Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!mom
From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: \"Why not send the men home?\"
Message-ID: <431@sftri.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-May-85 18:17:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: sftri.431
Posted: Sat May 11 18:17:22 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 09:09:58 EDT
References: <1848@decwrl.UUCP> <423@sftri.UUCP> <1467@reed.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 72

> > > My sister has a theory, which I find thought-provoking.  She says,
> > > (and I have seen elsewhere) that better than 95% of violent crimes
> > > are committed by males; females are more likely to be victims.
> > ...
> > > a curfew.  My sister contends that a curfew for men should be
> > > instituted as this would drastically reduce violent crime. 
> > > let men out when willingly accompanied by a woman.
> > >
> > >                                     Respectfully,
> > >                                     Joanne Munson

I respond:
> > 
> > Fact:  Men are responsible for virtually all violent crime.
> > Fact:  Violent crime should be reduced where reasonably possible?
> > From this, your conclusion is:
> > Men should be kept in at night??????
> > Nonsense, the correct conclusion, since the statistics you quote say
> > nothing about when violent crime is committed, is:
> > Men should be kept home. Period.
> > 
> > Mark Modig

> = Ellen Eades
> 
> I think Mark is trying to inject a little levity here (I'm not
> quite sure).  However...
>
Actually, I was trying to inject a little more levity by proposing
an (absurd) conclusion as a result of, in my opinion, and equally
absurd suggestion.
 
> What about men who abuse their wives, children, girlfriends?
> 
What about them?  As far as I'm concerned, men who abuse these
others in their life should receive as much attention as we can give
them (attention either in the form of therapy or lock them up-- I'm
not sure if this sort of behavior can be cured-- in any case, such
occurrences should be dealt with in short order).  But I thought we
were talking about "implied curfews."  Aren't we straying a bit?

> Fact:  Violent crime occurs *everywhere*, not least of all in
> the home.
> 
So what you're saying is my proposal is essentially worthless.  I
grant that it does not address the problem of crime in general, but
it does solve the "implied curfew" problem. :-)  Seriously, what is
really needed is a change in attitude in society and in people
individually.

> My conclusion:  I'm not sure what should be done with men, or
> if there's really anything that can/should "be done," but
> I'm learning to defend myself verbally, passively, aggressively,
> and with whatever means comes to hand.
> 
You know what really burns me about this whole thing?  The original
proposal that started this whole thing was made (I assume) in all
seriousness.  Yet it is (at least, to me) absurd.  Yet there has not
even been one article in this group authored by a woman that treats
this proposal as anything other than serious.  The article I'm
replying to refers to "doing something" with men.  Is this what you
people really feel?  Do you women all really feel SERIOUSLY that
such a curfew would be a good idea, or at least worth trying?  I
haven't seen anything said that would lead me to believe anything to
the contrary.  How would you all like it if a group of men started
an apparently serious discussion on the net proposing
that women who are raped are "asking for it"?? You probably wouldn't
like that too much, and if you take that feeling and look at it,
maybe you can begin to see a bit how I feel about this whole thing.

Mark Modig
ihnp4!sftri!mom