From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: DC engages in behavior that he has previously opposed...
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 07:45:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.113326.9464@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.210956.22424@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug14.092850.9423@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug14.094954.8975@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>>>> *Dons Asbestos Suit*
>>>> 
>>>> 	I usually wind up having to walk women either home (if close) to a
>>>> train station or bus stop, or to their car, after any situation where I
>>>> have been dealing with women.  I don't mind being expected to do this, I
>>>> guess because I have been trained to understand security and safety,
>>>> (courtesy of the US govt, alas) and I don't want to see anyone get hurt.
>>>> 	The reason that I specify women in the above?  Simple:  Most men
>>>> are too proud to admit that they are worried about walking alone.  Most
>>>> women are NOT too proud.  If someone asks me to walk with them, I do.  I
>>>> expect the same if I ask, and I have always gotten it.
>>>
>>>Proud? Let me get this straight, if you know you are probably going to
>>>ridiculed and looked down upon for doing something, it is not 'pride' that
>>>prevnts you from doing it, it is not wanting to be called effeminate (sp)
>>>names.
>> 
>> 	Yes, PROUD.  Most men (according to your post) are willing to risk
>> sexual assault, robbery, or just plain violence rather than risk being
>> insulted?  According to my book, thats pride, and too damn much of it.
>> Perhaps 'stupidity' (not saying a man is stupid for going alone, just to be
>> clear, but that action IS stupid).  But, hell, if someone thinks that it is
>> better to risk (quite a high risk around here) their life, just to avoid a
>> bit of name calling (which I have NEVER seen happen when a guy did ask)
>> then I say more power to them, and I will STILL either accompany them or
>> follow them.
>
>That is pride in your book. It is trying to maintain some self-respect in
>other people's books.
>
>Do not confuse the avoidance of a negative with the trying to achieve a
>positive.
>

	DC, if you believe that attempting to avoid being called names by
little boys who do not have any idea of reality attempting to gain self
respect, then I pity you.  See, DC, my self respect does not rely on
avoiding being called a wus by the mean ole bully down the street.  I
figure that I am above being influenced by such petty bullshit, as I would
hope that anyone past the 3rd grade would be...

>As for your following them out--do whatever suits YOURSELF, even if it DESTROYS
>someone else's autonomy.

	They are still able to do what they wish,  are they not?  They do
not have to worry that I am going to come up to them and tell them that
they cannot do anything... All I do is make sure that IF something happens
that they will have someone there to help out.  

>
>Heel, why should THEY get to deicide what they want when YOU are there to look
>out for them?
>
>> 
>>>
>>>I could just see one of the males in one of the clubs announcing:
>>>
>>>"I'd like to leave now. Could someone please walk me out to my car so I don't
>>>get attacked?"
>>>
>>>You have missed an evvent that has shown up too much even on this
>>>newsgroup--real men don't worry about being attacked syndrome. WOmen get wlaked
>>>to their car, men do the escorting, and forget about the consequences
>>>damnit--you're SUPPOSED to be a man!
>>>
>>>Most men would rather risk the attack than be labelled a phrase that indicates
>>>they were born either without male genitals, or they are real, real tiny.
>> 
>> 	If the above is your opinion (and, since you stated it in the "Most
>> men would rather risk the attack than be labelled" I am going to assume
>> that you at least support it in some way) then I worry about you.  In all
>> the times I have seen a guy ask for company, I have NEVER seen ANYONE
>> ridicule them.  It is a fact of life around here, and in most places.  To
>> go out alone, especially late at night, is to virtually BEG to be attacked.
>> Then you have the other things they can do, and the chances get pretty
>> grim.
>
>No, I have never seen anyone come out and state "What a wus!" However, in
>low-crime areas where I hang out, women who request an escort are grudgingly
>given one. A man who would ask for an escort...
>

	You state that you have never actually seen a man get ridiculed,
but you feel that he would be?  Are you some sort of seer, able to see into
the true hearts of people?  Stick to some semblance of reality here, DC,
after all, you say that you have never seen it happen...

>
>> 
>>>
>>>That is not pride, it is trying to avoid ridicule.
>>>
>>>> 	Also, women, while potentially just as good at self defense as men
>>>> usually are, do not usually have the same background as far as physicality,
>>>> as men do.  I do not know many women who fought often in school, or who
>>>> were actively encouraged to engage in exertion, as many men are.  It is
>>>> p[retty much a fact:  Your average male is genetically given a higher
>>>> ability to fight than your average woman, while potentials may differ.
>>>
>>>Maybe women should do something for themselves on their own--like overcoming
>>>the difference by LEARNING to fight, and stop counting on men to be their hired
>>>guns. (Actually, welfare-supplied guns.)  
>>>
>>>									It
>>>> is a fact:  Your average man has been in MANY more fights than your average
>>>> woman.
>>>
>>>See comment directly above. Just because I have been in more fights than you
>>>does not place a responsabilty on me to protect you.  
>> 
>> 	Many women do, as do many men who do not fit the norm, take self
>> defense classes.  Though that still dosent change one basic fact:  Your
>> average woman was not RAISED in a situation where defence or figiting
>> skills were given support, and, as a result, no matter how much or how good
>> their later training is, they have a VERY HUGE problem to overcome:  Mind
>> set.  If you learn to do anything later in life, it is much more difficult
>> to get so good as to become instinctual with it, as you almost need to be
>> with self defence. An example:  A friend of mine decided several years ago
>> to learn karate.  After about 5 years of very intensive training, they got
>> their brown belt (I met them while they were eithe blue or purple (looks
>> the same to me)) and they were considered QUITE skilled by both the
>> instructors and other students.  Yet, even though I have had no martial
>> arts training, and the only hand to hand skills I have were from various
>> military training, I was able to DEMOLISH them in sparring, and, in the one
>> real fight we had (an argument got out of hand) *I* had to be pulled off of
>> *THEM*.  Now, as I do not claim to be a great fighter (insurgency is more
>> my game), this was a pretty strange situation.  After a bit of discussion
>> between myself and the person involved and their instructors, it was
>> generally aggreed that because they had begun the training in their 30's
>> and simnce mine had mostly occurred between the ages of 17 and 19, that I
>> had a more "instinctual" grasp of fighting.  My friend woulod have to be
>> several orders of magnitude better in outright skill before they would be
>> able to overcome their age defecit.  That is the general consensus from the
>> group.  So, I do not think that merely taking training will help a whole
>> lot, though it may give some options.   The problem still remains:  it is
>> true that most women, even with decent training, will not be able to defend
>> themselves as well as a man with similar training.  
>
>Gee Hero, I guess you are right. Since you have received some trainng early on,
>and you have proven you can beat up any woman out there, I guess all those
>women might as well look to us men-folk for protection.
>
	Um, a question... wherein did I say that I could beat up any woman?
Wherein did I *EVER* say that men and *MEN ALONE* could protect women?  I
don't see it in the above quotes, nor do I believe I ever stated it as
such.  I have said that, based on genetic and environmental factors that
men ON AVERAGE are more suited to defense and offense aspects of life.


>I say BULLSHIT! I say women gep$_ t training in self-defense NOW, no matter what

	I agree.  Training is definately a good idea, because, you might
get a few more options out of it.  You might be able to gain a bit of
confidence.  BUT, do not assume that with training that you will become an
unstoppable killing machine.  Do not make training into anything more than
it is.  It takes more than just a few nights a month at the Y to become
skilled at defence.  Your best bet is a large group of people or running
like hell.

>their age, and don't let egotistical pigs like you tell them that they have to
>always count on us men for defense because there is no way that they can ever
>lick us in a brawl.
>
>As for "women with training can not defeat  man with similar training", I guess
>the answer is the same that any man would be told in the same situation--looks
>like they'll just have to train harder and longer.

	I don't think I ever said what you attributed in the above "quote".
If I ever said something like that, it would be comparing the AVERAGE man
and woman.  You seem to have a habit of misquoting and / or misrepresenting
the statements.  Pleas try to avoid this, as, in reading the thread with
you and ATAYLOR, you REATEDLY stated that you objected to him or her doing
that...  Hypocracy and self righteousness don't mix, DC.

>
>
>> 
>>>
>>>	It is a fact:  Your average man recieves much more encouragement to
>>>> engage in sports than your average woman.  Note the use of "average"
>>>
>>>Well then I suppose women are just going to have to stand up for themselves and
>>>compensate. This is 1992, and the old 'we've-been-denied-opportunities' line is
>>>a little thin. You want to get stronger? Go to Vic Tanney. You want to get
>>>meaner, go tke a self-defense class at some community service program?
>>>
>>>You want me to defend you in a fight? You first be ready to defend ME!
>>>
>>>> 	Someone posted earlier about men being less prone to being
>>>> attacked.  I can't speak for any area other than the ones I know, but... 
>>>> 	In my neighborhood there is virtually no violence done to women.
>>>> The reason?  The last time a rapist was caught, (by the girls family),
>>>> around here, he was supposedly castrated by the girls brother...  That is
>>>> only a rumor, but it *has* worked wonders, and gossip does fly fast around
>>>> here.  Also, men in my area are more prone to be in gangs than not in them,
>>>> so there is a lot of that around here.  I am much more likely to be
>>>> attacked than a woman, but, on the average, much more likely to be able to
>>>> defend myself.
>>>> 	Anyway, as far as it goes, I think that there definately IS a need
>>>> for ANYONE who goes out late, or to a dangerous area, or has ANY worry
>>>> about being attacked, to get someone to go with them.  It is inconvienent,
>>>> sure, but, what's a little inconvenience compared to the risk of someone
>>>> getting attacked or worse, killed?  
>>>
>>>When the defendee is someone I do not know, the defender is me, an equation
>>>kicks into place--the more likely she is to be attacked, the less prudent it is
>>>for me to defend them. Why? Because of something you left out of your
>>>equation--as their risk of being attacked goes up, MY risk of being attacked
>>>goes up.
>>>
>>>And no one who is not friend or family EVER is worth that.
>>>
>> 	I hope that the rest of the world does not feel like that...
>> 	Ever hear of a woman named Cathy Genovese?  She was murdered in New
>> York (I believe) some time ago.  Seems that a man just walked up to her,
>> stabbed her, and ran off.  She began to scream, a few people looked out
>> their windows, but nothing more.  She screamed that she had been stabbed,
>> and that she was being killed...  No one helped out.  She tried to crawl
>> off, and the man came back several more times, each time stabbing her and
>> then running off...  she continued to crawl and scream for help but no one
>> came.  Finally, the man killed her.  It was SEVERAL HOURS AFTER THE MURDER[(2%)Ye
>> before the police were called.  When asked why they didn't jpoin in, many
>> of the neighbors listed their good reasons as "We thought it was a lovers
>> quarrel," or "We were just too dang tired" or "I thought someone else was
>> going to help" .  A woman died, and it could have been EASI6b[LY prevented if
>> the neighbors had just called the police or even gone down there...
>
>Yes, famous story. NO ONE COMPLAINS THAT NO O
ENT OUT THERE ALONE TO FIGHT
>OFF HER ATTACKER WHILE HE WAS THERE YOU IDIOT! You are taking a story and
>warping it to fit your own whims. What is sick about this story is no one went
>out to help her while she was alone, and that no one called the police, but
>that they stood there and watched like it was some horror show.

	Really?  Hmm.... the twenty or so articles I read on it said that
the attacker kept on running off because he thought someone was going to go
out there or interfere in some other way, and came back when he realized
that no one gave a damn.  Most of the articles also mentioned the fact that
she was alone in the first place was bad, and also, quite a lot of people
HAVE expressed their disgust (I believe the police were *QUITE* upset and
appalled by the lack of help given to the victim.  Also, I not once said
that the people should have gone out and fought the guy off.  I said that
they should have done at least something.  As it is, NO ONE DID ANYTHING AT
ALL TILL SEVERAL HOURS LATER.  Guess they were afraid of being called names
if they needed help...

	Also, as for your calling me an idiot, I really must say that,
coming from the person who was *QUITE* upset at ATAYLOR for name calling, I
was quite surprised to see that.  Again, you want a bromoseltzer to wash
that hypocracy down with?


>
>DO not try to equate THAT situation with what is being discussed here. What is
>being discussed here is should I place myself in mortal peril for someone I
>barely know? The answer is no. If you ask if someone should help when they do
>not increase the risk to themselves, the answer is yes. Two radically different
>hypos.

	I agree, YOU should not place yourself in danger to help someone
else.  You do not seem to have a very good grasp of reality, let alone a
dangerous situation.  You would probably be so engaged in attempting to
avoid potential name calling from the attacker than helping anything, much
as you do on this newsgroup.  (Oh, by the way:  Since you seem to decide to
interpret my statements in ways that are obviously not how they were
intended, a little bit of clarification is called for.  YES, I *AM* CALLING
YOU USELESS, BOTH TO THIS NEWSGROUP, AND TO ANYONE WHO WOULD ASK YOUR HELP.)

>
>Maybe YOU would have gone out there and fought her attacker. That happens quite
>a bit, and usually, the police then have two victims instead of one. (Of
>course, you could have grabbed your butcher knife and run out there and tried
>to knife-fight him, I suppose. But as he is probably better trained in fighting
>with a knife... Now, if you had had a gun, then you could have shot him with
>relative safety. Tell me, do you carry a gun when you escort someone through a
>rough area???)
>

	Depends.  I do own a handgun, and usually I leave it at home.  The
only times I will carry it with me is when I go to a range.  The only time
that I will have it out of the house is on the way to the range or on the
way back.  Occasionally I have escorted people from or to the range.
However, I do not advocate the use of firearms for defense, unless you are
willing to kill.  A gun is not a disarming weapon, it is used to kill
someone.    
	What would I have done in that situation?  I would have grabbed my
baseball bat and gone down there and either whacked the sonof a bitch, or,
if he ran, helped out the victim.  Or, if possible, I would have attacked
her attacker with abre hands, if it meant that she would have been able to
get away, or at least accomplish SOMETHING (like getting out of his grasp,
or trying to move away).  I also will point out that one of the things that
the tenants of her building said was that they didn't see anyone else
helping out, so why should they?  I am willing to be the first.
	Also, I gathered from some of your earlier posts, that you are
former military?  Is that not putting your ass on the line to defend
millions of people that you have never met?  I know, the chances that you
will go to war and actually have to do something are rather small, but it
is a factor.  So, if you were military, and you *totally* object to the
idea of defending people you do not know, I must assumme that you joined to
take advantage of the benefeits?  Or did you just have trouble fitting into
the real world?  

>
>> 
>>>> 	I personally would be upset if I heard about ANYONE getting raped
>>>> or otherwise attacked, not just people I knew well.  If it can happen to
>>>> them, it can happen to you.                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Bingo!
>>>
>>>I prefer not to increase my odds of being a stat for the purpose of someone
>>>else not being a stat--unless it is friend or family.
>>>
>> 	What if you were attacked while walking alone?  What if, say,
>> someone just came up from behind, whomped you with a lead pipe, and then
>> proceeded to sodomize your unconcious body?  Would you want help?  Would
>> you understand if a passerby decided that it was better to leave you to
>> your fate because it would be raising their risk if they helped you out?
>
>A single passerby? Yes, I would. Because the most prudent course of action for
>them to take would be to sprint to the nearest pay phone and dial 9-1-1. If
>they were smart, they could also yell back while they were running, "I am
>calling th epolice! Someone call the police!" I would prefer THAt over them
>trying to fight off the attacker, getting killed themselves, and then I
>CONTINUE to be sodomized with NIL hope of rescue.
>
	Ah...  You would rather someone go off to get the police, which
wold take several minutes, more than enough time to be raped, than try to
help out?  Ok...  Whatever you say.  Oh, yeah!  Thats right, I forgot.
Your "friends" would call you names because you needed help, or some
such...
	Although, yeah, I would feel very bad about someone getting hurt
defending me, I would feel also that it is a risk that I would take  I
think that the real reason that you don't want peoples help is because it
would show you how incredibly pathetic just standing by is, and thus, show
you how a real person goes about things.  

>In battlefield survival in ROTC, the first thing we learned to do when coming
>upon another injured person is CALL FOR HELP!
>

	Oh, ROTC.  Yes, I remember when I was in the military, and
conducted a few training excercises, that I was quite impressed with the
tactic of *ONLY* calling for help, and not doing ANYTHING else for the
victim...
	Most of the midshipmen (at the Annapolis academy) were 'killed'
within the first minute, because all they did was:  See someone get hit,
yell "<BLANK>'s ben hit!" and run away!  This was *quite* effective...
	Of course, we are talking about two radically different subjects...
After all, if you don't know 1st aid and you try to help someone, you could
easily do MUCH more harm than good.  When just trying to get someone off of
a victim, it is pretty hard (unless you accidentially hit the victim) to
harm them.  Enraging the attacker will probably not make it too much worse
for the victim, in reality.  Also, an enraged person is most likely to be a
little less thoughtful in a fight.  Someone commiting a crime such as rape
will probably run like hell, rather than face a couple of people.

	Calling for help is useful, but you should also do something else,
if possible.  Grab a rock and slam it into their head, do ANYTHING you can,
because, you have to.

>> Would you later tell them, assuming that you could, and assumming that you
>> survived, tell them that they were quite smart for not raising their own
>> risk and not helping out someone who was not a friend or family member?
>
>Yes, I would tell them I understood. You are forgetting that they were not the
>ones who would have sodomized me. I might have been pissed off about them not
>trying to summon other help, but as for not risking their own necks, that would
>be understandable.
>

	For some reason I doubt that.  Not that you may think *AT THIS
MOMENT* that you would be so understanding, but, believe me, victims of
violence are usually anything BUT understanding of people who didn't help
them out.  Also, from what you said earlier, wouldn't running off and just
screaming for help give you cause to call them a wus?  Or, does that only
count if someone is trying to minimize the RISK, not the EFFECT?  I am
trying to understand your points, here, not attacking you on this.  

>> 	Or, would you wish that they had helped you, that they had cared
>> enough bout people to help, even though it increased their risk?  Would you
>> be thankful if they tried to save you from this?
>
>If they tried to help, I would be VERY, VERY thankful, as it is an action that
>they were under no obligation to take, and placed themselves at risk to try and
>help me.
>  

	Methinks you would feel guilty, also.  Just a thought...

>> 	It is NOT a different situation, by the way.  It is simply another
>> person raising their risk of injury to help out another person lower
>> theirs.  Most reports show that attackers of the mugger rapist sort will
>> run off if confronted by other people.  It could save your life.
>
>And what about the ones who will not run off?

	Then you fight them, and hope that you can win.  See, I am not
afraid of being hurt, and (ala military) I have demonstrated w3that I am
willing to die, if necessary to help someone.  Do not confuse this and
assume that I would be the type of person who goes to bad neighborhoods,
just looking for people to help.  
	Sometimes you have to help someone, and sometimes you have to take
a chance in doing so.. You take risks everyday.  Why not one that will help
someone?

>
>Besides, you have cleverly made your hypothetical situation into a single
>attacker situation. When you walk someone out to their car, you are not given a
>guarantee that it will only be one person lurking. 25% of all rapes, and
>probably a higher percentage of muggings, are done by two or more people.
>
>Now, let's take your hypo and plug YOU into it.
>
>I am laying on the ground helplessly knocked out. Three males, all holding
>weapons of some kind, are taking turns sodomoizing me. You are unuarmed.
>Would YOU try to scare them off?

	Yes, because, help would take at least a few minutes to arrive, and
you could be dead allready.  As it is, though, I am never unarmed.  I carry
at least one knife at all times (on my keychane) and there are *plenty* of
things that can be used as a weapon.  Also, one person who is NOT surprised
(as the victim was) will stand a better chance of fending off an attack.  I
DO NOT RECCOMMEND THIS, THOUGH.  It is what *I* would do.  I have had some
training, fairly intensive (Shore Patrol, riot controll and various other
group attacker situations) that will help out.  Most people do not, but,
remember *I* said *I* would help out, and I cannot, in good concience,
critize someone who would not.  Call for help, in a multiple attacker
scenario.  Sometimes the odds are so overwhelming that there is no recourse
other than to summon assistance.  
	By the way, instead of calling police, break windows or something.
That is gauranteed to get a larger number of people to respond in less time
than it would take the police to get there.


>
>If you answered "yes" to that question, you are a fool. The only chance you
>would have of saving me would be to CALL FOR HELP. When they knock you out, or
>kill you, after you try to fight them off for me, BOTH of us now have to wiat
>for a third passerby to come along, use his or her brain, and call for help.
>
>Of course, I might be sodomized somewhat less, as the attackers now have
>someone else to party with--you.

	A fool?  Hmm...  Depends.  I would say that, if I had no reason to
feel confident in a multi-attacker scenario, yes, it would be foolish to
attack.  But, since, as above, I stated that *I* have had training and
experience in dealing with these types of scenarios, *I* would attack.
Again, I do not advocate taking on several attackers, unless you have
reason to feel that you have done something to bring the odds a little
closer to even.

>
>Which of course, brings us back to what I have been saying--why should I risk
>my neck for you?

	DC, *YOU* should not risk your neck for *ME*..  Several reasons for
that...  Some of them explained above, and some of them not so nice.

	Anyway, to finish this off, I would just like to state that there
seems to be little oint in continuing this thread with DC unless he will do
several things.

	1)  He misquoted me several times, and I pointed them out above.
He has complained in the past about others doing this to him, so I find it
reprehensible that he would do so himself.  He must cease this.
	2)  The name calling.  Dosen't bother me, but, it does subtract any
strength that his arguments may have had.  I am prone to simply ignore a
post in which the poster calls someone an idiot simply because they do not
share the same viewpoint.  DC, you recently had a thread that was *quite*
annoying to read (and thus I nuked most of it) with ATAYLOR, in which you
objected to her calling you names.  I again find it reprehensible that you
immediately embrace the tactics that you have previously wailed and
moanedabout (must to the regret of anyone who actually read the posts, I am
sure) and wasted tons of bandwith with your kvetching about it.  Bad DC,
BAD *!BAD!*  Is that more to your liking?  
	3)  Do not assumme that I am like you.  Do not assumme that I am
stupid because I disagree with your viewpoints.  Do not assumme that
because I am not agreeing with you that I a attacking you.  Assumme only
one thing:  I am asking people to help as much as they can, NOT to go and
get themselves killed.  I ask them to use a bit of sense.

	Anyway, DC, go back to your little low crime area waterholes and
talk with your manly friends about what "wus";s people are when they go out
in groups for safety.  Oh, yes, and please, don't forget to run like hell
if something goes down.  (God, I bet DC was *real* popular with his ROTC
cronies)

>
>> 
>> 
>>>DC
>>>
>>>PS. But if I am ever walking through a high crime area, I'll give you a call to
>>>help defend me, even though you are aware that I would not recipricate.
>>>
>>>(And if you fail to see the reasoning behind that statement--women are happy to
>>>ask for an escort, but pigs will fly before they will escort a male.)
>> 
>> 	Hey, if you are ever in Chicago, look me up.  I'll be happy to
>> escort you.  As far as it not being reciprocated, no big deal.  I would
>> just ask a friend of mine to go with me for the return trip.  I do not
>> worry about what I will get out of something like this.  I just like to
>> know that someone else was able to avoid a bad experience.  (That goes back
>> to the fact that I have been trained to deal with these kinds of attacks,
>> and thus I believe my chances of recoveringfrom or avoiding an attack are
>> as good or better than someone elses.)
>> 	Sam (Who is quite amazed at the flying pigs outside his window...)
>
>Sam, are you a woman? If not, go re-read the last line.

	Dc, WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT RECRIPROCATING?!?  I never said it
mattered.  By though, I have asked a couple of my women friends about
whether or not they would escort a male.  You know what?  Out of 13 of
them, 12 said that they definately would.  The 13th's number was busy.


>
>DC
>


	Sam, who is quite worried about the droppings from the flying
pigs... (DC, get the point?  most women will escort a male!  They are not
all as superfiicial and greedy as the people you seem to deal with)
Newsgroups: talk.rape