From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Ann Landers Sexual Harassment article
Date: 15 Aug 92 10:00:54 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Aug12.185156.6550@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>In <5514@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>
>> Ann Landers writes:
>>>   Dear Mr. Hayward:  These laws CAN protect men, but only if men are
>>> willing to follow through in court.
>
>>Don't you just love it?  Imagine a man saying "Rape laws CAN protect women,
>>but only if women are willing to follow through in court".  Sigh.
>
>But she is right.  So many of these poorly designed S.H. policies are in
>effect because people were unwilling to look after their own self-interests.
>When people are unwilling to take any risks to protect themselves, they
>should expect others to do it for them.
>
>Ken

No, I don't believe Ann is right.    We've had murder laws in effect in
this country for a good long time - in fact, before this country was a
country.  But you know what?  Murder still took place and still takes
place, even though everyone understands that it is not OK to murder -
in fact, it is quite bad and it is illegal.  Yes, we have murder laws,
and they don't seem to be able to stop or end murder.  Amazingly, we
have rape laws too.  Yet, by definition, rape laws don't stop or prevent
rape.  The people who do it, know that it is illegal, yet they do it
anyway.

I'm also quite sure that the women who took the short-cut through the
men's locker room knew that it was not proper to do so.  They
had been told to stay out of men's locker rooms and men's bathrooms all
their lives.  They were also aware that men were informed of and
respected the converse situation.  So, despite, a sense of fair play and
a universal understanding in this society that men's locker room are
off-limits to women, these women decided to walk all over that
principle and cut through the men's locker room.  That was the first
violation of men's rights.

Now, when some men went to the school administration and informed them
that certain women were coming into the men's locker room, the
administration told them, "tough tatas" so to speak and recommended
that the men try to stay covered up in their own locker rooms.  So,
they did try to get what must be a universal understanding of their
right to privacy in their own locker rooms acknowledged, but the
administration failed to enforce that universal right.  Maybe the
administration pleaded absolute and complete and total stupidity in
assessing the crime - there was no specific regulation that kept women
out of men's locker rooms, so they must be allowed in.  Kind of like
there is probably no law in the US that makes it illegal to flick
boogers on other people, but somehow, some vague law or some
universally understood concept of how people should act, would make
this a punishable crime.

Anyway, Ann was blatantly wrong in her statements and incredibly sexist
too (so what else is new - Ann Landers a sexist).  The men did try to
get someone to respect and enforce their rights, but were turned away,
given no quarter.  So, Ann tells them to take their tale of woe to the
court, push this issue, get a court to enforce the vague, but
universally understood rights to privacy in locker rooms, etc.  But
to do so would cost these men money - maybe a great deal of money.
These are probably poor college students who just want to be able to
take a shower without a bunch of women walking through.  Now, they are
scum because they didn't make a constitutional issue out of it.

The whole point of this post is simply to point out that women are not
always the victims in this society, sometimes they can be the criminals
and men can be the victims.  Rape and murder are universally understood
crimes and are illegal, and when they happen to women, society enforces 
those laws, captures the criminals and punishes them, if convicted.
Often, when the sexes of perpetrator and victim are reversed, the
converse is not true.  Men's rights are not universally respected or
even recognized.

The other day I made this weird statement, and I'm not sure if it is
valid.  I guessed that because 95% of the incarcerated people in this
country are men, and because men are often raped in prison, that it
might even be possible that the majority of rape victims in the US are
men.  I just wonder what the truth is.  Of course, if you ask Catherine
MacKinnon or Andrea Dworkin, every woman who ever had sex with any man
was raped, but I think there is a more universally acknowledged
definition of rape that what those two idiots came up with.

It reminds me of a terrible joke that I heard last week....

A man is convicted of some crime and is sentenced to 15 years in jail.
He is placed in a cell with a man who is 6'8" and weighs 280 pounds.
The man tells him, upon meeting, "OK, we're going to have to get a few
things straightened out around here.  We're going to be couped up for a
long time, so we need to establish some ground rules.  Since you're new
here, I let you decide how things are going to be - you can be the man
or you can be the woman."

The man expected as much, he knew he would probably be booty for this
man, but he at least got to choose.  

"OK, I'll be the man."

"Fine," says his burly cell-mate.  "Now get over here and suck your
wife's dick."

Ann Landers should have it so good.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Xref: sparky soc.men:15231 soc.women:15508