ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/17/85)
>> 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 suspect your wisdom derives from many hours spent in men's locker rooms. Such compassion for a problem that is the source of unceasing anxiety and hindrance of others besides yourself deserves comment. Your insight is all the more remarkable appearing in what is purportedly a forum for the discussion of women's problems. Geoff, every woman you meet wears the scars of the kind of subjugation being discussed here. (5000 years? maybe 3000000?) Physical attack, especially rape, and other forms of intimidation have been the unceasing concern of women since before history began. Simply BEING a women implies constant vigilance and permanent loss of freedom on a scale few men seem unable to fully appreciate. Or, in your omniscience, do you deny that what prevents women from walking alone at night may somehow be part of a more general and inclusive syndrome that is responsible for the suspicion women experience when meeting unfamiliar men, the preprogrammed feelings of inadequacy in stereotypically male endeavors, and a general predisposition to timid and submissive nature? This stereotypical behavior -- partly commonsense wisdom derived from the trauma of generations -- has literally been bludgeoned into women over the millenia by MEN. Insecurity, fear, loss of freedom, suspicion, paranoia -- and the very hostility expressed by the article you were responding to -- all are part of the deep scars on womankind that you so lightly dismiss. Geoff, it's very difficult to be polite to you. Your flippant indifference would indicate that you don't care because you are not a likely victim -- after all its not YOUR freedom that is being circumscribed, so why worry, huh? >A women's situation varies in degree, but not in kind. We are truly fortunate to have in our presence a man who is able to experience the subjective states of women. No wonder you do not need to hear what women say. >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)... Do you mean to attribute this statistic to peer group pressure? If so, I fail to see why that is any consolation to women. Instead, this would appear to argue in favor of locking up men at night, lest they band together into violent unthinking gangs. >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...? >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 ... What the hell are remarks such as these doing in this newsgroup? Are you trying to perpetuate this ghastly problem? Would you prefer that people not be inflamed? What do YOU have to gain by maintaining the status quo -- a world wherein the perpetual intimidation of women is accepted as normal? Among the women I know, one in three sounds like a conservative figure. My estimate would be more like 50%. And of my female friends who were raped, most of them said they did not report the attack. Again, I suspect Geoff's thinking comes more from men's locker rooms than from listening to real live women. In any case, I'm fairly confident the likelihood for our `nice' middle class women reading this article is way above 10%, and it might be higher than 33%, for all anyone knows. Not inflammatory? More revealing is Geoff's attitude that readers have no need to be concerned about what is happening to those not here. I wonder how badly off women in `rough' neighborhood must be, if the AVERAGE is supposedly one in three? But who cares? Those people are not present. Why should we worry about them? Carry this thinking one step further. The average for men is probably less than one in a hundred. Consequently, Geoff need not worry. -michael
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (05/20/85)
> >> 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 suspect your wisdom derives from many hours spent in men's locker rooms. No, it does not. I had an ethics class in which an instructor gave us instruction 'common sense' ethics. The term was his. I happened to disagree very strongly with him, and spent many, many hours going over what I though so that I could argue with him and keep him from running me around in circles a la Socrates. If you don't agree with me, fine. But that was a cheap shot. > > Such compassion for a problem that is the source of unceasing anxiety > and hindrance of others besides yourself deserves comment. Your insight > is all the more remarkable appearing in what is purportedly a forum for > the discussion of women's problems. Last I looked I was discussing women's problems. There is nothing that says I have to look at them the same way you do. > > Geoff, every woman you meet wears the scars of the kind of subjugation > being discussed here. (5000 years? maybe 3000000?) Physical attack, > especially rape, and other forms of intimidation have been the unceasing > concern of women since before history began. I agree with your last statement. However, at worst, each woman has only been dealing with it as long as she has been alive. I am not saying this is a good thing. I am just saying that it hasn't been 5000 years for any given woman. > > Simply BEING a women implies constant vigilance and permanent loss of > freedom on a scale few men seem unable to fully appreciate. > > Or, in your omniscience, do you deny that what prevents women from > walking alone at night may somehow be part of a more general and > inclusive syndrome that is responsible for the suspicion women experience > when meeting unfamiliar men, the preprogrammed feelings of inadequacy in > stereotypically male endeavors, and a general predisposition to timid > and submissive nature? Yes. Sorry, I am not paranoid enough to believe in a world-wide conspiracy aimed at subjugating women. Most people do what they do because that was how they were raised. The mother usually does more with raising children than men do. Are all mothers in on it too? Yes, there are peer pressures, and stereotyping and all of the other forces which shape us all as we grow. These are changing. Slowly, but they ARE changing. We are talking about a major shift in society. These come about slowly (a society as large as ours is has one hell of a lot of inertia -- and in general, people DON'T LIKE CHANGE {any change}). In historical terms it is happenning with lightning-like rapidity. > > This stereotypical behavior -- partly commonsense wisdom derived from the > trauma of generations -- has literally been bludgeoned into women over > the millenia by MEN. > > Insecurity, fear, loss of freedom, suspicion, paranoia -- and the very > hostility expressed by the article you were responding to -- all are > part of the deep scars on womankind that you so lightly dismiss. > > Geoff, it's very difficult to be polite to you. Your flippant > indifference would indicate that you don't care because you are not > a likely victim -- after all its not YOUR freedom that is being > circumscribed, so why worry, huh? You aren't succeeding in politeness. If I didn't care I would not subscribe to this news group. That doesn't mean I have to turn off my mind. > > >A women's situation varies in degree, but not in kind. > > We are truly fortunate to have in our presence a man who is able > to experience the subjective states of women. No wonder you do not > need to hear what women say. Couldn't argue that point, eh? > > >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)... > > Do you mean to attribute this statistic to peer group pressure? If so, I > fail to see why that is any consolation to women. Instead, this would > appear to argue in favor of locking up men at night, lest they band > together into violent unthinking gangs. How do you draw that conclusion from what I said? I said they were talkers, not doers (fortunately). > > >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...? > >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 ... > > What the hell are remarks such as these doing in this newsgroup? Trying to inject some rationality. Do you argue my premise? > > Are you trying to perpetuate this ghastly problem? Would you prefer > that people not be inflamed? What do YOU have to gain by maintaining > the status quo -- a world wherein the perpetual intimidation of women > is accepted as normal? Of course I don't want to perpetuate this ghastly problem! Do you have a reasonable solution? You have to deal with any subject rationally in order to do anything about it. You can be absolutely positive that a sponge is the same as a brick, but you won't build a very good house no matter how much you believe (would be easy to clean, though!). > > Among the women I know, one in three sounds like a conservative figure. > My estimate would be more like 50%. And of my female friends who were > raped, most of them said they did not report the attack. > > Again, I suspect Geoff's thinking comes more from men's locker rooms > than from listening to real live women. In any case, I'm fairly > confident the likelihood for our `nice' middle class women reading this > article is way above 10%, and it might be higher than 33%, for all > anyone knows. Not inflammatory? Tsk, tsk. Insults again (and not even new ones). All I said was if the 1 in 3 figures are correct, some women have greater chances and some have lesser chances. I would do what I could to make my chances as small as possible. It's not some kind of contest, for pete's sake. > > More revealing is Geoff's attitude that readers have no need to be > concerned about what is happening to those not here. I wonder how badly > off women in `rough' neighborhood must be, if the AVERAGE is supposedly > one in three? But who cares? Those people are not present. > > Why should we worry about them? > > Carry this thinking one step further. The average for men is probably > less than one in a hundred. Consequently, Geoff need not worry. > > -michael You are right. I don't worry (not about that, anyway). So what? I don't have to worry about my personal risk in order to be concerned about others. My ideas are different from yours. Granted. It seems that the only thing you want to hear are your own ideas parroted back. If I disagree I get a 'what is this doing in net.women' flame. If you can't argue what I say, is it because you don't have much of a case? geoff sherwood