Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!usl!jla
From: jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: RE:Last Nite ( a LONG) letter to men
Message-ID: <569@usl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Jun-85 22:24:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: usl.569
Posted: Sun Jun 23 22:24:30 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 03:00:54 EDT
Reply-To: jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux)
Organization: University of (SW) Louisiana
Lines: 147


Having been away the  past week at  the architecture symposium,  I can
only now  address some recent postings  concerning one of my articles.
I apologize for the delay.

As  one might  imagine, I was  surprised by  the   level   of bile  in
Jeanette Zobjeck's recent posting.  But  not too surprised,  as I have
been  reading Jeanette's postings for  a while now.  Although  tempted
to, I   will   refrain from speculating  on  the  possible sources  of
Jeanette's  hostilities.  After all,  as someone pointed   out this is
net.women, not  net.flame, and  I was  and am endeavoring   to examine
various issues in a serious light.

However, in defense of her rather vicious article Jeanette writes:

> In both instances the reply was actually metered to cause the individual 
> concerned to rethink his position.

My feeling  is that 1),  positive reinforcement is  highly preferable
to intensely negative strokes,  2) name calling  should  be saved  for
net.flame  and avoided in   serious  discussions  between   supposedly
intelligent  persons, 3) it  is insulting to  think that other  people
(me in this  case)  must be  viciously treated  in order for  them to
consider  some issue, and  finally   4), if Jeanette's  hostility  was
merely a device, as she says, well, I think it's really  a bad idea to
lay such an attack on someone unless one really mean it.

I think Jeanette's  attitude is wrong  and preclusive to  her espoused
cause.

> The lighter side of being a woman today is truly wonderful the lighter 
> side of being alive today is fantastic the lighter side does not extend
> to this area because so little has been done to make it any less traumatic.

It seems to  me that Jeanette is  a prime source of   trauma  in  this
area.  I find  many of  her  articles (although  often  amusing) quite
abrasive.  I  feel  that  a  softer flavor of   writing might me  more
helpful to her cause, as well as giving up  her apparent attitude that
most people are below her intellectual level.

> OK so here is your biggest gripe and for good reason. My vehemence strikes
> a chord deep inside which says  OUCH.
> The truth is there and you can feel it but you never thought about it that
> way before.

It seems to me quite condescending to  assume that someone would never
think of something unless it was pointed out to them.

Let me go on to other things.  In  this article, Jeanette  purports to
address various questions sent to her by "Charl(es,ie)."   I'd like to
say that in my opinion she  doesn't really answer them  and I'm hoping
that she might try again and  do  a more accurate  job.  I do however,
take exception to several of the things she does say.

> Perhaps the hardest thing in the world to do on this net or via
> a keyboard is to convey the depth of emotion which women must deal with 
> which has no male analog. 

This is  bullshit of the most sexist  nature.  I  cannot  believe that
women possess deeper emotions than men.

Perhaps the single most annoying part of Jeanette's article is
excerpted here:

> { > > I imagine I may now seem more unsympathetic than  ever, but that's not
> { > > so.  I sympathize with Ellen's  anger and if she were  a friend I'd do
> { > > my best to comfort her, but I cannot *empathize* with  her  position as I
> { > > do not really understand it.
> { > > -- 
> { > > 				    Joe Arceneaux
> { > > 
> { > 
> { > No, Joe, you are not unsympathetic - just pathetic.
> { 
> { Oh, come on now!
> { 
> { > 
> { > If Ellen were your friend I would expect that you would be ready and desirous
> { > of much more than comforting here.
> { 
> { What, specifically, do you have in mind?
> 
> Imagine ( and this is deliberately simplified to make typing it less
> of a novel sized endeavor).
> You,
> 	Take your dog out for it's evening walk.
> 	You are acosted by a stranger who drags you into some nearby bushes
> 	and beats the living tar out of you, kill's your dog and
> 	robs you, takes your identification and leaves you for dead.
> 
> Somehow,
> 	You struggle to the street and a passing police patrol picks you up
> 	and takes you to a hospital. 
> 	There you recount what happens to you.
> ALL
> 	during your statement the cop remains impassive but when you're done 
> 	he leaves you with the distinct impression that in some way you
> 	were robbed and beaten because you "asked for it" and no matter
> 	what you say or do that feeling hangs with you.
> 	To make matters worse your boss and your friends and neighbors
> 	and even total strangers who have read the news in the paper
> 	or seen it on TV or heard it on the radio begin to avoid you or
> 	worse yet they come by to offer their support and help but also
> 	just to see for themselves if just maybe you didnt really have
> 	someting to do with it beyond just being at the wrong place at
> 	the wrong time.

Now it seems, from my vantage point, that Jeanette is suggesting  that
I would rape a friend  in Ellen Eade's   position.   I think  this  is
*MOST* revolting.  It is  hard for me   to imagine that  this  is just
another device to get me to think about the issue.

> The bias Joe and other men show is perhaps not the cruel and demeaning
> bias which put women, or other minorities, down but rather a type of bias
> which ignores the differences which are limiting women and play up the
> ones which might tend to cut into men's world.

Once  again, I  recognize  that there are  differences   (such  as the
potential for rape)   which  constrain women, but some  of  these  are
attitudinal in nature (e.g., the result of  societal conditioning) and
may be changed by the personal desire to  do so.  I  suggested that in
Ellen Eade's case  a different  attitude on  her part would  have left
her amused  rather than angry  and frustrated.  I maintain  that it is
better to move  in  the direction of a situation  where both men   and
women would find   Ellen's incident  non-threatening,  rather  than  a
situation  where both men  and women   end  up feeling frustrated  and
angry.

> I consider the day a total waste less I catch hell from someone.

I find this   a pretty shitty   attitude,  but what's  worse is   that
Jeanette  is  apparently willing to  assume  that  everyone else feels
that way.

This is overlong, so I will terminate after one last observation.
In her original response to my last article, Jeanette says:

>	You Blithering fool. Maybe you just cant think let alone read.

I would  respond that if  she would learn to  spell,   let alone  form
decent  sentences,  that   that would facilitate    reading her rather
obscurant writings.
-- 
				    Joe Arceneaux

				    Lafayette, LA
				    {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla