NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6660

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 5.1 KB | 129 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!levine
From: [e-mail] (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:02:50 GMT
Lines: 117

[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:

>>>    My point is, "Social justice" is redundant.  Justice is
>>>    the word people are looking for when they talk about
>>>    "social justice".
>>
>>>>>        Please define.
>>>>
>>>>I can't. I am not even sure that one rigid definition would always
>>>>be appropriate.
>>
>>>    How do these differe from what you mean when you say "social
>>>    justice"?
>>
>>I don't believe that good can be given a rigid definition, that
>>works in *all* circumstances (see a previous posting).

>    In other words, you can't define it any better than I can because
>    it's an empty term used to sound good.

What's "it"? Good? Social justice? Right and wrong? Do you believe
there's some book, that can be written, that determines exactly
what's good in all circumstances, from now till the end of time?

>>>    Which kind do people make more noise about?
>>
>>Is "noise" about rape wrong, if it in any way leads to the punishment
>>of rapists, or the prevention of rape?


>    Noise that marks all men as rapists is certainly wrong.

Granted. Although this does not represent the mainstream of feminism,
at least among feminist posters on the net, feminist science fiction
writers, or feminist humans I know...

>    Noise that prevents men from serving as counselors in
>    rape crisis centers is wrong.

Granted.

>  (Women who have justbeen
>    attacked *NEED* exposure to kind, compassionate men.)

Say what! Can't the *woman* -- or *man* -- who's been attacked have
some say in who their counselor is? Can't they have a choice
about the gender of their counselor? (For whatever arbitrary,
emotional reasons will make them comfortable in this time
of crisis.)

>>>>In any case, the "penalty" of being raped
>>>>is much higher now than it was a generation ago, because of AIDS.
>>
>>>    Not all rape victims are exposed to AIDS.
>>
>>But all of them have to go through six months of fearing it.

>    Fear or personal paranoia doesn't change the punishment.
>    Suppose I am afraid of camera flashes.  Someone breaks into
>    my house and snaps a photo--do they deserve anythingmore
>    than breaking and entering just because I have some flash-phobia?

The AIDS test won't tell you for certain whether or not you've been
exposed for six months. And isn't six months of not knowing whether
or not you have AIDS -- of having to restrict your personal activities
as if you did have AIDS -- much more of a punishment then just the rape?

>>>>And I don't think this "penalty" is appropriate, for, for example,
>>>>a 14-year-old girl (a true example). Much too much punishment for their crime!
>>
>>>    Agreed.  I find rape repulsive.  One of the things I find
>>>    equally repulsive is the way feminists are so unwilling to admit
>>>    that women need to be self-responsible.  Clothing, manner,
>>>    where you go, alcohol and drugs, appearance--all of these
>>>    things ARE factors in rape.
>>
>>No feminist is denying this.

I should have said, no sensible feminist is denying this.

What I should have added, though, is that although no sensible feminist
would deny that women (and men) should be educated to be self-responsible
in avoiding attack, men (and women) should also be educated to know that
pressuring a person into having sex they really don't want, no matter
what the person looks like, dresses like etc., is *morally and legally
wrong*.

>>>  Feminists can claim that old women
>>>    and unattractive women get raped all they want--they make up
>>>    such an insignificant part of the total number of rapes that you
>>>    can easily explain those away as fetishism or severe mental
>>>    illness.
>>
>>"Out of the shadow" rapists don't care that much about the physical
>>appearance of their victims (see "What Cops Know," a collection of
>>interviews with Chicago police by Connie Fletcher).

>    Also note that I pointed out that, while this happens, it is
>    by far the least common form of rape.

>>Note that "typical" out-of-the-shadow rapists have some severe
>>psychological problems. In particular, read the section in Fletcher's
>>book on the "power reassurance" rapist, the most common type.

>    I tend to be skeptical of anyone who suggests that rape
>    is strictly a power crime.  If it was about power, they'd
>    be beating their victims up and shitting on them, or something
>    similiar.  And yes, while this does happen in some infinitisimally
>    small number of rapes (out of the shadow ones, mostly) it is
>    hardly an example of what we are talking about when we talk
>    about rape.

For more discussion of the motives of rapists, read Connie Fletcher's
book, in which she interviews those ivory-tower feminist fanatics, the
Chicago police.

Lenore Levine