NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6662

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 7.4 KB | 201 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!rsrodger
From: [e-mail] (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News system)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:42:22 GMT
Lines: 188

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore Levine) writes:
>[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>>>>>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?


    "It" is the vacuous meaning of 'social justice'
    which I do not understand because it is either
    redundant or it is meaningless and just sounds good.


>>>>    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...


    Perhaps.


>>    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.)


    A woman who has just been attacked needs *immediate* exposure
    to a positive man.  Why?  Well, just look at some of the goods
    that rape-crisis centers are turning out.  Fanatics, fearful
    or hateful of men, paranoid, afraid of the dark, shadows,
    whatever.  Many of these women were women who were nonviolently
    date-raped.  There is *obviously* something wrong with the clinics--
    these nonviolent rapes are simply not a strong enough cause for
    some of the truly aberrant behavior you see in women who have
    gone through the clinics "treatment" of admission, recounting (read,
    "belaboring" "building up").  Rape is bad, sure, but it is not
    the all-destroying life-ending personality-smashing super-crime
    that these "clinics" help to build it up to be.


>>>>>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?


    Oh, boo-hoo.  Come on, having to refrain from unsafe sex for
    6 months?  Oh, the horror.  Or, having to tell all of your
    partners for 6 months that they need to wear a condom because
    you may have been exposed?  Well, that just ruins your whole life,
    doesn't it?

    "Six months of not knowing whether or not you have AIDS"--
    Well, tough.  That's not what I consider to be big mental
    trauma.  Oh, sure, it puts a little crimp on the ol'
    flop on your back sex life.

    There are worse things than the possibility that you might
    have AIDS.

    Further, even if the rapist tests negative, the woman is
    acting wholly irresponsible if she goes ahead and has unsafe
    sex for the next year---he might have just gotten it.

    Somehow, this doesn't seem like a good enough reason to violate
    the accused (read: *accused* not *convicted*) persons right
    to a fair trial.



>>>>>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.


    Yep.

>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,

    True.  I've always thought that we should dump the
    "diverse studies" requirements and replace them with
    "How to live" requirements--financial planning (don't
    max that card), self-defense and citizen's rights ("know
    the meaning of the word "right", what you're are,
    and what they are not.").  Of course, the WMST, AMST,
    AASP (and other) departments wouldn't be happy, or they'd
    be reduced to preaching to the flock rather than getting out
    their venom on students forced to take their "classes".


>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*.


    I wonder how you propose to teach this?  Show all sorts
    of rape sob stories?

    These types of stories do no good.  You can chant
    "No means No!" until you're blue in the face, but by
    adulthood just about every man has encountered one
    or more women (more, most likely) that this didn't
    apply to.

    The best offense is a good defense.  Trying to brainwash
    a bunch of people to control tendencies that they have
    been developing for 2 decades isn't going to do much good.



>>    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.


    Have *you* read it?  It simply lends more evidence to my point,
    not yours.


>Lenore Levine


--
    Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
             ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
    Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
    those of my employer, institution or relations?