From: camurphy@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cindy)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: more thoughts on a new slant to rape stats
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:34:15 GMT
Organization: UB

rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

>In article <1992Apr2.171937.10395@acsu.buffalo.edu>, camurphy@acsu.buffalo.edu (Cindy) writes:
>> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>> 
>>>  The comment was meant to address the attitude exprssed by Susan
>>>Brownmiller,"All men are potential rapists, and that's ALL they are",
>>>a statement roughly equivilent to saying all blacks are lazy, all chicanos
>>>steal, all jews are greedy, all polish people are stupid or all women are
>>>whores.
>> 
>>>  Who, among you, believes these lies?
>> 
>> 
>> i happen to believe that most men don't rape, and that they believe they
>> are anti-rape for whatever reason (moral, feminist, etcetera).  however,
>> a woman cannot, out of a sense of fairness, trust each and every man.

>  Out of fairness, we should give each and every human the benefit of the
>doubt! 

>> all men are POTENTIAL rapists.....................

>  All humans are potential murderers, yourself included. Darci Kaleen Pierce
>wanted Cindy Lynn Ray's new baby (a problem that goes back to the time of King
>Solomon), and removed the unborn baby from Cindy's body using the victims car
>keys to perform a Ceasarian section on Cindy's body. By your logic above,
>I should keep ALL women away from my pregnant wife (should I ever be so
>lucky).

>  Hardly!

by my logic i did not say that all women should hide indoors and avoid
men, i said that suspicion and anger were justified.  i hardly want to
be crippled in leading my life by having to avoid all men.  besides,
your bringing up this comparison is hardly fair considering not only
statistics on the percentage of men who rape, but my personal experience
(valid and not unusual) of sexist treatment at the hands of many
people.  

>  Neither can I point at the streetwalker and accuse all womrn of being
>potential whores.

>  Both crass asuumptions totally dismiss the idea that the greater majority of
>women are decient peple whom are WORTHY of being truested, and the same holds
>true for the majority of men.

excuse the FUCK out of me.  making comparisons between "rapists" and
"whores" is completely apples and oranges.  do you really believe that 
women who prostitute themselves (or men who hustle, for that matter) are
in any way comparable to rapists?  i don't.  i don't think that women
or men become "whores" in order to victimize or disempower their "clients."
i think that realistically prostitution is a trap into which destitute
or troubled people fall, an outcome of poverty or personal problems,
and that ideally it's just a straightforward transaction for sexual
favors and that prostitutes are not to be generally vilified.

 
>  Think of rapists, not as advocates of the politicalization of patriarchy, but
>as a form of domestic terrorists. If you alter your life in response to
>their threat, if you cease normal contact with males out of the fear
>that you may be raped (especially if those fears have been greatly exaggerated
>in the media), then the terrorists have won. The male rapists
>(and the females who exploit their existance for political gain) have taken
>control of your life, isolated you from your own species, and made you
>even more susceptible to further manipulations.

i DO think of rape as terrorism.  as a MALE professor of mine has stated,
"rapists are the vanguard of patriarchy."  men are not "patriarchy".
patriarchy is a system.  

as far as your phrase "NORMAL contact with males" i don't think that
women should have to have regular contact with men in order to be deemed
"normal" or in order to entitle themselves to what is termed "heterosexual
privelege."  ideally....IDEALLY....the world would be 99% benign and
men would just be human beings with penises, but realistically separatist
space is a necessary thing.

> men are not being "treat like dirt" by   
>> society on a large scale, nor are gangs of roving manhaters grabbing
>> random men and castrating them because they might rape. 

>  You haven't been following Dworkin's speeches of late, I take it.

Dworkin is not:

1- my heroine

2- society or even influencing the mainstream

3- a random killer of men.

i didn't cite Dworkin and would never do so favorably.  kindly stop
bringing her up in comparison to either me or to the general environment
in which we all live.

> you can't blame
>> women for fearing, even feeling hostile towards, men, when so many men
>> are not just rapists but perhaps merely willing to treat women as though
>> they are not quite human.

>  No, but I can (and DO) blame women who have exaggerated the degree of
>rape merely to fuel their oen political careers. Feminism has become
>dependant on sexual stories to maintan a place in the public media.

.."feminism" being a few women who you identifiy with all women and with
general trends.  look, if stories and statistics about horrible things
that happen are what make feminism a "scoop" in the media, that's not
the fault of all women or even all feminists.  prurience and sensationalism
might become a tool but are not the invention of women.  besides, rape is
not "sexual", it's violent.  unless you agree with the "extreme feminist"
viewpoint that all heterosexual intercourse is automatically inegalitarian
and somewhat violent and exploitative because of patriarchy?
i don't.


>And to kee that media exposure, the rates of claims that such and such sexual
>crimes are taking place have been elevated to mythical proprtions. The

bullshit....bullshit....bullshit.

>women who profit from instilling fear in their fellow women have terrified
>many more women than the real rapists ever did. 

that is because talking about an experience of being sexually abused or
raped has been highly discouraged in the past, rape has been silenced,
women who have been raped have been treated as pariahs.

>The price is that is is now
>acceptible (I believe your phrase was "fairness") to assume all
>men as potentially guilty and to treat them accordingly, even those
>who are guilty of no crime. And, inso doing, you orphan yourself
>even further from the possabilility of discovering that the guy over
>there (right next to the newspaper rack) is a preatty neat guy who has never
>raped anyone, or even beaten his dog. But, since yu decide not to vouchsafe
>him the tme of day, you never attain the experience that contradicts
>the media portrayal of men (which is of course, what the promotors of
>anti-male media hype hope for).

the tool of misogynists, overt and subtle, now, is to quote the most
"extreme" of feminists (protective, unconsciously misogynist ones)
and to say that this is what all women will believe.  and that an
accusation against any man, or any number of men, is slander against
all men.  whereas this is genuinely true in more cases of accusations
against women of not CONFORMING to sexual NORMS or even SOCIAL norms
like interacting casually with men.

like i said, i know plenty of men.  had no choice.  i did say that i
trusted a few.....how many people do you trust?  i didn't say that
i hide under the bed and shake in my socks.  au contraire.  if you've
even kept up with my posts i've had a number of relationships with
men, and, (as you later deny) friendships.

the media is not anti-male.  it is pro stereotypes a la 18th century
novels of rapacious rakes and quivering victim women.

>  it is a huge male responsibility to stop behaving
>> as though they have some god-given privelege of all women being required
>> to be "nice" to them, and learn that women were not put here for male
>> enjoyment. 

>  It is the female responsibility to stop responding to inaccurate portrayals
>of men.

it is the responsibility of men to prove themselves exceptions.  i will
not advocate that any woman just naively trust a man with her body,
money or well-being.  i'm not saying that women are on the whole
trustworthy either.  "inaccurate portrayals of men" is what you are
promoting by expecting women to give all men the benefit of the doubt,
to her own detriment.

> And incidentally, your comment about men expecting women to be nice to
>them is roughly equivilent to the demand for women to stop behaving as 
>if men were merely cash objects, suitable only for female enjoyment.

that's a nice little misogynist stereotype you've dumped there.
"women are after men for their money, men after women for their bodies"
----ever occured to you that a large number of women enjoy being
financially independent and don't like feeling BOUGHT?  i think
this has been pointed out a thousand times before.  not to mention you
are automatically ignoring lesbians in your discourse, as well as
displaying a callous insensitivity to the economic inequality
(different pay for equal work, inequal opportunity, etcetera) between
women and men.

> you can't blame women for the so-called "war between the
>> sexes" and compare the "feminist oppression" (bullshit) of men to the
>> oppression of marginalized "races" and "ethnic" groups.  it just
>> does not compare.

> On the contrary, the tactics of media misrepresentation and the "big lie"
>are identical in all of them. None of the basic premises on which any
>of the above discriminations are based is vaid. Not all blacks are
>lazy, not all Chicanos theives, nor all men rapists.

i dont' control the media.  big corporations do.  they thrive on
mixed up, fucked up, twisted stereotypes.  i don't believe that men
are all rapists and that's EXACTLY WHAT I STATED AT THE BEGINNING OF
MY FIRST POST.  i don't invent "stereotypes."  besides....women can't
even stay out of "male neighborhoods", it's a forced integration,
and when men don't want women around historically they've been able to 
get rid of them.  you're ignoring misogyny COMPLETELY, especially your
own.

>  that is what Mary Daly (not a particular flawless 
>> heroine of mine but a writer worth looking into) would call a "patriarchal
>> reversal" of logic, like the reversal that blames women for being raped
>> by men in the first place, for example.

>  That's a bit of a leap. I have never tried to blame a woman who got raped. 
>And I do not deny there are real rapists who should go to jail (or worse)
>for their crimes.

it is NOT a leap, it is an ANALOGY.  rape does not come out of nowhere.
rape is a product of unequal circumstances, and fuckked up notions about
sexuality and power.

>  What I take issue with is the extreme exaggerations used to "sell"
>rape as a political issue; to create the bogus epidemic to motivate
>women at the expense of the social image of the average man.

rape doesn't just "sell" as a political issue, you know, and for
that matter it's worked for racists as a "political issue"....the
myth of the black rapist that is....rape imagery sells women as victims,
rapist mentality and denying the connections between rape and ignorance
and misogyny and economics and etcetera ad nauseum world without end
amen, motivates men to see women as less than human...at the expense
of "the average woman."  besides, what male "expense" are you talking
about?  like i said before women have no obligation, and must hove
no obligation, to fulfil male desires at their own expense.

>> 
>> if i distrust a particular male because of his sexism, or a woman makes a
>> true statement about women having to consider all men as POTENTIAL
>> rapists, that does not translate to "oh all the poor men are being treat
>> like dirt by those manhating feminists who should be nice and barefoot
>> and pregnant while they're at it."  

>  You know something? I have not heard a man use the phrase "barefoot
>and pregnant" that I can recall. I hear lots of feminists use it, though.
>It's true I wanted my wife to  be pregnant (that's why I married her), but
>never barefoot! She had the very best and most expensive shoes available! :)

barf, barf, puke.  you don't even realize how sexist you are or else
you think it's funny.  

>> female anger does not need to be
>> punished by misogyny.........

>  But if the anger is directed at a man who has committed no crime, then
>he has a right to feel anger in return! That's not misogyny, that's
>just standing up for his rights as a human.

"rights as a man entitled to male privelege", you mean.  

> women's anger and fear and distrust are perfectly
>> justified.  

i back this up 100%.

>  No, they are not. It is prejudice, based on gender, criminalizing an entire
>class for the actions of a few.

a pretty damn large few, and i wasn't just talking about rape, bub.
i was talking about general unfair treatment, too.


>> the rapist mentality and the conceptualization of women as commodities
>> or children who had "better be nice" is a poisonous way to view
>> relations between members of the human race. 

>  Where do you get the "better be nice" crap? Who have you been hanging out
>with? Nobody talks like that anymore, except in cheap 3rd rate movies from
>the 50's!

listen to yourself!  now stop pretending sexism is a thing of the past.
calling it a product of the 50's, and sexual repression (i.e. prudish
women and domineering men) is ignoring the reality today.  i still get
the "be nice" attitude ALL OVER the place.  you just put it out
with your "women have no right to be angry" attitude.

> women don't have to sleep
>> with men, don't have to 'be nice', and don't even have to like men.

>  I think your hangup about rape has clouded your ability to even attempt to
>interact with men on a non-sexual level, and you've therefore gotten into
>a cycle of reinforcing your own preconceptions. Despite what you
>may see on "Oprah" and "Geraldo", most men have had their consciousness
>raised during the early years of feminism, and even more so, don't WANT to
>sleep with you until they know you well enough to ask for a blood test.

i don't watch TV, i get my ideas from reality.
and i practice safe sex, and i have interactions that aren't sexual
with men, and even non-hostile ones, i have no other choice besides
which why the hell do you have to push me into this "some of my
best friends are men" position?  because you are priveleged to
deal non-sexually with women and not feel threatened by them, don't
oversimplify my life or all women's lives and assume we should
be responsible to mollycoddle and accompany men.


>> not in this world.  ddon't make me sick. 
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>  Too late!  (Just a joke).




> i have put more trust into
>> more undeserving men, and i know it works the other way around too,
>> but there has to be an evaluation based on reality as well as soome
>> hope for us all being "nice" TO EACH OTHER.  i have found a precious
>> few men -- people, even --- deserving of my trust, and part of that
>> has been having to take sexism into account, not just as a loveable
>> quirk but as a deadly potential poison to my well-being; physical,
>> mental and emotional.  telling women to "be nicee" is a convenient
>> way to trash all feminism and efforts to redefine what women owe
>> themselves.  

>  What humans owe to each other and themselves is, as you say, reality.
> But feminism has made much political gain over the use of inaccuracies and
>outright lies which foster such blind mistrust as you appear to exhibit.
>That is part of the backlash against feminism. Even it's ardent
>adherents and supporters (which I used to be) view any organization
>that exists on misrepresentations as destructive of society as a whole.

backlash against feminism comes from deep-seated misogyny, which you
should examine, and a fear of threat against male privelege.

>Maybe this confusion is why very NON-traditional methods of interaction, 
>free of feminist expectations and political games are catching on. If you
>meet someone at a nightclub or disco, you see the same distrust and
>prejudice as you display in your post. In contrast, it has been refreshingly
>easy to find hiking, hunting and sailing partners of the opposite gender,
>and that holds promise for a fun summer. I don't try and tell them to be
>"nice", and they don't treat me like a criminal (After all, we're both
>carrying high powered rifles). So far, it's working pretty damned good.

well, goody for you.  i don't go to nightclubs or discos, too much date
rape.  i have plenty of friendly and professional interactions with men.
what if i prefer to spend time with women?  that's my business, not an
aberration or hatred that stems from my very being.

>women can't bear the burden of healing imaginary slights
>> against male privelege and still take their (women's) own rights.

>  But they can bear the burder of imaginary slights against women?
>There's a problem there, I fear.

i don't imagine rape, sexism, and a lot of other horrors into existence.

>> 
>> 
>> this isn't my manifesto, just a few relevant points.  don't type me as
>> the archetypal feminist  and don't expect me to be insulted by the
>> phrase "manhating hairy lesbian."

>  I think possibly you confuse me with someone else. "manhating hairy lesbian"
>is not a phrase I use or even tolerate in my presence. I find it highly
>offensive, for reasons related to the above thoughts.

there you go, root of your problem.  you take it all personally.
if i talk about rapists and common sense, you think 
women will stop talking to you and sleeping with you, which is of course
your god-given privelege, because women all share one brain.

>  but i see a lot of childish, parasitic
>> assumptions being made here about what "women OWE men."

>  What women "owe" men is what men "owe" women. Mutual respect and the
>opportunity to demomstrate that we can be nice civilized human beings.
>This is terrifying to those politicians who build their careers
>on mutual fear and distrust, but that's their problem, not mine.

never said i wouldn't like to see some of that too.  but you haven't
shown respect, earned mine, nor earned my trust.  and life is just
like that until utopia shall occur.

i think some interacction and (somewhat) mutual concessions are as 
important as separatist space (which i will never share.)
i think that men benefit greatly in their understanding of women
and feminism from interacting with women.  i think that the human
race should not be split into so many pieces the way it is.
but i think that women owe more to THEMSELVES, at this point,
we've so little foundation for selfhood.  

if you are so anti-rape, and anti-sexism, give a little of your privelege,
stop expecting women to agree with you in order to fit into your schemata,
to even have to fit into your schemata at all.  

what the hell is a schemata.  did i just invent a word?

and, yes i realize that "manhating hairy lesbians " aren't in your
vocabulary, you seem to disacknowledge lesbians from existence.
or just not to care, or wish them out of existence.


          this ain't soc.women, i don't know what it is.
                 i need someplace where i dont have to argue
		  with men all the time!!!  that's not too much
			to ask!!!

                                       Cindy