Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re: \"Why not send the men home?\" Message-ID: <2504@randvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 25-May-85 02:35:15 EDT Article-I.D.: randvax.2504 Posted: Sat May 25 02:35:15 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 13:19:57 EDT References: <1848@decwrl.UUCP> <423@sftri.UUCP> <1467@reed.UUCP> Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 112 > Actually, I think the problem of rampant rape has more to do with > a basic lack of respect on the part of A LARGE NUMBER, possibly MOST men, > for MOST women. .... > I've heard lots of reaons advanced for this, including some > interesting ones: > > 1) Women have lost the respect of men by not fulfilling the > 'traditional' roles men have in their minds for them. > Since they haven't really established 'new traditional' > roles, they aren't respected for them either, hence > less respect in general. I find this unbelievably twisted. Tell me, *when* have the ``traditional'' female roles been given much respect by men? Has not the term ``womanish'' long been a derogatory one among men? Hasn't the highest ``traditional'' calling of women been to bear and raise their husbands' children? With respect like this, it might be better to be despised! I may be off-base, but I thought that many men were beginning to begrudgingly give women some respect for being able to do the ``important'' things only men could do until now. Of course, some men might feel that women are beginning to get *too* much respect, and now want to ``put them in their place''. This makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? > 2) The widespread availability of sex (in comparison to say > 30 years ago), in a casual manner has led men to > 'expect' that women in general are 'easy to get', hence > 'cheapening' them as a class of people. *WHEW*!! Does this ever *REEK* of a double standard! Who cheapens whom, here? Since ``easy'' women are so plentiful, why is there *ever* a need for men to rape? The answer to the latter question has been given several times before, but it bears repeating: rape is a crime of violence, not sex. Why? Sex is not a crime! Violating someone's body *is*!! > 3) General societal rot - since the morals that used to go > from generation to generation have been pretty much > blown out of the sky, there is a vacuum that encourages > amoral/immoral activities (including rape and other things). And this year's TV programs are worse than last year. The murder rate here in LA is one of the highest in the world--but it is less than 1/40th what it was in the early 1800's. The crime rate goes up and down--it rose from the turn of this century through the 1920's, dropped in the 1930's through the early 1950's, then started to rise in the 1960's. It seems to have leveled off, and for the past three years seems to be going down, at least for serious crimes (those that make the FBI Crime Index). Rape is the only crime that hasn't been dropping (though there appears to be an increase in reporting that accounts for some of this--in part due to the modest (i.e. incomplete) reforms in the way rape victims are treated by the law). What's my point? We live in what is surely one of the most violent of ``civilized'' nations. It's a very bad problem. But it isn't a worsening one, at least in the long term. ``Prophets'' have been forcasting the moral demise of society for all of recorded history. But more to the point: rape is *not* a recent problem. It is a 5000- year-old (at least) problem, part of a 5000-year-old pattern of male domination of women. This is not to suggest that we give up one tiny bit in our struggle to eradicate it. Slavery had a long history, too. > Now, NOTE BEFORE FLAMING, that these aren't justifications, just > possible explanations, which have utterly nothing to do with the legality > of rape or how it should be punished. It is only thru understanding the > causes of behavior that it can be modified, however. Personally, I think > probably all 3 of these contribute, and these are effects that apply > uniquely to Western society as we know it. I think you have identified 3 MYTHS, smokescreens that have been used to conceal rape for what it is: terrorism of men against women. And as long as we: (1) cling to a rigid set of sex roles, (2) support a double standard for sexual behavior and other inequalities, and (3) blindly blame our problems on forsaking ill-fitting institutions that never really were what we claim them to be--as long as we allow these and other myths to plague us, rape will exist. > (If you haven't noticed, > rape & sexual assault are UNKNOWN by American standards in even the > most backward third world countries, (even Moslem ones, where women hold > almost NO status in society, they don't even have souls! (really, ask > a religious Moslem, its right in the book in black and white!)) With such a state of violence against women built-in to their society, what would they need rape for? Male domination isn't being challenged. We have something special here in the US. We call it freedom. It's imperfect, but for all its imperfections, it is precious. I'm not implying that some other countries don't have it, or that we're better at it. There is a price for freedom--and in an imperfect society, crime is one of the prices. We should attack crime any way we can-- just so long as we *don't* attack freedom. (A tough job, to be sure.) The main point of the ``men's curfew'' articles is this: women are less free than men. Some men--too many men--are trying to keep it that way. It is precisely like there were a curfew for women. But women have a RIGHT to be JUST as free as men! A curfew for men would be silly. SO LET'S WORK TO REMOVE THE CURFEW WOMEN NOW FACE. > I won't get into the obligatory comments about how disgusting > rape is, and how it opresses women, etc., as you already know that... > -JCP- -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall