Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: San Quentin strip searches -- a new twist Message-ID: <1139@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 03:28:48 EST Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1139 Posted: Wed Mar 20 03:28:48 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 06:05:21 EST References: <3365@alice.UUCP> <2295@randvax.UUCP> <951@watdcsu.UUCP> <2311@randvax.UUCP> <1072@watdcsu.UUCP> <2345@randvax.UUCP> Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 80 Summary: In article <2345@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: >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. How about comparing quantities in the same units of measurement, such as the percentage difference between men's wages and women's wages, and the percentage difference between men's alimony and women's alimony. Or how about considering the factor by which the percentage of child custody settlements given to the mother has decreased. (It's smaller than the factor by which settlements given to the father have increased.) You can interpret these statistics creatively to support almost any position. >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. I don't *care* if feminists *ignore* injustices against men. That is their right. John Gordon made two assertions that especially interest me: 1) That women's groups have been *actively* *opposing* efforts to remedy some injustices against men. 2) That women's groups have been *demanding* the implementation of at least one new injustice against men. This is in an entirely different class than merely *ignoring* men's rights. >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. He didn't say that it has happened, only that women's groups have been demanding it. I don't know what Gordon smokes either. I don't smoke. Does it matter? > 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. Which doesn't mean that it *should* be that way for robbery, nor that it should be that way for rape. >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. If this is intended as some kind of justification, then it sounds like you are arguing that "this is the way it is, therefore this is the way it should be." -- David Canzi "It's lonely at the bottom, too."