geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (12/11/84)
The matter of rape is not an easy one. In many cases it can be hard to determine that one occurred. How can a woman prove that someone held a knife on her if there were no witnesses? By the same token, should her word be enough? After all, there are a lot of people who are looking for revenge out there (for whatever reason, slight, etc) and a crime that needed no evidence would be a godsend -- "he raped me" would be sufficent to convict. Cases such as the girl who was doused with a caustic chemical and left to die in the desert are so emotion- packed that the cry is for the law to do something about it. I know the feeling, believe me (that case in particular sickens me no end), but I am not willing to live in a police state where nothing like that could happen, either. If there is evidence, witnesses, whatever, go after the rapist and punish him if he is guilty. But I am afraid of a climate where a man is guilty of rape unless he can prove himself innocent (especially being a person of said gender). As bad as letting a rapist go free may hurt the victim, is it not worse to convict a man of being one unjustly? It would destroy his life (job, family, friends). One point about Julia's posting. I am sorry if my being a man and walking down the street at night is seen as threatening to a woman walking towards me. However, I adamantly refuse to cross the street because my presence may bother her. If she is sufficently bothered by me to cross the street, so be it. I cannot let the (possibility of hurting the) feelings of others rule my actions or I would be nothing but a marionette (like the farmer and the donkey in the children's story of old). Life is tough enough without that onus. geoff sherwood
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (12/12/84)
The best precaution against being falsely accused of rape is to act so honorably, so fairly toward all the women with whom you come in contact that you couldn't rape, because you couldn't want to. aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features "Merry Christmas to all and to all a Good Night." -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features "Merry Christmas to all and to all a Good Night."
chabot@amber.DEC (L 'S' Chabot) (12/12/84)
geoff sherwood == > > I am sorry if my being a man and walking down the street at night is seen as > threatening to a woman walking towards me. However, I adamantly refuse to > cross the street because my presence may bother her. If she is sufficently > bothered by me to cross the street, so be it. I cannot let the (possibility of > hurting the) feelings of others rule my actions or I would be nothing but a > marionette (like the farmer and the donkey in the children's story of old). > Life is tough enough without that onus. Obviously, geoff, you were raised as a boy, and an egoistic one at that. If you had been raised to be a woman, you would know that a male's feelings are more important--therefore you would cross the street so as not to offend the man who might have to think about your feelings. Or maybe you wouldn't cross the street--after all, if you, as a woman, cross the street, then you're making a statement that you don't trust the man approaching you, and this might hurt his feelings. Dear me, it's better to cross the street than expect a little common courtesy! After all, it's not the male's fault that women are afraid of rape and assault, it's not his fault that women may be smaller or elderly and therefore more fragile than he (and therefore even more wary because if a thug does approach her she's not going to be able to escape). Because, if rape was a forbidden topic, which we could ensure by making the victim of the assault bear some life-long onus, then we wouldn't talk about it, women wouldn't get so frightened since the problem doesn't exist since we don't talk about it, and therefore problem would vanish, right?! And no males' feelings need to be hurt, and no males need to learn courtesy! Easy! (Sorry about those of you who've been taught courtesy--consider it an cultivated atrophied social skill, like bowing and hand-kissing.) The important thing to remember is that women should bear the burden because a male might decide to dominate and rape a woman. After all, what're they doing out on the street at night?! Why aren't they home being domin er I mean protected by their own males?! And the title word choice of "streetwalking"-- to make that one word is rather telling: a "streetwalker" (one word) is a prostitute, therefore one who "streetwalks" must be a prostitute. Loose! Sluts like that get what they deserve! Women are not supposed to be that way, but if they are they deserve no courtesy anyway! What do you mean who says so?! Therefore, women streetwalking are looking for customers and are not likely to cross the street to avoid them. Dangerous males can't be expected to go around carrying signs saying "Danger: Rapist" or "I've had a bad day with the castrating bitch (she just won't submit!) I live with, so watch out 12-year-olds". Clearly anyone who should carry such a sign needs psychiatric care for