Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site lzwi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!lzwi!cja
From: cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re(3):\"Why not send the men home?\"
Message-ID: <163@lzwi.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 16:03:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: lzwi.163
Posted: Wed Jun  5 16:03:33 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 22:11:53 EDT
References: <1848@decwrl.UUCP> <423@sftri.UUCP> <1467@reed.UUCP> <431@sftri.UUCP> <1646@psuvax1.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft
Lines: 150
Summary: Suggestions re: male solutions to the rape problem

In article <1646@psuvax1.UUCP>, dae@psuvax1.UUCP (Daemon) writes:
> > ...........  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...)
> 
(> --Daemon)
> 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.

It's not so much a digression as evidence that you may have
missed the point. Verbal "violence" in a marriage may well be
inflicted on men by women, but it is as likely to happen the
other way 'round. You know about women who harrassed their
husbands--I can think of cases where the opposite occurred.
Unless *you* wish to claim that men are half-wits or something,
presumably you would agree that individuals within a couple are usually evenly
matched in a battle of wits. Also, I remember that my mother
was often the louder party in my parents' quarrels (which might
have led outsiders to think that dad was henpecked) but he had
a pretty biting, sarcastic (but quiet) way of his own which
leds me to believe that they were pretty evenly matched.
Neither of them got their way most of the time, at least.
However, men and women are much less likely to be evenly
matched physically & the major problem with male violence against
women is that it is much more difficult for women to fight
back in kind. (Although I don't think anyone should be forced
to resort to violence in self-defense, especially not in
intimate relationships.) What we're talking about (I thought)
was the DISPROPORTIONATE number of men who hurt women versus
the number of women who hurt men. 

> "relatively large number of men" -- relative to what????!
I can't say what this woman means, but I mean relative to the
total number of men in this country when I say relatively
large number of men are violent towards women.
By the way, some of the things that men have termed
"annoyances," such as men pinching women are NOT merely
annoyances--they are acts of violence. In Minnesota, for
instance, such behavior is considered a fourth degree sexual
offense & people can prosecuted and sent to jail for it.
If someone you never met walked up to you & grabbed your
penis (especially when people like that were consistently
larger than you & had historically harrassed and raped people like
you), you might understand why that is considered an act of
violence and is a crime. 

> 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." 
In terms of domestic violence I think you do understand the
use of "relative" correctly. If you do not beat up your
significant other, why should you feel offended if a woman
points out that a lot of men in this country are violent
towards women? Do you find it less threatening if the FBI
tells you that? Why do you think she means you personally?

> 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.
Look, it's just a fact that a lot of men (in all socioeconomic
groups) are violent towards women. If you're not one, BRAVO!!!
May your number increase!!! I don't take it personally when
someone tells me that the number of married women who cheat on
their husbands is increasing--it's not an insult to me that
something is true. As long as I don't cheat on my husband (or even
if I did) how could a *fact* be an insult?

> 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.

I am not sure what you are driving at here. Obviously, you
have never been raped. Please try for a moment to imagine what
it must be like to be violently attacked *simply because* you
were a woman. Imagine how it must feel to know that virtually
any man could, if he chose, do that to you *again.* Think what
it must be like to go through life vulnerable in that way.
Especially if once you got the courage to talk about your
experience, you found that many, many of your friends had been
through the same experience--that there were many, many men
who hated women enough to brutalize them that way?
People are pretty tolerant/understanding of the fact that
people who have been torture victims are apprehensive around
uniformed workers, especially police, even when they are in a
new country--why don't you understand that about women
who have been attacked? I know on a rational level that not
every man is out to attack me, but on some deeper level, I
find it very difficult to trust strange men at first.
If you think I'm being unfair because of that, all I can say
is that I do try to overcome it, but it's hard, especially
since I still feel that to totally overcome that sense of
wariness would compromise my safety. I used to trust men
almost automatically, and a man very violently killed that 
trust. Why are you getting mad at women like *me* because *he* 
did that to *me?* Why don't you get mad at *him*?

> 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.  
You have heard a lot of women here talk about the kinds of
behaviors that they consider abhorrent & threatening. You
should have some idea of what scares a lot of women. And the
idea originally started all this--that men live under a
curfew--I hope has made you aware of how women feel about
being subjected to an unofficial curfew. So why don't you
talk to other men about this? Aren't there men whom you know
who behave in ways that women consider intimidating? If you
really think men are so basically good-natured underneath
perhaps you could persuade these good natured men to stop
those behaviors--or at least think about what they mean to the
victims. 

> Think hard (angry) thoughts, yes.  "You win more flies with honey
> than with vinegar."
This is an insulting statement. For centuries, women have
been reproved for not asking for change in a "ladylike"
manner, so women have asked for change & it hasn't gotten us
very far.  If you get angry at the suggestion that you shouldn't
be on the streets after dark, why shouldn't *we* be
angry--we've heard it all our lives! And that unofficial
curfew is real--not a flip remark,--& it's been enforced in some brutal ways.
Our anger has made people like you listen. I don't think a more
"feminine" appeal would have done the same--what are we
supposed to say--"If you don't mind, please stop raping,
harrassing & beating us, and if you aren't really
doing that to us, would you mind possibly asking your friends?
Thank you ever so much for any shred of courtesy you offer
us--we all rely on the kindness of strangers."
What is it that you're really mad at? Our less than sweet way
of talking or the brutality that has so embittered &
circumscribed our lives? If you're really mad at the latter,
don't quibble about the former.

C. E. Jackson
...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above 
[lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)