Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!ellen From: ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: \"Why not send the men home?\" Message-ID: <1566@reed.UUCP> Date: Sun, 26-May-85 20:31:47 EDT Article-I.D.: reed.1566 Posted: Sun May 26 20:31:47 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 02:15:06 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon Lines: 187 > >> = 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." > = Daemon > 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. > What I wanted to suggest here was that "innocent" in the sense of not-having-committed-a-crime is not the same thing as "innocent" in the sense of in-no-way-tacitly-or-otherwise supporting said crime's committal, including verbal implications or hints in speech or attitude. It is this definition of "innocent" which I believe we need to strive for, since as long as caveman jokes and similar stereotypes are perpetrated, people will foster the attitude without seeing the connection with the actual criminal act of rape. > > ........... 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] This criticism seems largely rhetorical, but I'll attempt to answer it. I will omit the word "relatively." I feel that a large number of men 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. > > 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. > Here, I think, is the crux of our disagreement. Firstly, I deliberately made that a sweeping statement. I intended to imply large numbers. You, Daemon, identified yourself as belonging to that large group in my estimation and proceeded to argue that. Please note that I also imply that there are a small number of men who do not do any of these things. You may feel free to place yourself within that category. I did not want to say "large numbers of men excluding (A, B, C, or D)." And I think that, although I'm sorry you feel offended, I did not say "all men," and thus I don't think I was unfair to you. Since I don't know you, I can't judge you; and frankly I don't want to. My purpose here was simply to state an opinion that large numbers of men -- in fact most men -- tacitly contribute to the abuse of women. > > 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. Again, "greater than many" or "greater than most" does not imply all. It simply means, "greater than most." I hope you don't feel that I'm splitting hairs; I don't mean to be. BUT, I think my idea of "violate" is perhaps less narrowly defined than your own? > > > 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? > Here is where I find a real problem. I would probably refuse an escort of any male, because I do not feel safe with most men. I would prefer to walk alone or with a female. Thus, I have never asked for escort. Also: There's a lot more that you can do to help women than escort them home. You are perpetuating the idea that women can't protect themselves without men. This damages women's strength, in itself. You might, for example, teach your female friends to fight, if that is something you yourself can do. You could call to make sure they arrived home safely, if they refuse to be escorted. If you consider yourself economically capable, you could contribute to a women's self-defense school. If you are a political leader, you might discuss with other men attitudes which are harmful to women. You might, if you are involved with an SO, take over household chores on nights or weekends when she goes to learn self-defense, or a job skill which will advance her career. The idea I want to emphasize is that men should not protect women; they should let them learn to protect themselves. You say that you do not rape or abuse women. Good for you. But that is only the first part. Do you call your men friends on their abusive statements? Do you stick your neck out to advance fellow workers who are female? Have you made that transition, from thinking about abuse, to acting to suppress it? > > 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. > Again, I want to emphasize that your idea that men protect women from sexual harassment is a harmful one, although it is well-meaning. As for constructive suggestions, I hope the above helps. I did not intend to flame, Daemon. I meant what I said. I hope that you will do me the kindness of thinking through seriously what I am trying to say, without getting too self-defensive. It takes a certain amount of control, but I *also* think that most men can achieve that. > > ...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 Regards from Ellen Eades, again.