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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!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: <435@sftri.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-May-85 02:53:45 EDT Article-I.D.: sftri.435 Posted: Tue May 14 02:53:45 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 15-May-85 00:16:45 EDT References: <1848@decwrl.UUCP> <423@sftri.UUCP> <1467@reed.UUCP>, <431@sftri.UUCP> <480@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J. Lines: 103 > >> = Ellen Eades > >> 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 > > Mark, you're trying to get us to see the ridiculousness of suggesting > a curfew for men by asking how we'd feel "if a group of men started an > apparently serious discussion on the net proposing that women who are > raped are 'asking for it'". You're right, we'd be pretty d... pissed. > In fact, we *are* pretty d... pissed, because, although it isn't posted > to net.women, men *do* propose that very thing. So what? This isn't the only place I've heard the idea of a curfew for men broached either. My main gripe was the solidarity, which is still unbroken as far as I can see, that took this proposal at complete face value. > Why didn't you just ask > how we'd feel if men started an apparently serious discussion proposing > that women be subject to a curfew? Is it because earlier in the dis- > cussion it was stated that men (and Phyllis Schlafly's) *do* propose > such a thing? Well, actually this was hashed over a while back when the subject of walking down deserted streets came up. There were a lot of men who basically said women shouldn't be out at late hours, alone on dark streets, etc., but there were also a lot of male respondees who were more sympathetic. And, anyway, [here we go again] *men* do not propose such a thing. > > Women are the *victims* here, and the best suggestion that men have come > up with is "if you don't want to be hassled, don't go anywhere where men > might hassle you." It's a pity I didn't save the articles from that earlier discussion; I think there were more sensible suggestions than that. Yeah, it's a good idea to be careful and watchful, but sometimes you just have to be someplace you would rather not. Some other suggestions offered included self-defense classes and working for tougher laws on violent crimes that don't walk all over the victim and press for stronger enforcement. > Sensible enough. Unfortunately, *they* mean for *us*, > the victims, to live under curfew. [...] >If there has to be a curfew, why not set it up > so more offenders than victims pay? Why *not* make the men pay more than > the women? After all, they contribute more to the problem. Not so fast, not so fasssst! You think that because a (relatively) small number of men commit almost all of the violent crimes in America that all men should be subject to this just to make sure you get them all? Sounds like you haven't been a victim long enough if you're willing to inflict the same situation on someone else who is also innocent. > > What's that? You don't want to live under curfew either? It upsets you to > think that *you* might have to pay for someone else's offenses? Well, no > offense intended Mark, but GOOD! That means there's only one step left. > If I may borrow your own words: "if you take that feeling and look at it, > maybe you can begin to see a bit how I feel about this whole thing." Once > we understand each other, once you feel *outraged* that people who have done > *nothing* wrong have to pay for the actions of some real jerks, then maybe > we can work together so *no* innocent people pay. Until such time, however, > yes, I think women seriously want more offenders than victims to be penalized. > Sorry if that's a problem for you. Well, seeing as how I don't feel I have done anything to deserve such treatment, yes, the curfew would be a problem for me. But it will be much easier for me to take knowing I have your sympathy. Seriously, I'm not arguing that there isn't a problem; I'm upset by it, too. I'm also upset with the proposed solution that you all seem to think is just fine-- or at least a good start. That's what I don't understand-- women have lived handcuffed by the sort of ideas contained in such gems for posterity as "A woman's place is in the home", and "Well, she asked for it." When there is a proposal that such oppression be used by them on someone else, it seems just fine and dandy. I would think that having experienced such oppression would cause some reluctance to inflict it on other innocents. [N. B. Revenge is something else entirely.] Guess not. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom