Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx1.UUCP Path: utzoo!hcrvax!hcrvx1!tracy From: tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles Subject: Re: Rape: The Unresolved Trauma Message-ID: <1036@hcrvx1.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 20:39:22 EST Article-I.D.: hcrvx1.1036 Posted: Thu Dec 13 20:39:22 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 01:33:16 EST References: <1855@sun.uucp> <2182@randvax.UUCP> <1863@sun.uucp> Distribution: net Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto Lines: 46 sun!sunny: I happen to believe that the bad side of men, when carried to the extreme, is responsible for some very severe physical abuse in the world, such as rape. Women may be catty and bitchy, but they seldom wreak the physical havoc men do. . . . The man's inner "woman" is the "anima", and the woman's inner "man" is the animus. I have always suspected the validity of such packaged analysis of human behaviour. Somehow you seem to be implying that this "anima" and "animus" phenomenon has some real existence and is part of the essence of being female or being male. Sounds a bit flaky. I tend to feel that we have socially evolved into a life form that has a behavioural distinction between the sexes NOT because the behaviour distinction is essential to our sexes, but because conditions somehow favoured it. In that case "It just happened this way. It didn't have to." Possibly (I am not at all convinced) the "animus" and "anima" model allows us to pick out useful features in our behaviour and to understand ourselves better. More probably it's a gross oversimplification of *what we are* that will limit *what we can be*. ("What you is, child, is an *animus* and an *anima* and don' you ever forget it!" "Aw! Maw! I don't WANT to be an animus and an anima! I want something *more*.") It is even more of an oversimplification because it tries to explains the social behaviour of humans by first ignoring social factors! It attempts to model ONLY the individual. Now you have noticed that men *seem* to cause *directly* more damage than women. But you haven't spoken of the numerous factors that may contribute to their desire to do so. One of the greatest factors might be what the women around them consider acceptable. You have avoided a serious and open minded analysis by identifying the violence exclusively with men, and then writing it off (without explaining it) as a part of their essential nature. I think it's time to challenge the assumption that some feminists make that women have the Earth Mother quality all to their lonesomes. As many of my male friends display that quality in spades as my female friends. And some of the most violent, hate filled people I know of are females. The only reason there are statistical biases in the numbers is the history that led us here, and the fact that there was a gross, recognizable differentiation (sex) in humans that became behaviourally important. Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!... Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!... Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvax!tracy