Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!jsq From: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Rape by Women?!?!? - (nf) Message-ID: <1178@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Mar-84 16:22:25 EST Article-I.D.: ut-sally.1178 Posted: Tue Mar 6 16:22:25 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Mar-84 08:08:44 EST References: <6039@uiucdcs.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 147 *Sigh* How long must this go on? From: wombat@uicsl.UUCP Message-ID: <6039@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Mar-84 21:47:31 CST I got into this by trying (I thought) to point out where these two people were differing, because it looked like Quarterman was going to rant and rave about one person's personal opinions. Why I did it, I'll never know. A brief history of the discussion: quite some time back, Sophie Quigley posted an article to an already on-going discussion about rape which mostly was about rape not being the fault of women (of course it isn't) but ended with: "The only solution is for you men out there to stop raping us!" I posted a followup taking exception to this rhetoric, pointing out that that statement was inappropriate as the final paragraph and apparent summation of the rest of her article as it implied all men rape. Since then I have been taken to task by Quigley, by someone from L.A. (Ed Hall, I think), by Beth Mazur, and now by wombat. In each case I have replied to their criticisms and they have then seen what I meant and said so in net.women. (Sophie Quigley never actually wrote as much, but her recent reply to Beth Mazur about rape as domination explains my position so much better than I could that I tend to think she understands it.) Now I get to do it once more for you, wombat. That will be the *last* time! (The above history does not pretend to be precise in every detail or complete.) It is patently not true that I have been ranting and raving about one person's personal opinions. Beth and I have in fact been carrying on correspondence since before my first posting on the subject of rape, and while we indeed do have differences of opinion, they are not what you think they are. You appear to have come in in the middle of a discussion and are confused. J If she tries to defend statements like "The only solution is for you men S out there to stop raping us!" on a public network as a valid political Q contribution to the problem, she has made it not just her business but . mine as well. The statement was probably not made as a rational political argument, but rather out of frustration at her personal limited ability to do anything about a male (typically larger and stronger) attacking her. She most likely doesn't feel this same frustration about cases of men being attacked by women or herself being attacked by another woman. The "she" who made the statement in question was Sophie Quigley, not Beth Mazur. As I have posted before, I understand the frustration you refer to. My point is (read the words on the screen this time): it is one thing to be afraid of any man you see in a dark garage or wherever because he may be a rapist, but it is *a completely different thing* to post something like that statement of Sophie Quigley's as the summation of a contribution to a serious (well, as serious as USENET gets) political discussion on a public network! By "something like that statement" I mean something implying that *ALL MEN* rape. Not knowing if a *particular* man or men may rape you is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from asserting that *all* men rape. (Disclaimer: I know that is not what Sophie Quigley (or Beth Mazur) actually meant to say, however that is what the *actual words* in the aforementioned statement imply: it was the *rhetoric* I was objecting to.) I don't for one minute believe that you, JSQ, worry nearly as much about where you park your car at night, where you walk at night, how you react to strangers on the street, how late you're willing to stay at work, ... as many women do. And why should you believe it? I never asserted or meant any such thing! J Yeah, sure. I'm just *dying* to be violently attacked. And if you ever S get raped it'll be because you wanted it, no doubt. Besides, women *should* Q pay attention only to problems that directly affect them, and men *should* . pay attention only to problems that directly affect them: separate but . equal worked so well for race problems, why not for sex-related ones? . In particular, no men should pay attention to women being raped, because . men are not being directly threatened. That isn't what I said. For some reason on which I refuse to speculate, you have removed the disclaimer from the end of my paragraph as you quote it. The disclaimer clearly labeled that paragraph as >>>sarcasm<<<. That means you shouldn't take it seriously. It also means I thought your point too absurd and insulting to compose a serious reply to. You were, if you recall, accusing me of posting what I did because I felt left out for not being in danger of being raped. You could try apologizing. Mazur wasn't personally interested in the problem of women raping men. You tried to convince her to look at the larger problem, but she didn't care to. You are trying to condemn her for sticking to the smaller problem. Face it, sometimes people will only take an interest in something that could directly affect them. You yourself are welcome to look at the problem any way you like, but you may not force that view on someone who isn't interested and then flame at her because she doesn't take to it. You are misinterpreting the whole discussion, including Beth's position, what I was trying to do, and why I was trying to do it. I do *not* condemn Beth Mazur, and have bloody well never written any such thing. If she is not interested in the discussion, why did she first reply to me (not the other way around) and why does she continue it? I am not trying to force my views on her: we are discussing a subject to try to discover what each ones views are and perhaps to arrive at a consensus. J In any case, if you present statements like "the problem is S men (unqualified) rape women" as legitimate political statements, Q you might as well expect objections, because some men don't like . being accused of rape. Furthermore, that sort of rhetoric . contributes nothing to solving the problem. Some men don't like to be accused of rape; some women don't like to be raped. Yes! Yes! Exactly! And accusing men in general of rape is not going to keep women from being raped. Why not address the problem instead? Like I said before, nobody promised life would be fair. And it is still just as much of a totally irrelevant non-sequitur as before. Also, like it or not, if you walk down a dark street not far from a woman who doesn't know you, she is probably going to consider you as a potential rapist for her own protection. That's not the point, and I have never contested it, anyway. See above. Are you going to consider her as a potential rapist? Yes. What's a good solution to this problem? I don't know. That is part of the question, though, isn't it? Would do a better job on this, but must catch a bus. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat A suggestion: look before you leap. Check to see what people's motives really are, if they've gone to the trouble of spelling them out in public, before imputing false ones. I'm sorry if that sounds strong, but I do not like being accused of things I never did or meant. If you have something further to write, please do. However, I will not reply to any more off the wall accusations of things I never did from you or anyone else: four times is enough! -- John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq