Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!rick From: rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles Subject: Re: Rape: The Unresolved Trauma Message-ID: <560@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 23:42:01 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.560 Posted: Wed Dec 12 23:42:01 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 05:55:36 EST References: <1855@sun.uucp > <2182@randvax.UUCP> <1863@sun.uucp> Reply-To: rick@uwmacc.UUCP (Rick Keir) Distribution: net Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center Lines: 56 Xref: watmath net.women:3784 net.singles:4861 Summary: In article <1863@sun.uucp > sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >> >> Hang on a minute; are you trying to substantiate the claims of all >> those who accuse you of being a man-hater? Your over-generalization >> upset me, as I suspect it did a lot of men on the net. Is this what >> you intended? > >please note that I said "all so men..." NOT "so all men..." >men is the plural of man, meaning, more than one, not all. OK, you get a slight break from the vagaries of language, but your failure to qualify "all so men" as "all so some men" certainly leads many of us to believe that you are speaking about males in general, not some men. BUT you go right back to attacking all men without qualification : >Women may be catty and bitchy, but they seldom wreak the physical havoc men do. >They don't run out and build bombs capable of destryoing the earth 1000 times >over the way men do in their civilized version of "my thingy is bigger than >yours", "I'm the dominant buck, and I get to run the herd". Humans are NOT so >different from the other animals when it comes to mating instincts. Margaret Thatcher (Falklands); Indira Gandhi (various internal problems such as the destruction of the Golden Temple; as well as the border troubles with Pakistan and Afghanistan; and the effort to build the "Indian bomb"); Golda Meier (not exactly renowned for the peaceful history of Israel's relation with its Islamic population and neighbors). This is not meant as a criticism of ANY of these women as world leaders. It is merely to point out that there is no reason to believe that female heads of state (and by implication female decision makers in general) are different in behavior from male heads of state. (Older examples work, also: Britain in the time of Queen Victoria's 60-odd year reign was almost always at war, so it isn't a product of modern feminism). > I'm honest to God scared shitless that >by the year 2000, there won't be any life on this planet, because some male >is going to "push the button" and nuke it all back to the stone age. The same >force is the one involved in rape. Male dominance. The eternal male battle >to be THE dominant male of the herd who gets to pass on his precious genes. To quote a certain popular line in modern political debates, "there you go again." Why isn't this a sexist statement? >I don't hate men. I hate the excessive dominance exhibited by some men in >some circumstances. We MUST tame it, or the species will die. The PLANET >will be sterile. Nice try, but too late to be viewed as a qualifier to your previous statements. I'm willing to believe that you are personally a nice person. But every encounter with your opinions as expressed in articles like this one leaves me a little less tolerant of your views. This is too bad; you are concerned about important things, and their importance gets lost in my irritation at the way you express your views. -- "I get by with a little help from my friends." -- Lennon & McCartney Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick