Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Re: \"Why not send the men home?\"
Message-ID: <184@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 01:54:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.184
Posted: Wed May 29 01:54:44 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 13:04:21 EDT
References: <1848@decwrl.UUCP> <423@sftri.UUCP> <1467@reed.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 59

> From Clayton Cramer:
> 
> > > 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...
> > > 
> > > Ellen Eades
> > 
> > No one on net.women has claimed that "women are guilty of inviting rape
> > merely by going out on the street at night".  No responsible person in
> > our society believes that.
> 
> I hate to disillusion you, Clayton, but not only is this a common myth
> concerning rape, but it has even appeared in this newsgroup in a few
> guises (in relation to dress or to self-defense).
> 
I haven't seen it in this newsgroup; I have seen several people make
remarks which have been misinterpreted (wildly misinterpreted, even)
into fitting into what the reader wanted to read.

> > This belief that Ellen has in "guilty by
> > association" is a clear demonstration of *why* feminism is perceived
> > by many people in this country as an excuse for man-hating, in much the
> > same way that the KKK promotes general hatred of blacks because of the
> > criminal actions of a few blacks.
> 
> Who is terrorizing whom, here?  I think a better analogy could be made
> between the woman-hating actions of men, especially against those
> ``uppity'' feminists [imagine, wanting *equality* after all we've given
> them] and the KKK's actions against blacks.
> 
Ed, you persist in viewing men as a "woman-hating" class, as your
paragraph above demonstrates.  I didn't use the word "uppity" to describe
feminism, because the complaints that feminists have about our societal
institutions and our government's actions in relation to women have 
considerable merit.

> It would be a BAD analogy--for a reason Ellen gave: only some men support
> terrorism against women, just like only some whites supported KKK terrorism
> against blacks.
> 
> The only reason feminists are considered men-haters is that a *few*
> feminists--who get a lot of media attention--*are* men-haters.  There's no
> denying it.  And although I don't condone hatred, considering some of the
> attitudes men hold towards women, I find it quite understandable.
> 
If I said something ridiculous like "I can understand why whites fear
and hate blacks --- just look at the cultural values and attitudes they
have towards whites." you, Ellen, and everyone else on this newsgroup
would RIGHTFULLY accuse me of racism.  You are more than willing to
apologize for sexism when it's directed at the *right* group.  You aren't
opposed to sexism --- you just want this foolishness directed at men as
a class.

> 		-Ed Hall
> 		decvax!randvax!edhall