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