From: chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.US (j chapman flack)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Is there a difference among insistence, harassment and rape?
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:33:36 GMT
            <14k41nINNb37@agate.berkeley.edu>
            <14odc7INN7s6@agate.berkeley.edu>
            <24JUL199207433737@erich.triumf.ca>
            <1992Jul29.191026.7735@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
            <2A786B6B.17268@
Reply-To: j chapman flack <chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.US>
Organization: Appropriate Roles for Technology

On 27 Aug 92 19:37:44 GMT, muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) said:

muffy> In the same way, if someone on the street asked you for change
muffy> several times, following you down the street very close to you,
muffy> you might feel sufficiently threatened to give them the money,
muffy> even if you don't *really* think that they're going to attack

And on 31 Aug 92 16:19:03 GMT, pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) rejoined:

pcg> I was thinking about precisely the same sort of example myself.
pcg> This is quite a bit more appropriate than the trap analogy.
pcg> Incidentally some people would not say they felt 'threatened' in
pcg> that situation, but rather 'annoyed', and would not regard giving
pcg> the money as a way to escape a threat, but as a way to buy
pcg> tranquility.

I think your "incidental" point here is really a significant one.
Whether you feel "threatened" or "annoyed" by someone's persistence is
not just a simple personal choice or feature of your personality: it
says a lot about the (real or perceived) power relationship between
you.  A hungry, exhausted, unarmed panhandler has less power than you
in most imaginable respects; in this case you feel annoyed and might
make a free, voluntary choice to part with some change so you won't
have to listen.  But if the neighborhood, or your past experience, or
other factors, lead you to suspect this panhandler might be armed or
violent, the power balance is changed, your feelings different, your
actions less completely "free."

Your perception of the power balance may not reflect whether this
particular panhandler is in fact violent.  Something that happened to
you last week may not be this panhandler's fault.  But if you live in
a society where a lot of panhandlers are violent, so that a lot of
people see them as potential threats, that's a pervasive factor that
you can't ignore when trying to understand people's actions, or decide
whether those actions are truly free choices.

pcg> It's also sad that some women prefer to concede sex rather than
pcg> endure some discomfort, and especially that some men put them in
pcg> such a position that they want to make such a choice. But as long
pcg> as they are both grown ups, that's their problem, or maybe a
pcg> problem of good manners

I think what made me wince in this passage was that it does seem to
implicitly ignore or gloss over a fundamental power imbalance.  "They
are both grown ups" and "good manners" suggest an interaction of power
equals.  But her choice ("sex" or "discomfort") is the kind of choice
where both options are bad: a double bind.  He can't put her in a
double bind without (real or perceived) power over her.

He may not intend to be a threat.  Her perception may not be at all
his fault.  But if a lot of 'she's perceive a lot of 'he's to be
potential threats a lot of the time, then we can't just say "some
women prefer...her decision...her problem" without overlooking
something more serious.  And maybe, without suggesting that his
intentions are bad, we could suggest that it would be even better for
him to acknowledge that widespread power perception and to think about
it when trying to predict the effects of his words/actions on her.

pcg> Ah yes, I understood that, but it is important to draw a line
pcg> between situations where one *has* a choice and those where one's
pcg> choice is preempted by _criminal_ actions.

An important point, but instead of a "line" I see lots of gray fuzz
between clear criminal coercion and completely free personal choice.
Criminal law is all about the very outermost limits of grudgingly
tolerable conduct.  The cops and judges and wardens are here to try
and improve things (ha!) at that outermost limit.  *WE*re here, in
this group, to try and improve things in the fuzzy space where most of
us hang out.

btw: where I said "both options are bad" up there, I certainly didn't
mean to suggest sex is always bad ;-).  Y'all know what I meant....
--
Chap Flack                Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution
chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us Office was beforehand with all the public departments
                          in the art of perceiving--HOW NOT TO DO IT.  -Dickens
Nothing I say represents Appropriate Roles for Technology unless I say it does.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.