ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (02/03/85)
unmvax!cliff posted the following fascinating article: SAN FRANCISCO (October 20, 1983) Female inmates of San Quentin prison will have to endure strip searches and showers under the scrutiny of male guards, says a Federal judge who ruled that privacy is secondary to security. U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams yesterday dismissed a class-action suit brought by three inmates who complained it was humiliating to be naked in front of male guards at the maximum-security facility. They also complained some of the male guards verbally harassed them. Williams said use of male guards didn't violate the inmates' constitutional right to privacy and said security needs justified the physical observation and hands-on searches by correctional officers, including men. The ruling protects men's employment rights in correctional facilities, said California Attorney General John Van de Kamp." That article is fascinating because of its source: page 68 of the March 1985 issue of Playboy magazine. That by itself would not be particularly interesting. What makes it fascinating is the surrounding context that Cliff fails to post. The news article is taken from a larger essay called "What else do women want?" by John Gordon. After quoting the aforementioned article, Gordon goes on to say: Unless I am terribly mistaken, the reaction of most readers of this or any other publication is probably one of incredulity, even shock. Uniformed men being licensed to grope and abuse naked women, against their will, in the name of "men's employment rights"? Can such things be? ... Where are 60 minutes, Nightline and the various evening news shows? How is it that they all failed to notice, and tell you about, such an enormity? Here comes the fascinating part: They didn't tell you about it because the news item quoted, though reprinted in its entirety, was transcribed with one slight alteration: My word processor was instructed to run it through its find replace function, replacing the word male with female and men with women, and vice versa. And now you know that Cliff isn't telling you the whole truth. Now that you know what the newspaper article Cliff posted really says, do you feel any differently about it? --Andrew Koenig
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (02/10/85)
> Now that you know what the newspaper article Cliff posted really > says, do you feel any differently about it? > --Andrew Koenig I read about this (female guards being allowed to strip-search male prisoners) in the LA times. I really don't feel any differently when ``male'' and ``female'' are reversed--in either case it is a matter of whether prisoners are given or denied the right to be free of a certain kind of humiliation. (And it can be argued that the issue of sex in prison strip-searches should be a non-issue were it not for outdated social attitudes.) However, I'm sort of curious just what kind of point the Playboy article was trying to make. Sounds like they were making the tired claim ``now that women have the same rights [sic] as men, they should have the same liabilities as well''. They probably trotted out a list of alimony and custody-dispute horror stories later on in the article to show how much men are discriminated against. Maybe they even brought out some cases of how new laws make it difficult for men to defend themselves against false rape accusations. Of course, there may well be a drop or two of truth in the charges these ``men's rights'' folks make. Just like there is an ocean of truth behind the charges of those claiming that women are still discriminated against. Of course, individual cases of near-equal severity can be brought out on either side; however, in terms of numbers, the cases of discrimination against men are so puny and are generally much more quickly rectified as to show the ``men's rights'' folks as wanting to both eat their cake and have it, too. As an example, the percentage of divorces involving alimony has decreased much faster than the difference between men's and women's salaries. Cases where men get primary or sole custody of children have increased several times just in the past decade. Yet at current rates only half of the pay inequity between men and women will disappear by the 21st Century. More subtle forms of discrimination against women abound. Meanwhile, ``men's rights'' people claim the right to be crybabies, saying that women have the right to be equal to them (though, of course, few are), but better not show even a temporary and miniscule amount of superiority (heaven forbid!). -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (02/12/85)
~ I failed to save the original article. It dealt with the humiliation ~ of female prisoners being searched by male guards. Later, it was ~ revealed that the genders had been reversed (i.e., originally the ~ article concerned the humiliation of male prisoners searched by female ~ guards). The question was asked, "Do you feel differently depending on ~ which way the story is told?" First, I think that felons *should* lose many of their rights, including the right of privacy, when it interferes with security. I also think that one's gender should not be a consideration for task assignment among prison guards. However, it seems worth noting that female prisoners searched by male guards are likely to experience a greater sense of being threatened than when the roles are reversed. Equal treatment does not mean equal humiliation or fear. So yes, I do feel differently about the story depending on the genders assigned to the prisoners and guards. Women experience different levels of anxiety and self-doubt than men do when they receive promotions, get married or divorced, are searched by members of the opposite sex, and any number of other situations where they are being "treated equally". Although such equality of treatment over an extended period of time may eventually result in a narrowing of the differences in these levels, they are undeniably wide right now, especially where the potential of sexual violence exists. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (02/12/85)
> However, I'm sort of curious just what kind of point the Playboy article > was trying to make. Sounds like they were making the tired claim ``now > that women have the same rights [sic] as men, they should have the same > liabilities as well''. They probably trotted out a list of alimony and > custody-dispute horror stories later on in the article to show how much > men are discriminated against. Maybe they even brought out some cases > of how new laws make it difficult for men to defend themselves against > false rape accusations. Have you ever actually *read* a Playboy magazine? I have not read the article in question, so I can't say for sure, but if what you say is true, it would represent a radical departure from the editorial policy of a few years ago. I remember that some airplay was given to the issue of "men's rights", but I've seen far more strident and idiotic support of it on this net than I ever did in Playboy. As I remember, Playboy's editorial policy is pro-ERA and pro-choice. Those who consider this contradictory to their photography might want to re- evaluate their ideas on the nature of erotica and its relationship to men's attitudes. Jeff Winslow
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/13/85)
In article <2295@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: >However, I'm sort of curious just what kind of point the Playboy article >was trying to make. Sounds like they were making the tired claim ``now >that women have the same rights [sic] as men, they should have the same >liabilities as well''. They probably trotted out a list of alimony and >custody-dispute horror stories later on in the article to show how much >men are discriminated against. Maybe they even brought out some cases >of how new laws make it difficult for men to defend themselves against >false rape accusations. I'll satisfy your curiosity with some excerpts: "Politics is largely a matter of what gets noticed. Its practitioners exert themselves to make us place certain considerations in the foreground and others in the background. That is what lobbyists and political action committees are for.... Several paragraphs later: ...Whatever it once may have been in theory, the women's movement today is nothing more or less than a lobby, single- mindedly promoting the interests of one group at the expense of another, without regard to logic, principle, or justice. In support of this claim, he states that NOW has opposed efforts to make child custody settlements fairer, and that feminist groups have demanded that the presumption of innocence be denied to accused rapists. If these two accusations are true, they are enough to justify taking a good hard look at the women's movement. If true, the women's movement (or at least some representatives of the movement) is clearly guilty of supporting and encouraging injustices, when those injustices happen to be favourable to women. Unforgivable. Don't belittle the withholding of the presumption of innocence in rape cases. I live alone, and work alone, at odd hours. For 20 hours of each day nobody actually knows where I am. If some woman gets raped in Waterloo Park and I have the bad luck to resemble the rapist, I could be in deep shit. Are you always someplace where somebody else can see you? >Of course, there may well be a drop or two of truth in the charges these >``men's rights'' folks make. Just like there is an ocean of truth >behind the charges of those claiming that women are still discriminated >against. No amount of injustice against women can justify any injustice against men. In fact, as a general principle, no amount of injustice against "x" can justify any injustice against "y". Most of the rest of your article is pretty irrelevant, given that you were responding to what you thought the article said, rather that finding out what it said. You would have had to *buy* a copy of Playboy to do that. Ooh, iccch. Politically incorrect! -- David Canzi "But lo! men have become the tools of their tools." -- Henry David Thoreau
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/13/85)
Nancy Parsons argues that women feel more fear than men in the situation of strip searches by the opposite sex, and (presumably, though she doesn't say so in so many words) that this justifies different rules being applied depending on the sex of the prisoner. I believe that she feels that women ought to receive better treatment than men in this situation because, in general, there is much more likelihood of the women feeling threatened by the situation. While I think I can see why she feels that this assumed psychological difference between the sexes makes differing treatment in prison "fair", I can't agree that it is right. If both sexes are to be treated equally, then they should be treated equally - on the job, in the home, and in prison. Can anyone explain why this fundamental assumption of equality should be abandoned here?
