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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: San Quentin strip searches -- a new twist
Message-ID: <2345@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 14:17:10 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2345
Posted: Sat Mar 16 14:17:10 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Mar-85 07:48:17 EST
References: <3365@alice.UUCP> <2295@randvax.UUCP> <951@watdcsu.UUCP> <2311@randvax.UUCP> <1072@watdcsu.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 71

> 
> Ed Hall says:
> > At no point did I claim that the genuine injustices against men that
> > ``Men's Rights'' proponents have found should be ignored:  ...
> >                                    ...  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.
> >                                                    ... 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?
>  
> You are encouraging us to turn our attention away from injustices against
> men and focus on injustices against women instead.  Even though you don't
> directly argue that injustices against men should be ignored, the purpose
> of your arguments is plainly to convince us to do so.
> 
> Has it occurred to you that some men's concerns about men's rights are
> sincere, and not just a cheap excuse for ignoring women's rights?  Men
> are, after all, rather directly affected by such issues.
> 
Let me quote from my original article:

> >                                  ... in terms of numbers, the cases of
> > discrimination against men are so puny and are generally much more
> > quickly rectified ...
> >
> > As an example, the percentage of divorces involving alimony has
> > decreased much faster than the difference between men's and women's
> > salaries.  Cases where men get primary or sole custody of children have
> > increased several times just in the past decade.  Yet at current rates
> > only half of the pay inequity between men and women will disappear by
> > the 21st Century.

Need I say more about my position?  There is a meta-issue here: injustices
against men are rectified much more quickly than injustices against women.
And, realistically, this will continue for quite a while even if as many
of us who can shift our focus to women's issues.  Feminists are well aware
of this, and so often choose not to dilute their position by admitting to
injustices against men.  I don't consider this politically wise, but I'm
sympathetic to the feelings behind it.

On another point:
>  
> My impression of victim's rights was that it had to do with helping the
> victim of a crime, not stringing up the defendant.  Ie. Rights are
> being increased for the victim, not decreased for the defendant.  What
> Gordon was talking about in his article in Playboy was the denial of the
> presumption of innocence to the defendant at a rape trial.  Without this
> presumption, it is up to the defendant to try to prove his innocence.  It
> is not always possible for an innocent man to prove his innocence.  A
> wrongful conviction for rape would ruin an innocent man's life.

I don't know what Gordon's been smoking, but in the rape trials I know
about no such thing has happened.  Publicity skews things quite a bit;
in trials that get media coverage--no matter what the crime--the public's
perception is usually ``guilty before proven innocent''.  And I'm sure
that frame-ups happen; once again, there is nothing peculiar about rape
in this regard.  A conviction for robbery would just as surely ruin a
man's life, and can also be based solely on a victim's testimony, at
least in some states.

Perhaps ``victim's rights'' and ``defendant's rights'' are not connected
in a technical sense, but in the real world they generally are--and
``victim's rights'' often consists of ``stringing up the defendant'',
at least if he is unseemly enough.
> -- 
> 	David Canzi

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall