Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: San Quentin strip searches -- a new twist
Message-ID: <2311@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 20:24:18 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2311
Posted: Wed Feb 20 20:24:18 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 09:16:40 EST
References: <3365@alice.UUCP> <2295@randvax.UUCP> <951@watdcsu.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 64

>=David Canzi:
> No amount of injustice against women can justify any injustice against
> men.  In fact, as a general principle, no amount of injustice against
> "x" can justify any injustice against "y".
> 
On the surface of it, this seems to be a very noble sentiment.  And there
are certainly situations where the denial of rights to one group for the
alleged benifit of another has grown into the epitome of tyranny.  On the
other hand ``justice'' often involves balancing the rights of one group
against those of another--even to the point of performing a seeming
injustice to both.  The current controversy over victim's versus
defendant's rights is an example of this.

At no point did I claim that the genuine injustices against men that
``Men's Rights'' proponents have found should be ignored:  I pointed out
that these problems were already being redressed, and at a rate far faster
than the injustices that affect women.  What I *did* argue is that focusing
on injustices against men is wrong; it is a smoke screen used in excusing
neglect or even hostility towards women's issues.

It isn't as if we have a near-perfect society that only needs a few
injustices excised.  Injustices are common in every facet of life.  And
they affect EVERY "x" and EVERY "y".  The question is, which injustices
should we focus on correcting?  Should it be a few injustices that affect
an otherwise priviledged group "x"?  Or a myriad of injustices that have
subjugated and degraded group "y" for millenia?

Whether it is the more refined, low-key tactics of Playboy or the sharper,
issue-oriented tactics of Penthouse, the underlying message is the same:
Feminists won't recognize those injustices which affect men [add short list
here], and this makes suspect their motives for fighting those injustices
which affect women [add huge list here] suspect.  Perhaps, they go on, we
should fight the Feminists before they promulgate more injustices. (This
ignores the fact that with the sole exception of rape defense restrictions,
the injustices were created apart from Feminist influence.  And rape
defense restrictions were formulated as much under ``Victim's Rights''
influence as Feminism, and can be seen as a general shift away from what
some people consider undue protection of defendants and neglect of
victims.)

> Most of the rest of your article is pretty irrelevant, given that you
> were responding to what you thought the article said, rather that finding
> out what it said.  You would have had to *buy* a copy of Playboy to
> do that.  Ooh, iccch.  Politically incorrect!

I don't think I was very far off in guessing the article's viewpoint.  I
suppose my mistake was forgetting how Playboy tries to use a more errudite
style, as opposed to Penthouse's issue-oriented approach.

As far as my article being ``irrelevent'', how does the fact that I posited
an imaginary article to respond to make the points I made any less
appropriate?  I merely used it as a starting-point to express my opinion on
the ``Men's Rights Movement'' in general.

You might find it strange, but many libraries subscribe to Playboy and
Penthouse.  I've no need to do anything ``policically incorrect''.
Besides, I can enjoy parts of either magazine (the interviews especially),
even, sometimes, the pictures (although it seems that tasteful photos occur
almost entirely by accident).  My issue with both of them concerns their
editorial viewpoints and the exploitative nature of many of their articles
and pictorials.

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall