Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Well I read about this demonstration in the Globe, and I am frankly
    amazed that it took all day to hit =wn=...
    
    From the article I gathered that they certainly do dislike men.  Also
    after reading the article through twice, I am still fuzzy on whether
    the assault on the Combat Zone was 'planned' or not.
    
    I am utterly dismayed.  While I can understand the anger, I cannot
    support the outcome.  These were feminists, but there was more than
    feminism operating in this instance and I fear that the 'something
    more' will be overlooked by many in their need to discredit feminists.
    
    By much the same logic was I labelled a godd*mn hippy whore because of
    my anti-war sentiments, when some activists began spitting upon
    returning soldiers. Again there some other rage/fear working beyond the
    suface movement.
    
      Ann

    
    heard something on the radio, this is best as i can remember
    
    "a group against depictions of violence against women and
    children left the common and vandalized several places in the
    combat zone"
    i don't remember any mention that it was a menhaters demonstration
    or how much damage was done.
    

    Where did the word "menhaters" come from? I saw a flyer for the
    event and that word certainly didn't appear on it.

I've set .0 hidden. A co-mod has tried to contact the author. Please identify
yourself to any of the co-moderators. In general, we don't let anonymous notes
stand when they deal with difficult topics in dubious ways, unless one of the
co-moderators knows who the author is.

As a noter, though, I'd love to hear more rational discussion on the rumored
demonstration Sunday.
	Mez

    Someone who attended told me that it wasn't menhaters, but "Naming
    abusive men".  Quite a difference, if you were to ask me.
    
    The women who attended could write the names of men who had abused
    them on little cards, and pin them up on a wall.  Women were then
    invited to name the abuse they had endured in front of the group.
    
    The woman I talked with was an incest survivor, and it was a very
    empowering experience for her.  Apparently the group included lots
    of survivors as well as battered wives and rape survivors.
    
    I have a lot of issues about damaging property, but according to
    this woman a group of them "invaded" a porn shop in the combat zone
    and began ripping up magazines.  They got to one or two before the
    owners started shutting their shops against the women.  The police
    were called, and the women had to disperse.
                                                              
    (I think it's important to express the anger -- and you could argue
    all night about the difference between civil disobedience and malicious
    acting out.  I'm not going to touch that one.)
    

    >>(I think it's important to express the anger -- and you could argue
    >>all night about the difference between civil disobedience and malicious
    >>acting out.  I'm not going to touch that one.)
    
    If this type of behavior were condoned, then people going into abortion
    clinics to breakup the equipment would likewise have to be considered
    in a similar vein.  I, personally, disagree strongly with both.

    There's some discussion of this event in the "Father's Day" note
    in MENNOTES - from what I read there (haven't seen it in the papers
    yet), the protest somehow included a protest against Father's Day,
    saying it was a celebration of those who abuse women.
    
    I reserve judgement until I get more data, but if this is true, it's
    totally sick.
    
    				Steve

    Re: .5
    
    >you could argue all night about the difference between civil
    >disobedience and malicious acting out.
    
    We're very talented; we can argue all night about almost anything....
    
    I don't think this is what Thoreau had in mind.  The point is to
    disobey laws that you believe are wrong.  (Personal digression:  you
    must be prepared to pay the penalty for your disobedience; otherwise 
    you don't really have the courage of your convictions.)  I don't
    believe any of the women involved disagreed with the laws against
    destruction of property.  I don't know if there's a comparable concept
    for changing societal mores as opposed to laws.

    It's interesting to me that we're talking about women who've been
    sexually abused / raped and most of the replies are focusing on (at
    least as the report goes) two magazines that were torn up. I say
    "Hooray" -- it's about time that some of the inevitable anger that
    these women must feel be directed outwards instead of inwards -- it
    sounds very healthy to me. My outrage is not directed towards the
    destroyers of the two magazines but rather towards the people who were
    violent towards these women. Why does this type of violence seem so
    commonplace that noone else is reacting to it?
    
    And who named this a demonstration by "manhaters", anyways -- the
    demonstrators? Mr. Guest? The news reporters? And even if some of
    these women _do_ hate men, why is that so hard to live with?
    
    liz

    Clarification -
    
    the women did quite a bit of damage at one or two porn shops before
    the other owners shut their doors against them, according to the
    woman I know who participated.  It wasn't just one or two magazines.
    
