From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:49:24 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>>(About judging other cultures by 20th-century standards.)

>	1.5 page rant on culture judging deleted.  Those who are going to
>	email flame me willbe bounced unlessthey go back and read the thread.

>>Also, in particular, I note that people of different cultures
>>may not have had the scientific facts available to them that are
>>available today; 

>	Fair.  However, everyone in the US has plenty of access
>	to scientific material if not training, and yet you
>	see morons pushing creationism in Louisiana.

I was talking about past cultures, and tribal cultures in which
people have no access to formal education.

>	My point is, "Social justice" is redundant.  Justice is
>	the word people are looking for when they talk about
>	"social justice".

>>>        Please define.
>>
>>I can't. I am not even sure that one rigid definition would always
>>be appropriate.  

>	How do these differe from what you mean when you say "social 
>	justice"?

I don't believe that good can be given a rigid definition, that
works in *all* circumstances (see a previous posting).

>>>        I have a very *clear* concept of right and wrong.  It is not
>>>        muddled by goofy social ideals.  For me, right and wrong are
>>>        black and right--there can be no "almost right" because that
>>>        almost certainly implies that there were ulterior motives,
>>>        and I consider motivation a prime factor in determining
>>>        right and wrong.
>>
>>If you do consider motivation a prime factor, then please, use
>>respectful language to sincere posters. And *assume* people are
>>sincere until they give you *individual* evidence otherwise.

>	I always do.

Was the "rant" above meant to apply to my writings, or to yours?

>>Some people are raped in situations which they should have been
>>able to know was dangerous; 

>	Typical date rape.

>>others in situations that they could
>>not imagine were dangerous. 

>	Typical out of the shadow rape.

...And some date rapes, too.

>	Which kind do people make more noise about?

Is "noise" about rape wrong, if it in any way leads to the punishment
of rapists, or the prevention of rape?

>>In any case, the "penalty" of being raped 
>>is much higher now than it was a generation ago, because of AIDS.

>	Not all rape victims are exposed to AIDS. 

But all of them have to go through six months of fearing it.

>>And I don't think this "penalty" is appropriate, for, for example,
>>a 14-year-old girl (a true example). Much too much punishment for their crime!

>	Agreed.  I find rape repulsive.  One of the things I find
>	equally repulsive is the way feminists are so unwilling to admit
>	that women need to be self-responsible.  Clothing, manner, 
>	where you go, alcohol and drugs, appearance--all of these
>	things ARE factors in rape.

No feminist is denying this.

>  Feminists can claim that old women
>	and unattractive women get raped all they want--they make up
>	such an insignificant part of the total number of rapes that you
>	can easily explain those away as fetishism or severe mental
>	illness. 

"Out of the shadow" rapists don't care that much about the physical
appearance of their victims (see "What Cops Know," a collection of
interviews with Chicago police by Connie Fletcher).

Note that "typical" out-of-the-shadow rapists have some severe
psychological problems. In particular, read the section in Fletcher's
book on the "power reassurance" rapist, the most common type. 

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism