From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Candada Massacre
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:28:52 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec11142841@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.213722.323@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec11101635@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec11.170600.28063@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>Solving the problem of violence in general will also solve the problem
>>>>of violence against women (tm) will it not?
>>>
>>>Perhaps.  However, that doesn't mean that people will all choose to work
>>>on such a large problem.  If you agree that they are different problems,
>>>then why shouldn't people choose to work on one that they feel more
>>>strongly about, or which they feel is more soluble in the short term?
>
>>What makes you think that they are not the same problem?
>
>I have said this in every post.  If you still haven't understood it, I
>don't think I can say it in a way which you will understand.  Maybe
>someone else will be able to.

No Muffy, you have not. You have said...

|>>>Violence *is* a problem.  Violence against women is a *different*
|>>>problem, with different causes, and, probably, different solutions.

There -is- a communication problem here, and you are part of it Muffy.
 
>>What if the laws were drafted which made violence a crime,
>
>There have been.  It hasn't solved the problem of people targeting women
>because they are women.

And I am questioning this. So far we have -one- example. 
 
>>Would this not address the problem of violence against women, as well
>>as the larger issue?
>
>It hasn't, so I guess it wouldn't.

So the past defines the future? That it hasn't does not mean that it cannot
if existing laws are properly enforced. 
 
>>>>>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?
>>>I didn't say anything about frequency.  
>>I did, and I think it is relevant. Do you think it irrelevant?
>
>It is irrelevant to what I was saying.  I am not making an argument that
>violence against women is more or less prevalent than any other form of
>violence, merely that it exists.

I do not believe that this was even questioned. But your assertion that
women are singled out is not clearly true or relevant. Obviously the women 
in Canada were, but beyond that? Do you have some statistics other than
those posted which show that (in the U.S. at least) men are more often
the victims of crime than women, and that women hot men about as often
as men hit women?

And I do think prevalance -is- an issue when discussing what is to be done.
The solution should not be the equivalant of killing a fly with nuclear
weapons, or even high explosives. Big problems require big solutions. Small
problems do not.

To put it another way, if, in a general way, women were singled out, I
would expect this to be reflected somehow in the violence statistics. 
 
>>We should not treat all men as criminally
>>insane in light of one nut with a gun.
>
>No one has proposed this.  What does this have to do with the issue?
 
I have the same question about some of your statements. And also there
is that problem of context. Editing a paragraph from around a sentence
is one guarenteed way to remove context, and you have done so. Was it
not Muffy herself who was raising context-consciousness earlier?

This is what you said, and my response. You hacked it up quite badly.

|>                                             I said that many violent
|>incidents against women happen specifically because they are women.
|>What are you having trouble understanding in that?  If you look back at
|>the original incident in Canada, the person killed those people
|>*specifically* because they were women.
|
|To the best of my knowledge this is an isolated incident. And also the
|only example, as terrible as it is. And we are clearly dealing with
|someone who has gone over the edge. There are already laws for dealing
|with the criminally insane. We should not treat all men as criminally
|insane in light of one nut with a gun. Nor should we make 911 a gun
|pointed at all men, usable by all women. This is -not- justice.

>>Nor should we make 911 a gun
>>pointed at all men, usable by all women.
>
>No one has proposed this.  What does this have to do with the issue?

Exactly what is your issue Muffy? 
 
>>This is -not- justice.
>
>It is also -not- relevant.

|>It's pretty amazing to me that people spend all this time trying to
|>convince *other* people to change the set of issues they choose to focus
|>on, rather than just working on those other issues themselves.  Why not
|>just let everyone choose the issues they are concerned about?
 
It looks more and more like you are trying to tell me what the proper
focus is. 

|I did, but you seem to have a problem with my choice. Or are you trying
|to tell me that I chose the wrong issue to focus on?
| 
|>Muffy
|>
|>Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
|>muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
|>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
|>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
|
|
|Rich
|payner@netcom.com
| 

>Muffy
>
>Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
>muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
>"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give|>not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,misc.legal