Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: Rape: The Unresolved Trauma
Message-ID: <2190@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 11:20:57 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2190
Posted: Wed Dec 12 11:20:57 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Dec-84 03:07:45 EST
References: <1855@sun.uucp> <2182@randvax.UUCP> <1863@sun.uucp>
Distribution: net
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 30
Xref: watmath net.women:3808 net.singles:4924

Sunny, there is a lot I can agree with in what you say (although I'm
not real hot on the Jungian anima/animus metaphors).  But I think something
you or anyone with a cause needs to consider is just how you say it so that
it is understood sypathetically and not merely reacted to in a defensive
manner.  In refering to your original article, you said:
> 
> please note that I said "all so men..."  NOT "so all men..."
> men is the plural of man, meaning, more than one, not all.
> 
But you used the term ``men'' in such a way that the simplest semantic
interpretation was ``the class of entities that are men''--the word
``all'' is implicit.  If you only meant SOME men, then SAY SO.

> 
> It is precisely the total polarization of the roles which is the problem.
> Only by merging the roles more, can we achieve the necessary balance.
> 
Practice what you preach!  When you say ``men do this'' or ``men are that''
you are guilty of the very us-against-them polarization you deplore.  If
you mean ``rapists'' or ``male supremists'', use those terms, and not
just ``men''.

> 
> "anyone who contributes to the destruction of my planet, I damn to burn
> eternally in the fires of hell"...Sunny
> 
Perhaps, Sunny, those are the people who need love the most...

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall