dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) (06/09/85)
It is not my intention to pick on Ms. Zobjeck's reply to a particular flame. However, she makes a claim that I see repeated in the words of others on the net, men & women, and that I feel is not constructive. The particular issue being discussed was a curfew for men. Any other similar suggestion could be subsitituted, including new punishements for rapists, new rape laws that make conviction easier, etc. >>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 Allow me to point out the obvious: 1)roughly 50% of all people are male 2)any "solution" to rape must involve them and must evoke their active support. 3)Solutions that are widely perceived as being unfair to men, ie attacks on men as a class, attacks on fundamental human freedoms(speech, movement, etc), are doomed to failure. I sympathize when you say you are currently denied freedom of movement. However, I ask all of you collectively: How constructive, how useful is it to propose ideas whose major purpose is to anger men as a group? Ideas that are not intended seriously? Ideas that are obviously unfair to men? Ideas that amount to arbitrary and dangerous restrictions on basic constitutional rights? I suggest that as a purely practical fact you cannot ignore fairness toward men until such a time as women feel totally secure in their persons. I also point out that suggestions that are unfair to women (e.g. wear modest cloths) are equally unproductive. >>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. I think we would all be better off working to change the status quo. However, nothing will be changed by people so angry that they are incapable of rational dialog. Nothing will be changed by people who cannot back up their statistics and claims with references(this seems to be a high percentage of the people who contribute to this net). Finally, nothing will be done about a problem no one is willing to understand. Two approaches to rape seem common in this diccussion(as in past net discussions on this topic): 1)The "mad dog" theory of rape, often popular among men. Rapists are weirdos; severve punishment will help; most men are not really rapists. 2)The "thoughtcrime" theory of rape. All men are rapists. It is deep in the culture. We must root it out by suppressing all submissive images of women; men must have their consiciousness raised, at figurative gunpoint if need be; Read anything by Andrea Dworkin if you would like to hear more about this point of view; she really is quite good at rhetoric. Rather than pursuing these approaches, I suggest asking basic questions of ourselves: 1)How have we created a society where a high percentage of men want to rape women? Is this natural or not? 2)Do our female centered practices of child rearing give rise to a situation where men strongly resent women? Read "The Mermaid & the Minotaur" by Dorothy Dinnerstein for more on this. 3)What part of the rapes committed stem from general criminal acts committed by an "Underclass" that does not share the value system of the nation as a whole? What part stem from the values of the "official" nation? Are there two kinds of rape? Should we have two completely different strategies for each kind? Are there more kinds of rape? 4)To what extent does rape represent an expression of rage at a hopeless situation(e.g. the person who is unlikely to ever prove attractive to the opposite sex)? If this proves to be significant(and it may not), what can be done to relieve the legitimate concerns of such persons? >> >>================================================================================ >>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. >>================================================================================ >> I strongly support the disclaimers, and take them as my own. Dale