Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!dae
From: dae@psuvax1.UUCP (Daemon)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Re: \"Why not send the men home?\"
Message-ID: <1646@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-May-85 23:43:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1646
Posted: Sun May 19 23:43:48 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 15:40:36 EDT
References: <1848@decwrl.UUCP> <423@sftri.UUCP> <1467@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: dae@psuvax1.UUCP (Dave Eckhardt)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 119
Summary: Wait one second, please?

First of all, let me say that this one sat for nearly a day between
when I decided to reply to it and when I did.

>> = Mark Modig, I (Daemon) believe.
>> 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.
>> 
> = Ellen Eades (ellen@reade.uucp) in <1536@reed.uucp>
> 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."

I'm not at all sure what the quotes around "innocence" mean.
To me (and I may well be stupid or something), one meaning of
"innocence" is "lack of guilt," including in crime.

> ...........  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...)

Physical violence, yes.  I know of several situations in which
non-physical violence goes on--it's not for nothing that the
phrase "henpecked husband" came into being.  Note also that in
at least one of these cases, a (female) friend of mine tended to
side with her father against her mother.  I know I'll be flamed
for this digression.

> 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

"relatively large number of men" -- relative to what????!
[Hoist by your own petard]

> 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.

I, personally, am guilty of none of the above.  In fact, I go to great
lengths to make the women I come in contact with comfortable around me
and confident I will engage in none of the above.  To date, I have had
no complaints.

Before you tell me that you weren't accusing me, personally, let me
point out that you most assuredly made a very sweeping statement
above.  I think it likely that I am not the only person offended by
that.  Saying "relatively large number of men" implies, at least in my
mind, "large number of men relative to the number of men," or, "a large
percentage of men."  If I'm wrong, how *DO* you mean that?  I seem to
be as confused by your usage of "relative" as you were by Mark's.

> I think the problem is less the actual number of rapists --
> admittedly pretty damn large at this point -- but the number of

Admittedly *far* too high (greater than 0).

> 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.

Ok, so the number of people engaging in these admittedly vile
pastimes is even greater than the "relatively large number of men"
committing actual rape, eh?  So even if we men manage to convince
ourselves you didn't mean us in your above harangue, it's sort of
hard to tell ourselves we're not under suspicion here.

> 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...

D*mn well right not!  Perhaps you may not have noticed; perhaps
you may not have looked:  There are those of us who have been asked
or offered to walk/drive/generic_transport_method friends of ours 
home.  I have never refused.  Many times when I have offered I have
been refused.  Have you ever asked a politically and/or economically
more powerful male (Wow.  *You* said it!) to escort you home and been
refused?

> I would like to say I apologize for offending,

But you didn't say it.  And now I come to the real heart of what I'm
trying to say:  Back a while, when the great issue was street-crossing,
somebody (Patty?  Muffy?) posted an article (which I don't have handy,
yell if I'm mis-representing you) saying, in effect, "They're not *all*
nasty rapists."  I can't speak for too many others, but I was very
grateful to her:  I was beginning to think that I was regarded as a
murderous, crazed sex-maniac by every strange woman I passed on the
street.  It was nice to hear a voice that still evinced *some* trust.

Should you have constructive suggestions as to what I and other men
should be doing to protect women from all and any sorts of sexual
harassment, please feel free to speak with us.  On the other hand,
should you have nothing of more worth than flames insinuating that a
majority of men at least "violate a woman's privacy of mind or body
unasked," I think you're really doing your cause more harm than good.

> ...but I hope I've made at least one person think hard.

Think hard (angry) thoughts, yes.  "You win more flies with honey
than with vinegar."

> Ellen Eades

--Daemon