From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:27:52 GMT

In article <C0302E.5ox@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>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.


	OK.


>>	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).


	In other words, you can't define it any better than I can because
	it's an empty term used to sound good.


>>>>        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?


	Mine, of course.  You could tell if you thought about what 
	was obviously deleted--seeing as the immediately following
	quote was 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.


	Statistical anomaly.  


>>	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?


	Noise that marks all men as rapists is certainly wrong.
	Noise that prevents men from serving as counselors in
	rape crisis centers is wrong.  (Women who have justbeen
	attacked *NEED* exposure to kind, compassionate men.)


>>>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.


	Fear or personal paranoia doesn't change the punishment.
	Suppose I am afraid of camera flashes.  Someone breaks into
	my house and snaps a photo--do they deserve anythingmore
	than breaking and entering just because I have some flash-phobia?


>>>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.


	You could have fooled me.  In fact, all of my womens studies
	classes denied this.  Almost all of the posters on alt.sex 
	(the date rape thread, like circumcision and "Does America
	say yes to Japan?", raises it's ugly head every 6 months or
	so).

	An honest response might have been, "Not all feminists
	are denying this"--because *most* are, in fact, denying it.



>>  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).


	Also note that I pointed out that, while this happens, it is
	by far the least common form of rape.  


>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. 


	I tend to be skeptical of anyone who suggests that rape
	is strictly a power crime.  If it was about power, they'd 
	be beating their victims up and shitting on them, or something
	similiar.  And yes, while this does happen in some infinitisimally
	small number of rapes (out of the shadow ones, mostly) it is 
	hardly an example of what we are talking about when we talk
	about rape.


>Lenore Levine


-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	         ---  Boycott == censorship == cowardice  ---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women