From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Candada Massacre
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:28:36 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

[violence against women vs. violence in general]
>>It seems likely that "the problem of violence" has many causes, many
>>contributing factors; so it can only be solved in a piecemeal way.

>I do not see that a "piecemeal" solution follows from multiple causes,
>especially with regards to the law.

??? The law cannot offer a solution to the problem of violence; it
merely offers a number of bandages that can be applied to symptoms.
I assumed when talking about solutions that we were talking about
eliminating the motivations that led to violence, rather than
introducing legislation.

>>>>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?
>>
>>Historically (and in the present in many places), one of the
>>reasons for domestic violence (among many) was that "the man
>>of the household" felt that he owned his wife; he could do whatever
>>he wanted with her, and punish her whenever she didn't obey him.
>>Many people are still brought up with a trace of this attitude,
>>even when they intellectually acknowledge some kind of equality
>>of status.

>And men have also been trained not to hit women, many are not prepared
>to even defend themselves. You examine exactly one side of the coin.

If we're discussing leukemia, why bring testicular cancer into it?
The two sides of the coin that you refer to aren't opposed to one
another; they are both problems, with different causes and different
treatments.

>>              When a man with such a background feels frustrated,
>>for whatever reason, he can feel a tendency to lash out at some
>>woman for not staying in her place.

>Argument by stereotype again. Is it equally valid to counter such
>arguments with stereotypes about women?

Stereotype?  All women with backgrounds such that they feel that
domestic troubles can best be resolved by physically lashing out at
their spouses tend to do so.  Okay?  Are you satisfied?  Where's
the problem?  Do you think that the solution to this is the same
as that of physically-abusive husbands?  If so, where's your
Grand Unified Theory of Violence, and what is the Grand Unified
Solution?

>>                                       Most men suppress such a
>>reaction; some do not.  In this instance, women are singled out
>>as targets.

>Just like ljf, you define a situation which fits your preconception,
>and use it as a general argument.

Since the above clearly eliminates most people, I'd be interested
to see how you can interpret it as a general argument (and what
it is generally arguing for or against).  Do you disagree that the
above happens at all?

>You did forget to specify White
>Heterosexual Male however, but you can fill that in next time.

Tsk tsk.  Gratuitous flames get you nowhere.

>Is there any real evidence that "women are singled out as targets"
>in domestic disputes, or are they just the other party in an argument
>between two people?

Some of each.  Do you really want to deny that women are *ever*
singled out as targets?

>>                 Statistics about injuries tell very little about
>>the motivations underlying them, and it is the latter that must
>>be recognized if any solution is to be found.

>I see, statistics are only valid when they support what one already
>believes.

This is stupid.  Since you're snidely attacking the above, are we
to assume that you believe that statistics *do* inform us about
the underlying motivations?  Would you really care to defend that?

>The Meese commission has already set precedence for this.

Another gratuitous insult.

>The statistics which show greater violence towards women are OK to
>use, even if flawed. Statistics which show parity, or greater violence
>towards men are not valid, as we must look at the underlying motivations.

???  I don't know where you're coming from now at all.  I thought
we were talking about finding solutions to violence, in one form
or another; and you're saying that statistics are a better way to
discover solutions than looking at people's motivations?

>Is it more important that one has committed an act of voilence, or
>-why- one has committed an act of violence?

You won't solve the problem until you understand it.

>Has understanding the cause of inner-city violence solved it?

How many policy-making politicians understand the cause?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.