Conference quark::mennotes

    I agree with you that an innocent person shouldn't be placed in the
    situation that your friend was. How long did it take to find and
    verify the witnesses' alibi? Why was bail denied? My guess and it's
    a guess only....he may have been denied because there have been too
    many women and children killed and perhaps they didn't want to take
    that chance until his story could be checked.
    As for the woman I have always hated false accusations. They are
    especially harmful (not that they weren't before) in today's 
    atmosphere. Not only do they cause harm to their 'victim' but 
    they cause harm to all those truly in need of help and protection.
    I believe your friend can also bring charges against the woman for
    her false accusations. It may be worth the time and money to do so.
    
    

    This was an article in todays paper and on the radio.
    
    The witnesses testified to the police and the judge.
    
    He was held for two reasons, he was a male who was accused of a crime
    against a female and the authorities were afraid of the reaction of
    womens protest groups.  
    
     

    Welcome to the 90's...where men are the real enemy.
    
    Marc H.

welcome to the 90s, where fear of the news media in full blood scent
lets police blame their errors on fear of groups who never said a
word.

DougO

    Sounds like the guy has a major lawsuit against the woman, the judge,
    and the police.  This _sounds_ like a willful and intentional
    violation of the man's civil rights.  Bail should be granted or
    denied based on what _he_ may do, not what someone else has done or
    might do.

    fred();

    Crap like this goes on all the time. And there are few of the males who
    will counter sue because they dont have enough money to wadge the war.
    But, thats life. And if you want justice, you have to fight like hell
    for it. Or it will be taken from you as easy as life itself. 
    
    If you want to be heard speak up.
    You want to be seen, stand up.
    You want justice, fight like hell for it.

    This shows the "respect" that we, human beings, have for our fellow
    human beings...
    
    It also shows a total lack of "morals" on the part of the woman, and
    indiference from the police and the judge... they must be bored to
    death by the "abundance" of so called mis-leads going on... and as a
    result, the law punishes those who are supposed to defend and
    viceversa... taking a lot of time (and taxpayer's money) to clear the
    mess!

    Your anger should be directed at the men who have acted violently
    towards their wives and girlfriends.  It's these men who have given all
    men a bad name.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re .8
    
    The one does not justify the other.  However, there are a lot of
    people who think like you do.  
    
    As I've said before, if men aren't worried yet, they'd better start
    looking at what is going on.
    
    fred();

>    Your anger should be directed at the men who have acted violently
>    towards their wives and girlfriends.

 Don't tell us where our anger should be directed.

    re: .8
    
    
    Does that mean that because some men rob banks or indulge in some other
    criminal activity that all men have the same reputation. I don't think
    so.

    .8
    
    Yep.... Just another rasputian type..... yep, thats what we is...

    re .8....
    
    I'm not sure whose reply that was directed at..it seems like a
    blanket/catch-all statement. I don't know....it seems like there is
    plenty of bizarre, outlandish behavior by both men and women in the
    '90s - - how about the woman in the news lately who amputated her
    husband's penis ?? I saw an article in the paper of how she has been
    getting 'support' and attention from various groups. A 69 year old
    woman said something about it being justified..yes, indeed, we need
    more women to mutilate their boyfriends so that these rotten men start
    getting the message of how they need to be more gentle and civilized.
    
    Believe me, I know there are some male creeps out there, and I hate
    hearing about them and wish they would only publish good news, but 
    a lot of people need to change their attitudes first.
    
    It seems the guy mentioned in the base note was somehow deprived of due
    process, though. I only heard about it here.
    
    One more thing....I wish both men and women could stop making blanket
    statements how bad/rotten/whatever 'they' are. If we don't uphold a
    standard, who will ??
    
    
    Only my opinion, of course...
    

    Regarding the past few in response to my .8, I just think it would be
    nice if more men were as angered and upset by the violence that is
    committed by men, against women, in this world, as they seem to be
    about the threat of being falsely accused of such.
    
    Re .11, men *do* have a reputation for being more violent, in general,
    than women, *because* some men rob banks, and commit other acts of
    violence.
    
    Regarding the woman who cut off her husband's penis, obviously this
    woman is sick and it was a disgusting and horrible thing for her to do. 
    I would never try to justify choping up a human body, however, it *is*
    true (according to quite a few who knew both), that he had been beating
    her for quite sometime.  While what she did was definitely wrong, it
    can be argued that she probably would never have done it, if he hadn't
    acted violently towards her first.
    
    Also, for every one incident that can be dredged up of a woman acting
    violently towards a man, there are many more that can be dragged up
    of a man acting violenting towards women.  It's not teenage girls who
    are gunning each other down in the ghettos of America.  It's not women
    who are overcrowding our prisons.  Just the other day I was watching
    local TV, getting ready for work, and I saw where a man in the Boston
    area just killed his wife, and, also, there is some town (i forget
    which) where two teenage girls have been found murdered recently, and
    the one common thread is that both girls had dated the same guy.  I'm
    not saying that women can't be bitchy and mean.  They can.  But, when
    it comes to physical violence, it's usually done by men.  Thankfully,
    not most men, but a few men.  If I were one of the nice men, I would be
    angry at the few men who are doing all the damage.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .14

>    Regarding the past few in response to my .8, I just think it would be
>    nice if more men were as angered and upset by the violence that is
>    committed by men, against women, in this world, as they seem to be
>    about the threat of being falsely accused of such.

    Who says that we're not.  Women ARE getting a _LOT_ of attention
    for this problem.  I have not seen one entry that says that this
    is not a problem.  However, I have not seen anyone provide
    any "solution" to the problem beyond what is being done already
    that would not involve suspension of the Bill of Rights, and that
    scares me even more.  I have seen, however, several entries that
    foo-foo the male side of the problem.


>    her for quite sometime.  While what she did was definitely wrong, it
>    can be argued that she probably would never have done it, if he hadn't
>    acted violently towards her first.

    This is called "blaming the victim".  Something that generally
    generates howls of outrage if done to women.

>    not saying that women can't be bitchy and mean.  They can.  But, when
>    it comes to physical violence, it's usually done by men.  Thankfully,
>    not most men, but a few men. 

    I'd disagree with that.  I believe that you just hear about the
    man->woman violence more.  But I still see you trying to justify
    violence by women because of violent by men.  Neither one justifies
    the other.

    > If I were one of the nice men, I would be
>    angry at the few men who are doing all the damage.

    Who says were not, but why does all the anger have to be directed 
    towards men.  When I suggested that some of the anger of rape
    victims should be directed towards those who falsely accuse men,
    I got thoroughly trashed.

    fred()

    Regarding .8 and where our anger should be directed:
    
    The people in the string were replying to the specific issue in the
    basenote, not other problems in the World too.  Why shouldn't men be
    angry at the fighting in Bosnia too ar animal abuse, why wern't they
    brought up as a place to direct anger too?
    
    Who says people are not angry at other injustices too Lorna?  I am sure
    they are.
    
    One gets the impression by reading the papers that men commit most of
    the violent crimes.  I believe that its true, (that men DO commit most
    of the violent crimes) but that doesn't mean that even one innocent man
    should be punished because most violent crimes are committed by men.
    
    Crimes against ANYBODY are wrong regardless of the track record of the
    general group that victimized person is a member of.
    
    Most men ARE upset by crimes being committed, I know I am.  Its gotten
    to the point where at times I wonder if being a man is such a great
    deal in U.S. Society because all too often men are prejudged to be
    potential, or actual criminals, before being considered just plain
    men.
    
    Jeff
    
    
    

    Personally,  I am angered by the woman who falsely accused the man.
    I think it's this kind of abuse by women that really damage the
    cause.  Women have enough trouble being taken seriously when there
    really is a problem (or so it would appear to me).
    
    As for Lorna's comments.  Well, I'd better not touch them!
    We've communicated in other conference, and seem to agree on
    very little!
    
    Laura

    
    Lorna,
    
    
    Where the lady cut off the man's penis, it is known that they have
    beaten EACH OTHER on a continuous basis.  But the man should sit there
    and take it right?
    
    
    
    It is as common for a woman to mistreat their children as it is a man. 
    Don't kid yourself.
    
    Mike

    I have never said that men should just sit and take violence, and I
    certainly have never said that it's right for an innocent person to be
    convicted of a crime.  
    
    re .17, and, like I said, I'd never try to say that women can't be
    bitchy.
    
    Lorna
    

    ouch!
    
    Lorna, I've said that we have a tendency to disagree, and so 
    I'd better not respond to your comments.
    And now I'm a bitch?
    
    Hmmm...interesting logic!
    
    Laura

    
    
    So a woman gets bitchy and a man gets violent.  
    
    

    re .20, I thought your comment about me in .17 was a tad bitchy, yes.  I
    didn't see any reason for it, other than as an opportunity to make a
    negative comment about me, since you never stated your own views.
    
    You say "ouch!" now.  Well, it didn't make me feel real happy to read
    your comment about me in .17.
    
    Also, I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage since, I'm sorry to say, I
    can't seem to recall any of our previous exchanges.  I really don't
    remember you from before.  Sorry.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    
    If you call that bitchy, I would have to say that it is your
    perspective that is out of kilter.
    
    
    Mike

>    Re .11, men *do* have a reputation for being more violent, in general,
>    than women, *because* some men rob banks, and commit other acts of
>    violence.

Crimes committed by women do not get anywhere NEAR the publicity that those
of men do, in my opinion.  And just because someone has a 'reputation' for
something, that does not make it automatically true *no matter how often it
gets repeated*.

>    Regarding the woman who cut off her husband's penis, obviously this
>    woman is sick and it was a disgusting and horrible thing for her to do. 

Is that true for those people who thought it was a 'good thing' for her to
do (to get revenge/even/"justice")?

>    Also, for every one incident that can be dredged up of a woman acting
>    violently towards a man, there are many more that can be dragged up
>    of a man acting violenting towards women.  

Where does violence of women against women get chalked up?  

>It's not teenage girls who
>    are gunning each other down in the ghettos of America.  

Actually, there are news of reports of exactly that happening.

>It's not women
>    who are overcrowding our prisons.  

You make it sound like there are no women in prison.

>    area just killed his wife, and, also, there is some town (i forget
>    which) where two teenage girls have been found murdered recently, and
>    the one common thread is that both girls had dated the same guy.  

So, of course the guy MUST be guilty, right????  

>    not saying that women can't be bitchy and mean.  They can.  But, when
>    it comes to physical violence, it's usually done by men.  

Righttttttttttttt.

Z

    re .23, and I might have to say that you're not a very sensitive
    person.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .24, I certainly can't  help it if some people felt the guy deserved
    to have his penis cut off.  I already said that I didn't think he
    deserved it.  You'll have to find someone who thinks he deserved it,
    and argue with them.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .26

>    re .24, I certainly can't  help it if some people felt the guy deserved
>    to have his penis cut off.  I already said that I didn't think he

    However, you certainly seem willing to blame all men because some
    men think women deserve to get raped.  You certainly seem willing
    to allow an innocent man to pay for the crimes of someone else.

    fred();

    re .26
    
    in .14 you state:
    
>    I would never try to justify choping up a human body, 
    
    then you appear to turn right around and try to justify it with:
    
    >however, it *is*
>    true (according to quite a few who knew both), that he had been beating
>    her for quite sometime.  While what she did was definitely wrong, it
>    can be argued that she probably would never have done it, if he hadn't
>    acted violently towards her first.
    
    
    fred();

    RE:.22

    >re .20, I thought your comment about me in .17 was a tad bitchy, yes.  I
    >didn't see any reason for it, other than as an opportunity to make a
    >negative comment about me, since you never stated your own views.

    Lorna I've reread .17 three times and don't see what you're calling a
    tad bitchy.  Would you mind pointing out the offending part so that I
    might understand where your coming from.  Thanks

    Joe

.8> Your anger should be directed at the men who have acted violently
.8> towards their wives and girlfriends.  It's these men who have given all
.8> men a bad name.  
    
    Yeah, the problem isn't the woman who lied to the police, the problem
    is men.  Sometimes, you make about as much sense as a fish on a bi-
    cycle, if ya catch my drift.

    re .30, Mike, I went on to explain what I meant by that.  It just seems
    to me that many of the men who write in this file have shown very
    little sympathy for all the violence that is directed towards women in
    this society.  That's all.  
    
    I'm sorry if I don't make sense to you, Mike, but I don't have your
    high intellectual abilities to work with.  My SAT scores we no where
    near as high as yours.  I wasn't born with an IQ as high as yours,
    through no fault of mine own, and was simply expressing my opinion. 
    I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you.  
    
    re .29, no, I'm afraid I can't point it out.  It was pretty much the
    fact that she even chose to write what she wrote that hurt my feelings. 
    It was what I imagined the intent to be.  If she had wanted to
    seriously address my opinions, she could have stated hers.  But,
    instead she just made what, to me, seemed like a wisecrack, and that
    offended me.  YMMV.
    
    re .Fred Haddock, you have completely misconstrued everything I have
    tried to say *ever* in the file.  I do not blame all men because some
    men rape.  I do not want to see innocent men convicted of rape, and I
    am not trying to justify what that damn fool mental case of a woman did
    when she cut off her husbands penis.  I think they both sound like a
    couple of losers, and probably should both be thrown in a looney bin
    for the rest of their lives, IMO.
    
    Lorna
    

    re lorna

    You might want to hold your entries up to a mirror and see how they
    look when you reverse men/women and women/men.  Just as you accuse us
    of being very unsympathetic to women, you (and some other women and men
    who note here) seen very unsympathetic to men and their problems.  If
    you expect to be given the benefit of the doubt for your entries, then I
    suggest that you start doing the same for us.

    fred();

    re .32, and, I could say the same to you.  So, there we have it.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .32
    
    Excellent! Right on the Money.
    
    Marc H.

    Is it possible to get an update on the man's situation? I truly hope
    he filed charges for false imprisonment. How could the police legally
    hold him if his alibi's checked out. I don't think any 'group' would
    be able to stop his release just due to perceived pressure. For him
    to be held eight days .....did it take that long to check out his
    alibis? Would the original noter try and find out more info for a
    follow up? I definitely am not an expert on the state legal system.
    I am curious as to why he was held so long. I could see 'initially'
    the police holding him based on the woman's initial accusation and
    the fact that there have been too many women and children killed as
    a result of domestic violence. I abhor the fact that the woman lied.
    But that still leaves me wondering how they could hold him that long
    especially since it was a false accusation.
    
    Paula
    

    I know a man who was accused of horassing his ex wife. And was arrested
    three times. Three times he was found inocent. He was not even in the
    same county never mind the state when these illedged incidents
    happened. Yet, the local Manchester police, knew when he would return
    from a business trip, and cuff him. They would be waiting INFROUNT of
    his apartment as he stepped out the door of his car!
    
    Yet, todate! His truck has been set a fire, his mail and telephone has
    been messed with. And is now in bankruptcy due to his ex wife. And
    there is no one standing outside of her door with handcuffs to arrest
    her. And! This man has not seen his daughter in 3 years although he has
    a court order visitation. His ex still denies this, although he pays 
    child support.

    not to be picky, but it seems as this is mennotes, many men here
    may be more sensitive to specific men problems, not women problems.
    at least when I used to be in wn, the focus was women, not men.  I
    assume the same applies here...
    
    rape is more specifically a woman problem in terms of vicitimzation.
    it is IMO a people problem for 'stopping' it.  I don't know how to
    stop it, I assume nobody knows how to stop it or it wouldn't be a 
    problem.  But for other men, who rightly or wrongly feel persecuted
    for being a male in today's society, I can certainly see how they
    (law-abiding, nice guys) may be more focused on how to protect
    themselves and their friends from this type of action.  I've seen
    it mentioned that it is still a small problem compared to rape, but
    it seems to me a lot of guys here are personnally acquainted with other
    men who have been screwed by this same system.... 

    .37
    
    Seems a simple solution. If you are falsely accused for rape, then you
    are legally vindicated for damages done. Thus, keeping false arrest
    down to the real stuff. Vs going after some male because he is that
    nice guy. 
    
    Slander is a good start when it comes to false acusations. Perhaps
    allowing the base noter to collect damages. 
    
    These ideas are a normal part of our judicial system. But in many cases
    are not persued. Or lawyers try to talk to the client to drop the case
    because of the cost in lidigations. 
    

    Re: 8 (and subsequent notes)
    
    Men aren't less sensitive to anything: Men's pain, Women's pain, any
    pain. Men have been socialized to respond differently. Like forming
    police forces, governing bodies, laws, policies of behavior. Not
    perfect, of course. Not from a woman's perspective, of course. Not from
    a rabbits perspective, of course. From the only context they have. 
                           Of course. 
        But with 99% of the governing bodies and police forces in the world
    being made of men, to conclude that men are less sensitive to criminal
    activity by anyone, anywhere is a conclusion driven by some other
    motivation. 
       Simple FBI crime statistics (available in my up-coming book):  ;-)
    men are 76% of the victims of violent crime.
    men are 78% of the victims of murder.
    men are 4 times as likely to commit suicide.
        The question is obviously not: do men have any context with which to
    understand the pain of criminal activity. The questions are:
    Who is teaching men self-hate?
    Who is teaching men that violence against another man is acceptable
                        within a great deal of parameters?
    Who has the motivation and opportunity to teach the children this wide
    variety of bigoted attitudes towards and about men?
    
                                                         Men ?
    (we can only dream of having such power)
                                                                 Marc
                                 

    re.39
    
    Do you truly believe that fathers, uncles, sport heros, movie heros,
    and other male role models have no influence in the socialisation of
    boys/young men?
    
    I'm not about to say that they are the _only_ influence. But, from your
    comment that "men can only dream of such power" it would seem that you
    subscribe to that near-mystical theory that from conception to voting
    age, a boy's mother is the sole force that shapes him.
    
    ~19 years is a long gestation period to posit, and demonstrably not the
    case.  Unless of course you choose to limit yourself to the usual 9
    months and prefer to believe that character and socialisation are
    conferred in the womb.
    
    If the "only context they have" is andro-centric and not ideal from a
    woman's perspective [your assertion], from where did this andro-centric
    socialisation derive?  Odd that you seem to attribute _all_ of the
    influence and context building to the very people who find the context
    alien and counter-intuitive.
    
    I don't think that women can abdicate all responsibility for what is
    wrong with Society, nor do I think that men are to blame for all of the
    ills of Society.  I do get irritated that my efforts to change the
    status quo [a lot of death violence and misunderstanding that no one
    seems to find productive, let along joyous] get put down as the ravings
    of some glass-chewing harpy who's trying to hang it all on the men.
    
    I'm not.
    
      Annie

	RE: .40 I didn't read .39 as suggesting that women were the sole
	influence, just the main one. Now perhaps you had mostly men as
	teachers growing up and spent as much or more time with your father
	as your mother. But that seems to be a rare case. 

	Most boys spend far more time with women, be it teachers, their mother,
	or even their friends mothers, than with men. I was raised by a single
	father and I dare say I spent much more time being controlled by women
	than by men.

			Alfred

    re .40
    
    Gee, I thought we live in a time when "nobody has a right to 
    push their 'morals' on anybody else".
    
    BTW:  Where _have_ all the fathers gone?
    
    fred();

    re:40
       Hi annie...
    (just have a second)   No, I wouldn't say that men play no role in the 
    misunderstood teachings that little boys get. I hold men totally
    responsible for their lack of playing a large role in the developement
    of the children. I (for what it's worth) would say this: that men are 
    devalued as parents. Taught that they have no parental rights. Taught
    that they have no parental skills. Taught that their best contribution
    would be to provide materially for the family, and that the spiritual,
    emotional guidance that they could give should be directed mostly to
    society as a whole in the indirect functions of government, church, and
    industry.
        This triumvirate of typical male power in society; where it is a
    great powerful force for society (and andro-centric) of course, has
    served to remove the influence of men directly with the children, and
    that has been exactly as much of a loss to the children as having
    their Mothers play an indirect role in thier lives.
         You wouldn't say that I, as a man, can impart to my daughter the 
    "flower" of her femininity; because I'm not a woman. I would agree.
    I'm simply saying that the reverse is true, and that a great deal of
    the disturbing behavior of some men is a direct result of:
    A. a lack of decent direct/balanced/realistic male "role models" and
    B. a confusion with the primary influence in the early years of role
    models that are not men, admit to a lack of understanding of men, and
    regularly exhibit a passive/aggressive distain for that which they, by
    their own admission, do not understand. 
       Like FBI crime statistics?  81% of the men in prison were raised by
    single mothers. I offer this as the simple statistic that it is with
    all the implications. NOT as some condemnation of the great love and 
    sacrifice of those raising their  children alone. Why are 91% of them
    women? Because the society values the parental role of men? Because men
    are taught early the care-giving skills necessary?   Nope.
            
                                                                    Mark

    re.42
    
    I don't take your point, so I really can't judge whether you're being
    a smartass or not.
    
    Are you saying I'm 'pushing my morals?'
    
    FWIW: I see lots of fathers about. Most of them responsible, caring,
    concerned individuals.  Where the hell are _you_ looking?

    re:39 on...
    More statistics: (I'm such a pain)  8-)
    94% of day workers are women, 84.5% of elementary School teachers are
    women (my Mother being one of the best). <-Excuuuse me!  ;-)
        The point being that the early developemental stages were "assigned" 
    to women in the post-war era by the last generation; and the combined
    effects of the above stats with the male role models propogated by the
    men of that generation (overcompensating/unrealistic models like John
    Wayne) has lead to the present absurd conflicts in the identity search
    for men. No malicious intent, no conspiritorial agenda, just simple
    cause and effect. 
       The influence of men on children has been reduced and subjugated to
    the point where it is no longer the positive, effective force it was 
    (and will be again). Today's fathers are helping heal this wound (for
    the most part) and together we shall overcome...
                                       
                                                              Marc 
          

>        The point being that the early developemental stages were "assigned" 
>    to women in the post-war era by the last generation;

 No, it's been this way since the dawn of man. Men have been too busy doing
"man's work" which was inevitably dangerous or strenuous or "no place for
children" and hence the women were saddled with much of the responsibility
of bring the children up until they were old enough to work in the fields, etc.
This is NOT a new phenomenon.

re .14:

>    Also, for every one incident that can be dredged up of a woman acting
>    violently towards a man, there are many more that can be dragged up
>    of a man acting violenting towards women.

As I said in the previous version of MENNOTES, read note 432.3 in
QUARK::MENNOTES-V1.

    
    
    We have a serial rapist in our area who is still at large.  He uses a
    crossbow.  He seems to get jollies out of killing dogs (killed one and
    asked one lady if she had a dog so he could kill it after he raped her).
    One husband he tied up and had him (the husband) watch as his wife was
    raped.  I have already made the decision that, if this guy pays us a
    visit, I will fight to death if need be to make sure this doesn't
    happen.  I have a plan on what I'll do.  I think men suffer when a
    woman is raped.  I know for me, it tears at my heart and gets me quite
    angry.
    
    
    Tine,
    
    Love your reply, if I weren't married (and you too). ;')
    
    
    Mike

    re .44

>    I don't take your point, so I really can't judge whether you're being
>    a smartass or not.

    Point being, who are we to push our "morals" on other men as to 
    whether or not they should rape women.  Maybe everyone should just
    take "sensitivity" classes to "understand their pain" ;^}.

SYS$SET_SARCASM(0);
    
>    FWIW: I see lots of fathers about. Most of them responsible, caring,
>    concerned individuals.  Where the hell are _you_ looking?

    I'm looking at the divorce courts were 50% of the marriages end in
    divorce with the father reduced to a walk on wallet and activity
    director (if he's lucky).  (See previous note where 81% of criminals
    in prison come from single parent family).

    fred();

    re.49
    
    I see. I comment that I see a whole lot of fathers behaving as
    postive and caring forces in the lives of their children, and now I'm to
    blame for the divorce courts.
    
    Yeah, the divorce courts are f*cking idiots.  From where I sit, using
    darts to decide custody and support would be in the _better_ interest
    of the children than what I mostly see around me -- a blind default. 
    
    But to paraphrase a gentleman who is frequently vocal on just this
    subject in this venue, Life sucks!, stop whining and fight like a
    banshee for what you think is right and what's in the best interest of
    the children. [do you recognise him yet?] Be a postivle role model.
    
    To paraphrase my own self. I was raped. I was barred from prosecuting
    because the violence sustained didn't include broken bones or knife
    wounds. Too bad, Life Sucks!, stop whining and fight like a banshee for
    what you think is right.  Don't get caught up in being a victim.
    
    As for the pain of the rapist, I care.  Honestly.  From the standpoint
    of enlightened self-interest, I feel that right includes looking at the
    causes and doing my level best to eliminate them.  Rape is not a moral
    issue for me; it is a matter of personal freedom, of something that is
    counter-survival. [I will confess that after listening to a couple of
    convicted rapists, that I barfed my shoes into the trashcan in the
    parking lot, but I'm doing my level best]
    
    Blame the courts. Blame the fathers. Blame the mothers. Blame the
    victims. Blame the schools. Blame the governments.
    
    It's all one to me.  Assigning blame can be a helpful first step; but
    when it becomes a vocation it is so much wasted energy that could be
    better spent putting things right.
    
    No, not a smart-ass. Just needlessly unpleasant to someone who's not
    fighting you, has even found a few things to admire in you.
    
    Chalk it up to experience, Annie, and move on ...
    
    
      

    re:50
    My condolence on your assault. I congratulate you on your courage in
    dealing with it. 
      I must agree that the divorce courts are, how did you put it? _____
    idiots?  My suggestion is that custody be shared; by default (unless one
    parent PROVES that the other is incompetent) and by shared, I mean
    shared: half the time spent in each household. Whether it's by the
    week, month or year. That way no one pays the other for child support
    because each is contributing to the total support of the child. Not
    just the material support, but the emotional/spiritual support. Child
    support payments, as expensive as they are, still don't even pay all
    the material costs of the child, and certainly don't address the
    greater needs. And, the Fathers need the influence of the children just
    as much as the children need the influence of the Fathers.
        RE: Mark's note...
    I don't mean that the division of roles is a new concept, I agree, it
    started looooong before. (Homo RejectUs ?) (AustraloPithMeOff ?)
    But to me, there was such a formal/artificial division of roles applied in
    the post-war era, that it took on a form that was no longer based on
    any quasi-intrinsic differences. The differences that men and women had
    in their daily lives, world-wide, in that period gave the 2 genders the
    most divergent perspectives that they have ever had; seemingly. 
       The men responded with overcompensating and defense posturing, and
    the women responded by raising the little boys to play those roles of
    defense and material production. Not that it's that separate, of
    course. The men certainly echoed the training of the boys, when the
    boys came under the men's influence. My point has been all along that
    the men don't get any influence until the ground work (in terms of
    identity and role) have already been set by the women. Point: if you
    want to change the world, start with the children at the age of ego
    developement. (24 months)                    
                                                    Mark    8-)
       

    re .50

>    I see. I comment that I see a whole lot of fathers behaving as
>    postive and caring forces in the lives of their children, and now I'm to
>    blame for the divorce courts.

    I didn't say that _you_ were to blame for the divorce courts.  I'm
    just really tired of those who chant the litany of "men are to blame
    men are to blame men are to blame" when, imnsoh, a _big_ part of
    the problem is that all to many men and fathers _can't_ have an
    affect on the care and instruction of their children.

>    Yeah, the divorce courts are f*cking idiots.  From where I sit, using
>    darts to decide custody and support would be in the _better_ interest
>    of the children than what I mostly see around me -- a blind default. 

    On this we agree totally.

>    But to paraphrase a gentleman who is frequently vocal on just this
>    subject in this venue, Life sucks!, stop whining and fight like a
>    banshee for what you think is right and what's in the best interest of
>    the children. [do you recognize him yet?] Be a postive role model.

    On this you apparently have not been reading -mn- long or you would
    know what I've done. 

>    To paraphrase my own self. I was raped. I was barred from prosecuting
>    because the violence sustained didn't include broken bones or knife
>    wounds. Too bad, Life Sucks!, stop whining and fight like a banshee for
>    what you think is right.  Don't get caught up in being a victim.

    On this we also agree totally.  There are all too many _victims_
    sitting around whining and waiting form someone to do for them.
    Not that I mean this about you.  In fact, I admire your attitude
    to fight back,  put it behind you, and get on with your life.
    There are some bridges that _should_ be burned.

>    As for the pain of the rapist, I care.  Honestly.  From the standpoint

    Quite honestly I don't.  I was just taking a backhanded whack at the
    politically correct of the world. (Not necessarily meant to include
    you).

>    It's all one to me.  Assigning blame can be a helpful first step; but
>    when it becomes a vocation it is so much wasted energy that could be
>    better spent putting things right.

    On this we also agree totally.

    
    Hope this clears up a few things.
    fred();

>>    But to paraphrase a gentleman who is frequently vocal on just this
>>    subject in this venue, Life sucks!, stop whining and fight like a
>>    banshee for what you think is right and what's in the best interest of
>>    the children. [do you recognize him yet?] Be a postive role model.
>
>    On this you apparently have not been reading -mn- long or you would
>    know what I've done. 
    
    Apparently my writing skills are not a superb as I've been given to
    understand, or you would have seen yourself in that description. 8^).
    
    I am, I confess, an intermittent reader here; but I was under the
    impression that you had been handed a grossly unfair custody decision
    that placed your children in a hazardous situation. And that rather than
    sit back and whine, you moved heaven and earth to get custody. That it
    wasn't pretty, it didn't come cheap in monetary or emotional terms, but
    you didn't back down. And I have admired you for that. If I've confused
    you with some other man, my apologies to you both.

>    There are some bridges that _should_ be burned.
    
    Oh, I haven't burned the bridge. That is to say, I haven't severed the
    ties and walked away.  I can't let it define my life; but it is a piece
    of directing my passion and activism.
    
    Just as [if I have you right] you have not forgotten your custody
    battles and the unfair system that put you through such hell; neither
    have I forgotten the hell that faced me when I bucked the system and
    tried to imprison rapist. You won your battle at a high price and are
    determined that others shouldn't have to face the same.  I lost mine,
    also at a high price, and have a similar determination.
    
    I didn't burn the bridge, but I only cross it one MY terms.
    
>    Hope this clears up a few things.
    
    More or less.
    
      Annie

    
    re .53
    
>If I've confused
>    you with some other man, my apologies to you both.
    
    Naw, you got the right one.  I just wasn't sure.  Thanks for noticing.  
    
>    You won your battle at a high price and are
>    determined that others shouldn't have to face the same.  I lost mine,
>    also at a high price, and have a similar determination.
    
    And in many ways, as far as I am concerned, they are the same fight
    when you consider the _real_ problem.  Just being fought from a 
    different angle.  Thanks, and good luck.
    
    fred();

>    I didn't burn the bridge, but I only cross it one MY terms.

    Yea, I know, but some times the urge to saddle up the burrow and
    go tilting at a few windmills just gets irresistible :^).

    fred();

.37> stop it, I assume nobody knows how to stop it or it wouldn't be a 
    
    Now I'm REALly confused ... I thought the way to stop it was to protest
    the Super Bowl, like the group "Real Men" did.  Now you're telling me
    that's not the way to stop it?
    
    Oh, I'm so confused ...

    Zman,  I know you still love me :-)

    
    
    The world is full of injustice.  We as a collective society bear the
    responsibility. We are over run by 'special interest groups'.
    
    If an injustice is against a woman, there are womens activist
    organization.
    
    Blacks have civil rights organizations (I hope the term 'black' is
    acceptable).
    
    Gays and Lesbians have Gay and Lesbian Rights Groups
    
    Indians (North American) have/are organized.
    
    Pro Life, Pro Choice, pro this, anti that.
    
    The there are the historical injustices that we are recognizing and
    trying to rectify (ie: treatment of Japanese during WWII, Japanese use
    of women during WWII, relocation of Eskimo bands etc.)
    
    A while ago I was talking to a friend (French).  He said that if he
    told a joke about a 'stupid Englishman', he was a comedian.  If I told
    a joke about a 'stupid Frenchman', I was a racist.
    
    I try to think what organizations are proactive for the white North
    American Male.  (God help me) all I can I can figure out is the KKK and
    the Neo-nazis.    
    
    Are special interest groups running our courts, law makers, politicians
    and media?
    
    Just an old hippy at heart.
    

>    Now I'm REALly confused ... I thought the way to stop it was to protest
>    the Super Bowl, like the group "Real Men" did.  Now you're telling me
>    that's not the way to stop it?
>    
>    Oh, I'm so confused ...

Well, we knew that.  But if you want to understand what 'Real Men' is
after, perhaps you'll have the guts to take on this extract from 78.59,
which both you and Fred were too timid to discuss earlier.  I think Real
Men was making an effort to change the cues society offers.

< Beyond that, I want men to acknowledge and work to change those elements of
our society that contribute to our rape culture.  Every instance of sexual
harassment, every incidence of lack of respect, every off-color joke which
targets women, every institution that exists to exploit women, every single
cultural practice that demeans women or provides unfair privilege to men
should be challenged; because far too many men see all of their privileges
and all of their advantages as birthrights and unconciously or even overtly
start to think that women are there to be used, theirs for the taking.  I
think men need to be taught how to responsibly use their in-most-cases far
greater physical strength.   Because in the worst cases, those few men who 
rape are taking advantage of all of us who take our privileges as men in less
objectionable ways; they're abusing their privileges!  This culture has been
built to exalt men and women who are raped or who fear rape are paying the
price.  I expect men to acknowledge all of this and work to change it.  Thats
what I expect men to do; even though it means giving up their easier-to-get
lines of credit, their easier-to-prove fitness for promotion, their easier-
to-earn salary increases, and all of the other subtle cultural cues that give
men an advantage over women.  Those cues get taken by rotters as justification
for the abuse and rape of countless women.  The cues must be changed. >

Dare ya to address the issue on these terms, Michael.

DougO

    re .59
    
    There you go again Doug0.  Most of the things you mention have
    _nothing_ to do with rape.  As far as I am concerned your entry
    is little more than another chant of the "menaretoblamemenaretoblame"
    litany with little substance on _how_ to _fix_ the problem.
    
    So what is there to discuss other than anouther round of why men
    are/aren't the scum of all creation?
    
    fred();

    DougO
    
    without addressing it all  point by point, in part I must agree
    with Fred.  We could do away with all that, but it won't necessarily
    get rid of the crime of rape.  There are men who IMO are not very
    nice and are disrespectful, belittling, etc to women but that doesn't
    make them rapists.  So, it is a theory and it is good to get rid of
    all that, but there is no concrete proof that by doing so, you are
    eliminating or stopping the crime of rape.

    Yup, he does get carried away with himself sometimes...

    
    Doug,
    
    But the inverse (women make off color jokes about men), sexually
    harrass men on a regular basis these days as well.  One does not
    justify the other, but why aren't you crowing about these situations as
    well?
    
    
    Mike
    
    
    P.S.  Harrass me Tine....;')
    

re .60,

there you go again, Fred; translate everything that might be uncomfortable
to look at into 'menaretoblame' and stick your fingers in your ears.

.61> We could do away with all that, but it won't necessarily
    get rid of the crime of rape.

I know it sounds utopian.  One never achieves anything useful without
taking on a big goal, even if unrealistic.  But you aren't really even
acknowledging what I said.  'do away with all that' you say it so blithely, 
like it would be easy.  The magnitude of the change implied when I say 
'unfair male privileges should be challenged' would utterly transform every 
person on the planet and every interaction you'd ever experience.  Will we
ever get there?  No.  Would a substantial and partially successful effort
to get there reduce the incidence of rape?  I think it's undeniable.

re .62, notice you didn't dare address it this time either, Michael.

re .63, well, MikeW, seems your P.S. answers your own question.  The social
context is far different.  Women's harassment of men (which I will adress
only for the sake of argument, not because its a large problem in society 
today) is not seen as something that reinforces a system of female privilege
over all men.  Nobody responds to it that way, even you; you make a joke
about the possibility of a woman harassing you.  A woman inviting harassment
or joking about it is very rare; and for several reasons.  One, its seen as
threatening; as sexual assault is so prevalent, women don't like to treat 
harassment as anything other than serious; if she disrespects her harasser, 
he may up the stakes and assault her; not a situation to joke about.  Two, 
it is systemic; it can come from any man, known to the woman or unknown to 
her, any male in this society may at random single her out for harassment, 
and she can do very little about it, unless its in some protected legal space, 
like work.  If you don't believe this 'any man' scenario, ask around among
your women friends; I bet you'll find more than 75% have been subject to
fearful verbal harssment from unknown men, at some time in their life, that
frightened them.  Some men seem to think its their RIGHT to harass women.
I don't know of ANY women who act that way, and I think its because the society
cues so many privileges to men that 1) women instinctively know they don't have
those privileges and 2) some men misinterpret them and take them too far.

So I don't raise the situations you talk about because they aren't systemic
problems; they're isolated abuses that don't reinforce the social norms that
encourage assault.  

DougO

    re .64

>there you go again, Fred; translate everything that might be uncomfortable
>to look at into 'menaretoblame' and stick your fingers in your ears.

    And look who's calling the kettle black.  So far all I've seen you
    do is try to be divisive without actually offering any
    solutions.  You also seem to think that every problem in the world
    can be solved by bashing men. 

>I know it sounds utopian.  

    I think it's a little more than utopian.  It's called, "barkinsg
    up the wrong tree".  Again you seem to try to blame every problem
    on "those bad ol men".

>I think it's undeniable.

    I think it's a nonsequitor.

    fred();

    
    > Again you seem to try to blame every problem on "those bad ol men"
    
    Fred, I blamed society for providing the cues to men.  We inherit the
    world, we didn't form it.  You haven't yet even understood the basics
    of the proposal.  I notice that you, and Christine, and Michael, and
    MikeW, don't dare address the specifics of what I said, you just avoid
    the points and complain about what you think I said.  Actually reading
    it and understanding it is obviously too much of a challenge.
    
    DougO

    re: .64
>A woman inviting harassment
>or joking about it is very rare; 
    
    	This is an interesting cultural difference. In the Valbonne notes
    file a couple of European women *were* joking about sexual harassment,
    and got a very upset reply from an American woman on relocation here.
    
    	Obviously you cannot invite harassment since an accepted invitation
    is not harassment.
    
    	This notes file is one opportunity I get to study American culture,
    since I rarely visit, and I would be interested in any explanations of
    the difference. A suggestion of "American women have no sense of
    humour" might be correct, but I would need a little convincing.
    
    	Dave.

    DougO,
    
    I'm not blithely saying anything.  Perhaps you could take the
    time to understand the meaning of the words written, as you so
    often tell others to do with your notes.  I have already said
    that yes, it would be a good thing to reach for such goals.  Yes,
    things would be different if even a fraction of all that crap could
    be reduced.  My point was simply that it doesn't mean that it will
    eliminate the incidence of rape.  I think the possibility exists for
    the incidence to perhaps be reduced, yes, but completely eliminated,
    no.
    
    So, if other men go out to convice even more men that it is not ok
    to do,say,think X,Y,Z to,about,of women, we will eliminate rape is
    much too simplistic.  Aside from the fact that many such prejudices
    cannot be changed overnight.  You can preach (not you specifically,
    in a generic sense) till you are blue in the face that men don't
    value women, but if a particular man doesn't feel that he fits this
    description (tho he may to a T), you aren't getting anywhere.  It 
    just seems to me that you are oversimplifying the process to change.
    You seem to recognize this with your comments of it being a utopian
    goal.  I thought I had asked you for more specific ideas on what men
    can do.  Yes, you can stand by and not tolerate jokes etc, about women,
    and make this known to those making the comments.  What have you 
    actually accomplished, aside from giving the joker the idea that you
    are humorless?  Not all female/male directed humor IMO is harmful, 
    sometimes it is very reflective of the point that men and women are
    different and parse things in different ways.  I agree that there are
    many out there, women and men alike who do not value women.  Perhaps
    this audience isn't the one you need to change and that is why you
    seem to get so much resistance to what you say here.  It is almost
    like preaching to the enlightened.  I cannot think of one man in here
    who doesn't agree with the basic premise that many men don't value 
    women.  They mainly object to the idea that as an unknown male, they
    are automatically assumed to be in the 'bad' group and thusly, resist
    such lableling. 
    
    Though you many consider the issue of woman to man harrassment a 
    minor nit or abberation, there are others who are concerned with it.
    As far as Mike Wannemacher's PS to me, he and I are very familiar
    with each other from another conference and in terms of your using
    that to extrapolate some of your reasons for not giving the same level of
    attention to the aforementioned problem, it really is irrelevant.
    
    PS-Mike W. any time darlin' :-)

.57> Zman,  I know you still love me :-)
    
    Those legs, those short skirts ... wow!  And, being 5'9", when you wear
    those "I'm the boss" heels, my head comes up to heaven when we grind.
    
    Ahem ... I need a cold shower ...

    but I am the boss, luv :-)  'member that :-)

    re Doug0

    We have a saying here at the Customer Support Center,  "The only
    thing worse than a good solution to the wrong problem is a bad
    solution to the wrong problem".  I believe your (as you yourself
    put it) utopian ideals are a bad solution to the wrong problem
    because they 1)Ignore the real problem 2)take energy away from
    solving the real problem and 3)alienate the very people whose
    support you need to help solve the real problem.

    IMHO, a good sized chunk of the real problem is:
    1) the "nobody has a right to tell me what to do" attitude.  I see 
    this more and more in children.  Especially teenagers.  Even more 
    now than in years past.  If you don't believe me just ask any teacher.
    There is not only more disrespect for women, there is more disrespect 
    for _anybody_.
    2) The breakup of the family.  I'm seeing more and more recognition
    of the lack of a father in the family as a primary cause of 
    juvenile problems.  As was pointed out before over 80% of those
    in prison come from single parent families. 
    3) The "liberalization" of the legal system that puts so many 
    _real_ criminals back out on the street.  I do not view the problems
    with the judicial system a "male" problem per se.  Although many
    "feminist" groups like to use the fact that the Supreme Court and
    most judges are male as a club to bash men with, most men have 
    no real influence of that situation.  Changing this will likely 
    require appointing more "conservative" Supreme Court, and the 
    building of more prisons.

    fred();

    
    Doug,
    
    
    So it is commonplace for women to be harrassed to the extent of felling
    threatened, eh?  
    
    I know that most people have been in situations where they feel
    threatened.  I agree that it is definitely different for women than
    men.  What we have to look at is: 1) What percentage of men are doing the
    threatening? and 2) Is it significant enough to assume that all men are
    guilty until proven innocent?  IMO, the percentage is very small and it 
    is not enough to assume the men are guilty until proven innocent.  
    
    
    Mike 

    re .64, thank you, doug.  Good reply.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .71
>    1) the "nobody has a right to tell me what to do" attitude.  I see 
>    this more and more in children.  Especially teenagers.  Even more 
>    now than in years past.  If you don't believe me just ask any teacher.
>    There is not only more disrespect for women, there is more disrespect 
>    for _anybody_.
    
    	Funny you should mention this. I have been reading the
    autobiography of a teacher. He got a transfer from Rome to Milan for
    this very reason - disrespect of teenagers for their teachers, and he
    was male. However, he admits that when he was a kid he cheated in
    school, and once went out at night with a street gang to steal pears
    from a neighbour. There is an acute analysis of the peer pressure that
    led him to do this.
    
    	The curious thing is that he was writing this about 1600 years ago.
    You might know him by the name of St. Augustine.
    
    	I have just got to the point where for political reasons he has
    been forced into an engagement with a ten year old girl. He can't
    legally marry her until she is twelve, but he has been forced to get
    rid of the woman he has had as a concubine for the last fifteen years,
    and who has borne his son. He might have something interesting to say
    on breakup of the family.

    re .74, the concubine might have had something interesting to say about
    the break-up of the family, too.
    

>context is far different.  Women's harassment of men (which I will adress
>only for the sake of argument, not because its a large problem in society 
>today) is not seen as something that reinforces a system of female privilege
>over all men.  

Wrong!!!  Aren't there people in this conference saying it IS a large problem
for them???  Women routinely get away with saying/doing things that would have
men up on harassement charges.  Look around and listen.  When called out on it,
women will most often say "but I was only joking".  Of course, men have that
'special privilege' of getting called out for harrassment if men do it.

>about the possibility of a woman harassing you.  A woman inviting harassment
>or joking about it is very rare; and for several reasons. 

Oh, they will not joke when the harassment is of women.  However, I have
heard a number of women joke about harassment when they (women) are not on the
receiving end.  You can too, if you were to actually try to listen.

>he may up the stakes and assault her; not a situation to joke about.  Two, 
>it is systemic; it can come from any man, known to the woman or unknown to 
>her, any male in this society may at random single her out for harassment, 
>and she can do very little about it, unless its in some protected legal space, 
>like work.  

It can, and does, also come from women as well... with both men AND women as the
targets.  Or had not you noticed?  No, I don't you think you have bothered.
It would appear only ONE sex can have the bad traits listed, right?

>I don't know of ANY women who act that way, 

What way?  

Women commit crimes. Wouldn't you agree?
Women have been convicted of rape.  Wouldn't you agree?
Women have committed murder (or both sexes).  Wouldn't you agree?
Women have abused both children, women, men.  Wouldn't you agree?
Women have harrassed women AND men.  Wouldn't you agree?

>cues so many privileges to men that 1) women instinctively know they don't have
>those privileges 

Yeh, right.....  What tract did you get that gem out of?

>So I don't raise the situations you talk about because they aren't systemic
>problems; they're isolated abuses that don't reinforce the social norms that
>encourage assault.  

The problem are not 'systemic' because they get sloughed off everytime they
are mentioned.  If you were to actually follow some of the actions of women,
you would find that it is lot more 'systemic' than you (apparently) think.

    re .71

>    	The curious thing is that he was writing this about 1600 years ago.

    This time period falls in what is commonly known as the Dark Ages.
    Curious that you would make the comparison of society of today
    and then.

    Not to be a "Bible Thumper" but you might find the book of Judges
    interesting comparison (about 2000 B.C).   The "nobody has a
    right to tell me what to do" is not new.  It has just had more
    power in different times (usually with devastating results to 
    society).

>    You might know him by the name of St. Augustine.

    You'll find that many of the "saints" were quite the scoundrel before
    their conversion.  St. Fransis(sp) for instance was the son of an 
    aristocrat and not a real nice person before his conversion.  St Paul
    (aka Saul of Tarsus) was commonly known for persecuting (a general
    term for a lot of things not very nice) Christians had a hard time 
    gaining the acceptance of many of his fellow Christians after his
    conversion because of that.
    fred();

>    I'm not blithely saying anything....
>
>    So, if other men go out to convice even more men that it is not ok
>    to do,say,think X,Y,Z to,about,of women, we will eliminate rape is
>    much too simplistic.  Aside from the fact that many such prejudices
>    cannot be changed overnight. 

That, as a summary of my position, is yes, too blithe.  Too easy.  That's
exactly the sort of shorthand dismissal for which you are chided.  Sorry.

The point is that yes, I'm fully aware that those prejudices will not be
changed easily.  I'm fully aware that I'm calling for a revolution from
within, in the attitudes of the entire society, that will make the granting
of civil rights to blacks look like a cakewalk.  And for you to toss it off
as if I had said "if other men go out to convice even more men that it is not 
ok to do,say,think X,Y,Z to,about,of women, we will eliminate rape" merely
proves that you didn't understand what I said.

>I thought I had asked you for more specific ideas on what men can do.

Well, I'm calling for revolution; there's no other way to characterize the
complete change in order I'm describing.  On my own I have done a lot of 
reading on what sorts of forces push societies to make drastic changes, in
forms of political life, in forms of enfranchising their citizens, in forms
of property rights or other civil life, free speech, the whole gamut of the
ways and forms whereby the people in a society interact with one another.
These sorts of forces arise by historical circumstance; a famine here, an
unmet set of expectations there, a war here, a sudden awareness of injustice 
there.  The forces act on a society; and the society either accomodates the
forces peacefully; or unpeacefully; either through a modest or a major
change in the social order, or through a complete cataclysmic revolution
which tears apart the old order and from which the survivirs struggle to 
rebuild a new order.  It takes a major force; and it requires a major change.
That's the basis for change in a society, any society; it can take decades,
it can happen slowly, but the force is huge and the society changes.

It is my earnest and considered opinion that NOTHING WE CAN DO will reduce 
the incidence of rape in this society until we have completely turned over 
the relationships/privileges/social order/hierarchy that now exists.  You
want more specifics?  Try envisioning what I'm asking for, there are literally
hundreds of 'specifics'.  Nothing less will accomplish that end.  I have
evaluated this society, I have found in it hundreds of ways that the existing
order accomodates rape, permits it to occur, prevents the punishment of
offenders, permits the development of cultural icons of violence and disrespect
towards women, all of which make rape an inevitable end result.  I want a major 
change here; nothing less will do.  You want specifics that men like Fred can
'do' to reduce the incidences?  Sorry; that's a bandaid approach, in my honest
opinion, and worse than useless; it distracts people from the magnitude of the
changes that will be required.  Bleak, huh?  Sorry; that's the way I see it.

DougO

>    We have a saying here at the Customer Support Center,  "The only
>    thing worse than a good solution to the wrong problem is a bad
>    solution to the wrong problem".  I believe your (as you yourself
>    put it) utopian ideals are a bad solution to the wrong problem
>    because they 1)Ignore the real problem 2)take energy away from
>    solving the real problem and 3)alienate the very people whose
>    support you need to help solve the real problem.

Fred, I fully agree; trying to solve the wrong problem is useless.  The
trouble you and I seem to be having is a completely different analysis
of the 'real problem'.  The endemic rape rate we see in the US is to me
a symptom of the problem that women are simply not sufficiently valued
as human beings by this culture that raises men to glorify violence,
machismo, 'taking it like a man', 'be a man', etc, etc.  Too many men hear
that message as an excuse to beat up on women, because they can't get away
with beating up on other men.  If trying to solve that problem is utopian
then so be it; if you're willing to accept the status quo what does that
make you?  I simply don't believe that small changes will fix the huge
problems; what we have is a significant breakdown in societal relations.
The areas you bring up are symptoms, and I partially agree with you that
they are 'wrong' and need to be 'fixed'; I just see them as symptoms of
the larger problem, is all.

>    IMHO, a good sized chunk of the real problem is:
>    1) the "nobody has a right to tell me what to do" attitude.

Another symptom, I agree.

>    2) The breakup of the family. 

By itself, this doesn't bother me, as long as kids are raised properly and
conscientiously.  If people divorcing can't keep their priorities high enough
for their kids, I doubt they were paying enough attention to the kids in the
first place.  So, this is a symptom of the fact that most people don't know how
to raise kids properly, in this extremely complex world we now live in.  Hell,
they don't even know how to keep their marriages together, how can they possibly
know how to raise kids properly???

[*disclaimer: I don't pretend I'd know how to keep a marriage together either.
I've seen enough heartache from the situation that I've evaluated my life and
upbringing as ill-suited for marriage; I'm choosing to stay single.  My take
on this in the general case is that while our society raises people to *want*
to be married, it doesn't prepare them for the commitments and rigors of that
state, and very few people go into it prepared for it.  I know it sounds like
I think anybody who's divorced doesn't have their head on straight; this is an
unfortunate appearance, because I don't really think that.  What I really think
is that too many people get married, and have kids, without being ready for it.
Divorce is just another symptom of the mistakes that happen in that situation.
I apologize if my words about raising kids 'properly' are unfair; 'properly'
should be understood to mean "as I would raise them, perfectly of course." *]

Anyway, Fred, what I mean is that as long as kids are being raised right,
the breakup of the family is another argument for my side; the society is
obviously not preparing people for the commitment of marriage.  I want all
the taken-for-granted ways that men and women interact to be re-examined
from the light of treating everybody fairly and with respect; and I think
marriage looks a lot different in that light than what it has become in our
society today.

>    3) The "liberalization" of the legal system that puts so many 
>    _real_ criminals back out on the street.

No disagreement; I'm a believer in the death penalty for the worst crimes, 
and harsh sentences for all violent criminals, like Mike Tyson.  I feel that
keeping proven violent criminals off the streets would prevent the repeat
crimes that they keep commiting.

DougO

>    So it is commonplace for women to be harrassed to the extent of felling
>    threatened, eh?  

That isn't what I said.  I said ask all the women you know if it's
ever happened to them.  I predicted at least 75% would say yes.

>    I know that most people have been in situations where they feel
>    threatened.  I agree that it is definitely different for women than
>    men. 

Thanks- that difference is what I'm talking about.

> What we have to look at is: 1) What percentage of men are doing the
>    threatening? and 2) Is it significant enough to assume that all men are
>    guilty until proven innocent?  IMO, the percentage is very small and it 
>    is not enough to assume the men are guilty until proven innocent.  

I don't get it.  If it has happened to 75 of every 100 women you know (and
in my life, the figures are higher than that; approaching 100 of 100) why
do you think its only a very small percentage of men?  How small is small?
If its enough men to affect every woman I know then its a systemic problem.
And I have NEVER argued that men are to be presumed guilty until proven
innocent.  Shall we go back to what I said on that very point, since you
obviously missed it?

> because far too many men see all of their privileges and all of their 
> advantages as birthrights and unconciously or even overtly start to think 
> that women are there to be used,...in the worst cases, those few men who 
                                                               ^^^
> rape are taking advantage of all of us who take our privileges as men in less
> objectionable ways;

I'm not saying all men, or even most men.  I'm saying the privileges of all
men cue the crumbs into realizing that they can get away with abhorrent acts,
thinking they can get away with it as a male privilege.  The only way to change
that is to finally throw down the systems of unfair male prvilege.

DougO

>> context is far different.  Women's harassment of men (which I will adress
>> only for the sake of argument, not because its a large problem in society 
>> today) is not seen as something that reinforces a system of female privilege
>> over all men.  
>
> Wrong!!!  Aren't there people in this conference saying it IS a large problem
> for them??? 

There are?  Pointers, please.  Even a few would do.

> Women routinely get away with saying/doing things that would have men up on 
> harassement charges. 

Ah, thank you for proving my point about the context being different, though
I'd quibble with 'routinely'.  It is my belief that women are not usually
even seen as capable of sexual harassment, and thus most men are unwilling to
file complaints, or to recognize it as harassment.  Most men don't see a
woman as even powerful enough to inflict fear of unwanted acts, or public 
humiliation upon them; the inbuilt traditions don't give women that power.
Even note 83 admitted that "it wasn't an altogether unpleasant experience" 
of an obscene female caller.

>> I don't know of ANY women who act that way, 
>
> What way?  
>

Well, it was in context.  Here's the whole idea; you seem to have mislaid
the first part:

>> Some men seem to think its their RIGHT to harass women.  I don't know of 
>> ANY women who act that way,

Clearer now?

>> So I don't raise the situations you talk about because they aren't systemic
>> problems; they're isolated abuses that don't reinforce the social norms that
>> encourage assault.  
>
> The problem are not 'systemic' because they get sloughed off everytime they
> are mentioned.  If you were to actually follow some of the actions of women,
> you would find that it is lot more 'systemic' than you (apparently) think.

Well you assert "routinely", you assert that the conference is loaded with
examples, you assert the incidents are ignored.  I assert that people can
ask women they know and find the truth of their own experiences.  I invite
you to post pointers to such problems here; and I further invite you to
consider that if some complaints about female harassers are ignored it merely
goes to prove my point that the social context is completely different.  Most
aren't worried about such acts from women because they traditionally don't have
the power to abuse, as do men.  If that needs fixing I submit it is in the
social context that fixing must happen; ie, women must be recognized as just
as potentially powerful and deserving of respects and power as are men; then
they'll get the jobs and power; and, they'll inherit the downside, the 
perception that they might abuse power, too.  Tough trade to make, eh?  As
a male you're wary of equality, maybe?

Most women I know would make that trade in a heartbeat.

DougO

    re: .77
    
    	Augustine was not living in the "Dark Ages". The mortar had hardly
    dried from the founding of Constantinople. The Visigoth invasions had
    not happened, and as a recognised teacher within the Roman empire he
    could freely move from Carthage to Rome to Milan.
    
    	I agree that most saints have a rather dubious background. You
    might have better quoted Mary Magdelene than Francis. As far in his
    book as I have got (teaching in Milan) he was still not a baptised
    Christian. It seems his mother was a reformed alcoholic.
    
    re: .75 (Lorna)
    	Unfortunately we don't have the opinion of his concubine. He was
    obviously very upset at the forced break up. He would never have been
    allowed to marry her since she was a slave.

    RE .79
    
>Fred, I fully agree; trying to solve the wrong problem is useless.  The
>trouble you and I seem to be having is a completely different analysis
>of the 'real problem'.  The endemic rape rate we see in the US is to me
>a symptom of the problem that women are simply not sufficiently valued
>as human beings by this culture that raises men to glorify violence,
    
    By your definition, women were "valued" even less in the past.  As
    the "value" of women increased, so does the incidence of rape and
    violence.  It is a nonsequitor.
    
    fred();

    re .82
    
>    	Augustine was not living in the "Dark Ages". The mortar had hardly
>    dried from the founding of Constantinople. The Visigoth invasions had
>    not happened, and as a recognised teacher within the Roman empire he
>    could freely move from Carthage to Rome to Milan.
    
    And where did the Roman Empire go from there?
    
    fred();

    DougO
    
    You really shouldn't chide those who agree that your premise 
    is valid.  I never disagreed that all you are calling for is
    good, nor did I dismiss any of what you said.  All I said was 
    that it is simplistic, that you are oversimplifying the solution 
    to the problem and ignoring the other side of the coin stuff.  
    I'll just have to agree to disagree.

    re: .84
>>    	Augustine was not living in the "Dark Ages". The mortar had hardly
>>    dried from the founding of Constantinople. The Visigoth invasions had
>>    not happened, and as a recognised teacher within the Roman empire he
>>    could freely move from Carthage to Rome to Milan.
>    
>    And where did the Roman Empire go from there?
>    
>    fred();
    
    	The Roman empire was later overwhelmed by a series of invasions
    by races with no literature or culture, and again by Muslim invasions a
    couple of hundred years after Augustine died. This is what lead to a
    fairly general loss of knowlege or even of the pursuit of it in Europe,
    that is referred to as the "Dark Ages". In the days of Augustine
    learning of all types was cultivated across most of Europe, North
    Africa and the Middle East - in fact the Roman Empire. The dark ages
    started a couple of hundred years after his death, so I don't think he
    can be held responsible. Fortunately the Muslims preserved and
    developed most of the knowlege they found during their conquests, so
    it was possible to recover it in Europe hundreds of years later.
    
    
    	Was your question serious? I expect the U.S. empire will be gone in
    a couple of hundred years, but that doesn't prove that *this* is a
    return of the dark ages. If you really want to know what happened to
    the Roman empire after about 450 a.d. I can provide good references.

And all I said, Christine, is that calling for a revolution in
attitudes and relations between the sexes can hardly be called
'simplistic' as you insist upon doing.  I'll continue to chide
you for misunderstanding what I said as long as you keep calling
it that.  We really aren't that far apart in our analysis of the
extent, the hugeness of the problem.  I can't seem to get you to
agree that the solution must necessarily be 'huge' too.  Why not?
What do *you* think it will take to resolve this huge problem?
Do you really think that little things like keeping violent 
criminals in jail and preventing family breakups, as one might
infer from Fred's note, will address the systemic problems?  To
me, those things do nothing to really address the causes that
drive rapists, that permit them to so callously disregard the
humanness of the people they injure.  

DougO

    I agree with the noter (I think it was DougO) who maintains that
    the issues involved in 'stopping' rape are so complex that even a
    partial fix will require major social changes.  The conditions which
    help create rapists are ingrained in American Society, ranging from
    disrespect of individuals to violence on TV, to boys being raised without
    fathers on the scene. I have observed that since the 1950's respect
    for life in the U.S. has declined.  A reduction in respect for life
    easily extends to disrespect for the rights of individuals.
    
    Many of the 'basics' seem to have been cast aside:  What ever happened
    to personal accountability, honesty, respect for others, respect for
    oneself,  the customer comes first, return the lost wallet you found,
    etc. etc.?????
    
    Too many today seem to worship: Self, having fun, take what you can
    get, profit at the expense of the customer, violence, money, and
    ducking responsibility.
    
    And we 'wonder why' rape is so commonplace.  It fits right in with the
    values in the paragraph above.
    
    Until we see a general social change back to the values in the
    paragraph before that I think we can plan on witnessing alot more
    lawlessness and violence.
    
    Hold on to your hat.
    
    Jeff

    From reading this string, it seems that there are rapist on every
    street corner, under every bed, and behind the wheel of every car. And
    all of these evil folks are male. 
    
    The social changes that would help domestic violence against women, if
    some one was to carefully observe would be that of divorce. There have
    been a recient string of homicides in souther New Hampshire, where an
    man walks into the soon_to_be_ex's abode, formally his own. And blows
    them to the netherland. Then takes the gun to himself. Funny, that
    revolution is even mentioned in this string, for IF you want reform
    from these heinous crimes, making our outdated judicial system fair
    Just might make reduce many of these types of crimes. 
    
    Making false accusations, false arrest punishable would also make 
    life alittle more fair. And probably reduce crime. Something to 
    think of.

    Not one, two.  Remember ... every man is a potential rapist.
    

    I for one never ment to imply that every (or anything close to every)
    man is a rapist or even a potential rapist.  Hell, 'everyone is a
    potential murderer too' right?  We do 'have' to agree though that
    violent crime when adjusted for population growth has increased
    dramatically, right????  That is, the number of violent crimes per
    100,000 is how I believe its measured.
    
    When talking about the RELATIVE increase, then I believe my comments
    in my reply a couple of entries back makes sense.
    
    Please, don't twist my comments and miss the point.
    
    Jeff

    What is relative in a historical sense?
    
    Everyone and their dog is coming out with accusations regarding crimes
    that happened decades ago!
    
    We have also made more 'crimes' to make sure our quota of crimminals
    especially in the area of minorities grows.
    
    What is a crime?  When one looks at history, commonplace activity does
    not fit with the current outspoken moral minority. From a historical
    perspective we are rapidly returning to a violent society where human
    values and life are irrelevant.  
    
    Is it a good war we need to get rid of this aggression and reduce the
    male population.  This is the longest period in history without a major
    conflict.  
    
    The increase in violence among our children is mind-boggling.  What
    lies ahead as adults.
    
    Bill
    
    

I think the point is that while not every man is a potential rapist, there's
no way for a woman to know in advance which men are "ok" and which are not.
Given that risk of sexual assault is high enough that it can't be ignored,
many women take the obvious approach of assuming that all men are potential
rapists unless proven otherwise (and even then, they can't be sure.)  Can't
say I blame them - just read the newspaper.

I get a taste of the same feel when I walk in what I consider to be a "bad"
part of a large city.  I feel I've got a target painted on my back and that
around any corner might be someone who wants to mug me.  Intellectually, I
know that most of the people I see are NOT potential muggers, but how do I
convince the emotional side of me about that?  I can't pretend that NONE of
the people I see are muggers, as I know that the risk is significant.  The
difference is, though, that I don't spend my whole life walking these
streets, so I feel safe from attack most of the time.  Women, on the other
hand, don't have any place they can really feel safe.  An attack can come
from anyone, from anywhere.  The attack need not be physical in nature -
it can be a lewd comment from a co-worker, for instance.  Nowhere is safe.

Yesterday on the radio I heard a comment from a black resident of Detroit who
sounded insulted that there had been expectations that blacks there would
riot if the policemen accused of assaulting and killing Malice Green had been
acquitted, even though that's just the sort of thing that happened in
Los Angeles.  Why shouldn't people assume (and prepare for) the worst?

My wife told me a story a while back which I think is relevant here.  A
lecturer is giving a talk to a mixed-gender audience.  She (or he, it doesn't
matter) goes up to the blackboard and draws a vertical line dividing the
board into two sections.  Standing in front of one section, she asks the
men in the audience "What have you done recently to protect yourself from
the possibility of sexual assult?"  Prepared to write down what the men
offer, the board remains empty as the men in the audience just look puzzled.
She then asks the same question of the women in the audience, and the board
quickly fills up with a long list.  The idea is that men just don't understand
what it's like to always be aware that sexual assault could come from
anywhere at any time.

It doesn't matter that I'm not a rapist, nor Fred, nor Doug, nor Jeff, nor
perhaps anyone who is participating in this discussion.  The truth is that
there are enough men out there who DO think it's their right to abuse,
intimidate and assault women to make this a serious problem for all of us.
Unfortunately, as Doug admits, it is such a large and pandemic problem that
it defies any sort of easy or even describable solution.  We haven't overcome
racism, though we've made some advances there.  The oppression of women goes
back many thousands of years - it's something many of us don't even realize
conciously.

What can *WE* do about it?  Well, we can first look at our own actions, and
make sure that we don't harrass or assault women, even to the extent of
"protecting" them from full and equal participation in life.  We can teach
our children that everyone, male, female, black, white, whatever, deserves
equal respect as a human being.  We can speak out when we see sexism in
action, whether it be at home, in the workplace, in advertisements, or anywhere
else.  We can object when a victim of sexual assault is accused of "asking
for it".  We can stop closing our eyes to the physical and emotional violence
which surrounds us.  Maybe, just maybe, if enough of us do this, things will
change for the better.

						Steve

whoops, missed this.

>    By your definition, women were "valued" even less in the past.  As
>    the "value" of women increased, so does the incidence of rape and
>    violence.  It is a nonsequitor.

The crime of rape was not originally seen as a crime against the woman.
It was seen as an offense against the property of the man to whose house
that woman belonged.  You can see this in the judicial penalties cited
in Jewish law and Roman law, wherein a man who's daughter was raped was
to be compensated for her lost bride price, as the now non-virgin goods
were presumed to be damaged.  Rape has existed for centuries, as documented
in nearly all historical records and even in myths and religion.  It just
isn't something you're aware of.  Yes, women were valued far less in the past
than now; now, they're recognized as human in most circumstances, and the
crime of rape is recognized as an offense against THEM, not their owner.

Yet the criminal justice system still treats rape as a far lesser offense
than robbery, and as I've demonstrated before (78.41, for one recent place)
puts away very few rapists.  Furthermore, after centuries of treating women
as property, the social conventions that have evolved do not really grant
women full privileges in most social interactions.  In any sphere, from the
simple everyday world of talking (men interrupt more) to civics (women got
the vote in this country only 70-odd years ago) to property rights (most
banks have only begun loaning money to women in the past decade w/o need
of a male co-signer) to corporate governance (how many women CEOs are there?)
and in any other area you can name, men have more privilege.  Everywhere.
And some of them use that undeniable fact to justify to themselves the
right to rape.  They still see women as chattel.  These sickos seem to
be more numerous now, probably in response to the increased strains of
living in this ever-more-violent-and-rapidly-changing society; times of
high social stress always see increases in crime (London in Dicken's time
was hardly the place to wander without a handy walking stick/cudgel.)

So, in short; yes, women are valued more now, as people instead of as
property.  And we are more aware now of violent crimes against any people
than we (as a culture) were aware of crimes against property in the past.

DougO

    re .93, excellent note, Steve.
    
    Lorna
    

    re Steve,

    This is not what bothers me.  I agree with probably 99% of what you
    say.  However, what bothers me is the attempted implication that
    _all_ men are to blame from rape unless they join the chant "men
    are bad, men are bad, men are bad", and the attitude that crimes 
    against men should be ignored in order to make it easier for rape 
    victims.  Talk about creating second-class citizens.

    fred();

    re doug0

    Lets examine more recent history.  Say in the last century.  Until the
    last couple decades chivalry was alive and well.  Yes women were
    at a disadvantage (or as you put it, not valued) in the work force.
    However, the attitude towards women by men were much different.  I
    can remember as far back as the 50's when men _would_ protect women.
    I've seen men lay their life on the line to protect a women that 
    they didn't even know.  I've seen men called down for so much as
    using "foul language" in the presence of a "lady".  You didn't
    expect to even so much as kiss on the first date, let alone 
    "make love".

    Now that women are "valued" I do notice a significant change.  Not
    necesssarily for the better.  Brought on as much by the women as by
    men.  Note discussions in this very file as to whether or not to even
    open a door for a woman.  Women themselves are brandishing the "f"
    word in movies as "art",  I know women that could out cuss a sailor. 
    Walk a woman home or to her car to make sure she is safe?  Are you
    kidding?  You may well be in more danger of her screaming rape on you
    than you are of having to protect her, if she don't spit in your face
    first for daring to be such a "sexist".  Female hitch-hikers?  No way! 
    If she starts ripping  at her own clothes and screaming, you are
    looking at a vacation in the Greybar Hotel.  If you "make a pass" and
    she wants you to, that's great,  but if you "make a pass" and she
    don't want you to, then you're a "rapist" (never mind what you're 
    intentions are in either case).

    Ah, progress, ain't it great!
    fred();

    Re: .96
    
    Fred, I don't see what you're seeing, especially the part about
    "crimes against men should be ignored".  I haven't seen this
    rationally proposed by anyone.  What I do see is an observation that
    crimes against women by men are far and away more prevalent than
    crimes against men by women.  I do see what I consider a somewhat
    disturbing "lynch mob" mentality (some of which I see in Doug's
    writing, which is what I think sets you (and me) off) that appears
    to take a "the ends justify the means" approach to prosecuting
    crimes against women.  Unfortunately, when your target is 
    a significant portion of men, not all men but also not identifiable
    individuals, it's easy to fall into the trap of shotgun approaches.
    It's sort of a "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" attack that
    stems from frustration at NOT being able to target those who are
    causing the most grief (at least not until AFTER they have raped
    or killed.)
    
    I do agree with Doug that all men have benefited from their privileged
    position of dominance over women - individually, you can argue with
    this, but collectively, I think not.  So in that sense, "all men are
    to blame", yes, but it's the same sort of collective blame that
    whites get stuck with when dealing with racism against blacks.
    
    It's hard to take that BIG step which allows you to understand that
    the anger directed "at men" isn't aimed at you in particular but
    rather at the (large) subset of men who DO consider women "property",
    who DO take out their anger against women.   It took me several years
    to finally figure that out, and I still have problems with it.
    
    I may not be as flashy a feminist as Doug, but I get there in my own
    way.  But I consider myself more a "humanist", and do what I can to
    promote egalitarianism and mutual respect for all.  That in large part
    is why I've worked so hard to keep this notesfile going over the
    years.
    
    					Steve

Re.97

	It's my opinion that, unfortuneately, feminism for many people
	has meant 'to be like men' and that this has produced the kind
	of attitudes you're talking about. Men swear, men are agressive,
	men pay the check, men don't hold the door for each other and so
	on has been the role model for many women. Women (not all but some)
	have lost their femininity in the name of feminism.

	- Paul.

	Myriam Miedzian in her book 'Boys will be Boys' is very articulate
	about the causes and possible solutions for what she terms the
	male mystique. I haven't agreed with all she's written but she 
	provides arguments supported by facts and examples which are evidence
	that she's researched her subject well. It's worth reading.

	What I did find interesting, and Bly in Iron John says basically the 
	same, is that, to quote Miedzian, "nurturant paternal involvement in 
	child-rearing would play an important role in reducing male violence" 
	and that "for the sons of nurturant fathers, achieving a masculine 
	identity is easier, not harder".

	I find those comments interesting because in society today (the UK and 
	the US) we have more single parent families, because of the role that 
	gangs are said to play in the initiation to manhood and because of the 
	increase in violent crime.

	- Paul.

    Steve L., I like what you wrote. But guys and gals, we are drifting
    from the main point. The point of the basic .0 is a guy got Falsely
    Arrested. And the bottom line is that he will hopefully press charges
    against the woman for it. For just as there are muggers, rapist, and 
    other such rasputians. There are women who use the judicial system to 
    play out their hand against some guy who did not deserve to be arrested.
    Hence... You play with fire, you will get burnt. 
    
    Dont believe me? Ask the guy who has not seen his daughter for over
    three years now. Pays child support, and has had his truck set on fire,
    his mail tampered with, and receives daily, horrassing phone calls from
    his ex wife and her tribe of low lifes.
    
    

    re:101
    
    The guy was not only falsely accused but the very institutions that are
    there to uphold the law and protect the innocent while punishing the
    guilty were more afraid of upsetting a minority activist group rather
    than respecting the rights of an individual and listening to common
    sense just because he is a male accused of a crime against a female.
    
    Was not accused of raping her, "strangled" her with a telephone cord,
    not that is an acceptable crime.
    
    This note has brought out similiar circumstances that male abuse occurs
    but is not as visable as female related crimes.
    
    The police pressed charges against the woman.  He is launching a civil
    suit.  
    
    Think about what a false accusation could do to your life either or a
    sexual or a molesting nature.
    
    Bill
    

    He did not rape her. But He did strangle her with a telephone cord?

Re: .99

I agree that the definition of feminism you put forth is held by many who
don't really understand the concept, but I think this is a mistaken notion
based on fear and ignorance.  (Indeed, if "feminism" means "be like men",
what does that make a male feminist?)

				Steve

    
    re .99
    
    To many, the definition of feminism is to 1) take away the advantages
    of men, 2) retain the advantages of being a a women, 3) fip-flop back
    and forth between the two depending on which is most advantageous
    at the time.  It's no wonder men are confused. 
    
    fred();

    re: 103
    
    She accused him of strangling her with a telephone cord.  She just
    forgot to check where he was at the time.
    
    re:104
    
    "be like woman"?

Re.104

	Why the distinction between male or female in using the term
	feminist ? Surely you advocate or pursue the rights of woman 
	or you do not; irrespective of your own gender. 

    Good entry in .93 Steve, I too agree with about 98 percent of it.
    
    Whether we like it or not guys most violent crimes are committed by
    males.  Collectively we must take the implied rap for it.  If we don't
    like it, then, collectively males must change that image by NOT doing
    the things that create the image.
    
    Women have gained alot of freedom since the 1950's when I grew up.  But
    its been at a cost of course.  Which system was better (I am asking the
    women), one where the guys protected the women more and thus supposedly
    reduced the incidence of violent crime against you, or the liberated
    conditions whereby you are increasingly on your own?
    
    In the news... Michael Jackson accused of molesting a boy. I hope its
    not true. But celebreties are vulnerable to charges like that as men 
    are giving hitchhikers a ride.  
    
    The defenses against being falsly accused  (not putting yourself
    in a situation where you COULD have committed the crime) and taking a
    vigalent stance when walking in mall parking lots create their own host
    of problems.  
    
    Jeff

    
    
    Steve, 
    
    What you write makes sense (.93)
    
    
    I have been trying to educate my wife on the idea of killing someone
    (in self defense).  She would rather be raped, abused, etc rather than 
    kill.  This is interesting because I got into the same discussion with
    a friend of mine here at work.  She said that getting raped was not the
    big concern, the safety of her child was.  This makes a great deal of
    sense until I brought into the picture that after raping you, what if
    he wanted to rape your kid.  She now knows how to use a gun.  You have
    to play out the scenario to it's worst conclusion.
    
    
    
    Mike  

    re. Jeff
    
    As you said you are asking women here.
    
    Given the number of women of my mother's generation that found
    themselves discarded ... this during the time when "men took care of
    women more" ... I wouldn't want to go back to those times for
    _any_thing. The implicit contract was only as good as those who entered
    into it. [such is the case always]
    
    My study of western cultures goes back many centuries and the care that
    women could rely upon was only as far as their protectors' _chose_ to
    give.
    
    Even if all parties were honourable, even the best care in the world
    would not motivate me to choose a relationship where my days and nights
    and sustenance were at the whim of any person [male or female].
    
    I did not enjoy childhood and worked my passage _HARD_ so that I would
    not be answerable to mother or father at the earliest possible
    opportunity.  Given my intense aversion for captivity, no matter how
    benign or pleasant its form might take, I would not willingly enter
    into such a relationship.
    
    I rather die.  I'm completely serious.
    
    I am a person, not chattel or an appendage or an accoutrement.
    
       Annie
    
    

    
    Well like it or not Annie, you were very dependant on mom and dad, as
    was I.  
    
    
    I like being dependant upon my family as well as them being dependant
    upon me.  It makes me/us whole.
    
    
    
    Mike
    

    re .108

>    In the news... Michael Jackson accused of molesting a boy. I hope its
>    not true. But celebrities are vulnerable to charges like that as men 
>    are giving hitchhikers a ride.  

    I heard this.  Michael is claiming that someone was trying to 
    blackmail him for $3M.  If he didn't pay up, they would turn
    in a complaint (I wonder how many celeb's have just paid up 
    quietly).  He didn't pay, and they entered an anonymous call
    to some hotline.  Sad part is, even if he is innocent, it's
    probably going to cost him $1M in legal fees.

    Many years back, Errol Flynn gave a woman a lift back from Mexico
    on his boat.  She turned out to be under age.  Rape charges
    were filed.  He was acquitted after a lengthy and expensive trial.
    The publicity basically ruined his career.

    Woody Allen has been given only _supervised_ visitation to his
    children even though experts testified that there was no evidenced
    that he did what he was accused of.  The judge said that he, "couldn't
    take a chance". 

    Worried yet?
    fred();

    Think about it, if you were a volunteer coach or a leader of a youth 
    group and a certain disruptive child decided to get revenge on you for
    what ever reason, maybe you caught him doing something so he told his
    parents you 'touched him'.
    
    Your guilty no matter what.  The papers would crucify you, your family
    would come under incredible strain, you probably would have to move,
    you may loose your job, and financially your shot.  When the truth comes
    out that your innocent, the newspapers may report it (in the classified
    section) but the doubt in everyones minds will always exist.  
    
    Justice?  It's not just the Michael Jacksons, it's a fact of life for
    both sexes. 
    
    Justice doesn't sell newspapers, scandal does
    
    Bill.

    re.111
    
    Indeed I was dependent upon my parents. Far from making me whole, the
    abuse nearly killed me.
    
    It taught me that being dependent upon someone from whom the law and
    society _will_ not protect you is life-threatening.
    
    So a context in which women have the means and the protection to
    achieve independence to the extent that their male counterpoints are
    offered the same is something I value highly.
    
    Not all parents are abusive. Not all fathers, brothers, husbands, and
    boyfriends lack the ability or conscience to follow through to follow
    through on commitments. In fact, I believe that the proportion is
    relatively small.
    
    But the risk is not insignificant; hence it is best to be able and
    prepared.
    
      Annie

    Ok Annie, I hear you... 'give me freedom or give me death' so to speak.
    Apparently you did grow up under extreme (abusive) conditions so I am
    not suprised that getting away from that is worth virtually anything.
    
    I have been an Assistant Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts for some 10
    years.  The risk of having some angry kid accuse you of molesting him
    is there all right.  But I have never heard of one who actually did that 
    to get revenge.  Good thing!  The defense: Don't put yourself in a
    position (being alone with a boy) where it COULD have happened with no
    witness to vouch for you.  That is Scout Policy.... leaders are not
    allowed to be alone with individual kids to protect against this.
    
    Actually the Boy Scouts have a number of safe guards built in to protect
    leaders and boys from this.  Such as what I already stated above, and
    no leaders are allowed to sleep in the same tent as the boys.  Boys
    with boys and leaders with leaders is the policy.
    
    
    Its too bad we have to live in that atmosphere of mistrust but that is
    reality today.
    
    Jeff

    I at times read in the paper adults 20-40 years old that are dragging 
    their parents (sometimes age 70 +) into court accusing them of abuse, 
    sexual misconduct, whatever.  Why, after all those years?  What
    satisfaction are they looking for?  The feelings of anger, frustration
    and guilt must be overwhelming.
    
    

    >I at times read in the paper adults 20-40 years old that are dragging 
    >their parents (sometimes age 70 +) into court accusing them of abuse, 
    >sexual misconduct, whatever.  Why, after all those years?  
    
    Perhaps because, like me, they didn't remember the abuse until
    they were adults.
    
    >What satisfaction are they looking for?  
    
    I can't answer this question.
    
    >The feelings of anger, frustration and guilt must be overwhelming.
    
    You have no idea, no idea at all.
    

    re: children (now adults) dragging their abusive parents into court.
    
    I think the legal system attempts to serve JUSTICE, and that is an
    important word..... justice, not revenge, justice.  Many abuse victims
    are attempting revenge which, however justified often results in
    feelings of emptiness.  I think people, (as the prior noter says) think
    that revenge via the legal system will 'make it all better'.  It 
    doesn't work that way.  One has to work through the feelings in oneself
    and resolve them as best one can.  If part of that involves bringing
    charges against the abuser(s) fine, but don't expect a panacea cure
    in yourself.
    
    I don't think people are 'built' to feel good about hurting other
    people.... even when its justified, except for those who have a mean
    streak in them or who have been so hurt themselves they just want to
    lash out.
    
    I was abused as a child (as so many of us seem to have been) but I
    don't feel vindictiveness toward my parents, just sadness that they
    were too 'sick' to have known any other way.  Anger and sadness, yes, but
    there is no getting back at them in any satisfying sense.  So, what do
    you do?!   Make sure you don't continue the chain and pass abuse along
    to YOUR children!!!
    
    Jeff

.91> violent crime when adjusted for population growth has increased
.91> dramatically, right????  That is, the number of violent crimes per
    
    It's grown in the big cities, just like it did during Prohibition.
    
    In some places, it's fallen.

    re:.94, Douglass
    
    And the moon is made of green cheese.

.105> To many, the definition of feminism is to 1) take away the advantages
.105> of men, 2) retain the advantages of being a a women, 3) fip-flop back
.105> and forth between the two depending on which is most advantageous
    
    Bingoroni, fred().

    re .121 .... crime just growing in big cities but actually fallen in
    many other areas.
    
    Am I missing something here or is my daily observation of the news in
    correct?  Yes, there has always been crime but to observia media
    reports today it seems that one can't walk down the street in safety 
    anymore.
    
    Come on!  Don't tell me that crime isn't more of a problem than it used
    to be.  Or, are you saying that its simply a more efficient reporting
    system?
    
    Jeff

    re .124
    
    
>    Am I missing something here or is my daily observation of the news in
>    correct?  Yes, there has always been crime but to observia media
>    reports today it seems that one can't walk down the street in safety 
>    anymore.
    
    You're watching too much TV.  As someone said before, truth does not
    sell.  Sensation and scandle does.  The news media is no longer
    interested in the truth.  They are interested in ratings and $$$$.
    
>    Come on!  Don't tell me that crime isn't more of a problem than it used
>    to be.  Or, are you saying that its simply a more efficient reporting
>    system?
    
    As compared to when?  
    
    fred();

    Re .124
    
    > Yes, there has always been crime but to observia media
    > reports today it seems that one can't walk down the street in safety
    > anymore.
    
    Read contemporary letters from the early Roman Empire.  If you cared to
    walk down the ordure-filled screets, you'd damned well better not do it
    after dark.  That wasn't taking a chance, it was tempting fate.  You
    would be about 95 percent likely to get mugged by a sicarius and almost
    certainly stabbed dead.  Leave no witnesses, ya know...  Sensible
    Romans did not go out after dark except with at least two bodyguards,
    usually ex-gladiators.
    
    dangerous streets ain't nothin' new.  We just have easier access to the
    news.  And, as fred() points out, sensation sells.

    'Ignorance is bliss'.
    
    In the global village, we get news on site, as it happens (whether it
    happened or not is irrelevant).  The more beefed up the better, the 
    closer to the source (cameras and mikes in front of tragic victims).
    
    A few years ago, this news was only available in the papers or days
    old.  
    
    What sells, the National Enquirer cause 'inquiring minds want to know'.
    or the mindless have nothing else to occupy the space.
    
    Each network is trying to outdo the other until the truth has no
    meaning (buy a Chev truck).  whats the future, computer generated news,
    virtual news reality?
    
    Maybe a new medical syndrome?
    
    Crime hasn't changed, just our knowledge and our perceived need to know
    (or so the network tells us).
    
    24 hour news.  "Thats not news but thats reality - the way I see it"
    
    Bill
    

    I wonder if your samples aren't as biased as you claim the medias' are?
    I believe your stories about Rome etc. but it doesn't give the whole
    picture.  (I know current media news doesn't give the whole picture
    either).
    
    A truer picture would be to look at the national crime statisitics. I
    don't have access to them though.  Then why all the hoot and howl about
    increasing crime?  Is purely a misconception foisted on the public by
    the media?
    
    When I was a boy in the City of South Portland, Maine we didn't even
    lock our door when we went out.  Nothing got stolen either.  THAT isn't
    a figment of my imagination.  Try that in South Portland now?  "But
    thats a city, just what we were saying that cities have changed".
    
    Well I hope you guys are right...  that increased crime is simply not
    true.
    
    I sure am not going to test the theory though.
    
    Jeff

.128>    A truer picture would be to look at the national crime statisitics. I
>    don't have access to them though.

Try any good almanac or _Statistical Abstracts of the United States_ (assuming
you are on this side of the ponds) available in any good library.

I don't have one at hand, and have not checked lately, but the last time I 
looked, the data suggested that crime has its ups and downs.  Life in the 1980s 
was more dangerous than life in the 50s, but about the same as life in the 20s.

Even this statistical data has to be used with caution.  Crime reporting has 
gotten a lot more effective, especially for crimes like rape, and the handling 
of crime statistics has gotten a lot more professional.

>  Then why all the hoot and howl about
>    increasing crime?  Is purely a misconception foisted on the public by
>    the media?

Nothing is pure, especially in the media.  Life is more dangerous in the 90s, 
particularly in the "bad neighborhoods" of big cities.  So there is some reality
behind it.

But most of the noise comes from media out to sell fear, politicians looking
for votes and security types trying to sell safety.

    
    While sitting in the doctor's office, I picked up an issue of
    Time dated 23 August 1993.  The cover story was on crime.  While
    I didn't get to read it, I did see a sidebar story which suggested
    a link between baby booms and crime -- the claim was that blips in
    birth rates were followed (after enough years to create a blip
    in the number of adolescents) by a blip in the crime rate.
    
    I think that most of our efforts at controlling any kind of
    behavior have minimal effects and that behavior at a global
    level tends to map to long term socio-economic variables -- 
    population, density, distribution of wealth, etc. -- rather
    than to short term politics.  That's one of the reasons I
    don't buy the apocalyptic "unravelling fabric of society"
    scenarios.
    
    Ron

    I think you may have touched on one the explanations.  That is that
    crime REPORTING has become more effective.  Also the sharing of
    information.  Back in the 50's one would only hear of unusual major
    crimes out of ones' local area.  Now if someone robs a bank in Calif.
    we hear about it on the East Coast.  Programs such as Americas' Most
    Wanted let the entire Nation know about whats gone on in the last week
    as far as major crime is concerned.
    
    So the information explosion includes crime information. Not suprising
    it seems more prevalent.  Thanks for helping me put it in perspective.
    
    Jeff

    	You only have to read Homer to know that rape, theft, murder,
    abduction happened 2500 years ago, and was more common where there were
    more people.
    
    	At a guess, Troy is fairly crime-free today, with no more than one
    archaeologist stealing anothers pencil. It is quite amazing what a war
    of extermination can do to the crime statistics of a city.

    Re: .130
    
    >a link between baby booms and crime -- the claim was that blips in
    >birth rates were followed (after enough years to create a blip
    >in the number of adolescents) by a blip in the crime rate.
    
    I think this is a pretty well-know phenomenum -- the rise in the crime
    rate in the 70s and 80s was greatly influenced by the demographics of
    baby-boomers reaching prime-crime age.  Similarly, the dip in crime
    rates in the last few years has been influenced by a smaller cohort of
    young men in their teens and early twenties. But count on a increase,
    because a new crop of the  children of baby-boomers are reaching the
    critical age.
    
    Of course, as others have said,  it's also true that a lot of this
    crime stuff is a result of victims being more willing to report crime,
    and to the deplorable state of what passes for "news" (particularly on
    television which is nothing but stitched-together crime incidents). 
    
    Kit

    TV amazes me.  The most popular shows like COPS, America's Most Wanted,
    Rescue 911, Unsolved Mysteries and Eye Witness Video have made human
    suffering, starvation and war an entertainment. (Let me know if I
    missed a few and what time they are on!)
    
    Look at the Gulf War.  On the spot news 24 hours a day.  Those SCUDS
    bombs and missles were falling on people.  Highest ratings.
    
    We watch nations starving with impunity and eat supper while watching
    reports of genocide.  
    
    The news gets caught making news to get more viewers.
    
    Wasn't Fred Astaire, Bing Crosby and Patti Page once entertainment?
    
    What are we teaching our kids?  What's next, scary stuff.
    
    Bill (who rarely has time to watch TV - I also find sit-coms intellectually
    insulting)  

    Re .134: Oh, TV's not so bad - it's just trying to fill the gap left by
    such popular entertainments as gladiatorial combat and public executions...
    
    -b

    re: 135.  Thought TV had done a good job combining them!