beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/19/85)
In Message <692@burl.UUCP> geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) writes: > [lotta stuff regarding violence against women (one in particular)] > > 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. > > [....] > geoff sherwood We were going good til we got here. You're quite right that *wishing* won't change things, but I'll be *d*mned* if I'm gonna let you get away with implying that we should just accept things the way they are. Maybe there's nothing we can do about who lives longer. (Then again, maybe there is - the majority of statistics posted so far state that men both murder and are murdered more often than women. Maybe if you boys would stop shooting each other, you could live longer too!) But there are certainly things we can do about violence against other human beings (of which the above-mentioned murdering is an example), and *we absolutely should* do them. Do *NOT* sit back and say "life is like that". On the contrary, *make personal and societal changes* to end it. [end of response to geoff in particular. now for a general response to some of the other fellows on net.women.] Some societal changes have been suggested here on the net - curfews for men springs to mind. Now before I really get flaming, let me make clear that when you're raped by a man with a knife or when you're turned down for a job because you don't piss standing up, there's nothing societal about it. It's *purely* personal. So societal attitudes and reforms are nothing more than generalizations of personal attitudes and reforms. Now that that's understood, FLAME ON: I'm getting sick and tired of the men (granted, only a percentage of the total) who react to curfews for men and Affirmative Action programs by *whining* that *they* don't want to have to pay for something *they* didn't do. Don't you fellows *realize* that *every other group* in the *entire country* *IS* paying for something they didn't do?!?!?!?! That women, blacks, hispanics,... who are verbally abused, physically abused, economically abused, are *innocent people* who are *paying* for the actions of some *real jerks*?!?! That your *whining* is not likely to generate a lot of sympathy from these groups?!? Now I can't speak for the rest of the women (amazingly enough!), but when I, in all seriousness, propose locking all men up after dark, I can't really see myself donning my uniform and patrolling the streets enforcing such a curfew. Nor do I envision a bunch of other women performing said enforcement on my behalf. What I do envision is men hearing the proposal, realizing what a d*mn drag it would be for them, ***RECOGNIZING that saying "life is like that - if you don't want to get hassled, don't go out where men might hassle you" IS THE SAME THING***, and getting motivated to help in coming up with and implementing a bet- ter solution. My "societal reform" is intended to get a *personal* reform in your thinking. The more I listen to your whining, the more I personally *want* to lock you up, but I recognize that that's an irra- tional, destructive emotion, and no, I probably won't try to implement it. I want your help, not your penance. So cut the crap and try to come up with something better, huh? Now as far as affirmative action goes: Yes, qualifications should always be the primary basis for deciding who gets a job. But there are a hundred applicants for every job, and qualifications will often only narrow it down to a few. From there, one has to use other criteria for deciding who gets it. When I'm faced with such a situation, I *will* tend to prefer members of less advantaged groups - I will in fact implement the "societal reform". But I'll do it in a personal way, and with the hope of striking a balance. I know for a fact that there are a *lot* of people out there who still favor white males, and I want to balance them. And I want to encourage other people to join me. It's true that if the balance ever swung as far in the other direction as it is now, that would be just as unhealthy an injustice as what we've got now. But come on kids, we've got a helluva long way to go before men are making 59 cents for every dollar a woman makes, and before white males are topping the unemployment list. I don't think we have to rush right out and buy our thermal blankets for when the sun goes out. Until we have proportionate equality in most phases of life, you bet I'm gonna favor the underdogs, and you top dogs can whine all you want - equality is the goal and I'm going for it. And I'm gonna encourage everybody else to too. Flame off. So. Anybody wanna talk about armpit hair? (:-) -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (05/21/85)
> > Now I can't speak for the rest of the women (amazingly enough!), but > when I, in all seriousness, propose locking all men up after dark, I > can't really see myself donning my uniform and patrolling the streets > enforcing such a curfew. Nor do I envision a bunch of other women > performing said enforcement on my behalf. What I do envision is men > hearing the proposal, realizing what a d*mn drag it would be for them, > ***RECOGNIZING that saying "life is like that - if you don't want to get > hassled, don't go out where men might hassle you" IS THE SAME THING***, > and getting motivated to help in coming up with and implementing a bet- > ter solution. You speak for me. (There, that oughta convince them. :-) ) > > --JB "The giant is awake." > marie desjardins