their sexual problems. Women are tender and understanding and being the emotional creatures they are, they can relate to males' emotions, and should be able to tell dangerous ones from safe ones without needing any such signs, and cross any steets when necessary. Except that's likely to make a dangerous psychopath angry. But we all know women thrive on abuse and domination. The woman walking towards you really wants it. Yeah! She won't cross the street, except to heighten the fear, the excitement, to lengthen the chase. In conclusion: women don't cross streets because o it might hurt some males' feelings (which are more important than hers) o they're streetwalkers o they're not true women--they lack the sensitivity to determine dangerous emotions o it might anger an unstable personality o all women are sluts anyway I haven't gone into the women who don't cross the streets because they feel confident of their own abilities to handle a dangerous situation, because they can't exist, except maybe butches and dykes and also obvious man-haters, but these being outcasts from society, they can be safely ignored, and therefore they don't exist either. Those who know me have no need of having this handy LK201CK shoved down their throat for misinterpreting the preceding. Courtesy on the net?! What's that?! L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA shadow: [ISSN 0018-9162 v17 #10 p7, bottom vt100, col3, next to next to last]
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/12/84)
Last time this topic came up I posted the comment that I had read
in a rape prevention booklet that the percentage of false accusations of rape
is the same as the percentage of false accusations of anything.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigleyagz@pucc-k (The High Lord) (12/13/84)
From: features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) > The best precaution against being falsely accused of rape is to act > so honorably, so fairly toward all the women with whom you come in > contact that you couldn't rape, because you couldn't want to. In other words treat every woman like a lady? I try, but there are some I find this very hard to do to, and there are some women that get very offensive when I treat them "honorably and fairly". Besides, I think this information is rather bogus to start with. You're saying that nice guys never rape? I find this a little hard to swallow! Sorry, but all rapists are not scraggly looking with three days growth of beard who kick cats on the sidewalk as they go by. Please! Try to be realistic when you answer these questions. ---- Andy ----
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (12/13/84)
If a man and a woman are approaching each other on a lonely street:
a.) The woman shouldn't have to cross the street if she wishes to avoid
the man, because doing so would mean she accepts guilt for rape,
b.) But by the same token, it makes no sense for the man to cross, since
(assuming he's not a rapist) he should not accept guilt either.
Therefore implications about acceptance of guilt cannot determine
who should cross the street. It boils down to a more basic rule: who wishes
a result, and has power to bring it about, should take action. If the woman
wants to avoid the man, she should cross. If the man wishes to avoid the
woman, thinking she might be afraid of him, he should cross.
Think of the humorous possibilities if they both decided to cross at the
same time!
Jeff Winslowcrs@lanl.ARPA (12/13/84)
> geoff sherwood == > > > I am sorry if my being a man and walking down the street at night is seen as > > threatening to a woman walking towards me. However, I adamantly refuse to > > cross the street because my presence may bother her. If she is sufficently > > bothered by me to cross the street, so be it. ... > ...therefore you would cross the street so as not to offend the > man who might have to think about your feelings. Or maybe you wouldn't cross > the street-after all, if you, as a woman, cross the street, then you're making > a statement that you don't trust the man approaching you, and this might hurt > his feelings. Dear me, it's better to cross the street than expect a little > common courtesy! ... > > L S Chabot GIMME A BREAK! ************************************** You cross the street. No, you cross the street. No, YOU do it. Nyah, nyah, nya, nyaah, nyaaaaaaaah ************************************** This is childish Crossing to the opposite side of the street isn't courtesy. I don't know what it is but it isn't courtesy. I read the article that started all of this silliness and I got the impression that the suggestion was meant as a kindness, perhaps. Not as a courtesy. All of this bickering about who should cross the street is bullshit. No one should have to cross the street. What the hell for. All this bickering does is dissipate energy and attention that would more rationally be devoted to the real problem. The real problem! Does anyone remember what it is? It is rape. People rape (and murder and maim and make war and...) and that sucks. I don't have the answer but I know damned well that the answer is not, and won't be found by, bickering about whether someone should cross the street. This is ridiculous. Charlie Sorsby ...!lanl!crs crs@lanl
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (12/14/84)
I expected some response to my article, but am frankly a bit surprised at the viciousness of L S Chabots response. I do apologize for the title. It was not meant to imply anything remotely similar to prostitution in any way, shape, or form. It was a bad choice, ok? The point I was trying to make is that it is not reasonable to expect people to go out of their way to avoid bothering others. Each of us make it through life the best way we can. If I spend my time trying to avoid hurting everybody elses feelings, I will be doing nothing else (and probably end up a nervous wreck -- ANYTHING I do could possibly hurt SOMEBODY's feelings (do I smile? how much? If I don't smile will he/she think I'm pissed at them? and so on)). I try to avoid hurting other people's feelings, but I realize I can't always avoid it, and when that happens, tough. Sorry, but tough. With friends I am willing to go further out of my way than with people I don't know, but there are limits even there. I am not on this world to be anyone's doormat (but then I don't expect anyone else to be mine). Attempting to get others to conform to your idea of courtesy is futile at best (much flaming on the net has very little in the way of courtesy to recommend it -- at least as far as my definition of courtesy goes). You get a little self-righteous anger out of it (as well as maybe an ulcer or two) but you really don't affect the situation. It is much more effective to take what steps you can to directly affect your situation. As an obvious first step to avoiding anything unpleasant, avoid situations which are conducive to such unpleasantness. In the case of rape, don't walk through bad sections of town late at night (chances of getting robbed are quite a bit higher, too). If you can learn some self-defence, great. These are direct actions and require no one's judgement or activity but your own. Trying to change the world at large ain't gonna work, and is likely to leave you rather bitter towards the world in general. The world isn't mean or nasty, just indifferent. reasonable responses welcome, sarcastic blatherings tolerated. geoff sherwood
jefff@cadovax.UUCP (Jeff Fields) (12/14/84)
What is courtesy?
To some it appears that courtesy is the apprehension that a male's presence
on the same side of the street as an unaccompanied woman may cause the woman
fear and anxiety. Such apprehension on the male's part would cause him to
cross the street, thereby alleviating whatever fear and anxiety that may be
felt by the solitary female.
To me courtesy in such a scenario requires the male to approach the woman on
the same side of the street with a smile on his face and a nod of the head.
Perhaps a cordial "howdy" or "hello" spoken by the male as he passes would
be in order. If the male is wearing a hat, courtesy requires him to tip it.
The first concept of courtesy poses some problems:
1) What if there is another solitary woman on the other side of the
street? Should the male then proceed to inoke fear and loathing in
this woman by crossing over to her side of the street?
2) What if the male by crossing to the other side of the street causes
more fear to be felt by the woman than staying on the same side of the
street?
3) What if it were impossible to cross the street because of traffic?
4) What if there is no side walk on the other side of the street?
Who has the answer to this question? Ann Landers? "Dear" Abby? Geoff
Sherwood? Lisa Chabot?
Another question: Is one who has my concept of courtesy an egoist?
Or: Is one who has the first concept of courtesy a paranoid schizophrenic?
My answer to both of these is no.
--
Jeff Fields
{ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!jefff
Pax Vobiscum.mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (12/15/84)
L.S. Chabot: >Obviously, geoff, you were raised as a boy, and an egoistic one at that [...] >...Dear me, it's better to cross the street than expect a little >common courtesy! I am a woman who is often out at night (no, I'm not a "streetwalker") and do not consider myself particularly fearsome (i.e. I'm not going to scare anyone off by looking tough). However, I don't expect every man on the street to cater to the fears you think I should have, either. If *I'm* unsure enough to want to be on the other side of the street that the man is on, then *I'll* do something about it. But it is not *his* responsibility to change the situation if *I'm* the one who stands to lose. There is a difference between courtesy and catering to every paranoid who might be out there. I think you expect the latter. Why? I'm not suggesting that women who are afraid of rape have problems; I'm just saying that if *you're* afraid, *you* have the responsibility to do something about it. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (12/16/84)
When my wife lived alone in Brooklyn (a long time ago), she used to walk
down the *middle* of the street. This is a practice she still follows
when the situation warrants. At times I've done the same myself.
--
Richard Mateosian
{allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPAcrs@lanl.ARPA (12/17/84)
> ... However, I don't expect every man on the street to > cater to the fears you think I should have, either. If *I'm* unsure enough to > want to be on the other side of the street that the man is on, then *I'll* do > something about it. But it is not *his* responsibility to change the > situation if *I'm* the one who stands to lose. > > There is a difference between courtesy and catering to every paranoid who > might be out there. I think you expect the latter. Why? I'm not suggesting > that women who are afraid of rape have problems; I'm just saying that if > *you're* afraid, *you* have the responsibility to do something about it. > > -Dragon > -- > UUCP: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!dragon > ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg *** BRAVO! *** Charlie
chabot@amber.DEC (l s chabot) (12/17/84)
The problem is not that "steetwalking" has unfortunate connotations, it's that it means something different in English than what one might guess by combining the definitions of the component words. It's not a poor choice of words, it's a wrong choice. Approach the problem of crossing the street from the point of view of your grandmother, or another elderly friend or relative. Do you like to think of your grandmother being frightened by a large, strange, younger person with a confident step approaching? Remember, her bones are more fragile, she moves slower, she may have more difficulty with curbs and icy patches and trying to step sideways between parked cars. And she's frightened and nervous. You don't have to be walking in a bad neighborhood to be jumped if you're old--the thugs don't confine themselves to their own habitat. Don't cross the street for me (unless you feel compelled for your own safety): I'm young and healthy enough to feel (probably foolishly sometimes) confident. But look, for a very small amount effort, we could all avoid scaring some older person, maybe somebody's grandparent, maybe somebody lonely. Heck, even I try to cross the street at night anyway for them, or at least put parked cars between us. It doesn't take much; if you catch their eyes and see the fear that I've glimpsed faintly, you may be compelled to cross anyway. Those of you who feel like smiling and waving, smile and wave as you cross; if they need help negotiating some rough ground or something, they'll not be put off by this but will ask anyway. Frankly, I'm usually annoyed at this topic when no one does seem to bring up the topic of going out of your way to help someone not as physically able as most of us are. Learning courtesy isn't a frill--it's a social obligation, and if you don't understand it that way, then you've been brought up improperly. Self-reliance is an imcomplete picture of reality: most will acknowledge the existence of obligations to family and friends, but there also exists a vast set of rules about appropriate behavior to those not as close, and these rules are in a sense obligations--and, if we follow them, they allow us to recognize dangerous or deviant or outsider behavior. The rules aren't strict, and they change gradually due to pressures of societal change and even fashion. By taking the initiative to cross the street, you are marking yourself as not being a thug--remember, to so many senior citizens, anyone young and strong and unfamiliar could be dangerous, since the elderly know they are considered to be easy prey--which you might not be able to do by being recognized (since you're a stranger) or by looking friendly (distracting attention by waving, & even thugs can smile). If you get to go home for your holidays, listen to your grandparents. Even hale and hearty and fit ones get knocked down and rolled. And they talk about these kinds of things even if they haven't happened to them, because it's common knowledge that the elderly are targets. Wouldn't you like it if more people, just people of good intentions and morals (yes, we'd all prefer if our family could be protected from becoming victims of criminals), did your grandparents the courtesy of not scaring them? L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/19/84)
> > The point I was trying to make is that it is not reasonable to expect people > to go out of their way to avoid bothering others. Each of us make it through > life the best way we can. If I spend my time trying to avoid hurting everybody > elses feelings, I will be doing nothing else (and probably end up a nervous > wreck -- ANYTHING I do could possibly hurt SOMEBODY's feelings (do I smile? > how much? If I don't smile will he/she think I'm pissed at them? and so on)). > I try to avoid hurting other people's feelings, but I realize I can't always > avoid it, and when that happens, tough. Sorry, but tough. With friends I > am willing to go further out of my way than with people I don't know, but > there are limits even there. I am not on this world to be anyone's doormat > (but then I don't expect anyone else to be mine). > Of course it is not reasonable to expect other people to spend their life going out of their way to avoid hurting others, but nobody ever claimed it was. What was suggested was that strong people be a little more careful not to scare weaker people if it is not too inconvenient for them to do so. Nobody ever asked you to be anybody else's doormat. Why all this paranoia? > Attempting to get others to conform to your idea of courtesy is futile at > best (much flaming on the net has very little in the way of courtesy to > recommend it -- at least as far as my definition of courtesy goes). You Not at all, politeness probably came out of people expressing to others the way they would like to be treated. Try as we might, it is tough to imagine how other people feel (especially if they live in different realities, as men and women do), so why not listen to or even (gasp!) ask them? As a woman, I would like you to know that I will appreciate it, if you cross the street to show that you do not intend to harm me, if we are alone in a deserted street at night. I am telling you this, not because I will call the police if you don't, or think you are a jerk if you don't, but because I want you to know that if you do care about all of this, this is the way I prefer you to act. Judging from other men's postings it is not such a bad idea to express this preference, as a lot of people are under the misconception that other behaviour (such as smiling or talking) is more appropriate when it actually isn't. > get a little self-righteous anger out of it (as well as maybe an ulcer > or two) but you really don't affect the situation. It is much more effective > to take what steps you can to directly affect your situation. As an obvious > first step to avoiding anything unpleasant, avoid situations which are > conducive to such unpleasantness. In the case of rape, don't walk through > bad sections of town late at night (chances of getting robbed are quite a > bit higher, too). If you can learn some self-defence, great. These are > direct actions and require no one's judgement or activity but your own. > Trying to change the world at large ain't gonna work, and is likely to > leave you rather bitter towards the world in general. The world isn't > mean or nasty, just indifferent. > Why bother being organised in a "society" then, if we cannot expect it to better the lot of the people in it? Not trying to change the world at large and just accepting your miseries is certainly not likely to make you less bitter towards the world; my suspicions are that if anything, it will make you MORE bitter. The world might be indifferent, but there certainly are a lot of mean and nasty people in it. You might be lucky not to have encountered too many, but other people are not so lucky. > > geoff sherwood Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
greenber@acf4.UUCP (12/21/84)
<> I've been watching this discussion and it seems to come down to a few differing viewpoints: 1) The majority of women are asking for some "extra" courtesy 2) The majority of men are saying "No way, Jose" 3) Some men are saying "C'mon guys....you must understand...." My viewpoint is a little different. Howzabout the guy crosses the street whenever it is dark and lonely, so the women on the street do not fear him. If there is a women on both sides of the street, he turns around and goes home. If there are more women then men on the current side of the street, then the women go home. If the guy's socks don't match, then they both go home. Obviously the above is a :-). But really, it isn't much for the guy to cross the street. And it isn't much for the women to express her appreciation by yelling a simple "Thanks". Now both sides have gone out of their way to make another feel better/safer. But doesn't this bring up the old "women are the weaker of the sexes, men should look out for them, and therefore women should stay at home, barefoot and pregnant" syndrome? As soon as women start competing in this supposed "male-dominated" world they deserve the same privledges as anyone else in the same marketplace. And, of course, the same disadvantages. So I shouldn't get up and offer a working women my sit on the bus --- she wanted equality, now pay for it with sore feet. And sometimes I feel unsafe in certain areas of town (I live in the big city -- you know, NYC). But I take the responsibility of my actions: If I'm going to be in an unsafe area of town (which is foolish, no matter why or who!), then I don't expect anyone to look out for my worries. Why do women (or at least the vocal women on the net) seem to request this special privledge? Nobody said that equality was all good... I have a major problem with any discriminated against group seeking special favours whilst they argue for equality. Seek the special favours and be dependant upon the scraps that society throws you, or throw off all chains, seek no special privledge, and demand what is yours: equality, in every sense of the word. Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (12/23/84)
Sophie asks that stronger people try not to scare weaker people, if it isn't
inconvenient for them to do so. That's a very interesting request. First
it implies that women are weaker than men, secondly it implies that *men are
scaring* rather than *women are being scared*. If I pass a woman on a street
at night, and she is frightened, SHE IS SCARING HERSELF. I AM NOT SCARING HER.
She has no reason to be frightened of ME. Her dilemma is that she doesn't know
this. Yes, I could tell her this by walking across the street, but she'll
find out soon enough, because I won't attack her.
What I object to (in a gut level reaction that's very powerful) is being
implicated IN ANY WAY with the group of people who rape. The prospect shakes
me. If I cross the street I am saying "Well, you may have to fear some of
my kind, but you don't have to fear me." What I really want to say is "I am
my own kind, and you don't have to fear me."
I understand that your point of view, that it is a minor courtesy, is valid.
But THIS point of view is also valid. Which brings us to my dilemma: should
I do something that I find personally disturbing to bring about a conjectured
positive effect in some women? For me, the jury is still out.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvax!tracytracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (12/24/84)
There is a difference between courtesy and pandering. If my aged grandmother
was scared by a big guy who was just walking down the street minding his own
business I certainly wouldn't get mad at him, or even think that he should
cross the street. I expect that when I am falling in ruins I'll still feel
the same way. There is just no way I could seriously expect someone to cross
the street to "pander" to my fears.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvx1!tracysaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/05/85)
> > As soon as women start competing in this supposed "male-dominated" world > they deserve the same privledges as anyone else in the same marketplace. > And, of course, the same disadvantages. > > So I shouldn't get up and offer a working women my sit on the bus --- she > wanted equality, now pay for it with sore feet. And sometimes I feel > unsafe in certain areas of town (I live in the big city -- you know, NYC). > But I take the responsibility of my actions: If I'm going to be in an > unsafe area of town (which is foolish, no matter why or who!), then I > don't expect anyone to look out for my worries. Why do women (or at > least the vocal women on the net) seem to request this special > privledge? Nobody said that equality was all good... > The problem here is that women ARE weaker, so even if they are economically (or whatever) equal to men, it is not as safe for them to walk down deserted streets as it is for men. The idea that it is easy to avoid dangerous streets is really ridiculous as most streets become dangerous past a certain hour if they are deserted. Are you suggesting that unless women live and work during the day in main arteries of cities, they should not expect to feel safe? Come on!!!! > I have a major problem with any discriminated against group seeking > special favours whilst they argue for equality. Seek the special > favours and be dependant upon the scraps that society throws you, > or throw off all chains, seek no special privledge, and demand what > is yours: equality, in every sense of the word. > What does this have to do with equality and discrimination anyway? We are not talking about giving seats in buses but about fear of rape, but since you brought the subject of seats up, ok, let's talk about it. Sure it is silly to expect men to give up their seats in buses to women of the same age as them, but it is less silly to expect people to give up their seats in buses to people who are obviously less physically able than them, or simply obviously very tired. This group includes old and sick people, pregnant women, etc... People are NOT equal; each person is an individual with his/her own natural weaknesses. How does this relate to jobs and what does this mean for equality? well simply that people should not be discriminated against on basis of their sex, race, etc, but should only be refused a job if they are not capable of doing it. I really think you are confusing equal rights with equality. Equal rights is what I just explained. Equality would mean that men would bear and breastfeed half of the world's children, and women would hold half of all jobs in the construction industry. > > Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <---- Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley