Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: San Quentin strip searches -- a new twist Message-ID: <1072@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 22:06:35 EST Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1072 Posted: Mon Mar 4 22:06:35 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Mar-85 03:30:52 EST References: <3365@alice.UUCP> <2295@randvax.UUCP> <951@watdcsu.UUCP> <2311@randvax.UUCP> Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 48 Summary: Ed Hall says: > At no point did I claim that the genuine injustices against men that > ``Men's Rights'' proponents have found should be ignored: ... > ... What I *did* argue is that focusing > on injustices against men is wrong; it is a smoke screen used in excusing > neglect or even hostility towards women's issues. > ... which injustices > should we focus on correcting? Should it be a few injustices that affect > an otherwise priviledged group "x"? Or a myriad of injustices that have > subjugated and degraded group "y" for millenia? You are encouraging us to turn our attention away from injustices against men and focus on injustices against women instead. Even though you don't directly argue that injustices against men should be ignored, the purpose of your arguments is plainly to convince us to do so. Has it occurred to you that some men's concerns about men's rights are sincere, and not just a cheap excuse for ignoring women's rights? Men are, after all, rather directly affected by such issues. > Whether it is the more refined, low-key tactics of Playboy or the sharper, > issue-oriented tactics of Penthouse, the underlying message is the same: > Feminists won't recognize those injustices which affect men [add short list > here], and this makes suspect their motives for fighting those injustices > which affect women [add huge list here] suspect. The point is *not* what you say it is. It is not a matter of feminists failing to recognize injustices against men. What the article in Playboy claims is that feminists are *actively* *opposing* efforts to redress injustices that are favourable to women, and demanding *new* injustices in their favour. > ... with the sole exception of rape defense restrictions, > the injustices were created apart from Feminist influence. And rape > defense restrictions were formulated as much under ``Victim's Rights'' > influence as Feminism, ... My impression of victim's rights was that it had to do with helping the victim of a crime, not stringing up the defendant. Ie. Rights are being increased for the victim, not decreased for the defendant. What Gordon was talking about in his article in Playboy was the denial of the presumption of innocence to the defendant at a rape trial. Without this presumption, it is up to the defendant to try to prove his innocence. It is not always possible for an innocent man to prove his innocence. A wrongful conviction for rape would ruin an innocent man's life. -- David Canzi