Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!ucivax!gateway From: cel@cs.duke.EDU (Christopher Emery Lane) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Girls, girls, girls Summary: long Message-ID: <654878138@romeo.cs.duke.edu> Date: 2 Oct 90 15:58:30 GMT References: <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> <12245@chaph.usc.edu> Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C. Lines: 107 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu In article <12245@chaph.usc.edu> wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) writes: >In article <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> travis@houston.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >>In article <11927@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes: >>> Perhaps it is the fact that the ideas of equal rights for women have been >>> so universally accepted that the only thing left for the activists to >>> get outraged over is petty word games. >>Universally accepted? The universe I live in contains countries than the >>United States, where such a right is by no means accepted or acted on. >OK OK OK. I meant universally in the US. Geez. Not much of a universe, is it? ;=) Plus, I'm not waiting for the "ideas" of equal rights, I'm waiting for the reality. >>Even in this enlightened district it was recently unacceptable to amend our >>constitution to describe men and women as equal, >I believe that the constitution and the law ALREADY do this. There are many >questions about just what additional changes the ERA would require. Just >what changes in the present law would you expect to see (aside perhaps from >allowing women into combat units in the military)? I would expect my chances of being drafted to decrease by around 1/2 and I would expect to have a better chance in a custody battle, as the "mother gets kid by default" reasoning would be dumped. >>sexual discrimination and harassment, >Sure, it happens at times. It is also illegal. What percentage of the >population do you think thinks that sexual discrimination/harassment >are OK? Around 10% of the male undergrads at Duke think rape is ok (this is based on a yearly survey conducted by the psychology department at Duke, asking people (or perhaps just men) "is it acceptable to use force to have sex if the woman has" gone on a date, gotten undressed, kissed, etc. If anyone really wants the reference, I can get it). I would guess that the discrimination/harrassment is more commonly approved of. I have certainly seen more than a few deviants discriminate (that may be because I am working in a university, which tends to be more conservative than "society at large"). >Do you not think that such laws have been "universally accepted" >even though they are occasionally broken? Do you think that just >because there is theft that anti-theft laws have not been universally >recognized? In fact, 25% at the minimum of women have been survived rape or attempted rape (and 10% or more of men) (NB: I'm including incest in rape). In my opinion, this makes it far from "universally accepted" that rape is wrong. If you don't know any rape survivors who have shared that experience with you, you might want to wonder why. Ask women about rape, about their fears, worries, and experiences. If you act reasonably non-judgemental, they'll certainly tell you, and before long you'll run into people that have been raped. If you already know men or women who have been raped, or if you yourself have, I don't see how you can say that it is universally accepted that rape is wrong. Moreover, on a petty note, the people I know who steal from companies believe it is ok for them, lacking money, to steal from a rich company. I'm not commenting on this, simply pointing it out as an example of how "deviant" people rationalize what they do (of course, "normal" people don't need to rationalize ;-). >>perhaps you should not be so sanguine about a system that >>gives men gender roles >Are these roles forced on anyone against his will? Yes. Some studies show that male infants are touched less frequently and less afectionately than female infants. etc., etc., etc. >Are you going to force >a different role on men against their wills? Not if you're a feminist, who believes in in the ideal of freely chosen lives. Of course, feminism would advocate that people who are bothered by inequality in the living arrangements stop cleaning up after their partners. A sort of household strike. This would have the effect on some men of changing their roles against their wills, unless cleanliness truly meant very little to them. >>that cannot be sustained without an early death from >>"natural causes," e.g., higher rates of violent death, alcoholism, heart >>disease, among other things. Don't be so quick to defend a system that is >>killing you and your male friends and relatives. >Well, I'm not very violent, I don't drink, or smoke, and I don't own a set >of dueling pistols. Those problems are not forced on people against their >wills. They are simply statistically more prevalent among certain groups. >I don't think that alcohol, cigarettes, too much fat, or too much violence >are good ideas, but I am not going to force other people to live the kinds of >lives I think they should. Neither should you. I hope you're not drafted to the Arabian deserts, and I hope you're not killed by some young male teenager speeding while drunk off his ass. I hope you never have the pain of helping a loved one through the healing process of recovery from rape or incest. Sexism hurst men and women, and leaves everyone incomplete. Chris -- "Life's a bitch and then you die." cel@cs.duke.edu Down with Gender! Enjoy today.