From: mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:15:13 GMT
	<MUFFY.92Dec21154021@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec22.171727.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov>
	<MUFFY.92Dec22220302@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Organization: Not if I can help it.

# In article  <MUFFY.92Dec22220302@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
# and article <MUFFY.92Dec21154021@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
# muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

In article <1992Dec22.171727.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> 
holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

muffy> No, the issue is that every time someone talks about
muffy> the violence that is practiced against women, some
muffy> people here start shouting about the violence that
muffy> happens to men.  Not only do they not seem to want us
muffy> to work on the problem *we* are concerned about, but
muffy> they further want us to work on *their* problems.

daniel> Who is "we", Muffy?

muffy> "We" is those of us who choose to work on that problem.
muffy> Notably feminists.

The remainder of those who work on the issue are, no doubt,
not notable.  Ahem.

daniel> Why is it that every time someone brings up violence
daniel> against men, here or elsewhere, some feminists start
daniel> shouting about violence against women, and how dare we
daniel> focus on men's problems?

muffy> Actually, the original discussion was about violence
muffy> against women.  I understand why you wish to twist the
muffy> facts in this way, but I don't see any point in
muffy> answering it further.

Actually, what the original discussion was about has nothing
do to with Daniel's point, which is still valid.  But then "I
can see why you'd want to ignore that and make an ad hominem
attack instead of addressing the issue."  Damn, that behavior
is seductive.  Usually I try to refrain.  Ah well.  

daniel> Personally, I think I have enough time to deal with
daniel> both.  If you can only deal with one, don't be
daniel> surprised if a bunch of people decide that they only
daniel> have time for their problem and to hell with you and
daniel> yours.  This does not seem an effective tactic.

muffy> Well, it would be quite fine with me if you would go to
muffy> hell.  You certainly aren't making the world any better
muffy> by trying to STOP feminists from doing anything about
muffy> violence against women.  

Actually, I don't see anyone trying to stop feminists from
decrying violence against women per se.  What I do see is a
bunch of people who are scared that we are going to pass a
bunch of laws which do not address the problem in a reasonable
way.  There is no form of violence which is perpetuated
against women which is not also perpetuated against men.
Needless gender specificity may help you get your agenda
across, but it does a great disservice to the people of this
nation who feel that the law should protect _everyone_,
regardless of whether they have the right genital structure.
Although it may seem that some are telling you that your
agenda is wrong, what most are really worried about is that
the solution is wrong.  

Eg: If domestic violence is a problem for women, then propose
_gender_neutral_ laws which will exact appropriate penalties
and provide an appropriate means for determining the nature
and severity of the abuse.  Don't do more harm to the men in
this country by proposing legislation which will not protect
them if they are abused.  It does you and your movement a
disservice to appear so indifferent to the nature of violence
when your claim is to inclusivity.  I realize that it may be
more difficult to pass such a law, especially without being
able to appeal to the chivalrous instinct, but I think that
you (collectively and individually) will find it is worth it.  

muffy> I guess if you don't have to work to support yourself
muffy> and your family, you have time to work on *ALL*
muffy> problems (what *have* you done about violence against
muffy> women lately, by the way?), but some of us don't have
muffy> that luxury.

First, the sniping is unecessary, and appeals to the very
stereotypical family values you yourself spend so much time
trying to expand the boundaries of.  Perhaps his SO(s) support
the family and he provides the valuable service of keeping the
household and raising the children, posting to the net while
the laundry dries.  Perhaps he is single and does not
deserve to be derided for that lifestyle choice, nor the free
time it may afford him to post.  Perhaps it's none of your
business after all...

What _I_ have done, because you will probably ask, to further
women's causes lately:

	0) Voted.  By issue, not party or affiliation or
	   endorsement.  Relevant issues were choice, gay
	   rights and the ability to form a logical argument
	   and use it rather than appeal to the reptile.
	1) Acted as escort at local family planning clinics.
	2) Helped organize local support for gay rights legislation
	3) Wrote numerous letters asking that a more balanced
	   and gender neutral version of the VAW bill be
	   proposed to the legislature.
	4) Sent my annual donations to various groups which
	   promote civil rights, including women's rights.
	5) Got in a long discussion with the local fundie at
	   work about the proper place of women, and whether
	   Paul had his head screwed on backwards.
	6) A bunch of little day to day things which most would
	   probably dismiss as insignificant, but which make
	   up my personal attempts to make the world an easier
	   place for _everyone_ to be whatever they wish to be.

	7) Got miffed at myself for feeling I had to justify
	   myself to someone who appears, at best, to be 
	   intolerant.  The analogy to womens struggles for
	   recognition should be obvious, but should not be
	   interpreted as meaning that I understand but rather
	   that I sympathize.
                                                        - MM
-- 
passaretti@crd.ge.com           {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret
mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com     {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!michelotti!mrmike
Newsgroups: alt.feminism