sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (12/07/84)
Patriarchy: The Degradation of Women
From the Sacramento Bee, Tuesday 11/13/84, By Ann Japenga, L.A. Times
..."most women who are raped never even enjoy [] 'the hollow victory' associated
with a conviction. FBI esitmates say that anywhere from 3 to 10 times more
rapes occur than are ever reported. Of those rapes that do go to trial, few
result in convictions. Of 5,298 sexual assaults reported in L.A. County in
1982, for example, there were only 393 Superior Court convictions, according to
a criminal justice profile released by the attorney general's office."
Taking the conservative figure of 3 rather than 10, we get a conviction
rate of 393/(5298*3) = .024726311816 which is less than 1 in 40 rapes. Even
that should seem bad enough, ignoring the other extreme of 1 in 135 rapes.
Obviously the criminal "due process" system, for I certainly could not
call it a system of justice, fails miserably to deal with these heinous crimes
by men against women.
Los Angeles (AP):
"Jack Oscar King, 65, a maintenance worker at the housing project where
Cheryl [Bess] and her mother lived, was charged with kidnapping, attempted
murder, assault with a caustic chemical, assault with intent to commit rape and
mayhem."
"Early on Oct 24, [he] kidnapped Cheryl as she walked to San Bernardino
High School, where she was a sophomore. He tried to rape her, failed, then
poured a caustic chemical over her head and left her in the desert,
investigators said." "For eight hours, she wandered around trying to rub off
the liquid." "Cheryl Bess' face and parts of her arms and neck were burned to
the bone..." "The 15-year-old's burns, which eroded her flesh to the bones of
her face, skull, shoulders, neck, hands and forearms, are 'the worst that I've
seen in an awful long time,' said Dr. Bruce Achauer, the plastic surgeon who is
trying to repair Cheryl's body at the University of California, Irvine."
Returning to the first article now:
"...the content of a victim's statement in the courtroom is controlled
by attorneys and judges: [quoting Jan Shirchild, of the Santa Cruz
Women Against Rape]: 'It's clearly a case of the state against this man, and
she only gets to respond to questions asked her by other people.'"
According to the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women, the victim
knows her assailant in more than half of all reported rapes.
"[A] woman [who] had been raped by her therapist when she was 19 years old" was
assisted by the Santa Cruz group in a confrontation with her raper, and said:
"I have been carrying around a big burden of pain, confusion and guilt. I want
to give that burden back to you. It is for you to work out, not me."
"Public airing of the man's actions [] places pressure on him from peers and
the community, the group says. [] 'Some of us have worked at the rape-crisis
center and we've seen what a rape survivor's (survivor is the preferred term in
the anti-rape movement) options are. The legal system doesn't serve her needs.
What she needs is to get back control of her life."
That is the point folks. A rapist takes from a woman, her control of her life,
when he takes control of her body and uses it to his own ends. The trauma HE
inflicts on HER is seldom resolved.
back to the article: "Over the last 10 years, the Santa Cruz group has
facilitated ("We help women plan confrontations; we don't do them," they
emphasize) as many as 100 confrontations in restaurants, doctor's offices,
auto repair shops, retail stores and - though rarely - in private homes.
Confrontations are normally carried out in public, with as many as 30 support
people present, to ensure the protection of the women involved."
Let's see, that's 10 resolutions of rape per year. Oh well, better 10 women
should *start* to mend their lives than none, but consider the untold,
unresolved trauma so many carry for the rest of their lives...
all so men can assert their dominance... their God given right to use women
as their slaves.
excuse me, I think I'm going to puke...
--
mail ucbvax\!sun\!sunny decvax\!sun\!sunny ihnp4\!sun\!sunny<<EOF
EOFedhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (12/09/84)
From sun!sunny: > ....consider the untold, > unresolved trauma so many carry for the rest of their lives... > all so men can assert their dominance... their God given right to use women > as their slaves. > > excuse me, I think I'm going to puke... Hang on a minute; are you trying to substantiate the claims of all those who accuse you of being a man-hater? Your over-generalization upset me, as I suspect it did a lot of men on the net. Is this what you intended? I won't take the slightest responsibility for the heinous crimes you describe and give statistics for. I know the statistics well enough, and I know the life-shattering nature of rape trauma about as well as a man can. And I'm not going to stand here while you draw a circle around me and other men and say that we feel rape is some ``God-given right''. *Some* men might believe in total dominance over women, and the influence of this idea is strong in our culture. But lots of others see the damage wrought by these attitudes on those human beings who happen to be female. And they speak out--just as I and perhaps a dozen other men have spoken out on this net. Their understandings might be imperfect, and vestiges of male supremist inculturation remain--just as they, no doubt, remain in you. Two generations from now women and men will look back and see just how far even the most clear-thinking of us was from awareness of how sex roles bind us. We should strive for as much of this clear thinking as we can now, and repudiate not only dominance, but hostility. Some feminists seem to get stuck on the anger that occurs when they discover the magnitude of the injustices they've borne and are witness to. Such anger is essential--just as eventually overcoming it and moving on to more constructive things is essential. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
tptest@abnjh.UUCP (Unix Dcom Group) (12/09/84)
[My first posting to net.singles.] Sonny has hit the nail on the head: rape is not considered as serious a crime as tax evasion or failure to pay overdue parking tickets. There is no serious deterent offered against the would-be rapist via the criminal "justice" system. I know that *Ms.* magazine bemoaned that "A Gun Is No Fun", but I think that any individual has the right to take any measures necessary to preserve life and limb, including the carrying of weapons upon the person. It is unfortunate, but the only real deterent to a would-be rapist is the certainty of immediate mutilation or death at the hands of the intended victim. A public confrontation after the rape is not quite the same thing. An ounce of prevention is still worth more than consoling the victim after the fact. Since few of us can afford armed guard escorts, the only solution that I see, is women willing to be responsible for their own protection. The martial arts classes have been a step in the right diection, but no rapist will argue with a .45 . Jon Kaplowitz "No one ever raped a .38"
jdh@hou5g.UUCP (Julia Harper) (12/10/84)
Speaking of constructive actions in response to problems addressed by feminists: I remember having a discussion with a male friend about the fear I have walking alone at night. (No, it really isn't out of control. I don't get hysterical, I don't shake with fear.) I told him that he probably makes women nervous simply by being out on the street at night. He got (typically) terribly upset and hurt that someone like him should cause fear in someone like me, and asked me what he could possibly do about it. Here was my suggestion: If you (a man) are walking alone at night (or with other men) and see a woman walking alone toward you, then cross the street and let her walk in peace. That way she won't be as apprehensive about what you might do when she arrives. Also, speaking of anger, here is a time when anger comes in handy. If you look and feel angry as you pass people on the street, they are less likely to annoy you (as observed by me walking in New York). Anger should not be given up lightly by women. It works for them at least as often as it works against them. jdh
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (12/10/84)
Someone suggested that public confrontation is no good to deter rape, that the fear of immediate mutilation or death at the hands of the would-be victim would be the only possible deterrence. I disagree. I think that public confrontation may be an effective deterrent, if done before the assault. One of my favorite stories in _A_g_a_i_n_s_t _R_a_p_e by Medea and Thomson tells how a young woman was walking in downtown Chicago at noon in a lunchtime crowd. One man was following her, whispering obscenities and lewd propositions. She just tried ignoring him for a couple of minutes, but he wouldn't stop. So she turned to face him, and started hollering at him, along the lines of "You are supposed to be a respectable businessman. What gives you the idea that you've got the right to harrass women..." and he tried to slink back into the crowd, unnoticed. He didn't succeed. He was most noticed. He didn't try harrassing that woman again. The fear of public embarrassment was enough of a deterrence. As far as dealing with guns goes, there's another story told by teachers from Chimera, a Chicago-based women's self-defense organization. One woman had had just "one of those days", where nothing went right. She was hopping mad, and in no mood to put up with any nonsense from anyone. On her way home, she was accosted by a man. She just pushed him aside and said, "Get out of my way!" He did. It wasn't until she reached home that she realized he had had a gun pointed at her. Evidently, he figured that anyone who would push aside a man with a gun was crazy, and he didn't want to deal with any crazy people. While this isn't failsafe, it helps: Don't look like a victim. You don't have to be an expert in the martial arts to survive. Just look as if you'd be too much trouble to tangle with. Whatever works for you is fine. -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features "Merry Christmas to all and to all a Good Night."
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (12/11/84)
> ....consider the untold, > unresolved trauma so many carry for the rest of their lives... > all so men can assert their dominance... their God given right to use women > as their slaves. > > excuse me, I think I'm going to puke... You have a talent for reducing complex issues to simple-minded, us-against-them rhetoric. Have you considered a career in politics? -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (12/11/84)
>It is unfortunate, but the only real deterent to a would-be rapist >is the certainty of immediate mutilation or death at the hands of >the intended victim. A public confrontation after the rape is not >quite the same thing. An ounce of prevention is still worth >more than consoling the victim after the fact. Since few >of us can afford armed guard escorts, the only solution that >I see, is women willing to be responsible for their own >protection. The martial arts classes have been a step in the >right diection, but no rapist will argue with a .45 . >Jon Kaplowitz >"No one ever raped a .38" I can only speak for myself but I think that my feelings are probably shared by a great many women . One thing I most certainly not want to have to do is to carry a gun to perhaps ward off a rapist of any other would be assailant.(sp) I am not sure of the statistic , the number is not really all that important, but it has been shown time and again that the people who carry weapons for self-defense ( other than the police and armed forces) most usually have to be treated for injuries caused to the by their attacker WITH THEIR OWN WEAPONS !!!!!. Some how I think the logic of needing to carry a weapon to feel safe on the street or in my own home is more than a bit *flaky*. Jeanette L. Zobjeck ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (12/11/84)
> From sun!sunny: > > > ....consider the untold, > > unresolved trauma so many carry for the rest of their lives... > > all so men can assert their dominance... their God given right to use women > > as their slaves. > > Hang on a minute; are you trying to substantiate the claims of all > those who accuse you of being a man-hater? Your over-generalization > upset me, as I suspect it did a lot of men on the net. Is this what > you intended? please note that I said "all so men..." NOT "so all men..." men is the plural of man, meaning, more than one, not all. Every person, both men and women, has both a good side, and a bad side. I'm dealing with the bad side of men here. That leaves three other subjects to deal with in OTHER discussions. You start it, I'll contribute. I happen to believe that the bad side of men, when carried to the extreme, is responsible for some very severe physical abuse in the world, such as rape. Women may be catty and bitchy, but they seldom wreak the physical havoc men do. They don't run out and build bombs capable of destryoing the earth 1000 times over the way men do in their civilized version of "my thingy is bigger than yours", "I'm the dominant buck, and I get to run the herd". Humans are NOT so different from the other animals when it comes to mating instincts. To tie-in another discusson raging in net.singles... why do women go for assholes? Because it's more of a challenge to tame a wild beast than a wimp, it gives a bigger feeling of victory. (yes, sounds a lot like men's games). The fact is that each and every human contains BOTH. The man's inner "woman" is the "anima", and the woman's inner "man" is the animus. A well balanced human will have these integrated and balanced. Western culture has done it's best to suppress the "anima" in men, with the result of imbalance, and excessive dominance of the outer "hairy beast". I'm honest to God scared shitless that by the year 2000, there won't be any life on this planet, because some male is going to "push the button" and nuke it all back to the stone age. The same force is the one involved in rape. Male dominance. The eternal male battle to be THE dominant male of the herd who gets to pass on his precious genes. I don't hate men. I hate the excessive dominance exhibited by some men in some circumstances. We MUST tame it, or the species will die. The PLANET will be sterile. There's no place to run and hide from radiation, like there is to run and hide from rapists. As long as we keep teaching males that "boys don't cry" "boys don't feel emotion" and as long as women remain second rate citizens, we are in danger of extinction. Is that what we want? > *Some* men might believe in total dominance over women, and THE INFLUENCE > OF THIS IDEA IS STRONG IN OUR CULTURE. I see YOU said it too. > just how far even the most clear-thinking of us was from awareness > of how sex roles bind us. AHA! I'm SO glad you brought that up. It is precisely the total polarization of the roles which is the problem. Only by merging the roles more, can we achieve the necessary balance. "violence here is the social norm" "one world is enough for all of us" "rehumanize yourself"...The Police "anyone who contributes to the destruction of my planet, I damn to burn eternally in the fires of hell"...Sunny For all the rest of you, man, woman, or child, I have much love and many hugs. Sunny -- mail ucbvax\!sun\!sunny decvax\!sun\!sunny ihnp4\!sun\!sunny<<EOF EOF
tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (12/12/84)
...but no rapist will argue with a .45 .
Rapists rape generally because they feel some need to demonstrate some power
over another person. Perhaps they aren't getting out of life the things they
expected. Perhaps they feel a little pushed around. Whatever. It is an
degradation of another's humanity and individuality that makes the degrader
feel more important.
Now I personally feel that the best way to solve the problem is to try to
not produce new people who feel this way, to try to educate people who already
feel this way, and to remove the people that can't be educated and are
too dangerous. I think that situations very analagous to rape occur often.
(I wouldn't say more traumatic situations.) When neanderthal young men in
my grade in public school were threatening me (with spectators watching) with
physical harm so as to force me to acknowledge in some way their "superiority"
an action analogous to rape was happening. It wasn't anywhere near as
serious and traumatic, but it had the same roots.
Now I don't know exactly how to get rid of that sort of person. Sometimes
I think exile to the moon without space suits would be appropriate. But one
thing I know for sure: it is appropriate to respond to such behaviour towards
you with as much violence as you need to stop it, as long as your own violence
isn't an expression of your own need to dominate and degrade. This violence
is a rational response to an unsane person who is threatening your safety. In
the case of weapons advocates, I generally get the impression that they in some
way *like* the idea of carrying guns around, and that disturbs me.
I don't think there is an abundance of people who could limit their use of
violence in the way I described above. We are only starting to ramp up
production of sane people (the tools for doing it are just starting to be
recognized).
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvax!tracy
PS. I think that in a generally "sane" society it would be felt that
weapons were not needed for normal protection, and that in a generally
unsane society (such as we are in and hopefully moving out of) the
common possession and acceptance of weapons will simply provide more
opportunities for the wrong sort of violence and will indeed legitimize
it (this assumption is based on that fact that people usually fail
to make useful distinctions when they analyze situations). People
in the unsane society would tend to blur the distinction between the
two types of violence.tptest@abnjh.UUCP (Unix Dcom Group) (12/12/84)
[] Apologies for misspelling Sunny's name and "deterrence." Regarding statistics that "show" that people who carry guns are often injured by their own weapons, please state your source for such a claim. I think that it would be very interesting to see the real numbers. Likewise, statistics on how many crimes are prevented by the fact that the potential victim is capable of self-defense, would also be informative. Rapists are not known for their bravery. Regarding carrying a weapon for protection being "flaky", the police do not provide personal services to the average person and not many of us can afford body guards. Should we ask for the National Guard to place a soldier on every corner? Should we be "prudent" and stay off the streets? Should we always be afraid to go out because "someone" might do us harm? The point is very simple: the government, police and the courts cannot protect women from rapist attacks. How do you propose to solve the problem? I contend that women will have to rely on themselves for self-preservation. If you are personally against having a gun, that's your decision. What's your solution? Jon Kaplowitz ( flames to /dev/null )
greenber@acf4.UUCP (12/12/84)
<> Our friend sunny at sun writes: --------------------------------------- Women may be catty and bitchy, but they seldom wreak the physical havoc men do. They don't run out and build bombs capable of destryoing the earth 1000 times over the way men do in their civilized version of "my thingy is bigger than yours", "I'm the dominant buck, and I get to run the herd". ---------------------------------------- Why, you're right.....since women have never been in power, they haven't had the opportunity to create these silly, scary weapons. Can YOU guarantee that if a women gets in power SHE wouldn't press the button?? I didn't think so!!! So therefore, since we have a known now (men haven't blown up the planet yet) it may be better than the unknown (a women with her "emotion controlled" finger on the button). Living proof, due to sunny, that women should NOT be allowed in a position of power. And I always thought she was a feminist. And to think that the whole idea of world war III can be reduced to penis envy? My, god!! It's so simple and clear to me now...thank you sunny for giving me this insight...Being logical, I never would have figured it out for myself! It must take a women's intuition to have such impact! > Humans are NOT so > different from the other animals when it comes to mating instincts. Why, she's right again!! Just yesterday I saw two lions sitting down over supper discussing Hagle's Dialectic....what amazed me was that these wild beasts were so interested in the ideas of their potential mate, and were just as concerned as we are in the compatability of each other. Amazing, sunny, how you must have witnessed this too to make such a silly statement. > I'm honest to God scared shitless that > by the year 2000, there won't be any life on this planet, because some male > is going to "push the button" and nuke it all back to the stone age. And once again sunny proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that men are awful. Please see my first statement above. > I don't hate men. I hate the excessive dominance exhibited by some men in > some circumstances. What's this??? Sunny putting in qualifiers about only some men?? She must not be feeling well... > It is precisely the total polarization of the roles which is the problem. > Only by merging the roles more, can we achieve the necessary balance. And attitudes such as yours which has "proven" the entire male race to be responsible for all of our problems is really gonna help, huh? What made you hate those of the male gender so?? What allows you to generalize so? I hope you feel better soon..... Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (12/12/84)
[] From hou5g!jdh (Julia Harper): > If you (a man) are walking alone at night (or with other men) > and see a woman walking alone toward you, then cross the street > and let her walk in peace. That way she won't be as apprehensive > about what you might do when she arrives. It's impractical to expect men in general to cater to your fears. I have a better suggestion; better because it's practical, and within your power to carry out without cooperation from others: *you* cross the street to avoid *him* (wasn't that easy?). > Also, speaking of anger, here is a time when anger comes in handy. > If you look and feel angry as you pass people on the street, they > are less likely to annoy you (as observed by me walking in New York). > Anger should not be given up lightly by women. It works for them > at least as often as it works against them. Constant anger is not much fun, and hard on the body, as well. Anger in an actual attack can be helpful, but using anger to ward off potential attacks is really just a variant of the "stay indoors" solution for rape. It advises you to build walls that reduce your contact with a dangerous world. I await better solutions. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry SOURCE: ST7891
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (12/12/84)
Sunny, there is a lot I can agree with in what you say (although I'm not real hot on the Jungian anima/animus metaphors). But I think something you or anyone with a cause needs to consider is just how you say it so that it is understood sypathetically and not merely reacted to in a defensive manner. In refering to your original article, you said: > > please note that I said "all so men..." NOT "so all men..." > men is the plural of man, meaning, more than one, not all. > But you used the term ``men'' in such a way that the simplest semantic interpretation was ``the class of entities that are men''--the word ``all'' is implicit. If you only meant SOME men, then SAY SO. > > It is precisely the total polarization of the roles which is the problem. > Only by merging the roles more, can we achieve the necessary balance. > Practice what you preach! When you say ``men do this'' or ``men are that'' you are guilty of the very us-against-them polarization you deplore. If you mean ``rapists'' or ``male supremists'', use those terms, and not just ``men''. > > "anyone who contributes to the destruction of my planet, I damn to burn > eternally in the fires of hell"...Sunny > Perhaps, Sunny, those are the people who need love the most... -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/12/84)
>It is unfortunate, but the only real deterent to a would-be rapist >is the certainty of immediate mutilation or death at the hands of >the intended victim. A public confrontation after the rape is not >quite the same thing. An ounce of prevention is still worth >more than consoling the victim after the fact. Since few >of us can afford armed guard escorts, the only solution that >I see, is women willing to be responsible for their own >protection. The martial arts classes have been a step in the >right diection, but no rapist will argue with a .45 . >Jon Kaplowitz Ah, but the confrontation is not a means to prevent one's own rape it is 1/ a means to prevent the same man from raping someone else by making people aware that he is dangerous 2/ a way to get revenge which does not involve prison or mutilation. 3/ a way to warn the public at large that people can no longer expect to rape and get away with it. I don't know whether public confrontation is a very powerful way to get the message across about points 1/ and 3/, but I am sure that it does get some message across to some people, and that's always useful. I do think that 2/ is the main reason for public confrontation, and if this kind of retribution helps the victim heal, then it is a good enough reason to do it (since it is not violent). Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (12/12/84)
[] From Sunny Kirsten (sun!sunny): >I happen to believe that the bad side of men, when carried to the extreme, is >responsible for some very severe physical abuse in the world, such as rape. >Women may be catty and bitchy, but they seldom wreak the physical havoc men do. >They don't run out and build bombs capable of destryoing the earth 1000 times >over the way men do in their civilized version of "my thingy is bigger than >yours", "I'm the dominant buck, and I get to run the herd". Humans are NOT so >different from the other animals when it comes to mating instincts. .... >I'm honest to God scared shitless that >by the year 2000, there won't be any life on this planet, because some male >is going to "push the button" and nuke it all back to the stone age. The same >force is the one involved in rape. Male dominance. The eternal male battle >to be THE dominant male of the herd who gets to pass on his precious genes. >I don't hate men. I hate the excessive dominance exhibited by some men in >some circumstances. Actually, if you substituted "people" for all references to males in these quotes, there'd be no problem. I guess it's comforting for you to believe that problems like war are exclusively due to males, but it's not very realistic. Male-dominated society has limited women's opportunities to be great villains as well as great heroes, but all the evidence shows that women are as capable of both good and evil as men are. I'd feel no more secure with Mrs. Thatcher's finger on the Big Red Button than Mr. Reagan's. I do not suggest that you hate men. I do suggest that you seem more comfortable believing that the world's problems are entirely the fault of Somebody Else. Unfortunately, comfort is one thing, accuracy another. To (slightly) paraphrase Walt Kelly, "We have met the enemy, and she is us." - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry SOURCE: ST7891
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (12/13/84)
In article <1863@sun.uucp > sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >> >> Hang on a minute; are you trying to substantiate the claims of all >> those who accuse you of being a man-hater? Your over-generalization >> upset me, as I suspect it did a lot of men on the net. Is this what >> you intended? > >please note that I said "all so men..." NOT "so all men..." >men is the plural of man, meaning, more than one, not all. OK, you get a slight break from the vagaries of language, but your failure to qualify "all so men" as "all so some men" certainly leads many of us to believe that you are speaking about males in general, not some men. BUT you go right back to attacking all men without qualification : >Women may be catty and bitchy, but they seldom wreak the physical havoc men do. >They don't run out and build bombs capable of destryoing the earth 1000 times >over the way men do in their civilized version of "my thingy is bigger than >yours", "I'm the dominant buck, and I get to run the herd". Humans are NOT so >different from the other animals when it comes to mating instincts. Margaret Thatcher (Falklands); Indira Gandhi (various internal problems such as the destruction of the Golden Temple; as well as the border troubles with Pakistan and Afghanistan; and the effort to build the "Indian bomb"); Golda Meier (not exactly renowned for the peaceful history of Israel's relation with its Islamic population and neighbors). This is not meant as a criticism of ANY of these women as world leaders. It is merely to point out that there is no reason to believe that female heads of state (and by implication female decision makers in general) are different in behavior from male heads of state. (Older examples work, also: Britain in the time of Queen Victoria's 60-odd year reign was almost always at war, so it isn't a product of modern feminism). > I'm honest to God scared shitless that >by the year 2000, there won't be any life on this planet, because some male >is going to "push the button" and nuke it all back to the stone age. The same >force is the one involved in rape. Male dominance. The eternal male battle >to be THE dominant male of the herd who gets to pass on his precious genes. To quote a certain popular line in modern political debates, "there you go again." Why isn't this a sexist statement? >I don't hate men. I hate the excessive dominance exhibited by some men in >some circumstances. We MUST tame it, or the species will die. The PLANET >will be sterile. Nice try, but too late to be viewed as a qualifier to your previous statements. I'm willing to believe that you are personally a nice person. But every encounter with your opinions as expressed in articles like this one leaves me a little less tolerant of your views. This is too bad; you are concerned about important things, and their importance gets lost in my irritation at the way you express your views. -- "I get by with a little help from my friends." -- Lennon & McCartney Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) (12/13/84)
REFERENCES: <1855@sun.uucp> <2182@randvax.UUCP>, <1863@sun.uucp> > Women may be catty and bitchy, but they seldom wreak the physical havoc men do. > They don't run out and build bombs capable of destryoing the earth 1000 times > over the way men do in their civilized version of "my thingy is bigger than > yours", "I'm the dominant buck, and I get to run the herd". If they don't/haven't, it's more because they haven't (as a whole) had the technical training required because society has prevented them from becoming scientists. (Isn't this one of the standard "feminist" claims?) Golda Meir was just as willing/unwilling to go to war as any of her male counterparts. So was Elizabeth I of England. So was... but you get the point. Evelyn C. Leeper ==> Note new net address: ...ihnp4!ahuta!ecl (Mail sent to my old address will be forwarded temporarily.)
tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (12/14/84)
sun!sunny:
I happen to believe that the bad side of men, when carried to the
extreme, is responsible for some very severe physical abuse in the
world, such as rape. Women may be catty and bitchy, but they seldom
wreak the physical havoc men do. . . . The man's inner "woman" is the
"anima", and the woman's inner "man" is the animus.
I have always suspected the validity of such packaged analysis of human
behaviour. Somehow you seem to be implying that this "anima" and "animus"
phenomenon has some real existence and is part of the essence of being female
or being male. Sounds a bit flaky.
I tend to feel that we have socially evolved into a life form that has a
behavioural distinction between the sexes NOT because the behaviour
distinction is essential to our sexes, but because conditions somehow
favoured it. In that case "It just happened this way. It didn't have to."
Possibly (I am not at all convinced) the "animus" and "anima" model allows
us to pick out useful features in our behaviour and to understand ourselves
better. More probably it's a gross oversimplification of *what we are* that
will limit *what we can be*. ("What you is, child, is an *animus* and an
*anima* and don' you ever forget it!" "Aw! Maw! I don't WANT to be an
animus and an anima! I want something *more*.") It is even more of an
oversimplification because it tries to explains the social behaviour of
humans by first ignoring social factors! It attempts to model ONLY the
individual.
Now you have noticed that men *seem* to cause *directly* more damage than
women. But you haven't spoken of the numerous factors that may contribute
to their desire to do so. One of the greatest factors might be what the
women around them consider acceptable. You have avoided a serious and open
minded analysis by identifying the violence exclusively with men, and then
writing it off (without explaining it) as a part of their essential nature.
I think it's time to challenge the assumption that some feminists make that
women have the Earth Mother quality all to their lonesomes. As many of my
male friends display that quality in spades as my female friends. And some
of the most violent, hate filled people I know of are females. The only
reason there are statistical biases in the numbers is the history that led
us here, and the fact that there was a gross, recognizable differentiation
(sex) in humans that became behaviourally important.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvax!tracyedhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (12/15/84)
> REFERENCES: <1855@sun.uucp> <2182@randvax.UUCP>, <1863@sun.uucp> > > > Women may be catty and bitchy, but they seldom wreak the physical havoc men do. > > They don't run out and build bombs capable of destryoing the earth 1000 times > > over the way men do in their civilized version of "my thingy is bigger than > > yours", "I'm the dominant buck, and I get to run the herd". > > If they don't/haven't, it's more because they haven't (as a whole) had the > technical training required because society has prevented them from becoming > scientists. (Isn't this one of the standard "feminist" claims?) > > Golda Meir was just as willing/unwilling to go to war as any of her male Of course! It's all part of a conspiracy of men to keep women from getting The Bomb! ( :-), if you couldn't tell.) On a more serious note, I have to mention that the women I know who are involved in strategic analysis aren't particularly squeemish about considering nuclear issues--no more than men, for that matter. They *do* tend to have a fairly feminist outlook, however, in more personal matters, though hardly in the sense of ``trying to be men''. Of course, my sample might be biased, since no one I know has any desire vis a vis nuclear war other than to prevent it from ever happening. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall