Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!geoff
From: geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: \"Why not send the men home?\"
Message-ID: <691@burl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-May-85 11:22:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.691
Posted: Tue May 14 11:22:25 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 15-May-85 00:40:32 EDT
References: <1848@decwrl.UUCP> <423@sftri.UUCP> <1467@reed.UUCP> <431@sftri.UUCP> <134@lzwi.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 99

> A study performed by the Minneapolis police department
> recently showed that abusive men were far less likely to
> become repeat offenders if they spent the night (at least) in
> jail & were prosecuted. The police theorized that this occurred 
> because abusive men think that they have some sort of "right" to abuse "their"
> women. When the society (in the form of the law) stepped in &
> officially & undeniably asserted that men did not have that
> "right," the abusive men were willing to listen.

sounds like a very good idea.

> For years, women have been explicitly & implicitly told that
> rape is their fault & that they must never be without male
> "protection" (from other men!). Of course, as the discussion
> above re: domestic violence suggests, the men many women look
> to (or are instructed to look to) are the ones least qualified
> to give it. In terms of violence, there is no getting
> around the fact that men don't treat women very well at all.

standard complaint about the generic 'men' as opposed to 'some men'

> 
> I would suggest, Mr. Modig, that at least some of the women
> are half-serious & for good reason. When Golda Meir was
> premier of Israel, a Cabinet member [seriously] suggested that
> women be kept off the streets after sundown to cut down on
> the incidence of rape. Meir suggested keeping the men off the
> streets since they were the ones doing the raping. The subject
> was not brought up again. 

Yes, it showed the idiocy of both suggestions.

> with women" and the "woman question." How could any woman who
> knew her sex's history resist discussing the idea of a male
> curfew seriously & in front of men? We've had to endure over
> 5000 years of subjugation & here you guys squirm over a little
> discussion on a computer network. Tsk, tsk.
> Aren't we supposed to be the "weaker" sex? If we could take it
> for 5000 years, why can't you stand to read about it for a
> month or so?

If you have been dealing with it for 5000 years, many foundations on aging
would *love* to speak with you.  YOU did not suffer 5000 years of subjugation.
If you are going to wear a badge of your suffering, at least make it your own.

> I think there's a certain sort of poetic justice to the idea
> of not letting men out on the streets. I also don't think it
> would be practical, nor is it, in some absolute sense, just.
> I hope that makes you feel better.

mildly.

> When we can still hear such proclamations from individual
> police officers & society as a whole, why should we have to
> endure one on the net? But where else could YOU (or any other
> man) hear a discussion of male curfews? Don't tell us to put
> ourselves in your place--if you thought about it, you'd
> realize that we just forced you to put yourself in ours.

If I wear a real nice suit and walk through a bad part of town at night, I am
'asking for' trouble.  It has nothing to do with the right of anyone to
attack me, nor with my desire to be attacked.  However, I would be placing
myself in a risky situation which perhaps I could have avoided.  (hint: I
don't DO that).  I could get killed, which is likely to ruin my day.
A women's situation varies in degree, but not in kind.  I don't think that
everyone in a 'bad' section of town should be locked up at night, though.
There is an element of risk in everything you do, no matter how small.
It behooves me not to take unnecessary ones.

> And THAT is a rare occurrence in a country where 33% of
> college freshman would rape a woman if they thought they could
> get away with it & one out of 3 women will be victims of rape
> before they die.

It is a sad commentary on freshmen that 33% of college freshmen SAY they
would rape a woman, but most of that is bravado, showing off for their
buddies, etc. (although I have a difficult time understanding that point
of view, I know it is prevalent).  Whether they actually would or not is a
completely different question.  Also, to judge men on the comments of
adolescents just out of high school doesn't seem particularly valid.

Projections like 'one out of 3 women will be victims of rape before they die'
are inflamatory, but unrealistic.  How are these victims spread out
demographically, what economic level, etc.  I am not saying that it is
justified for any women to be raped (obviously).  Miami is considered
to be a relatively dangerous city.  There are quite a few murders there.
An awful lot of them are Mariel Cubans (Castro dumped his jails and insane
asylums during the Mariel boat lifts) killing other Mariel Cubans. If you are
not a Mariel Cuban (and don't hang out where they do) your odds are MUCH
better than a simple aggregate statistic would indicate.  This is not meant
to justify anything, but just to point out that if you are a woman reading
this, your odds are very likely much lower than the 1 in 3 mentioned (but
not non-existant; rape can and does happen everywhere).  As does murder.

> C. E. Jackson
> ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above 
> [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)

	geoff sherwood