mario@astrovax.UUCP (Mario Vietri) (02/14/85)
Nancy Parsons uses a faulty argument when she tries to explain why she feels differently depending on whether it is male guards searching female prisoners, or viceversa, at S.Quentin state prison. First, she claims that security, not privacy, should be the overriding concern on the issue. Then, she says that women are more threatened by men than the viceversa. > First, I think that felons *should* lose many of their rights, including > the right of privacy, when it interferes with security. > However, it seems worth noting that female prisoners searched by male > guards are likely to experience a greater sense of being threatened than > when the roles are reversed. Obviously, the two things are contradictory. Either security prevails, in which case body searches by guards of any sex are permitted on prisoners of any sex, or the dignity of the prisoners should be protected even within the relatively secure confines of the prison. Even if she prefers security, one may notice that the prisoners were NOT objecting to body searches per se, but only to who was performing such body searches. I of course side with the preservation of dignity even in these confines, which is in line, of course, with what is explicitly stated in the constitution. In this case, though, NP still makes a strange claim when she says... > ... female prisoners searched by male > guards are likely to experience a greater sense of being threatened than > when the roles are reversed. This is certainly true, but why should YOU decide how really threatened and humiliated men feel in these situation? Why should the fact that women feel humiliated under these (or different) conditions ... > Women experience different levels of anxiety and self-doubt than men do > when they receive promotions, get married or divorced, are searched by > members of the opposite sex... imply that men do not, or should not? In general, I believe whoever tells that s/he feels humiliated, because it is their feelings, their freedoms, their personal dignity that are being humiliated, not mine. The simple statement that somebody feels humiliated is sufficient ground, for me, to take that person seriously. At the same time, I do expect everybody else to feel the same the way, and it is exactly this that is disturbing in Nancy Parsons' letter: the presumption that she has a right to say whose claims to privacy are justified and whose are not. The episode per se is slightly irrelevant, given also that we have neglected the conflict between prisoners' rights and affirmative action. > Women experience different levels of anxiety and self-doubt than men do > when they receive promotions, get married or divorced, are searched by > members of the opposite sex... Quite true, but what does this have to do with my feelings when it is me who is being body-searched? Unfortunately for us men, and as every black, chicano, mexican man can easily attest, women do not have the monopoly on humiliation. Mario Vietri {most majors}!astrovax!mario
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/15/85)
I didn't mean to, but I accidentally reread the last paragraph of Ed Hall's article and noticed a real gem there: >Meanwhile, >``men's rights'' people claim the right to be crybabies, saying that >women have the right to be equal to them (though, of course, few are), >but better not show even a temporary and miniscule amount of superiority >(heaven forbid!). Throughout his article, he contrasts cases of unequal treatment of men and women, claiming that the cases where women get the short end of the deal are more severe that those in which it's the men who get screwed. So one would assume, from the context of the rest of his article, that the equality he is talking about in the first half of the sentence is equality of treatment. Yet in the second half of his sentence, he contrasts equality of treatment with superiority, and he appears to mean superiority of *merit*. Now, if, by equality, he means equality of merit, then his comment in parentheses implies that most women are inferior. And if he means equality of treatment, contrasting it with superiority of merit suggests that the people who are treated better *are* better. No self-respecting liberal or radical would confess to believing something like that. -- David Canzi
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (02/16/85)
> Have you ever actually *read* a Playboy magazine? I have not read the article > in question, so I can't say for sure, but if what you say is true, it > would represent a radical departure from the editorial policy of a few > years ago. I remember that some airplay was given to the issue of "men's > rights", but I've seen far more strident and idiotic support of it on this > net than I ever did in Playboy. > > As I remember, Playboy's editorial policy is pro-ERA and pro-choice. Those > who consider this contradictory to their photography might want to re- > evaluate their ideas on the nature of erotica and its relationship to > men's attitudes. > > Jeff Winslow I have to admit to a bit of type-casting, here, as the most offensive tirades for ``men's rights'' I saw were in Penthouse a couple of years ago. (I've not read one since, except for a glance through the Miss America [I can't remember her name] issue that a ladyfriend (!!!) showed me.) I made the assumption that Playboy was playing the same game--I probably shouldn't have (though in my experience Playboy and Penthouse seemed to track pretty closely in editorial opinions). It's been five or six years since I've read Playboy; at the time, I was aware of their nominal support for women's rights, but I got the distinct impression that their ideas about liberation were ambivalent except when it came to sex; i.e. liberation was a Good Idea because it allowed women to be more sexually aggressive and ``available''. I'll not be so cynical as to say that everything else was lip-service, but it seemed that Playboy's support of economic and political equality for women was pretty lukewarm. Since it's been a while since I've looked through these magazines, I could be all wet, at least with respect to Playboy. Unless Penthouse has changed pretty radically, though, it likely has continued to make ``men's rights'' an item for crusade. (I noticed in the Vannesa Williams--that's the name--issue that they even had a special column on the subject.) As far as Hustler and its ilk go--they never made a a pretense of presenting women in a position of equality. As disgusting as I find Larry Flynt and his magazine, I have to admit that he's honest about what it is. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (02/16/85)
David Canzi writes: >No amount of injustice against women can justify any injustice against >men. In fact, as a general principle, no amount of injustice against >"x" can justify any injustice against "y". Hmm. Why is it that people who make statements like the above are always in group "y"? There is *always* going to be some injustice. Why not even out the load a little? That way, *everybody* has some incentive to help solve the injustices. Besides, one could always argue that it's "y" causing the injustice against "x". Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (02/16/85)
<bug food> > First, I think that felons *should* lose many of their rights, including > the right of privacy, when it interferes with security. > > I also think that one's gender should not be a consideration for task > assignment among prison guards. > Prisoners should and do lose some of their rights. This can be carried too far, however. The right to the privacy of one's body is one of the most fundamental, and to lose it causes terrible humiliation and feelings of degradation. This is the main reason that rape is such a terrible crime. While forcing a woman to stand naked and powerless before a group of men (who, given the situation, will probably be hooting and ogling) isn't the same as rape, I feel that it is close enough that it should never be allowed to happen. What's wrong with assigning female guards to perform strip searches on female prisoners? If there aren't enough women guards to do this, then the state should hire them. > However, it seems worth noting that female prisoners searched by male > guards are likely to experience a greater sense of being threatened than > when the roles are reversed. Equal treatment does not mean equal > humiliation or fear. So yes, I do feel differently about the story > depending on the genders assigned to the prisoners and guards. . > Nancy Parsons > AT&T ISL I agree. When was the last time you heard of a man being raped by a woman? I don't think most men would be as bothered as women by being strip searched in front of the opposite sex because rape of men by women is so rare. It would still be humiliating, but not as frightening. I feel that strip searches are intrinsically humiliating, and so should be avoided. If it should happen that a strip search is really needed for security reasons, it should be done delicately, with the minimum of humiliation. (Delicacy in prison??? What is this world coming to?) Maybe there should be laws regulating how and when strip searches are done. The purpose of prison is to punish criminals by restricting their freedom, to prevent those criminals from committing crimes for a period of time, and to rehabilitate them (well, this usually doesn't happen, but that's another problem). Humiliation of prisoners doesn't accomplish any of these goals. I worry that male guards will strip search female prisoners "just for fun". Does anyone know whether there are laws or regulations against this? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/17/85)
Thomas West writes: >David Canzi writes: >>No amount of injustice against women can justify any injustice against >>men. In fact, as a general principle, no amount of injustice against >>"x" can justify any injustice against "y". > > Hmm. Why is it that people who make statements like the above are always >in group "y"? Because members of group "x" have nothing to gain by pointing this out. > There is *always* going to be some injustice. Why not even out the load >a little? That way, *everybody* has some incentive to help solve the >injustices. Why even the load in a manner that increases the total load if it can be evened in a manner that reduces the total load? Why should some women be trying to increase men's load, when that course of action doesn't help to lighten their own? Moral questions aside, it's just not rational. > Besides, one could always argue that it's "y" causing the injustice against >"x". What you seem to be saying is that men, as a group, are guilty of oppressing women, as a group. I say that the world is made up of individuals. *I* haven't oppressed any women lately, so don't try to make *me* feel guilty. -- David Canzi
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (02/18/85)
>>> = David Canzi >> = Tom West (me) > = David Canzi >> There is *always* going to be some injustice. Why not even out the load >>a little? That way, *everybody* has some incentive to help solve the >>injustices. >Why even the load in a manner that increases the total load if it can be >evened in a manner that reduces the total load? Why should some women be >trying to increase men's load, when that course of action doesn't help to >lighten their own? Moral questions aside, it's just not rational. Would you claim that affirmative action programs raise the total load of injustices? Somehow I don't think so. They are merely remedying a situation caused by years of injustice. They are unjust to the groups not being selected for affirmative action, but I claim that the injustices that they correct are far greater than the ones they cause. Thus I don't believe your point is valid. >> Besides, one could always argue that it's "y" causing the injustice against >>"x". >What you seem to be saying is that men, as a group, are guilty of >oppressing women, as a group. I say that the world is made up of >individuals. *I* haven't oppressed any women lately, so don't try >to make *me* feel guilty. What have you done to help? Also remember that you are currently enjoying the benefits of the injustices that occur today! Your OHIP (medical insurance) bill is lower because nurses are still being badly underpaid. (And that's not supply and demand as has been pointed out, there is a shortage of nurses. It's because it is traditionally a women's job.) You are free to ignore injustices when you are no longer benefitting from them. Until then, you *are* guilty if you aren't willing to at least try to help. To steal a phrase from somewhere else... If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. (or as the chemists have it: If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate :-)) Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (02/19/85)
> David Canzi writes: > >No amount of injustice against women can justify any injustice against > >men. In fact, as a general principle, no amount of injustice against > >"x" can justify any injustice against "y". > > Hmm. Why is it that people who make statements like the above are always > in group "y"? > Tom West > { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west Umm....I suppose I'm in *a* group "y," since women seem to qualify. How- ever, I am not in *all* groups "y," and I certainly agree with the original posting. "Revenge" for injustice just *shifts* the injustice. What should be done is to get *rid* of it...but I'm just a silly, ideal- istic fool who doesn't understand why people are divided up in such strange ways... Muffy
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/19/85)
> > If both sexes are to be treated equally, then they should be treated > equally - on the job, in the home, and in prison. Can anyone explain > why this fundamental assumption of equality should be abandoned here? I have not read all the articles on this subject, so please forgive me if someone has already done this. Has anyone yet defined what a "strip search" is? I do not know what one is in a jail setting. But I do know what it can involve in an international border crossing. And that is visual and contact inspection of sexual organs and the anal area. I haven't made up my mind on this issue yet. It would be easier if I knew if the above applies to a prison strip search. Does anyone have the FACTS? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (02/21/85)
>David Canzi writes: >>No amount of injustice against women can justify any injustice against >>men. In fact, as a general principle, no amount of injustice against >>"x" can justify any injustice against "y". and Tom West replies: > There is *always* going to be some injustice. Why not even out the load >a little? That way, *everybody* has some incentive to help solve the >injustices. then Peter Barbee says: Gee, Tom, it sounds like you're saying two wrongs might make a right. Let's even out the load by just removing some injustice from women, this way we are going forward, not sideways. PB
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (02/21/85)
>=David Canzi: > No amount of injustice against women can justify any injustice against > men. In fact, as a general principle, no amount of injustice against > "x" can justify any injustice against "y". > On the surface of it, this seems to be a very noble sentiment. And there are certainly situations where the denial of rights to one group for the alleged benifit of another has grown into the epitome of tyranny. On the other hand ``justice'' often involves balancing the rights of one group against those of another--even to the point of performing a seeming injustice to both. The current controversy over victim's versus defendant's rights is an example of this. At no point did I claim that the genuine injustices against men that ``Men's Rights'' proponents have found should be ignored: I pointed out that these problems were already being redressed, and at a rate far faster than the injustices that affect women. What I *did* argue is that focusing on injustices against men is wrong; it is a smoke screen used in excusing neglect or even hostility towards women's issues. It isn't as if we have a near-perfect