From: blamb@rodan.hri.com (Bill Lambert)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Violence against women....
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:00:07 GMT
Reply-To: blamb@rodan.hri.com (Bill Lambert)
Organization: Horizon Research

In article <HARKCOM.92Sep28101215@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp>,
harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:
=> 
=>   Since it doesn't seem like this thread is going anywhere we might as
=> well try to make it into something worth taling about: differences in
=> values and the way they affect our analogies :) ...

=> In article <7296@bigbird.hri.com.hri.com> blamb@rodan.hri.com
=>    (Bill Lambert) writes:
=> 
=>  =}"You are right about
=>  =}all those things, but the reason we use the crosswalk is to protect 
=>  =}ourselves from careless or bad drivers, not good ones."

=>    The ananolgy is very close and points out the situation as you see it
=> rather well, but I believe that it is still tainted with two misconceptions
=> which make it difficult to understand the problem.  The crosswalk is not
=> well defined and unlike a drunk driver, a rapist targets the victim...
=> 
=>    The girl that went to Tyson's room may have beliefs that include that
=> in her crosswalk.  I see nothing wrong with such beliefs (place a male in
=> the same situation as the girl and you'll see what I mean).

I suppose Mike Tyson wouldn't ask you (or I) to his room at 2 AM. I
suppose you (or I) wouldn't go even if he did.

=>    From here it gets kind of vague, but please try to bear with me.
=> Whether the girl in your analogy crosses at the crosswalk or on the
=> street is irrelevant.  A drunk driver would be just as likely to hit
=> her at either place.  Now let's assume the girl is smart enough to
=> be careful when crossing the road. (Making her seem too ignorant to do
=> this is an insult to the girl that went to Tyson's room)...  Whether
=> she crosses at the crosswalk or not, she will not be hit by a car.
=> Some of those people on the crosswalk see it as "safe" and are therefore
=>  not careful.  (Here's where Tyson comes in) So if we have a driver who
=> is out to ram his car into some 'innocent' street walker (pardon the puns,
=> I couldn't help it) then he is going to get someone.  Whether he gets
=> someone from the crosswalk or not is irrelevant to him.  He'll either
=> take an easy target (someone not being careful) or he'll try to get
=> someone who is careful by force or connivery...

This is all fine Al..... except....

The "crosswalk" analogy was used to differentiate between careful and
careless crossing. My story assumed that crossing at a crosswalk was
safe, and not crossing at a crosswalk was not safe. I guess I thought
that the crosswalk had a red/yellow crossing light, and that safe
crossing was to push the button, wait for the light to change, and
then proceed *after* being sure that traffic had stopped.

Secondly, I don't believe Mike Tyson intentionally decided to rape
that girl before he got her to his room. So, your reading of my
analogy that "he is out to ram his car into someone" doesn't quite
carry for me. I assume that Tyson was accustomed to many "groupies"
and very used to getting what he wanted, when he wanted it. I also
think he assumed that he would, ahem, "score" with that woman without
necessarily raping her, hence the analogy of an out-of-control drunk
(an accident waiting to happen) does hold, as MT's mind set is apparently
fueled by his self-intoxication. When that woman refused to do what
Big Mike wanted, he couldn't handle it (well, who knows what goes on
in such a person's mind). Some, but certainly not all, date-rapes
seem to fall into this category.... rape is not premeditated, but
sex is. When sex is refused, the rapist will then try to force it,
and either can't, or refuses to exercise any self-control. I think
the anology to drunk drivers is reasonable.

- Bill