mazur@inmet.UUCP (02/18/84)
#N:inmet:10900047:000:2242
inmet!mazur Feb 17 00:28:00 1984
CYNICAL MODE ON ***>
Here is a simple test for both men and women that will let you know which is
your greatest risk: rape by a woman, or being struck by lightning.
1. Do you golf in thunderstorms?
2. Is your house on top of the highest point of land for miles?
3. Do you leave your TV (and $500 antenna) plugged in during storms?
4. Do you practice your baton in electrical fields?
5. Do you frequently date women on roller derby teams?
6. Does your date remind you of Patti Smith?
7. Do you know women who look like the East German track team?
8. Do you have trouble bench-pressing your own weight?
If you have more yes answers to questions 1-4 than you do to questions
5-8, wear rubber-bottomed shoes. If the reverse is true, get help;
you are a prime target for rape by women.
CYNICAL MODE HALF ON ***>
OK, it is possible for a woman to rape a man, and a woman to rape a
woman. It's probably even happened 10 or 20 times.
What I'd like to know is, how many of you park your cars in brightly lit
lots because you are afraid a woman is going to grab you and rape you?
How many of you don't open your doors when you are alone because you are
afraid a woman will force her way in and rape you? How many times have
you crossed as street because you saw a shady-looking woman walking on
your side of the street? Are you ever worried that that nice girl you
just met might expect sex, and force you if you not willing?
CYNICAL MODE OFF ***>
I agree that women can rape men and women, and that that is as much as
a crime as is rape by men. I still think that rape is primarily, mainly,
almost always a crime by men. Rape is not a "people" crime, it is a
crime committed mostly by men, and occasionally by a violent, aggressive
woman.
Now all men do not commit rape, and all men do not want to commit rape.
I am not saying this to "promote hatred of men". But if you want to know
why we, out of frustration, say "why don't you men out there stop
raping us", it's probably because we're tired of being told that rape
is a crime by people against people, when it's mostly rape of women by
men.
Go ahead, send flames. I borrowed someone's asbestos gloves...
Beth Mazur
{ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur
mazur@inmet.UUCP (02/18/84)
#R:inmet:10900047:inmet:10900048:000:1483
inmet!mazur Feb 17 17:14:00 1984
***** inmet:net.women / randvax!edhall / 8:22 pm Feb 13, 1984
--------------------------------
Sorry, John; I appologize, and confess to what was a bit of
emotionalism on my own part.
[stuff removed]
I still suspect that a man probably has considerably greater chance
of being raped by another man than by a woman. And that the chance
of the latter is real but miniscule compared to the risk women face
from men. But you are quite correct that the possibility of a woman
sexually assaulting a man is barely even considered, and would
probably show the same under-reporting. And I am aware that it does
happen.
We have a violent society, and sexual violence is just a part of it.
And violence is not just a male behavior. But I feel that male
violence against women to be such an important part of the problem
that it deserves special attention. Also, it illustrates some of
the darker side of traditional male/female roles, and indeed looms
so large that no path to sexual equality can ignore it.
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
----------
This reproduced from Ed's note (without permission, sorry Ed) because it
much more clearly states what I, im my emotional state of last night, tried
to say in the parent note.
For all those of you who may have flamed before this appeared, accept this
as an apology for going overboard (you too John!).
Beth Mazur
{ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazurjsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (02/26/84)
I've already corresponded with Beth about this in mail, and she's
already posted a followup saying she posted the article I quote
from below as an emotional reaction, so this is not so much a reply
to her as yet another attempt to state what seems to me to be an
obvious position in such a way that it won't be misunderstood.
From mazur@inmet.UUCP Fri Feb 17 22:57:18 1984
Subject: Rape by Women?!?!? - (nf)
Message-ID: <907@inmet.UUCP>
CYNICAL MODE ON ***>
Here is a simple test for both men and women that will let you
know which is your greatest risk: rape by a woman, or being
struck by lightning.
1. Do you golf in thunderstorms?
2. Is your house on top of the highest point of land for miles?
3. Do you leave your TV (and $500 antenna) plugged in during storms?
4. Do you practice your baton in electrical fields?
5. Do you frequently date women on roller derby teams?
6. Does your date remind you of Patti Smith?
7. Do you know women who look like the East German track team?
8. Do you have trouble bench-pressing your own weight?
If you have more yes answers to questions 1-4 than you do to questions
5-8, wear rubber-bottomed shoes. If the reverse is true, get help;
you are a prime target for rape by women.
CYNICAL MODE HALF ON ***>
OK, it is possible for a woman to rape a man, and a woman to rape a
woman. It's probably even happened 10 or 20 times.
How about:
1. If you were approached by a woman carrying a gun,
would you do what she said?
2. If you were surprised by several armed women,
would you do what they said?
3. If a woman put a knife to your balls and said
"get it up or lose it," would you?
If you answered no to 1 or 2, we don't have to worry about you, as you
are probably either dead or in the hospital. If you answered no to 3,
you don't know how your own body would react: it's amazing what the
hindbrain will do to save the genitals.
10 or 20 times? Sorry, more than that. No, I can't locate a reference,
yes, I'm looking for it, and yes, I'll post it when I find it.
The point of my original comment about references that seems to be what
set this off was that the old common knowledge that a woman could not
rape a man and that anything that sounded like it was just violent
seduction is *not true*! Assuming that it's only happened a miniscule
number of times is to pile the same crap on the victims as has been
until recently been put upon female victims: "It *must* have been
your fault, because everybody knows men are much stronger than women,"
parallel to "It *must* have been your fault, you must have tempted him
beyond his endurance."
I was attempting to make a comment on the insistance (in the article
I was replying to) on the existance of references for the incidence
of rape of women by men, which is so prevalent that one would hope
we all know about it, while not bothering to produce *anything* on
rape of men by women (a much harder thing to document) to be specious.
To trivialize male rape victims because they are rarer is reprehensible.
(Disclaimer: the previous sentence is not aimed at any specific person
but is included as an extension of the argument to make a point.)
Anybody who thinks a woman is not dangerous simply because she is a
woman is a fool.
What I'd like to know is, how many of you park your cars in
brightly lit lots because you are afraid a woman is going to
grab you and rape you? How many of you don't open your doors
when you are alone because you are afraid a woman will force
her way in and rape you? How many times have you crossed as
street because you saw a shady-looking woman walking on your
side of the street? Are you ever worried that that nice girl
you just met might expect sex, and force you if you not
willing?
CYNICAL MODE OFF ***>
I agree that women can rape men and women, and that that is as
much as a crime as is rape by men. I still think that rape is
primarily, mainly, almost always a crime by men. Rape is not a
"people" crime, it is a crime committed mostly by men, and
occasionally by a violent, aggressive woman.
Now all men do not commit rape, and all men do not want to
commit rape. I am not saying this to "promote hatred of men".
But if you want to know why we, out of frustration, say "why
don't you men out there stop raping us", it's probably because
we're tired of being told that rape is a crime by people
against people, when it's mostly rape of women by men.
Go ahead, send flames. I borrowed someone's asbestos
gloves... Beth Mazur {ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur
I know why you say that out of frustration; I know about all the fears
you list. I agree that many more rapes are committed by men than by
women, and I never said otherwise. I claim, however, that by looking
*only* at rape of women by men, you will find the basic nature of rape
obscured: it is a crime of violence, aggressiveness, and domination,
using sex as a means, not an end. If you look at rape of men by women
and homosexual rape you can see this more easily. Violence is not
limited to men: rape *is* a crime of (disturbed) people against people.
If you want to do something about it, you probably want to understand it
first, and that is the core of it. *Then* you can start trying to find
out why more men commit it than women.
Can you not see why I object to you sitting there in your warm, safe,
office and posting such an assertion (the original was "The only
solution is for you men out there to stop raping us!") as a political
statement to an international network? I am not a rapist, and I don't
like being accused of being one. I would suspect some of the other
2 billion or so people out there thus implicated might also object,
considering that only a small minority of them actually are. Such
rhetoric does no good.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqwombat@uicsl.UUCP (02/27/84)
#R:inmet:10900047:uicsl:16400046:000:1070 uicsl!wombat Feb 26 13:42:00 1984 It looks to me like Beth Mazur is more interested in looking at the aspect of rape that is more likely to affect her personally (i.e., rape of women by men) and John Quarterman would prefer to include the larger problem, which would be more likely to affect him (rape of people by people). If Mazur wants to limit her attention to one (and by far the larger) part of the problem, that's her business. She may not be personally interested in solving the problems of men in the way she is interested in solving the problem that she herself may be attacked by some crazy, violent man. If Quarterman wants something done about people attacking other people, he should do something. Complaining that women aren't taking an interest in his (mostly male) part of the problem isn't going to help anything. His calling this a "people" problem is just a way of including himself as a potential (but very unlikely) victim; maybe he feels left out? Women have felt left out of a whole lot of things. Nobody promised life would be fair. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat
mazur@inmet.UUCP (03/01/84)
#R:ut-sally:-99900:inmet:10900053:000:970
inmet!mazur Feb 29 00:20:00 1984
I claim, however, that by looking *only* at rape of women by men,
you will find the basic nature of rape obscured: it is a crime of
violence, aggressiveness, and domination, using sex as a means,
not an end. If you look at rape of men by women and homosexual
rape you can see this more easily. Violence is not limited to
men: rape *is* a crime of (disturbed) people against people. If
you want to do something about it, you probably want to understand
it first, and that is the core of it. *Then* you can start trying
to find out why more men commit it than women.
What then, do you have to say about (my previously mentioned to you) Susan
Brownmiller's book Against Our Will, which theorizes that the crime of rape
is a method by which men dominate women by subjecting them to constant fear?
If a man rapes to dominate (rather than sexually satisfy), doesn't this lend
some credence to this theory?
Beth Mazur
{ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazurjsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (03/01/84)
I have a nominee here for best missing-of-the-point on USENET this week
(though I admit I don't read net.politics):
From wombat@uicsl.UUCP Sun Feb 26 21:52:49 1984
From: wombat@uicsl.UUCP
Message-ID: <5888@uiucdcs.UUCP>
It looks to me like Beth Mazur is more interested in looking at the
aspect of rape that is more likely to affect her personally (i.e., rape
of women by men) and John Quarterman would prefer to include the larger
problem, which would be more likely to affect him (rape of people by
people). If Mazur wants to limit her attention to one (and by
far the larger) part of the problem, that's her business. She may not
be personally interested in solving the problems of men in the way
she is interested in solving the problem that she herself may be
attacked by some crazy, violent man.
If she tries to defend statements like "The only solution is for you men
out there to stop raping us!" on a public network as a valid political
contribution to the problem, she has made it not just her business but
mine as well.
If Quarterman wants something done about people attacking other
people, he should do something. Complaining that women aren't
taking an interest in his (mostly male) part of the problem
isn't going to help anything. His calling this a "people"
problem is just a way of including himself as a potential (but
very unlikely) victim; maybe he feels left out? Women have
felt left out of a whole lot of things. Nobody promised
life would be fair.
Wombat
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat
Yeah, sure. I'm just *dying* to be violently attacked. And if you ever
get raped it'll be because you wanted it, no doubt. Besides, women *should*
pay attention only to problems that directly affect them, and men *should*
pay attention only to problems that directly affect them: separate but
equal worked so well for race problems, why not for sex-related ones?
In particular, no men should pay attention to women being raped, because
men are not being directly threatened. (Note to those who can't recognize
sarcasm when they see it: this paragraph is an example.)
My points were (summarized):
"Many men" is not the same as "all men:" there is a qualitative
difference.
Rape is not as simple as "men rape women," and you'll never understand
it by just looking at that part of it.
In any case, if you present statements like "the problem is
men (unqualified) rape women" as legitimate political statements,
you might as well expect objections, because some men don't like
being accused of rape. Furthermore, that sort of rhetoric
contributes nothing to solving the problem.
You may well not agree with me, but you could at least consider that
I might mean what I write. At this point I think I have said all I have
to say in news on the subject: you may refuse to understand if you like.
Though I will leave you with an argument parallel in *form* (not *content*,
flamers) to the ones I've seen lately on net.women about rape:
Some women are prostitutes.
Many women would perform sex for money if offered enough money
and promised anonymity.
Therefore all women are (at least potentially) prostitutes.
Saying that some men are prostitutes or that not all women are
prostitutes is clearly irrelevant to the problem of prostitution.
(Historical note: this ridiculous "all women are prostitutes" argument
was common about fifteen years ago and some people actually took it
seriously.)
I don't defend this argument either: it's exactly as specious as the one
that men raping women is all there is to rape.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqsdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (03/04/84)
Beth says, >What then, do you have to say about (my previously mentioned to you) Susan >Brownmiller's book Against Our Will, which theorizes that the crime of rape >is a method by which men dominate women by subjecting them to constant fear? > >If a man rapes to dominate (rather than sexually satisfy), doesn't this lend >some credence to this theory? I haven't read Brownmiller's book, but your paraphrase is a bit confusing. The phrase "...rape is a method by which men dominate women by subjecting them to constant fear" seems to imply that men (as a class) use rape as a means to subjugate women. This is effective as political agitprop in feminist writing; as a model of reality, it misrepresents the facts. Unless we are witnessing a situation of a single rapist repeatedly accosting women and terrorizing the community, rape is an act between individuals, and the violence is not directed against women (as a class.) I would prefer to see a statement like "...rape is a method by which rapists dominate their victims by subjecting them to constant fear," [the fear arising subsequent to their attack.] This properly puts the emphasis on the individual perpetrator. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/04/84)
> What then, do you have to say about (my previously mentioned to you) Susan > Brownmiller's book Against Our Will, which theorizes that the crime of rape > is a method by which men dominate women by subjecting them to constant fear? > > If a man rapes to dominate (rather than sexually satisfy), doesn't this lend > some credence to this theory? > > Beth Mazur > {ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur > > I think it would be more accurate to say that rape is a method by which SOCIETY dominates women by subjecting them to constant fear. That domination is attained not only but the act of rape itself, but by the way rape is treated by society, and in this women are as guilty as well as men. One of the guest speakers in the self-defense class I was taking a few years ago was a lawyer, who specialised, among other things, in rape, and he told us, that, if we ever got raped, the best jury we could hope for would be an all-men over 65 jury. Based on his experience, and some of his collegues, he said these were the people who seemed to be the most compassionate towards the victim. The least compassionate members of the jury were married women. Also, here is what Frederc Storaska ("How to say no to a rapist and survive") has to say about gang rapes. "Surprisingly, perhaps, violence is rarer in group rape than it is with the lone assulter..... When violence does occur in group rape, the group is likely to be composed of both men and women, and the women, not the men, are usually violent to the victim. The main reason for this may be jealousy. After all, just by choosing to rape a stranger, the gang has rejected its women. The women's revenge may be immediate and brutal. At the least, they'll be extremely unsympathetic" This is awful, but not too surprising. One of the best strategies to keep people from rebelling, is divide and conquer. This strategy seems to be particularly effective in the case of women. It is not uncommon to see women who have suffered because they are women, turn against other women (usually younger) who are better off than they are and are looking towards a brighter future. People sometimes become very self-righteous in their suffering. Women are very good at inflicting pain on other women. In tribes where the operation is still performed, it is women who perform clitorectomies on little girls, and women are also the ones who pass on guilt and shame of being women to their daughters. The message is clear: "I've suffered, and I paid for my place in society, I'm not going to let you get away with it for less than what I had to pay". So, those women take out their angers on the only other people they can take it out on, weaker women than them. This was just to say that even though rape is not simply a crime of men against women, even though it might look like it is overall. Sophie Quigley ...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley
wombat@uicsl.UUCP (03/06/84)
#R:inmet:10900047:uicsl:16400052:000:2875 uicsl!wombat Mar 5 16:07:00 1984 I got into this by trying (I thought) to point out where these two people were differing, because it looked like Quarterman was going to rant and rave about one person's personal opinions. Why I did it, I'll never know. J If she tries to defend statements like "The only solution is for you men S out there to stop raping us!" on a public network as a valid political Q contribution to the problem, she has made it not just her business but . mine as well. The statement was probably not made as a rational political argument, but rather out of frustration at her personal limited ability to do anything about a male (typically larger and stronger) attacking her. She most likely doesn't feel this same frustration about cases of men being attacked by women or herself being attacked by another woman. I don't for one minute believe that you, JSQ, worry nearly as much about where you park your car at night, where you walk at night, how you react to strangers on the street, how late you're willing to stay at work, ... as many women do. J Yeah, sure. I'm just *dying* to be violently attacked. And if you ever S get raped it'll be because you wanted it, no doubt. Besides, women *should* Q pay attention only to problems that directly affect them, and men *should* . pay attention only to problems that directly affect them: separate but . equal worked so well for race problems, why not for sex-related ones? . In particular, no men should pay attention to women being raped, because . men are not being directly threatened. That isn't what I said. Mazur wasn't personally interested in the problem of women raping men. You tried to convince her to look at the larger problem, but she didn't care to. You are trying to condemn her for sticking to the smaller problem. Face it, sometimes people will only take an interest in something that could directly affect them. You yourself are welcome to look at the problem any way you like, but you may not force that view on someone who isn't interested and then flame at her because she doesn't take to it. J In any case, if you present statements like "the problem is S men (unqualified) rape women" as legitimate political statements, Q you might as well expect objections, because some men don't like . being accused of rape. Furthermore, that sort of rhetoric . contributes nothing to solving the problem. Some men don't like to be accused of rape; some women don't like to be raped. Like I said before, nobody promised life would be fair. Also, like it or not, if you walk down a dark street not far from a woman who doesn't know you, she is probably going to consider you as a potential rapist for her own protection. Are you going to consider her as a potential rapist? What's a good solution to this problem? Would do a better job on this, but must catch a bus. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (03/06/84)
> <973@inmet.UUCP> > What then, do you have to say about (my previously mentioned to you) Susan > Brownmiller's book Against Our Will, which theorizes that the crime of rape > is a method by which men dominate women by subjecting them to constant fear? > > If a man rapes to dominate (rather than sexually satisfy), doesn't this lend > some credence to this theory? > > Beth Mazur > {ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur I say you've forgotten that women also rape to dominate, and for a better explication of the subject of rape as domination than I could do, see > From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) > Message-ID: <7172@watmath.UUCP> > Date: Sun, 4-Mar-84 14:00:51 CST Brownmiller's thesis is seductive because it offers a simple answer to a complex problem. Not a solution, mind you, just an answer. Simple and wrong, because the problem *isn't* that simple. -- John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (03/07/84)
*Sigh* How long must this go on?
From: wombat@uicsl.UUCP
Message-ID: <6039@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Mar-84 21:47:31 CST
I got into this by trying (I thought) to point out where these two
people were differing, because it looked like Quarterman was going to
rant and rave about one person's personal opinions. Why I did it, I'll
never know.
A brief history of the discussion: quite some time back, Sophie Quigley
posted an article to an already on-going discussion about rape which mostly
was about rape not being the fault of women (of course it isn't) but ended
with: "The only solution is for you men out there to stop raping us!"
I posted a followup taking exception to this rhetoric, pointing out that
that statement was inappropriate as the final paragraph and apparent
summation of the rest of her article as it implied all men rape.
Since then I have been taken to task by Quigley, by someone from L.A.
(Ed Hall, I think), by Beth Mazur, and now by wombat. In each case
I have replied to their criticisms and they have then seen what I meant
and said so in net.women. (Sophie Quigley never actually wrote as much,
but her recent reply to Beth Mazur about rape as domination explains my
position so much better than I could that I tend to think she understands it.)
Now I get to do it once more for you, wombat. That will be the *last* time!
(The above history does not pretend to be precise in every detail or complete.)
It is patently not true that I have been ranting and raving about one person's
personal opinions. Beth and I have in fact been carrying on correspondence
since before my first posting on the subject of rape, and while we indeed
do have differences of opinion, they are not what you think they are.
You appear to have come in in the middle of a discussion and are confused.
J If she tries to defend statements like "The only solution is for you men
S out there to stop raping us!" on a public network as a valid political
Q contribution to the problem, she has made it not just her business but
. mine as well.
The statement was probably not made as a rational political
argument, but rather out of frustration at her personal limited
ability to do anything about a male (typically larger and
stronger) attacking her. She most likely doesn't feel this same
frustration about cases of men being attacked by women or
herself being attacked by another woman.
The "she" who made the statement in question was Sophie Quigley, not Beth Mazur.
As I have posted before, I understand the frustration you refer to. My point
is (read the words on the screen this time): it is one thing to be afraid
of any man you see in a dark garage or wherever because he may be a rapist,
but it is *a completely different thing* to post something like that statement
of Sophie Quigley's as the summation of a contribution to a serious (well,
as serious as USENET gets) political discussion on a public network!
By "something like that statement" I mean something implying that *ALL MEN*
rape. Not knowing if a *particular* man or men may rape you is COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT from asserting that *all* men rape. (Disclaimer: I know that
is not what Sophie Quigley (or Beth Mazur) actually meant to say, however
that is what the *actual words* in the aforementioned statement imply:
it was the *rhetoric* I was objecting to.)
I don't for one minute believe that you, JSQ, worry nearly as
much about where you park your car at night, where you walk at
night, how you react to strangers on the street, how late
you're willing to stay at work, ... as many women do.
And why should you believe it? I never asserted or meant any such thing!
J Yeah, sure. I'm just *dying* to be violently attacked. And if you ever
S get raped it'll be because you wanted it, no doubt. Besides, women *should*
Q pay attention only to problems that directly affect them, and men *should*
. pay attention only to problems that directly affect them: separate but
. equal worked so well for race problems, why not for sex-related ones?
. In particular, no men should pay attention to women being raped, because
. men are not being directly threatened.
That isn't what I said.
For some reason on which I refuse to speculate, you have removed the
disclaimer from the end of my paragraph as you quote it. The disclaimer
clearly labeled that paragraph as >>>sarcasm<<<. That means you shouldn't
take it seriously. It also means I thought your point too absurd and
insulting to compose a serious reply to. You were, if you recall,
accusing me of posting what I did because I felt left out for not
being in danger of being raped. You could try apologizing.
Mazur wasn't personally interested in the problem of women
raping men. You tried to convince her to look at the larger
problem, but she didn't care to. You are trying to condemn her
for sticking to the smaller problem. Face it, sometimes people
will only take an interest in something that could directly
affect them. You yourself are welcome to look at the problem
any way you like, but you may not force that view on someone
who isn't interested and then flame at her because she doesn't
take to it.
You are misinterpreting the whole discussion, including Beth's position,
what I was trying to do, and why I was trying to do it. I do *not* condemn
Beth Mazur, and have bloody well never written any such thing. If she
is not interested in the discussion, why did she first reply to me (not
the other way around) and why does she continue it? I am not trying to
force my views on her: we are discussing a subject to try to discover
what each ones views are and perhaps to arrive at a consensus.
J In any case, if you present statements like "the problem is
S men (unqualified) rape women" as legitimate political statements,
Q you might as well expect objections, because some men don't like
. being accused of rape. Furthermore, that sort of rhetoric
. contributes nothing to solving the problem.
Some men don't like to be accused of rape; some women don't like to
be raped.
Yes! Yes! Exactly! And accusing men in general of rape is not going
to keep women from being raped. Why not address the problem instead?
Like I said before, nobody promised life would be fair.
And it is still just as much of a totally irrelevant non-sequitur as before.
Also, like it or not, if you walk down a dark street not far
from a woman who doesn't know you, she is probably going to
consider you as a potential rapist for her own protection.
That's not the point, and I have never contested it, anyway. See above.
Are you going to consider her as a potential rapist?
Yes.
What's a good solution to this problem?
I don't know. That is part of the question, though, isn't it?
Would do a better job on this, but must catch a bus.
Wombat
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat
A suggestion: look before you leap. Check to see what people's motives
really are, if they've gone to the trouble of spelling them out in public,
before imputing false ones. I'm sorry if that sounds strong, but I do not
like being accused of things I never did or meant. If you have something
further to write, please do. However, I will not reply to any more off
the wall accusations of things I never did from you or anyone else:
four times is enough!
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqmazur@inmet.UUCP (03/07/84)
#R:ut-sally:-99900:inmet:10900056:000:664 inmet!mazur Mar 6 19:48:00 1984 >I haven't read Brownmiller's book, but your paraphrase is a bit confusing. >The phrase "...rape is a method by which men dominate women by subjecting >them to constant fear" seems to imply that men (as a class) use rape as >a means to subjugate women. This is effective as political agitprop in >feminist writing; as a model of reality, it misrepresents the facts. Actually, the quote I was referring to actually read "rape ... ALL men dominate ALL women ...". And yes, I think that's exactly what it is meant to imply. Hold your flames, I don't personally believe this; I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate. Beth Mazur {ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur