked. Until the > > thinking changes -- and maybe a curfew would put the shoe on the > > other foot, though I doubt it -- men are going to continue to > > rape and be self-righteous about it. That's why I would > > seriously consider the curfew suggestion. > > 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. Again, "greater than many" or "greater than most" does not imply all. It simply means, "greater than most." I hope you don't feel that I'm splitting hairs; I don't mean to be. BUT, I think my idea of "violate" is perhaps less narrowly defined than your own? > > > Now, about the "innocent male victims" accusation: If women are > > guilty of inviting rape merely by going out on the street at > > night...maybe men should be guilty by association too. Right > > now, men have a lot more political and economic power than women > > in general. Does that mean they support the current situation, > > and the current rape statistics? Probably not, but still... > > D*mn well right not! Perhaps you may not have noticed; perhaps > you may not have looked: There are those of us who have been asked > or offered to walk/drive/generic_transport_method friends of ours > home. I have never refused. Many times when I have offered I have > been refused. Have you ever asked a politically and/or economically > more powerful male (Wow. *You* said it!) to escort you home and been > refused? > Here is where I find a real problem. I would probably refuse an escort of any male, because I do not feel safe with most men. I would prefer to walk alone or with a female. Thus, I have never asked for escort. Also: There's a lot more that you can do to help women than escort them home. You are perpetuating the idea that women can't protect themselves without men. This damages women's strength, in itself. You might, for example, teach your female friends to fight, if that is something you yourself can do. You could call to make sure they arrived home safely, if they refuse to be escorted. If you consider yourself economically capable, you could contribute to a women's self-defense school. If you are a political leader, you might discuss with other men attitudes which are harmful to women. You might, if you are involved with an SO, take over household chores on nights or weekends when she goes to learn self-defense, or a job skill which will advance her career. The idea I want to emphasize is that men should not protect women; they should let them learn to protect themselves. You say that you do not rape or abuse women. Good for you. But that is only the first part. Do you call your men friends on their abusive statements? Do you stick your neck out to advance fellow workers who are female? Have you made that transition, from thinking about abuse, to acting to suppress it? > > I would like to say I apologize for offending, > > 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. > > 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. On the other hand, > should you have nothing of more worth than flames insinuating that a > majority of men at least "violate a woman's privacy of mind or body > unasked," I think you're really doing your cause more harm than good. > Again, I want to emphasize that your idea that men protect women from sexual harassment is a harmful one, although it is well-meaning. As for constructive suggestions, I hope the above helps. I did not intend to flame, Daemon. I meant what I said. I hope that you will do me the kindness of thinking through seriously what I am trying to say, without getting too self-defensive. It takes a certain amount of control, but I *also* think that most men can achieve that. > > ...but I hope I've made at least one person think hard. > > Think hard (angry) thoughts, yes. "You win more flies with honey > than with vinegar." > > > Ellen Eades > > --Daemon Regards from Ellen Eades, again.
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/28/85)
Ellen:
I think you are doing a great disservice to the women on the net by
somehow associating a male friend offering to walk/escort a female
friend home with support of sexism.
I think you must be a fool! No matter what your opinion of the womens'
movement is/was how can you not be able to look around you and think
that a man offering to walk or escort a friend home from some late
nigt outing is less effective in preventing her assault than "doing
the dishes"?? I understand what you are saying. But it doesn't make
sense.
Sorta like having a friend with a drinking problem, and rather
than offering to drive them home from a party, you let
them drive themselves home and start writing to your congressman
about the evils of liquor!
And, before your knee jerks, please be advised
that I am not associating a persons drinking problem with rape.
This is nothing more than a cute little analogy. So flames trying
to tell me that rape is not the women's fault should be considered as
already received.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
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'Anconiacramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/29/85)
> From Clayton Cramer: > > > > Now, about the "innocent male victims" accusation: If women are > > > guilty of inviting rape merely by going out on the street at > > > night...maybe men should be guilty by association too. Right > > > now, men have a lot more political and economic power than women > > > in general. Does that mean they support the current situation, > > > and the current rape statistics? Probably not, but still... > > > > > > Ellen Eades > > > > No one on net.women has claimed that "women are guilty of inviting rape > > merely by going out on the street at night". No responsible person in > > our society believes that. > > I hate to disillusion you, Clayton, but not only is this a common myth > concerning rape, but it has even appeared in this newsgroup in a few > guises (in relation to dress or to self-defense). > I haven't seen it in this newsgroup; I have seen several people make remarks which have been misinterpreted (wildly misinterpreted, even) into fitting into what the reader wanted to read. > > This belief that Ellen has in "guilty by > > association" is a clear demonstration of *why* feminism is perceived > > by many people in this country as an excuse for man-hating, in much the > > same way that the KKK promotes general hatred of blacks because of the > > criminal actions of a few blacks. > > Who is terrorizing whom, here? I think a better analogy could be made > between the woman-hating actions of men, especially against those > ``uppity'' feminists [imagine, wanting *equality* after all we've given > them] and the KKK's actions against blacks. > Ed, you persist in viewing men as a "woman-hating" class, as your paragraph above demonstrates. I didn't use the word "uppity" to describe feminism, because the complaints that feminists have about our societal institutions and our government's actions in relation to women have considerable merit. > It would be a BAD analogy--for a reason Ellen gave: only some men support > terrorism against women, just like only some whites supported KKK terrorism > against blacks. > > The only reason feminists are considered men-haters is that a *few* > feminists--who get a lot of media attention--*are* men-haters. There's no > denying it. And although I don't condone hatred, considering some of the > attitudes men hold towards women, I find it quite understandable. > If I said something ridiculous like "I can understand why whites fear and hate blacks --- just look at the cultural values and attitudes they have towards whites." you, Ellen, and everyone else on this newsgroup would RIGHTFULLY accuse me of racism. You are more than willing to apologize for sexism when it's directed at the *right* group. You aren't opposed to sexism --- you just want this foolishness directed at men as a class. > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (06/04/85)
> Just because a large number of crimes go unreported doesn't mean that > the crimes are committed by a relatively large (relative to what???) > number of men. It seems quite likely to me that the men who commit > the reported crimes also commit the unreported ones. This is not likely to be true in domestic violence cases--which occurs in between one out of six to one out of ten cases. Domestic violence is very widespread in this country & affects all socioeconomic groups. > As for the statistic that 33% of male college freshmen would commit rape > if they thought they could get away with it, I have never heard it before. > How was the figure arrived at? > It just seems incredible to me that anyone would actually say > this about himself. The statistic was cited in PSYCHOLOGY TODAY about two years ago. I don't know how the question was phrased, but the statistic came out of a study on male attitudes towards money, sex and dating. The statistic was somewhat higher, actually, when the respondents were asked about their attitudes towards women when the men payed for the dates--closer to 50% of the men felt that paying for the date entitled them to some kind of sex, whether the woman wanted it or not. The questioners then asked if, in this instance, the men would rape the women if they (the men) thought they could get away with it & most of those men said "yes." (The original article did not contain the exact figures & even if it had, I DID read it a few years ago. I just remembered being struck by the idea that one third of the men interviewed would rape women if they could escape the legal consequences. Also, I don't know if the questioners used the word "rape" or a less pejorative phrase like "make the woman have sex with you.") The article did point out that the investigators themselves were surprised by the findings, if that's any consolation to you. Also, the article talked about the extremely high incidence of date rape--apparently over half of the rapes in this country are date rapes and those are the kind least likely to be reported. I don't know--it could be the same doing it again & again, but I suspect that the high incidence of date rape suggests that rapists are much more widely distributed throughout the population than you are willing to acknowledge. > *Some* men rape and are self-righteous about it. I contend that most men > do not rape, and don't think of rape as a good thing. There are often gaps between what people think & what they do. Much of the evidence about violent men shows that they felt they had some right or justification for what they did--men who beat their wives often feel that it is their right to "reprimand" or "correct" their wives--they don't see what they're doing as "abuse," or at least some part of their mind does not see what they're doing as abuse. As the article on date rape suggests, men also think they have certain rights in dating situations & some number of the men who rape their dates may not see what they are doing as rape per se, but as exercising their "rights." In other cases, such as raping strangers, the rapists may be more likely to think about venting their hostilities than how they are actually doing it. Also, I suspect that most men don't think about rape, period. One value to saying (however flippantly) that MEN should be forced to stay home is that it does make at least some of them think about rape & how the fear of it curtails women's freedom. C. E. Jackson ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/10/85)
> > As for the statistic that 33% of male college freshmen would commit rape > > if they thought they could get away with it, I have never heard it before. > > How was the figure arrived at? > > It just seems incredible to me that anyone would actually say > > this about himself. > The statistic was cited in PSYCHOLOGY TODAY about two years > ago. I don't know how the question was phrased, but the > statistic came out of a study on male attitudes towards money, > sex and dating. The statistic was somewhat higher, actually, > when the respondents were asked about their attitudes towards > women when the men payed for the dates--closer to 50% of the > men felt that paying for the date entitled them to some kind > of sex, whether the woman wanted it or not. The questioners > then asked if, in this instance, the men would rape the women > if they (the men) thought they could get away with it & most > of those men said "yes." (The original article did not contain the > exact figures & even if it had, I DID read it a few years ago. > I just remembered being struck by the idea that one third of > the men interviewed would rape women if they could escape the > legal consequences. Also, I don't know if the questioners used > the word "rape" or a less pejorative phrase like "make the > woman have sex with you.") The article did point out that the > investigators themselves were surprised by the findings, if > that's any consolation to you. > PSYCHOLOGY TODAY? That's not a fit source for statistics on the average age of newborns! More seriously, the phrasing of the question is *REAL* important. If the word "rape" was used, I find the statistic hard to believe. If the phrase "make the woman have sex with you", or "annoy the woman into having sex", this is quite different. (Tasteless, vulgar, and stupid, but not a criminal act.) > C. E. Jackson > ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above > [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***