society that only needs a few injustices excised. Injustices are common in every facet of life. And they affect EVERY "x" and EVERY "y". The question is, which injustices should we focus on correcting? Should it be a few injustices that affect an otherwise priviledged group "x"? Or a myriad of injustices that have subjugated and degraded group "y" for millenia? Whether it is the more refined, low-key tactics of Playboy or the sharper, issue-oriented tactics of Penthouse, the underlying message is the same: Feminists won't recognize those injustices which affect men [add short list here], and this makes suspect their motives for fighting those injustices which affect women [add huge list here] suspect. Perhaps, they go on, we should fight the Feminists before they promulgate more injustices. (This ignores the fact that with the sole exception of rape defense restrictions, the injustices were created apart from Feminist influence. And rape defense restrictions were formulated as much under ``Victim's Rights'' influence as Feminism, and can be seen as a general shift away from what some people consider undue protection of defendants and neglect of victims.) > Most of the rest of your article is pretty irrelevant, given that you > were responding to what you thought the article said, rather that finding > out what it said. You would have had to *buy* a copy of Playboy to > do that. Ooh, iccch. Politically incorrect! I don't think I was very far off in guessing the article's viewpoint. I suppose my mistake was forgetting how Playboy tries to use a more errudite style, as opposed to Penthouse's issue-oriented approach. As far as my article being ``irrelevent'', how does the fact that I posited an imaginary article to respond to make the points I made any less appropriate? I merely used it as a starting-point to express my opinion on the ``Men's Rights Movement'' in general. You might find it strange, but many libraries subscribe to Playboy and Penthouse. I've no need to do anything ``policically incorrect''. Besides, I can enjoy parts of either magazine (the interviews especially), even, sometimes, the pictures (although it seems that tasteful photos occur almost entirely by accident). My issue with both of them concerns their editorial viewpoints and the exploitative nature of many of their articles and pictorials. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (02/27/85)
> What you seem to be saying is that men, as a group, are guilty of > oppressing women, as a group. I say that the world is made up of > individuals. *I* haven't oppressed any women lately, so don't try > to make *me* feel guilty. > -- > David Canzi Are you really so sure? There are many ways to oppress, some of them are *extremely* subtle. We all take part in patterns that contribute to the oppression of women, which is to say that, even though the world *is* made up as individuals, it is reasonable to consider groups when dealing in matters such as these. The most we can do as individuals is to take our part to break the patterns - not just to try to avoid them ourselves, but to try to change them in the group. As far as reciprocal injustice goes, I'm willing to shoulder some of it because I recognize that I'm part of a group that *is* responsible. (I don't believe at all that this group is composed entirely of men, however. There are many women in the world who contribute to their own oppression.) -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
chabot@miles.DEC (L. S. Chabot) (03/05/85)
Ed Gould == > > As far as reciprocal injustice goes, I'm willing to shoulder some of it > because I recognize that I'm part of a group that *is* responsible. (I don't > believe at all that this group is composed entirely of men, however. There > are many women in the world who contribute to their own oppression.) Yes, this is true about women: it can be described as women being raised with a flavor of misogyny--to distrust themselves and other women, as being somehow inadequate/inferior. To expect women to rise above everything they've been told is, well, isn't it expecting them to be superhuman? I feel it's a responsibility of mine to speak up when sexism or racism occurs around me. Does anybody else feel that this is just plain hard to do sometimes --hard to do because 1) sometimes you have to do it just so often, 2) it can be uncomfortable to speak up when you feel you're the only one who didn't laugh at a racist or sexist joke, 3) sometimes the thing's subtle and it can be hard to approach someone and express what you sensed. So, responsibilities sometimes get shirked. Also, I'm learning too. L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, LMO4/H4, 150 Locke Drive, Marlborough, MA 01752
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/05/85)
In article <292@mtxinu.UUCP> ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes: >> What you seem to be saying is that men, as a group, are guilty of >> oppressing women, as a group. I say that the world is made up of >> individuals. *I* haven't oppressed any women lately, so don't try >> to make *me* feel guilty. > >Are you really so sure? There are many ways to oppress, some of them >are *extremely* subtle. We all take part in patterns that contribute >to the oppression of women, which is to say that, even though the world >*is* made up as individuals, it is reasonable to consider groups when >dealing in matters such as these. You appear to be encouraging me to feel vaguely guilty about vague sins only vaguely hinted at. Whatever do you *mean* by "patterns that contribute to the oppression of women"? >As far as reciprocal injustice goes, I'm willing to shoulder some of it >because I recognize that I'm part of a group that *is* responsible. >(I don't believe at all that this group is composed entirely of men, >however. There are many women in the world who contribute to their >own oppression.) If the only reason you can give for your willingness to be punished is your membership in a group of people *many* (but not necessarily all) of whom oppress women, then you are accepting the guilt for somebody else's actions. If so, why are you willing to do this? Do you believe that the women who belong to this group should be punished too? If, on the other hand, you feel personally responsible, can you actually *name* any way in which you (or I) have made a non-trivial contribution to the oppression of women? -- David Canzi
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/05/85)
Ed Hall says: > At no point did I claim that the genuine injustices against men that > ``Men's Rights'' proponents have found should be ignored: ... > ... What I *did* argue is that focusing > on injustices against men is wrong; it is a smoke screen used in excusing > neglect or even hostility towards women's issues. > ... which injustices > should we focus on correcting? Should it be a few injustices that affect > an otherwise priviledged group "x"? Or a myriad of injustices that have > subjugated and degraded group "y" for millenia? You are encouraging us to turn our attention away from injustices against men and focus on injustices against women instead. Even though you don't directly argue that injustices against men should be ignored, the purpose of your arguments is plainly to convince us to do so. Has it occurred to you that some men's concerns about men's rights are sincere, and not just a cheap excuse for ignoring women's rights? Men are, after all, rather directly affected by such issues. > Whether it is the more refined, low-key tactics of Playboy or the sharper, > issue-oriented tactics of Penthouse, the underlying message is the same: > Feminists won't recognize those injustices which affect men [add short list > here], and this makes suspect their motives for fighting those injustices > which affect women [add huge list here] suspect. The point is *not* what you say it is. It is not a matter of feminists failing to recognize injustices against men. What the article in Playboy claims is that feminists are *actively* *opposing* efforts to redress injustices that are favourable to women, and demanding *new* injustices in their favour. > ... with the sole exception of rape defense restrictions, > the injustices were created apart from Feminist influence. And rape > defense restrictions were formulated as much under ``Victim's Rights'' > influence as Feminism, ... My impression of victim's rights was that it had to do with helping the victim of a crime, not stringing up the defendant. Ie. Rights are being increased for the victim, not decreased for the defendant. What Gordon was talking about in his article in Playboy was the denial of the presumption of innocence to the defendant at a rape trial. Without this presumption, it is up to the defendant to try to prove his innocence. It is not always possible for an innocent man to prove his innocence. A wrongful conviction for rape would ruin an innocent man's life. -- David Canzi
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (03/16/85)
> > Ed Hall says: > > At no point did I claim that the genuine injustices against men that > > ``Men's Rights'' proponents have found should be ignored: ... > > ... What I *did* argue is that focusing > > on injustices against men is wrong; it is a smoke screen used in excusing > > neglect or even hostility towards women's issues. > > ... which injustices > > should we focus on correcting? Should it be a few injustices that affect > > an otherwise priviledged group "x"? Or a myriad of injustices that have > > subjugated and degraded group "y" for millenia? > > You are encouraging us to turn our attention away from injustices against > men and focus on injustices against women instead. Even though you don't > directly argue that injustices against men should be ignored, the purpose > of your arguments is plainly to convince us to do so. > > Has it occurred to you that some men's concerns about men's rights are > sincere, and not just a cheap excuse for ignoring women's rights? Men > are, after all, rather directly affected by such issues. > Let me quote from my original article: > > ... in terms of numbers, the cases of > > discrimination against men are so puny and are generally much more > > quickly rectified ... > > > > As an example, the percentage of divorces involving alimony has > > decreased much faster than the difference between men's and women's > > salaries. Cases where men get primary or sole custody of children have > > increased several times just in the past decade. Yet at current rates > > only half of the pay inequity between men and women will disappear by > > the 21st Century. Need I say more about my position? There is a meta-issue here: injustices against men are rectified much more quickly than injustices against women. And, realistically, this will continue for quite a while even if as many of us who can shift our focus to women's issues. Feminists are well aware of this, and so often choose not to dilute their position by admitting to injustices against men. I don't consider this politically wise, but I'm sympathetic to the feelings behind it. On another point: > > My impression of victim's rights was that it had to do with helping the > victim of a crime, not stringing up the defendant. Ie. Rights are > being increased for the victim, not decreased for the defendant. What > Gordon was talking about in his article in Playboy was the denial of the > presumption of innocence to the defendant at a rape trial. Without this > presumption, it is up to the defendant to try to prove his innocence. It > is not always possible for an innocent man to prove his innocence. A > wrongful conviction for rape would ruin an innocent man's life. I don't know what Gordon's been smoking, but in the rape trials I know about no such thing has happened. Publicity skews things quite a bit; in trials that get media coverage--no matter what the crime--the public's perception is usually ``guilty before proven innocent''. And I'm sure that frame-ups happen; once again, there is nothing peculiar about rape in this regard. A conviction for robbery would just as surely ruin a man's life, and can also be based solely on a victim's testimony, at least in some states. Perhaps ``victim's rights'' and ``defendant's rights'' are not connected in a technical sense, but in the real world they generally are--and ``victim's rights'' often consists of ``stringing up the defendant'', at least if he is unseemly enough. > -- > David Canzi -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/20/85)
In article <2345@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: >Let me quote from my original article: > >> > ... in terms of numbers, the cases of >> > discrimination against men are so puny and are generally much more >> > quickly rectified ... >> > >> > As an example, the percentage of divorces involving alimony has >> > decreased much faster than the difference between men's and women's >> > salaries. Cases where men get primary or sole custody of children have >> > increased several times just in the past decade. Yet at current rates >> > only half of the pay inequity between men and women will disappear by >> > the 21st Century. How about comparing quantities in the same units of measurement, such as the percentage difference between men's wages and women's wages, and the percentage difference between men's alimony and women's alimony. Or how about considering the factor by which the percentage of child custody settlements given to the mother has decreased. (It's smaller than the factor by which settlements given to the father have increased.) You can interpret these statistics creatively to support almost any position. >Need I say more about my position? There is a meta-issue here: injustices >against men are rectified much more quickly than injustices against women. >And, realistically, this will continue for quite a while even if as many >of us who can shift our focus to women's issues. Feminists are well aware >of this, and so often choose not to dilute their position by admitting to >injustices against men. I don't consider this politically wise, but I'm >sympathetic to the feelings behind it. I don't *care* if feminists *ignore* injustices against men. That is their right. John Gordon made two assertions that especially interest me: 1) That women's groups have been *actively* *opposing* efforts to remedy some injustices against men. 2) That women's groups have been *demanding* the implementation of at least one new injustice against men. This is in an entirely different class than merely *ignoring* men's rights. >On another point: >> >> My impression of victim's rights was that it had to do with helping the >> victim of a crime, not stringing up the defendant. Ie. Rights are >> being increased for the victim, not decreased for the defendant. What >> Gordon was talking about in his article in Playboy was the denial of the >> presumption of innocence to the defendant at a rape trial. Without this >> presumption, it is up to the defendant to try to prove his innocence. It >> is not always possible for an innocent man to prove his innocence. A >> wrongful conviction for rape would ruin an innocent man's life. > >I don't know what Gordon's been smoking, but in the rape trials I know >about no such thing has happened. He didn't say that it has happened, only that women's groups have been demanding it. I don't know what Gordon smokes either. I don't smoke. Does it matter? > And I'm sure >that frame-ups happen; once again, there is nothing peculiar about rape >in this regard. A conviction for robbery would just as surely ruin a >man's life, and can also be based solely on a victim's testimony, at >least in some states. Which doesn't mean that it *should* be that way for robbery, nor that it should be that way for rape. >Perhaps ``victim's rights'' and ``defendant's rights'' are not connected >in a technical sense, but in the real world they generally are--and >``victim's rights'' often consists of ``stringing up the defendant'', >at least if he is unseemly enough. If this is intended as some kind of justification, then it sounds like you are arguing that "this is the way it is, therefore this is the way it should be." -- David Canzi "It's lonely at the bottom, too."