jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/13/84)
I've heard some amazing generalizations, but this one takes the cake.
If I'm shot by a sniper as I walk along some otherwise nondescript street,
I wanted it to happen? If I'm hit by a meteorite, I wanted it to happen?
If I'm vaporized in a nuclear holocaust, I and a million other people
wanted it to happen (and the few that survived were the only ones that
didn't)?
One may as well say,
"All women are sluts (No flames please. Blah, blah, blah, mystical
nonsense. Leave it at that.)."
Seriously, what seems to be part of this is the idea that women don't get
raped unless they really want to. That's got to be one of the more pernicious
pieces of non(common)sense floating around these days.
Please understand, I'm not saying Randwulf is a horrible person, or anything
like that, but his statement really fries me.
Still smoking,
Jeff Winslowrh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (01/16/84)
Okay, add the statement "for the most part." I'll tell you wnat exactly is in my head. The first week I was in Boston (God, it was 4-1/2 years ago), I was approached by what were apparently homosexuals (this was before I was incredibly perceptive). After that, I bought myself a knife that I intended to use if I needed to. Then, after a while, I realized that people would try to keep their distance from me on the street. Now, I'm only about 5'9" or so, so it's not my physical stature (well, I do weigh about 200 lbs, with an appreciable (though not as much as I'd like) amount of it muscle, but I'm not really awesome physically). I realized that it was the air I carried about me, my aura if you will. I didn't need the knife (but I still carry it, it's a useful tool), I just needed the attitude. My aura says, "Here I am. You can screw with me if you want, and you might even win. But I will be rutheless, and I will try to tear your face off and pull your arms and legs out of socket and break all of your bones. I won't punch you in the face; I'll try to gouch your eyes out." I keep this frame of mind when walking down the street, and I can see people trying to get farther away from me on the sidewalk. People talk about "smelling" fear. Well, I suppose that others can smell the violence and rage in me (I'm indignant about having to worry about getting attacked on the street). I've spent four years walking the streets of Boston (well, not stupidly), and I haven't had any trouble since the first week. I suppose that this approach isn't that great for women, because the threat of tearing someone apart is more difficult for a woman to project, but this stuff can all operate on a sub-conscious level. It's just the same as your parents always told you about dealing with a barking dog: don't let it know you're afraid. If you walk down the street like no one is going to mess with you, then chances are no one will. Oh, well, enough prosteletyzing (about the power of the mind, which is the Buddha) for one night. Think positive. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
jrt@hou5g.UUCP (Jaime Tormos) (01/17/84)
WRONG!!!! All kinds of things happen to people when they not only don't want it to happen, but even when they take steps to make sure it doesn't. Yes, there are things that can be done to reduce the odds, but when it comes right down to it, if a rapist/mugger/thief decides that you are going to be his target, then there is not much you can do to change his mind. Some of the things that people attempt can even make the situation worse, or force the attacker to use physical violence. The attacker can even select it's victim with distorted logic, i.e. "She thinks she's so <whatever>, well I'll show her!" "Nothing.....unless they want it to" ?????? Explain to me how a six year old child can 'want to be' molested, raped and murdered. No, the victim does not ASK to be a victim, except for a VERY few self destructive individuals. The attacker is like a wolf stalking prey. He hides and blends in with his surroundings so as to not scare off his potential victim. He selects a target, either because it is the 'best' of his choices, or because he feels that he would be successful in his attempts. He can feel confident in being successful when the potential victim appears to be weak, but he can also feel confident about success when he is just plain confident. He has succeeded in the past, nobody has done anything about it, so go after 'better game'. Some muggers and thieves may be deterable through preventive actions by each individual, however the rapist or sexual deviant does not perceive things the way a 'normal' person does. The rapist acts out of anger, he acts from emotions that are distorted, he is not dealing with reality. There is no real way to avoid this person. You can not reason with him, you can not stop something that you can not see. Their are perceptual/conceptual distortions inside this individual. This person acts from what HE sees, not from what people around him are seeing. Maybe this belongs in net.flame, but I can not believe that someone thinks that victims only get what they ask for. (** FRODO **) alias hou5g!jrt
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (01/18/84)
I can't help posting a reply to the above. Did anyone watch 60 Minutes on the 15th? There was a very interesting segment on rape and the men who have been caught. The premis of the segment was that some of these men could not control themselves due to high levels of testerone(sp) in their systems. The men on the show were under treatment to lower those levels through the use of a new drug. Now I don't know if the men were being truthful or not, but they said that they realized the enormity of their crimes, and welcomed the drug treatments as it seemed to lower their urges. It seems that the drug used was El Dopa or something like it. In Texas, it was noted that some rapists were being let out as long as they continued their treatment. I am not condoning rape or any sex crimes on the basis of hormonal levels, but am just interested in seeing other comments concerning this facet of the problem. If the body's chemical levels is a valid explanation for behavior, what should be done to discover who has the problem and what should be done to control the person? I just thought I would throw this in for discussion. T. C. Wheeler
saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/19/84)
Not only that, but most rapes happen between people who already know each other. I agree that one could act tough and try to show each and every man one knows that one will not take any bullshit. Do you realise what this means? spending your whole life putting on an act of being tough and not letting your defenses down. What kind of a poisonned existence is that? It is bad enough that I have to worry about acting tough whenever I'm out on the street past curfew (around 5pm most of the time here). If I have to act tough and put on a protective shield every time I spend some time alone in a secluded place with a member of the opposite sex, I just won't bother. Men who suggest that we do this don't realise what it really means: a lifetime of paranoia. Most of us women who know something about rape do have some of this paranoia. I for one am very paranoid to the point that I feel very uncomfortable whenever I find myself in a potential rape situation. It is not fun. I have just decided recently to calm myself down, but it is not easy, because the threat is not all in my mind. Maybe you think that is a small trade-off, to be somewhat paranoid so as not to get raped, but you probably don't realise the full implications of this on men. Some of us view every man stranger or not as a potential rapist once in a while. What kind of relationship between the sexes is that? And then men wonder why some women are so aggressive and so defensive in front of men. Your suggestion that we all "act tough" to prevent rape would make things even worse. Most men do not rape, and do not deserve to be assumed potential rapists, but unless rape becomes a less common crime, there is no way this will change. No, no, it is too easy to tell us to act tough. If we do and are still raped, then it will mean that we will not have acted tough enough, won't it, and it will still be our fault (sounds familiar..). No, I just won't buy that. The only solution is for you men out there to stop raping us!
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (01/21/84)
Oh, gee. I can see that my first argument should've been better formulated and reasoned out before posting. I keep assuming people look at the world like I do. Okay, I'll try to sort of explain the way I think of things (like anyone cares, but I'll try anyway). I'll also try to keep it brief: First of all, I should warn you that I have a view of the world that is based on metaphysics and believing in unseen forces so heavily that most of you won't buy it. There was a time in my life when I was religious, then a time when I believed science could explain everything. That was before I knew how much science COULDN'T do. Why is it easier for you to believe in the electronic field that is allowing you to read this than it is for you to believe in the psychic field that surrounds me when I walk down the street? Why are you so convinced that there are only 5 senses? There are things that have happened in my life that I've tried real hard to explain with science (before I came to a metaphysical view of the world), and I couldn't. And it wasn't due to lack of understanding, because, in all modesty, I am a hell of a good Generalist. After a number of these things happening, I finally decided that total science wasn't the answer. If people are interested in learning more about what I think, I would prefer to do mail, since I've clogged the network enough with my "religious" beliefs. Now, about that psychic field. I was discussing this with a very dear friend last night. She thinks that there are a lot of problems with having violence integrated into one's being. I guess she's right, there are. Among them, she cited, is that it might inspire a fear in my friends that I might erupt and hit them. She says she doesn't worry about it because she can't imagine us in a situation where she would make me mad enough to want to hit her. (We know that we will probably never be lovers for this and other similar reasons.) I've been thinking about an alternative to violence, but it's difficult because violence doesn't scare me that much. She says that it's because I'm a guy and less susceptible to having the crap beat out of me by other people than she is. I think more of the reason is that my second step-mother (from age 11 - 18) used to beat the crap out of me on a regular basis. After a while, I decided that my only defense was to realize that it was "only pain," and it wasn't going to kill me. You will probably argue that it's made me accept violence more, but I will argue that it's also given me a high threshhold for physical pain, which I'm really glad to have. (I tend to suffer from bad headaches from time to time, like right now.) I also played organized football for 5 years, which is just a form of controlled violence (especially the way I played). I suppose the point is you don't HAVE to use violent thoughts to protect you when walking down the street, it's just the most convenient method for me. Since the violence is in me anyway (and I'm not really trying to get rid of it), it doesn't cost me anything to tap into it. Psychic fields need power, and rage is a very good source of power. Love can be a source of power also, but I've found it to be less harnessable (for me, at least). It's also more difficult to maintain in the face of adversity, unless maybe if you've been brought up that way (but I've been brought up with lots of hate, remember?). You can apply the approach of Ben Kenobi in SW IV, where he makes people leave them alone just because. (Of course, this did fail in one case, so he had to cut some guy's arm off.) I have successfully snuck up on people because I "willed" them not to know I was there. (I have walked past people's field of vision without them seeing me, many many times.) You could walk down the street and make people not take particular notice of you. What I really do is walk down the street and wear an aura that says I am basically a crazy person. It tells them that there are easier targets than me; like most people will cower in fear if threatened, but it's entirely possible that I will attempt to kill them. Most muggers and their ilk really don't want to deal with people like this, and I can't say that I blame them. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that you just walk down the street and make them think, "This one's too little (crazy, strong, etc.), you don't want do anything to him/her." -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (01/21/84)
I think that when people (it isn't just men!) who say that "a woman who is raped must have been asking for it" are pointing out that the woman does have some influence over whether she is likely to be raped. That is, by itself, true. However, these people seem to believe that it is the woman's responsibility to do everything in her power to lessen those chances - to avoid walking alone, to avoid dressing attractively - and that any man who rapes her is simply sucumbing to his perfectly-natural desires. Garbage. Women should avoid deliberately provoking rape, or any other unpleasant act against themselves, but that is as far as their responsibility should go. Men should be held responsible for their actions, and in the case of rape the blame rests pretty squarely on the man unless the woman clearly went out of her way to provoke him.
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (01/23/84)
x
From: saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Message-ID: <6431@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Jan-84 09:32:29 CST
The only solution is for you men out there to stop raping us!
While I am in no way in favor of the opinion that most of the above
article was criticising (see Subject:), I have to take exception to the
line quoted above.
This sort of overgeneralization purely on the basis of sex is not
warranted. Rape is not limited to a man attacking a woman. Not to
mention I don't recall ever personally raping anybody and have no plans
to do so. Statements such as the one quoted above are sexism
masquerading as feminism.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqsaquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/23/84)
> The only solution is for you men out there to stop raping us! > > While I am in no way in favor of the opinion that most of the above > article was criticising (see Subject:), I have to take exception to the > line quoted above. > > This sort of overgeneralization purely on the basis of sex is not > warranted. Rape is not limited to a man attacking a woman. Not to > mention I don't recall ever personally raping anybody and have no plans > to do so. Statements such as the one quoted above are sexism > masquerading as feminism. > -- > John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas > jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq You quoted me out of context. If you read the rest of my article, I was not saying that most men rape, but that because so many do, women tend to be suspicious of most of them, something which is not doing men who don't rape a world of good. Since the trend is so general - yes there are women raping men, and the raped men's anguish is as bad or worse as the raped women's - but the great majority of rapists are men. As I don't want to advocate women raping men, the only way to change this view that we have that rapists are men and that men are potential rapists is for those men to stop raping. I am sorry if that sounded like I was attacking the majority of men. I admit the wording of this sentence was strong, but I feel very strongly on this subject as I get very angry at the tought that someone would try to rape me just because I am a woman, and I get angrier when someone suggests that if I did end up getting raped, it would be because I didn't really not want it bad enough. I don't mind being called sexist. Like most of us, I carry my baggage of garbage which includes racist and sexist thoughts. I don't like it and I want to get rid of it, but it is not always easy. I try very hard to be a feminist and I think feminism is not about women making sexist remarks on men. The temptation is there, though and if I succumb to it, let me know as you did. Sophie Quigley
jrt@hou5g.UUCP (01/24/84)
Now I've heard it all. Randwulf believes he can walk down a
street unseen by others, due to his "willing" them not to see him.
Didn't "Bert" on 'Soap' have the same beliefs? Well, granted he
had to wave his hands while he snapped his fingers, so I guess
randwulf has to be congratulated!.
Course this also reminds me of the fairy tale of the wolf that
convinced a sheep that it was invisible. The sheep became so confident
that he walked right in front of the wolf, who then gobbled him up. I
hope that the 'all-powerful' randwulf doesn't get gobbled up because of
his pseudo-confidence.
(** FRODO **) alias hou5g!jrt
p.s. I also STRONGLY urge others not to follow Randwulfs suggestions. I
believe it will take a bit of scientific mastery of 'inviso-powers'
before I could rcommend his ideas.ariels@orca.UUCP (01/26/84)
I dunno, I think Randwulf has got something there. He wasn't saying "invisible", but "not-botherable" (at least, as I understood it). I've used the same method. And I'm short and female. I've found that if I LOOK tough and ready to fight, and if my mind set says ,"I've got somewhere to go, so don't bother me and I won't bother you." That I can walk just about anywhere just about any time and not get bothered. This method does have it's drawbacks, though. You have to psych up anger, and it takes a while to dissipate the anger. So if you accept the premise that constant anger is not good for the soul or body (anger being a high-stress emotion), you have to find some way to make up for the "psychic" pinches that you give yourself each time you use this method. I no longer use this method as often as I did in the past (I got a car), but I still call on it when I feel that it will serve. But you do have to be ready to use that cooked up anger, not just drop it and whimper should something happen. Rapists and muggers look for easy pickings, and unless you think your life is in immediate danger (the schmuck has a gun pointed at you or a knife at your throat), you could actually scare him off if you are tough and confidant. Ariel (Grrrr, don't mess with me) Shattan ..!decvax!tektronix!orca!ariels
edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (02/10/84)
------------------------ I don't think Sophie needs to back down from her statement implying that many men are potential rapists. From what I've seen it's very hard to blame most women for worrying about this, at least in the backs of their minds. I'm going to have to dig through old copies of the LA Times to find the reference (which I'll then post), but there have been studies in which 1/3rd of a male college-aged population said they might rape if they could be assured of not getting caught. (As if the victim wouldn't notice...) Even if this figure seems a bit high, I suspect that there are few women who have done much dating who haven't felt at least once that they might be in immediate danger of being raped. Of course, in talking about it later they might hedge by saying that their date was being a `bit too aggressive', or `wouldn't take ``no'' for an answer'. Such male behavior is considered `normal' in many circles. We've sexualized violence in our culture; the evidence for this is so pervasive that a lot of people deny that there could be anything wrong with it. (Television, cinema, magazines, popular music--any mass media--shows our preoccupation with this.) Sex is often seen as a form of aggression. And some of the more hostile men among us rape as a result. Others beat wives or girlfriends. Not a majority, by any means, but probably a good 10-15%. (References will be supplied for this, too--and there are a lot.) No, John Quarterman, I don't think that just because women have raped men in the past means that they should be equally worried (or unworried, as you claim) as men. The chance of a woman making a violent sexual assault on me isn't much greater than that of my getting struck by lightning. But the odds of a woman getting raped in her lifetime is variously put at from 1 out of 10 to 1 out of 3, on the average. Here in LA the figure is almost 1 out of 2. (Once again, I'll provide references in a followup.) -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (02/12/84)
The Subject: above, by the way, was never mine and I don't agree with it,
as I have said in a previous posting. I'm leaving it there only for
continuity of the discussion.
From: edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall)
Message-ID: <1676@randvax.ARPA>
I don't think Sophie needs to back down from her statement implying
that many men are potential rapists. From what I've seen it's very
hard to blame most women for worrying about this, at least in the
backs of their minds.
She did not say or imply "many men:" she said "you men," unqualified.
That is not at all the same thing. That is what I was complaining about.
She acknowledged the difference when I pointed it out. Why can't you?
Even if your figures of 1/3 of a college age population sampled saying
they would rape if they had a chance are correct, that does not mean
*all men* would do so.
[details omitted: see original posting]
Such male behavior is considered `normal' in many circles.
We've sexualized violence in our culture; the evidence for this is
so pervasive that a lot of people deny that there could be anything
wrong with it. (Television, cinema, magazines, popular music--any
mass media--shows our preoccupation with this.) Sex is often seen
as a form of aggression. And some of the more hostile men among us
rape as a result. Others beat wives or girlfriends. Not a
majority, by any means, but probably a good 10-15%. (References
will be supplied for this, too--and there are a lot.)
I hardly think our culture has been the first to sexualize violence;
consider some traditional Moslem cultures. Not to mention there is
evidence sex and violence are linked in the structure of the brain.
And it seems pretty clear that rape is an act of aggression using sex
as a means.
You might consider looking at violence committed by women, though
(for a reflection in the media, have you seen "Sudden Impact" yet?).
Some of the more hostile women among us rape as a result, too. Not only
are there cases of rape of men by women, but there are cases of rape
of women by women, just as there are cases of rape of men by men.
That does not mean "all women" rape any more than "all men" rape.
No, John Quarterman, I don't think that just because women have
raped men in the past means that they should be equally worried (or
unworried, as you claim) as men. The chance of a woman making a
violent sexual assault on me isn't much greater than that of my
getting struck by lightning. But the odds of a woman getting raped
in her lifetime is variously put at from 1 out of 10 to 1 out of 3,
on the average. Here in LA the figure is almost 1 out of 2. (Once
again, I'll provide references in a followup.)
-Ed Hall
decvax!randvax!edhall
I know the figures for rape of women. Where have I disputed that?
You *think* you know your chances. Where are your references?
Remember that rape of men by women was not even considered possible
until a few years ago and the chances of a man admitting it to the
police are quite slim. Even rape by instrumentality has only recently
been recognized. But of course everybody *knows* men have nothing
to fear from women....
Yet you are arguing with a straw figure you have set up, not with me.
Numbers are not the point: Rape is a crime of violence; anyone can commit it.
But saying "all men" do is no more true than saying "all people" do.
Women are not innocent by virtue of being women and men are not guilty
by virtue of being men. Down with stereotypes and pseudo-speciation.
I'd like to see you produce a quote showing where I said women should be
unworried about rape. My contention was with Sophie Quigley's rhetoric.
As I said before, statements such as "The only solution is for you men
out there to stop raping us!" are inaccurate and counterproductive
seeing as they falsely accuse innocent people. She knew what I meant, and,
as I suspected, she had only overstated her case in a moment of emotion.
I have no more quarrel with her. In fact, I think her posting on suggested
rules for net.women was one of the best things I've seen on USENET for
insight, cleverness, and tact, and should promote useful discussions of
sexual politics more than most anything I've seen in this newsgroup lately.
I don't know who you are arguing with, but it's not me.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqjsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (02/12/84)
This is going to have to be a bit messy, involving quotes of quotes: > and > > > is Sophie Quigley, > > is jsq. > > > The only solution is for you men out there to stop raping us! > > > > While I am in no way in favor of the opinion that most of the above > > article was criticising (see Subject:), I have to take exception to the > > line quoted above. > > > > This sort of overgeneralization purely on the basis of sex is not > > warranted. Rape is not limited to a man attacking a woman. Not to > > mention I don't recall ever personally raping anybody and have no plans > > to do so. Statements such as the one quoted above are sexism > > masquerading as feminism. > > -- > > John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas > > jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq > > You quoted me out of context. If you read the rest of my article, I was > not saying that most men rape, but that because so many do, women tend to > be suspicious of most of them, something which is not doing men who don't > rape a world of good. Since the trend is so general - yes there are women > raping men, and the raped men's anguish is as bad or worse as the raped > women's - but the great majority of rapists are men. As I don't want to > advocate women raping men, the only way to change this view that we have > that rapists are men and that men are potential rapists is for those men to > stop raping. I did not quote you out of context: the overgeneralization of your statement made it a non sequitor with the rest of your article. As I remarked (and as you quote me remarking), I read the rest of your article. Saying the great majority of rapists are men is not the same thing at all as saying that all men are rapists, which was the clear implication of your final statement in the original article. If you are going to say that all men are potential rapists, you must also say that all women are potential rapists, because some women do, after all, rape! The numbers game you are playing is no good: what percentage does it take? The only way to change the view that men are potential rapists and women are not is to look at the facts and see what they imply. > I am sorry if that sounded like I was attacking the majority of men. I > admit the wording of this sentence was strong, but I feel very strongly on > this subject as I get very angry at the tought that someone would try to > rape me just because I am a woman, and I get angrier when someone suggests > that if I did end up getting raped, it would be because I didn't really not > want it bad enough. And I resent very strongly someone accusing me of being a potential rapist just because I am a man, while excluding the rest of the human race from the same accusation. Rhetoric like that will not help your problem. But you seem to know that. > I don't mind being called sexist. Like most of us, I carry my baggage of > garbage which includes racist and sexist thoughts. I don't like it and I > want to get rid of it, but it is not always easy. I try very hard to be a > feminist and I think feminism is not about women making sexist remarks on > men. The temptation is there, though and if I succumb to it, let me know > as you did. > Sophie Quigley People who admit (even to themselves) that they are somewhat sexist or racist seem to be rarer all the time among those who are righteously free of all that (or so they think). I have no real quarrel with you: I am merely attempting to point out some confused implications in your articles. I'd imagine we can all agree that rape is bad, after all.... -- John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq
edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (02/14/84)
-------------------------------- Sorry, John; I appologize, and confess to what was a bit of emotionalism on my own part. My reaction was simply to your statement that men are at danger of being raped as well as women, which in context seemed to imply that they should be just as concerned (or unconcerned) about it. This was probably a faulty understanding on my part, although I would have rather you had made a clear distinction and said that women are at considerably greater danger than men. 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. And this is, after all, net.women, not net.politics. :-) I think a lot of us agree there is a serious problem. I'll soon provide some references for those who remain unconvinced. But it is very important to go beyond this realization and to begin exploring solutions. I hope this discussion can develop fruitfully, and with a minimum of net-quibbling. (And I confess to a bit of the latter myself.) -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (02/16/84)
To Ed Hall-
No apology necessary: anybody can overlook things.
Of course women are at greater risk than men: the figures you bring up
show that. I thought Sophie Quigley (among others) made a good enough case
for that and didn't really need any help.
Indeed, more attempts at solutions and less rhetoric was what I was after.
John
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqholmes@dalcs.UUCP (Ray Holmes) (02/23/84)
[] Of the women I have known closely enough to be able to comment on the subjest, only ONE had not been raped at some point in time (and she was 16 and so had some time to go). Meeting a woman who has not been raped is a rare thing. Ray
edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (02/29/84)
----------------------------- > From: holmes@dalcs.UUCP (Ray Holmes) > Of the women I have known closely enough to be able to comment > on the subjest, only ONE had not been raped at some point in time (and > she was 16 and so had some time to go). Meeting a woman who has not > been raped is a rare thing. I suspect that Ray's experience is perhaps just a bit unusual. My own experience is that about half of the woman I have known well enough to talk about it have been raped or sexually attacked. And I hope that my own experience might be unusual as well. How about other netters? If Ray's and my experiences are typical, then the magnitude of this problem is bigger than I ever expected (and, frankly, even the one-out-of-fifteen rate that is the lowest figure I have found is horrifying to me). -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
brahms@trwspp.UUCP (03/01/84)
Of the women that I've know and have been able to talk to or would know
from other sources, I know of one that had been assaulted by a step-father
and another that the step-father wanted to assault but did not. If you
want, I'll count that as two. Therefore, 2 of 20 have been assaulted.
-- Brad Brahms
usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
arpa: Brahms@USC-ECLC