From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Candada Massacre
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:08:49 GMT

In article <Bz9n9v.BHp@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>
>>>Violence *is* a problem.  Violence against women is a *different*
>>>problem, with different causes, and, probably, different solutions.
>
>>Solving the problem of violence in general will also solve the problem
>>of violence against women (tm) will it not?
>
>It seems likely that "the problem of violence" has many causes, many
>contributing factors; so it can only be solved in a piecemeal way.

I do not see that a "piecemeal" solution follows from multiple causes,
especially with regards to the law.

>Consider cancer as an analogy; if you manage to solve leukemia by
>a combination of radiation therapy and a drug, that is still an
>achievement.  However, saying that solving the problem of cancer
>would solve leukemia doesn't really advance the situation.

All analogies break down if pressed, lets not get into something
as silly as the feduciary analogy thread (thankfully dead). I do not
see that the law need make such distinctions. And in light of the
claims that some have made that making distinctions based upon sex
are fundamentally wrong, I think making such legal distinctions is
equally wrong. Shall we make the penalties sex specific as well?
(not that they aren't in fact)
 
>>>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?
>
>Historically (and in the present in many places), one of the
>reasons for domestic violence (among many) was that "the man
>of the household" felt that he owned his wife; he could do whatever
>he wanted with her, and punish her whenever she didn't obey him.
>Many people are still brought up with a trace of this attitude,
>even when they intellectually acknowledge some kind of equality
>of status.  

And men have also been trained not to hit women, many are not prepared
to even defend themselves. You examine exactly one side of the coin.

>              When a man with such a background feels frustrated,
>for whatever reason, he can feel a tendency to lash out at some
>woman for not staying in her place.  

Argument by stereotype again. Is it equally valid to counter such
arguments with stereotypes about women? 

>                                       Most men suppress such a
>reaction; some do not.  In this instance, women are singled out
>as targets.  

Just like ljf, you define a situation which fits your preconception,
and use it as a general argument. You did forget to specify White
Heterosexual Male however, but you can fill that in next time.
Is there any real evidence that "women are singled out as targets"
in domestic disputes, or are they just the other party in an argument
between two people?

>                 Statistics about injuries tell very little about
>the motivations underlying them, and it is the latter that must
>be recognized if any solution is to be found.

I see, statistics are only valid when they support what one already
believes. The Meese commission has already set precedence for this.
The statistics which show greater violence towards women are OK to
use, even if flawed. Statistics which show parity, or greater violence
towards men are not valid, as we must look at the underlying motivations.

Is it more important that one has committed an act of voilence, or
-why- one has committed an act of violence? 

Has understanding the cause of inner-city violence solved it?
 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.



Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism