From: mfterman@phoenix.princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire)
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Reply-To: Mutant for Hire <mfterman@phoenix.princeton.EDU>
Organization: Mutant for Hire, Inc.
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:21:04 GMT

In article <1id7cjINNctb@agate.berkeley.edu>, cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>If that is what the comparision was meant to illustrate, the wrong
>analogy was picked, then.  This comparison illustrates that when
>people would rather be exposed to danger as a result of their own
>free choice rather than as a result of the deliberate malice of
>another person.  If ones wishes to draw the conclusion that given the
>same level of danger that one group is less fearful than another, you
>should have both of them go bungee jumping.

I see what the point is trying to be made. If men are more likely to
discount risk, then they will be more likely to choose enjoyable
activities that entail a certain amount of risk. And you ignore the
fact that many people don't choose to be exposed to danger at all.  I
will agree with the point that men may be more likely to choose risk
than women, if there are statistics indicating that men are more
likely to go for risky leisure activities, which is not the same thing
as ignoring current risks.

But there is the point that men are more likely to be the subject of a
violent attack than women. If that is the case, then men should be
just as afraid, if not more so than women. The question is, why they
aren't and whether the behavior of the men or the women is the
unreasonable one.

>What to you is real and measurable?  Why do you not trust the
>statements of women as indicators of what is "real" and "measurable"?
>I don't know if this is in your unconscious mind, but this attitude
>can indicate that fact that you think that something that a woman
>thinks or perceives is not real and measurable simply because it
>isn't perceived also by a man.  I'm sorry, but there are things in
>this society that treats the two so dofferently that a woman will see
>that a man might be blind to and vice versa.

You are twisting things around. This society is violent to women *and*
*to* *men* *as* *well*. Check the rates for violence against men as
well as the ones against women. Not just the rape indicators, but all
violent attack. No one is stating that there is no problem, that men
are discounting all the attacks made against women. That argument you
are shooting down is one you set up.

The question is, does the fear against violence match the actual level
of threat? There are people who drive around in big cities in heavy
traffic without a second thought, yet totally fear to get on
airplanes.  Guess which activity is more risky? There is a difference
between the perception of danger and the actual risk itself. The real
issue is whether men and women react appropriately given the risks
they take facing violence. You can cite case after case of women being
attacked.  These cases are certainly true, I'm not arguing with you on
that. Can you prove that men are not being attacked all the time, or
at a lower rate than women? Please cite data to back this up if you
do.

--
    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mean Ol' Top, Priest of Shub-Internet
    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.