From: ahmed@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ahmed El-Habbash)
Subject: Re: Woman Hating Women
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:05:02 GMT

In <n062ft@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>Tag: Bev Beasly (unknown address)
> 
>BB> "And where do you get off using that tone?"

I remeber reading this thread of talk about two weeks ago, I found it 
completely irrational, and unfair.

There was one women BB, and about five men. These five men are all
against the only woman in the discussion. 
The problem is that, all these men are talking on behalf of women, while
at the same time going against the only woman in the discussion.

Who appointed you to speak for the women, or is this the freedom you are
seeking for the women.

I didn't like to be envolved in such a talk, and I was hoping that BB
will not continue with such a nonsense, I was feeling that she is more
respectable and too rational to do that, at least within the given 
environment. And it was, the thread was cut.

The reason I did'nt like to be envolved, was that I would'nt be able to
use that bad language used by this claimed bunch of women defenders.
So I am not qualified to go for such empty talks.
> 
>Your highly distressing, women-insulting message professing the
>belief that women are in any way responsible for "curbing the
>lusts of men" would make any sane individual use "that tone."
>One of my women friends, Cathy, was raped by her uncle when she
>was very young--- come here and tell her it was her responsibility
>to "curb his lusts!" She'll hand you a fat lip, and she's a sweet
>lady.
> 
>BB> "Do you think that these crimes, be it rape, verbal, physical
>BB> abuse, is the man's fault alone?"
> 
In fact BB stated clearly that such crimes are not the man's alnoe
responsibility, nor the woman alone.
The example you gave could be true, but is not touching in any depth the
main problem that leads to such crimes. Why did that uncle rape his
niece? Because he couldn't control himself. He could be sick! He could
be sexualy agitated by different reasons, and in front of that urge he
could'nt even spare his niece ! Just imagine what could be the situation
if she wasn't his niece !
If the man was sick, then there is an execuse, but if he is sexually agitated,
then why did that happen, why did a normal man behave like an animal,
what is the difference between a man(kind) and any animal, they both
have the same instinct, but the man has some more control. That control
is not born in its final shape, it is the result of many factors,
physical and psychological that lead to a development of a human
control.

When you have a man or a woman and subject them to all sorts of
demoralization, and encourage them to be worse than animals, you must
expect some results which should not be different than what is expected
from animals. 

What BB suggested was that the woman role in provoking the man's sexual
desires or instinct should not be ignored. It may not be an invitation from
a woman to be raped, but it will agitate the man, and will lead him
after some time to consider rape if he could not find other way to
satisfy his needs, and the example you gave about that uncle confirms
that. 

In your previous talks on the same subject you used a bad, insultive
language to support your *rational* point of view, and all that was a
reaction to another point of view. You couldn't keep control of your
language, although you do not have any right to do so, so why would you
condemn a reaction to a sexual provocation.

>GoodFuckingGrief ==OF COURSE IT IS!== There is not a woman on

You are talking about yourself and that is clear from your language.

>Earth that could MAKE ME rape her! No one can MAKE ME strike
>another! It is MY choice, and MY CHOICE ALONE on how I think,
>the deeds I perform, the ethics and morals I live by.

But now you are striking! perhaps you do not understand that, but you
are far away from any moral and ethical constraints. Do you think 
being versed in this impolite ridiculous language, that gives you a
right to use it when talking to respectable people, particularly when no
body provoked you in this way !? 
> 
>Your irrational belief is dangerous because it redirects the
>responsibility of criminal, abusive behavior away from the
>criminal and towards the victim. It is only a short step to
>turn that around in your fuzzy little head to where you could
>start to believe that others are responsible for YOUR actions.
> 
And your rational belief is ridiculous, because you dont know what is a
criminal and what is a crime ! 

What would you expect from a hungry man starving to death when he sees 
some one in front of him throwing food here and there. Is he supposed to
eat from that food ?!, and if the other one prevented him has he a right
to do so! ?. Is eating food a crime in this case !?

I will not explain more, I assume that any average child will understand
that.
>Just as I know a few men that hate other men, I have known some
>women who hate other women. The difference between these women
>and yourself is, they realize they hate women, and you do not
>understand that your irrational belief is a form of hate with
>the target being other women.
> 
As I remember BB as a woman was not showing hatered to women, but as I 
unrerstood she was looking for more protection to women, a societal protection 
as well as a self protection.  And what you are looking for is just
spreading corruption.

What are you to judge the other's belief is something not worth a
discussion.
>Followups to alt.flame, perhaps.

I hope you are not considering my reply as a flame.

>--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism