Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!qantel!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: \"Why not send the men home?\"
Message-ID: <398@rtech.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 18-May-85 07:21:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.398
Posted: Sat May 18 07:21:21 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 01:25:25 EDT
References: <1848@decwrl.UUCP> <423@sftri.UUCP> <1467@reed.UUCP>, <431@sftri.UUCP> <480@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <435@sftri.UUCP> <1536@reed.UU18 May 85 11:21:21 GMT
Organization: Relational Technology, Berkeley CA
Lines: 126

> > 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 bothers me about this latest comment by Mark is the
> assumption that "innocence" equals not-crime-committing, and
> that "a (relatively) small number of men commit almost all of
> the violent crimes in America."
> 
> First of all, someone else cited the statistic that 33% of all
> male college freshmen/students would rape if they were certain
> they would get away with it.  Secondly, most police bureaus and
> crime statisticians agree that between 1 and 3 in 10 of all
> domestic violence is reported, leaving the other 70-90%
> unreported.  I think it is indisputable that more domestic
> violence is committed by husbands on wives than the other way
> around. (I may be wrong and you may wish to dispute it, but...)
> 
> These two things in combination make me feel that probably that
> "(relatively) small number" -- relative to what????! -- is
> actually a relatively large number of men, who regularly or
> irregularly beat their wives or girlfriends, subject their
> female coworkers to harassment, abuse women verbally on the
> street believing themselves to be complimenting her on her
> sexual attractiveness, pressure dates into putting out
> sexually, or, more infrequently, go so far as to
> actually rape or assault a woman not their wife or girlfriend.
> 

Just because a large number of crimes go unreported doesn't mean that
the crimes are committed by a relatively large (relative to what???)
number of men.  It seems quite likely to me that the men who commit
the reported crimes also commit the unreported ones.

To illustrate my point, let's consider burglary (no, I don't mean to
imply that burglary is in any way comparable to rape).  Most burglaries
are reported, but a small percentage of them are solved.  Does this mean
that almost everyone you know must be a burglar, even though only a few
people get prosecuted for it?  No, it means that the same people commit
burglary over and over, and get prosecuted for only a small fraction
of their crimes.

As for the statistic that 33% of male college freshmen would commit rape
if they thought they could get away with it, I have never heard it before.
How was the figure arrived at?  If it was done by a poll, how was the question
phrased?  How many students were asked?  Which campuses did they come from?
When was the study done, and who did it?  It just seems incredible to me that
anyone would actually say this about himself.

One thing that bothers me about Ellen's argument is her comment about
innocence.  She says that innocence isn't the same as "not-crime-committing".
As examples, she lists a number of obnoxious behaviors, such as making rude
comments about women's attractiveness and pressuring dates to have sex.
Are these grounds for a curfew?  Even if we ignore the fact a curfew would
not solve these problems (because they happen during the daytime or on dates),
one should remember that obnoxiousness is not a criminal act.

From her arguments it seems that Ellen thinks of men as a class of criminals.
In order to bolster her belief, she lumps together obnoxiousness with true
criminal acts, and makes assumptions about the number of men who actually
commit violent crimes.

> I think the problem is less the actual number of rapists --
> admittedly pretty damn large at this point -- but the number of
> men who *think* they have the right to demand sex of an SO, or
> who derive pleasure from rape fantasies, or who in any way
> violate a woman's privacy of mind or body unasked.  Until the
> thinking changes -- and maybe a curfew would put the shoe on the
> other foot, though I doubt it -- men are going to continue to
> rape and be self-righteous about it.  That's why I would
> seriously consider the curfew suggestion.

This is getting pretty close to the concept of thoughtcrime.  To think
bad thoughts (e.g. to have rape fantasies) is grounds for legal punishment.
You would lock me up at night because of what goes on inside my head,
or even for what goes on inside someone else's head.

*Some* men rape and are self-righteous about it.  I contend that most men
do not rape, and don't think of rape as a good thing.

> Now, about the "innocent male victims" accusation:  If women are
> guilty of inviting rape merely by going out on the street at
> night...maybe men should be guilty by association too.  Right
> now, men have a lot more political and economic power than women
> in general.  Does that mean they support the current situation,
> and the current rape statistics?  Probably not, but still...

First of all, the argument that women invite rape by going out on the street,
as disgusting and false as it is, is not an argument of guilt by association.
Second, it seems that you are saying that since (some) men use a false argument
against women, it should be O.K. for you to use a false argument against men.
This may be a valid technique for pointing out a logical fallacy, but it isn't
a valid way to argue for your real point, which is that men should not be
allowed out at night.

> I would like to say I apologize for offending, but I hope I've
> made at least one person think hard.
> 
> Ellen Eades

You did make me think hard.  One of the things I've realized since I made my
flippant follow-up to the original posting on this subject is that the
suggestion of a curfew for men has good rhetorical value.  It really makes
one think how it would be if one were not allowed to go out at night, which
is similar to being afraid to go out at night.

The are some things I can think of that men could do that might help matters.
If you ever see a woman in a bad situation (e.g. being assaulted), help her
out.  I did this once; I shook afterwards, but felt good about doing the right
thing.  When you hear a man making crude comments or otherwise being vile
towards a woman or women, tell the guy you think he's being a jerk (with wit,
of course).

How about it guys?  Since we're objecting to being locked up at night, let's
try making some constructive suggestions for improving things so women will
no longer be afraid to go out at night.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff