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