From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: more thoughts on a new slant to rape stats
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:37:35 GMT
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics

In article <1992Apr8.183415.12789@acsu.buffalo.edu>, camurphy@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cindy) writes:
>by my logic i did not say that all women should hide indoors and avoid
>men, i said that suspicion and anger were justified.  i hardly want to
>be crippled in leading my life by having to avoid all men.  besides,
>your bringing up this comparison is hardly fair considering not only
>statistics on the percentage of men who rape, but my personal experience
>(valid and not unusual) of sexist treatment at the hands of many
>people.  

What statistics do you have on the percentage of men who rape?
Also if you equate sexist treatment and rape, then I can claim that
the sexist way some women have treated me, I should equate them with
rapists using your reasoning.

>excuse the FUCK out of me.  making comparisons between "rapists" and
>"whores" is completely apples and oranges.  do you really believe that 
>women who prostitute themselves (or men who hustle, for that matter) are
>in any way comparable to rapists?  i don't.  i don't think that women
>or men become "whores" in order to victimize or disempower their "clients."
>i think that realistically prostitution is a trap into which destitute
>or troubled people fall, an outcome of poverty or personal problems,
>and that ideally it's just a straightforward transaction for sexual
>favors and that prostitutes are not to be generally vilified.

No Cindy, I don't make this comparison. 
I made this EXACT point in another post, that the comparing rapist to
whores was riduculous. Did you see it?  We agree.  Are you amazed?  
I'm not.  Why did you not acknowledge that I made this point. 
 
>i DO think of rape as terrorism.  as a MALE professor of mine has stated,
>"rapists are the vanguard of patriarchy."  men are not "patriarchy".
>patriarchy is a system.  
Men are not the patriarchy?  Patriarchy is a system?  A system of what?
By who, for who.  How are rapist the vanguard?

>as far as your phrase "NORMAL contact with males" i don't think that
>women should have to have regular contact with men in order to be deemed
>"normal" or in order to entitle themselves to what is termed "heterosexual
>privelege."  ideally....IDEALLY....the world would be 99% benign and
>men would just be human beings with penises, but realistically separatist
>space is a necessary thing.
'Men would just be human beings with penises?'  What does this mean?

>besides, rape is
>not "sexual", it's violent.  unless you agree with the "extreme feminist"
>viewpoint that all heterosexual intercourse is automatically inegalitarian
>and somewhat violent and exploitative because of patriarchy?
>i don't.
Right.  100%.  But you still haven't told me what the patriarchy is.

>that is because talking about an experience of being sexually abused or
>raped has been highly discouraged in the past, rape has been silenced,
>women who have been raped have been treated as pariahs.

And this is changing. You should find out who is on your side before
you criticize all men.

>the tool of misogynists, overt and subtle, now, is to quote the most
>"extreme" of feminists (protective, unconsciously misogynist ones)
>and to say that this is what all women will believe.  and that an
>accusation against any man, or any number of men, is slander against
>all men.  whereas this is genuinely true in more cases of accusations
>against women of not CONFORMING to sexual NORMS or even SOCIAL norms
>like interacting casually with men.

And the tool of the 'rad-fems' is to take the most "extreme" men
as an example of what all men believe.  And that an accusation against
any feminist is a slander of all women.

>like i said, i know plenty of men.  had no choice.  i did say that i
>trusted a few.....how many people do you trust?  i didn't say that
>i hide under the bed and shake in my socks.  au contraire.  if you've
>even kept up with my posts i've had a number of relationships with
>men, and, (as you later deny) friendships.

Do you think your male friends are potential rapists as well?
When you are alone with them, do you carry a weapon and think about
self-defence?

>it is the responsibility of men to prove themselves exceptions.  

Guilty until proven innocent.  What constitutes proof?
What is the exception?  The man who doesn't rape?  The man who rapes
is the exception.
Is it the responsibility of women to prove to me that they are 
'exceptions'?  

>> And incidentally, your comment about men expecting women to be nice to
>>them is roughly equivilent to the demand for women to stop behaving as 
>>if men were merely cash objects, suitable only for female enjoyment.
>
>that's a nice little misogynist stereotype you've dumped there.
>"women are after men for their money, men after women for their bodies"
>----ever occured to you that a large number of women enjoy being
>financially independent and don't like feeling BOUGHT?  i think
>this has been pointed out a thousand times before.  not to mention you
>are automatically ignoring lesbians in your discourse, as well as
>displaying a callous insensitivity to the economic inequality
>(different pay for equal work, inequal opportunity, etcetera) between
>women and men.

It's supposed to be a misoginist stereotype to counter you stereotype.

>like i said before women have no obligation, and must hove
>no obligation, to fulfil male desires at their own expense.

Who is arguing with this?  No one has said anything close to this.
This is just a straw man, or a misunderstanding on your part of what
people are saying.  People on the net, in general, are much more
sophisticated than this.  Open your eyes and you'll see it.
(By the way , I agree completely with the above statement, but 
would prefer if you expressed it in a gender neutral way).

>>> female anger does not need to be
>>> punished by misogyny.........

>>But if the anger is directed at a man who has committed no crime, then
>>he has a right to feel anger in return! That's not misogyny, that's
>>just standing up for his rights as a human.

>"rights as a man entitled to male privelege", you mean.  

No, again you impose a feminist anti-male interpretation on what he
says.   Any person has a right to be angry if someone is hostile to
them for no reason.  It's not about 'male-privilege.'  Do you see
any male who criticizes a feminist as protecting his 'male-privilege'?
If so, there is no reason for me or most men to speak with you about
anything.  And what do you know about 'male-privilege'?  Are you sure
that all men feel 'privileged' to be male?  

>> women's anger and fear and distrust are perfectly
>>> justified.  
>
>i back this up 100%.
Do you fear and distrust your male friends?  Do you justify this?


>listen to yourself!  now stop pretending sexism is a thing of the past.
>calling it a product of the 50's, and sexual repression (i.e. prudish
>women and domineering men) is ignoring the reality today.  i still get
>the "be nice" attitude ALL OVER the place.  you just put it out
>with your "women have no right to be angry" attitude.

Again you miss the point.  He never said "women have not right to 
be angry."  That is oppressive.  Are you purposely misunderstanding
what men say so you can make them look ridiculous?
What he said when anger is directed at him for no fault of his own,
he will be angry back. 

>backlash against feminism comes from deep-seated misogyny, which you
>should examine, and a fear of threat against male privelege.

So you are saying that any criticism of feminism comes out of misogeny?
Which means all male criticism of feminists are a priori invalid.
Which means feminists can not be held responsible for their actions.

There was a discussion on soc.men a while back, whether criticism
of feminism is or isn't misogeny.  Some is and some is not.  But
to immediately conclude that it is is to refuse to take men seriously,
which is one of the legitimate complaints against feminism.

One person said that this was his #1 complaint against feminism.
Do you care to address it?

But thank you for the psychoanalysis.   If I have a problem with anything
feminist, it's because I'm a misoginist.  So the problem lies in my attitudes
and not in the other person.  And if I try real hard to fix myself, then
the problem will go away.  And if I still have the problem, then I just
have to go back and try it again, until a feminist here's what I have to
say and deems it acceptible.  It requires nothing on the other person's part,
like meeting me half way, or ever 10% of the way.

Is this what you are saying?

Again, I say that you are not taking men seriously, and that is where
the backlash comes from.  Not from misogny, or sexism, or male privilege.
People know when they are not being taken seriously and don't like it.
Is that so hard for you to understand?  And think before you turn this 
argument around on me about whether I take women seriously.  

>well, goody for you.  i don't go to nightclubs or discos, too much date
>rape.  i have plenty of friendly and professional interactions with men.
>what if i prefer to spend time with women?  that's my business, not an
>aberration or hatred that stems from my very being.

It becomes our business when you start telling us what men are like,
how we think, why we do the things we do etc.  You mistakenly interpret
this as a criticism of the way you run your life.  When you talk about
men, you are talking about me, and I will respond.

>i don't imagine rape, sexism, and a lot of other horrors into existence.

Again you equate rape and sexism.  Will you allow me to equate the
sexist attitudes of some women towards men and rape?

>there you go, root of your problem.  you take it all personally.
>if i talk about rapists and common sense, you think 
>women will stop talking to you and sleeping with you, which is of course
>your god-given privelege, because women all share one brain.

This is not a very sophisticated argument at all.  You make it seem
like all men care about vis a vis women is sleeping with them.  That's
quite insulting to men.

>never said i wouldn't like to see some of that too.  but you haven't
>shown respect, earned mine, nor earned my trust.  and life is just
>like that until utopia shall occur.

You haven't shown respect, earned mine, nor earned my trust.
It goes both ways.  In fact you have shown hostility towards me while
knowing nothing about me.  Why should I respect or trust you?

>if you are so anti-rape, and anti-sexism, give a little of your privelege,
>stop expecting women to agree with you in order to fit into your schemata,
>to even have to fit into your schemata at all.  
Oh I get it, if somone disagrees with you, it follow that 
they are not anti-rape, not anti-sexism, and that they refuse to relinquish 
their male privilege.  If a women disagrees with you, do you make the
same judgement about her?

>what the hell is a schemata.  did i just invent a word?
It's the plural of schema. 		No.

>          this ain't soc.women, i don't know what it is.
>                 i need someplace where i dont have to argue
>		  with men all the time!!!  that's not too much
>			to ask!!!
It is soc.women.
It's not soc.women.only
and its not soc.women-bashing.men

There is soc.men and soc.women, and many people read both.  

And in these groups, men argue with men, women with women, and men
with women.  Many issues don't break down by gender rules.  And many
women do not spend 'all their time arguing with men.'  If you bash
men, you will be answered, just like if a man bashes women he 
will be bashed.

You don't have to argue with men, or even read what men say.  No one
is stopping you from saying what you want to say.  But I will add,
that if you are sincere about changing the world and making it more
fair, men are going to have to figure in there somewhere, and you 
will not have male supporters with the way YOU speak.  And if you
want to alienate men, that is your right. 

And if you think the reason men disagree is because the men are all sexist, 
and just don't get it, there are many women who post to the group who 
respect and agree with some men of the men who post to soc.men and 
soc.women.  If you don't find men who agree with you, I would say the 
problem lies in the way you express yourself, not in the men themselves.   

I say some of the same things other men say, but I don't get called
sexist and misogynist and they do.  It's a question of how you say things.

And sometimes I take conversation to e-mail because I want it to be
just between the men, without some women commenting on it.  And I take
some conversations with women to e-mail to for similar reasons.

If you speak about the details of your personal experience, I certainly
won't disagree with you, as you know more about it than me, and if you
have been wronged,  I will support you.  But I can't validate your
anger towards all men.  I can do it against specific ones. 

Do you see the difference?  
But when you translate your personal experience into a world view, and expect 
me to accept it, it's just not going to happen.  And if you think that's
because of my misogny, of male privilege, you couldn't be more wrong.

>                                       Cindy                   
      
Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.