Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Rape (The nature of reality)
Message-ID: <1714@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 02:20:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1714
Posted: Wed Oct  2 02:20:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 08:06:23 EDT
References: <25100002@smu> <25100003@smu> <2569@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: University of Woolamaloo
Lines: 66
Summary: 

In article <549@mtfmp.UUCP> lje@mtfmp.UUCP (L.ELSER) writes:
>What does David mean by "things we (women) can do
>to avoid rape"??  Does he mean stay home and lock the
>doors?  I find that answer totally unacceptable.

Such a course of action would reduce your likelihood of being raped.
Several people have misinterpreted my words as specifically
recommending this technique, even though I have tried to make it clear
that what you do, if anything, to try to avoid rape is entirely your
choice.

>Several years ago the campus police at my school
>came up with a novel way of handling the problem
>of rape on campus.  When they saw a woman or a small
>group of women walking after dark, they would hand
>them cards that said
>    "If I were a rapist, you'ld be in trouble."

>Women have every right to go to the library, the
>dining hall, other dorms, stores, bars, etc.
>without being accosted.

A moral judgement.  You may feel that you have the right to do this or
that without getting accosted, but that doesn't mean you won't get
accosted.  A major point of my first posting was that moral judgements
have nothing to do with reality.  The word "ought" would not exist in
the English language if what happens and what ought to happen were
always the same thing.

>                         Our presence on the streets
>at night (or during the day) does not provoke rape.

Where have I said that it does?

>We should not be expected to lock ourselves away or
>be constantly escorted.

If you were unable to defend yourself, these might be the only methods
available to reduce your risk.  It's unfair.  But "unfair" is a moral
judgement, and (as above) moral judgements have nothing to do with
reality.

My first posting on this subject was in response to a woman who took
umbrage at somebody's innocent suggestion that women could do something
about rape.  She described this suggestion as "blaming the victim".
She basically pronounced a negative moral judgement on the idea.  But
moral judgements have... etc.  Note that disapproving of an idea, and
then rejecting it on moral grounds, completely bypasses consideration
of the idea's truth value.

The whole point, the "nature of reality", is that reality will be and
will do what it bloody well pleases, whether you approve of it or not.
Determine whether something is true or false first, *then* make your
moral judgements.  People who attempt to do these things in the reverse
order will end up with mistaken beliefs.  And if you base your actions
on mistaken beliefs, your actions will be mistakes.

All followups to my first posting on this topic, except for one, have
been based on misinterpretations of what I was saying.  I would
appreciate it if any future followups were based on what I actually
said.
-- 
David Canzi

"It's Reagan's fault.  Everything's Reagan's fault.  Floods... volcanoes...
herpes... Reagan's fault." -- Editor Overbeek, Bloom Beacon


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com