From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Candada Massacre
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:37:22 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11101635@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.170600.28063@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec7143235@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec7.185518.3508@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> HGERBER@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Hjalmar) writes:
>>>   sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>>>	   Im glad you posted this.  Violence against women is a problem.
>>>     Why not simply  "Violence is a problem." ?
>>>
>>>Violence *is* a problem.  Violence against women is a *different*
>>>problem, with different causes, and, probably, different solutions.
>
>>Solving the problem of violence in general will also solve the problem
>>of violence against women (tm) will it not?
>
>Perhaps.  However, that doesn't mean that people will all choose to work
>on such a large problem.  If you agree that they are different problems,
>then why shouldn't people choose to work on one that they feel more
>strongly about, or which they feel is more soluble in the short term?

What makes you think that they are not the same problem? The solutions
sought now via sexist leglislation do not even principle address the
larger problem, and define men as the source of the problem. 

What if the laws were drafted which made violence a crime, irrespective
of the sex of either the accused or the sex of the victim, and which 
treated all victims and all accused equally without regard to their sex?
Would this not address the problem of violence against women, as well
as the larger issue?
 
>>>Women are singled out as targets by many violent people, and this is a
>>>problem disctinct from the problem of violence in general.
>
>>Posted statistics have shown that men are more often the victims of
>>violence, and that women hit men about as often as men hit women. What
>>exactly is it you are referring too?
>
>I didn't say anything about frequency.  

I did, and I think it is relevant. Do you think it irrelevant?

>                                             I said that many violent
>incidents against women happen specifically because they are women.
>What are you having trouble understanding in that?  If you look back at
>the original incident in Canada, the person killed those people
>*specifically* because they were women.

To the best of my knowledge this is an isolated incident. And also the
only example, as terrible as it is. And we are clearly dealing with
someone who has gone over the edge. There are already laws for dealing
with the criminally insane. We should not treat all men as criminally
insane in light of one nut with a gun. Nor should we make 911 a gun
pointed at all men, usable by all women. This is -not- justice.
 
>Muffy
>
>Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
>muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn


Rich

payner@netcom.com