NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/women/22966

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!digex.com!adric
From: [e-mail] (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:52:11 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

No offense intended, I do not know the situations involved, I'm simply
postulating possibilities here but....:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (ljf) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Welch) writes:
>>I would like to point out that the violence towards women happens, not
>>in those most socialized, but in those who are least socialized.  It is
>>not by accident that an overly violent person is called "an animal".
>
>So, my father is an animal who can't control himself, right?  And yet,
>he managed to control his anger against a boss he hated and some men
>he worked with that he didn't like.  My father has never been arrested
>for striking another man.  So how about, my father knew that he would
>get into deep shit by beating another man, but not by beating his wife
>and his daughter?  Now, what were you saying about a proscription
>against violence towards women?

But the question is, did he do it because he felt violence towards women
was more acceptable?  Or did he do it because he felt they were less likely
to cause him trouble?

Hitting your boss gets you fired.  Definite harm to the self, and the
income.  Hitting other men (in some men's minds, not necessarily in
fact) is likely to cause the other men to hit back.  If your father was
small, or a wimp, or in some way unsure of his own abilities, he might
not trust that he COULD hit a man without fear of repercussion.  If
he was working with people he didn't like, and hated his boss, he sounds
like a classic "I have no control over anything, so I'm going to beat my
family to prove that at least in that arena I am king and have control"
sort of personality.

Which doesn't mean society in any way condones violence against women, it
simply means that in this particular case, he found them (right or wrong)
to be easier prey.

It's funny, on the one hand there is a lot of violence against women which
might make someone on the receiving end of it feel it was condoned, so I see
where you are coming from.  At the same time, from my side, I remember
YEARS of "don't hit girls".  Always frustrated me, because as I recall, I
was a fairly small child (puberty was SUCH a friend to me!), and I would
regularly get hit, punched, bitten, beaten up by girls in the class, who
would then say "You can't hit me, I'm a girl".  And while I might not have
been inclined to believe THEM, most of the adults (teachers, etc) in my
school would concur.  They might be standing not 10 feet away watching a
girl pound unmercifully on a boy (often much smaller than they) and make
no move, but if the boy retaliated, they would jump right in, and guess
who got in trouble for the fight?

Come to think of it, it's no wonder some guys grow up with a deep-seated
resentment for and violent feelings towards women.

Fortunately, I am not one such.  Or at least, not to my knowledge.

Will.
--
Copyright (C) 1993 by William Johnson  All rights wronged, all lefts made
[e-mail]                     without benefit of turn signal.
Will Johnson, 307 S. Reynolds St Box P-216, Alexandria, VA  22304
"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have included a quote in your .sig file."