    I never said whether I approved or disapproved of their actions. What I
    did say is that it is important to express the anger -- and each woman
    has to decide how to do that for herself. 
    
    I don't think the rally was about all men, or all fathers.  I think
    (from what I heard) it was specifically about men who have abused
    women including fathers, husbands, doctors, lovers, relatives, etc.
                                                      
    Keep in mind that for many incest survivors, it was indeed a father
    who was the abuser.  For that reason, this may have been a way to
    reclaim some dignity and self-worth on a very painful day.
    
    Holly

    I think the choice of Father's Day for the demonstration was
    unfortunate. It calls into question every father-child relationship,
    which simply is not fair.
    
    Other than that, I say these were adults who took a risk at being
    arrested for demonstrating in support of their beliefs.  I have no
    doubt that it was cathartic.  If they hate all men based on their
    experience, that is also simply unfortunate.
    
    Marge

The flyer I saw for this event reads as follows:



		 RALLY! 		ACTION!


			Defying the Fathers

	  A Father's Day Protest of Patriarchal Violence
		  Against Women and Children

			Featured are:
	    Feminist Philosopher Bonnie Mann
	      Activist/Sociologist Gail Dines
	    Feminist Comedienne Betsy Salkind
		      and many others

			Boston Common
		       (at the Gazebo)

			Father's Day
		   Sunday, June 18, 1989
		          12 noon


Come and add your contribution to a recitation of the names of known 
	perpetrators of all forms of patriarchal violence including:

CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT, RAPE, WIFE BATTERING, PORNOGRAPHY, PROSTITUTION,
	SEXUAL HARASSMENT, INTERNATIONAL TRAFFICKING OF WOMEN,
	     REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ABUSE, MENTAL HEALTH ABUSE.

    I'd like to request that the moderators rename this note to eliminate
    the word "menhaters." Wherever it came from, it was not used by
    the organizers of the event, and its use here seems, among other
    things, inappropriate.
    
    Dorian

I was surprised to see the title appearing; I'm not used to the new behavior of
'set hidden'. It's been changed, but I'm afraid many of the options will be
inflammatory.
	Mez

I have an acquaintance who is coming to terms with the possbility that her
sexual abuse was perpetrated by her father. Whom she felt impelled to call on
Father's Day, because so much is still unclear. I can not articulate how deeply
I feel for her, and how hurtful I found the epithet 'sick' in this string. And
I'm on the outside. She's living it.

If she were to find such a demonstration helpful, I would support her. And I
would expect others to as well. We have all needed to do things in our lives
that would not be the healthiest for us in later stages. That does not negate
the need.

And, I do not find my relationship to my father, and other men in my life,
threatened by her terror and pain. Neither do my experiences negate hers.

I don't know sh*t about this topic. But I do feel strongly all the cultural
pulls to deny that some number of fathers abuse. It must be trebly harder for
those living through it.
	Mez

    
    Let's assume that on some Jewish holiday, a group of skinheads gets
    together for a rally on Boston Common; they hold demonstrations,
    listen to speakers, get all steamed up, start chanting hate slogans,
    and then go on a rampage, vandalizing a Synagogue nearby.
    
    What's the difference between this and what happened last Sunday
    (Father's Day)?

You know, I started thinking about that analogy seriously, but when I started
to compare a synagogue to a porno book store, and their respective places in
the cultures in question, I started laughing too hard.

Maybe someone else can do it more justice.
	Mez

Just to keep the Moderators happy, I am posting the article under my
name. 
    
This way the "event" which occured on Sunday will no longer have to
be referred to as the "rumored demonstration".
    
   Alan      
=========================================================================
         (Reprinted from the Boston Herald, Monday 19 June, page 1)

          RAMPAGE ON ADULT BOOKSTORES FOLLOWS FATHER'S DAY PROTEST

                 (By Doreen Iudica and Andrea Estes)

            A group of militant feminists allegedly went on a rampage in 
the Combat Zone yesterday, vandalizing adult bookstores after a Father's 
Day rally protesting "patriarchal violence against women and children."
            
            The rally - held a Boston Common by a group of self-proclaimed 
"man haters" - drew about 75 women who heard organizers step up to a 
microphone and visciously lash out at men and fathers.

            One speaker, activist Gail Dines, decried men's First Amendment 
rights to publish sexually explicit materials, claiming there are four 
times as many adult bookstores in the country as McDonald's restaurants.

            "It's not a war between the sexes, but a war being waged by one 
sex against the other. Rage, battering and incest are the holy trinity of 
patriarchy," Dines said angrily.

            At 2:30 P.M., shortly after the noon rally broke up, 50 to 100
women hoisting signs and chanting "save our sisters" stormed three adult 
bookstores along lower Washington Street, overturning video cases and book 
racks, throwing magazines onto the ground and smashing windows, owners 
said.


======================================================================

    This event was written up in the Globe -- I'm surprised no one has
    quoted it.  I'll try to look for it tonight, but *from memory only*
    I *think* the term "menhaters" was in the article.  In any case, two
    other bits of info that I do remember were:
    
    1) A storeowner told the women they couldn't bring a minor into the
    store, which they did anyway.
    
    2) They threw (a) bookshelf(ves) through the door.
    
    Nancy
    

    In thinking on this, I believe we need to separate two events.
     
    One was the rally on the Common, as described in the flyer.  That
    rally probably had some very positive messages for those who
    participated, and was within legal free speech activity.  To me,
    no problems there.
    
    Then the rally degenerated into the attack on places of business,
    which resulted in property destruction and arrests.  While I don't
    like pornography or those who sell it, that doesn't give me the
    right to trash their stores or destroy their wares.  Others will
    undoubtedly feel differently.  
    
    Perhaps if we approach this as separate, but related, events, we can 
    have a civil discussion.

    re: .16 (What's the difference)
    
         I see one hell of a lot of difference between the two situations.
    
    1.  It is my impression that the women involved had been subjected
        to physical abuse at the hands of men, some of them by their
        fathers.  I doubt that many skinheads have been abused by Jewish
        people, and I seriously doubt that it would have been their
        father.
    
    2.  The message of Father's Day is to honor thy father, and I'm
        sure that the vicitms of abuse at the hands of their fathers
        have a difficult time on this day.  They feel the societal
        pressure to honor their father's even though they were abused.
    
    3.  I don't condone the attacks on the porn shops, but I think that
        I can understand the motivation behind it.  I would imagine
        that the porn shops seem to pander to the violent/sexual/dominant
        desires that some of them were victims of.  I doubt that any
        skinhead has been a "victim" of ideas espoused in a Synagogue.
    
    ASP

    
    re:.16
    
    What is upsetting to me is that you equate a skinhead action
    to this demonstration.  Skinheads, in your example, are displaying
    their anti-Semitism.  My impression of what happened Sunday was
    that a group of women expressed their indignation at violence
    against women and sexism.
    
    Ann Marie
 

    
    Re .21, .22:
    
    Sure, there are ideological differences, but I see the two events
    as the same in practicality.  A group of people full of anger and
    hate, with a clearly-defined enemy, get together; powerful speakers
    whip the crowds into a frenzy, things get ugly, and violence and
    attacks against the enemy occur.  In one case, it's against a religion;
    in another, it's against an entire gender.  Do we really need this?
    Is there any excuse for it?

The idea that an "adult bookstore" is to the male sex as a synagogue is to
the Jewish faith is one that I would expect to be espoused by the "man 
haters."  I *hope* it is a distorted fantasy.

The skinheads who attack the synagogue are attacking a central symbol and
token of the cultural values of the Jewish faith.

Were the "rampaging feminists" who vandalized the bookstores in the combat 
zone thereby mounting an attack on the central values of the male sex?

What a thought!!!

	-Neil

I've set notes by MILPND::SWS hidden, after sending mail, using elf, and
checking the intro notes.

Please identify yourself. This is not fun.
	Mez

Thankfully, the noter has identified themselves to me.

thankyouthankyouthankyou. The notes are no longer hidden.
	Mez

    
                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Subsequent postings from anon accounts such as "guest" and "sws" will
    be summarily deleted as trashnotes unless the author identifies
    herself/himself in the body of the note.  
    
    As Mez says, this is not fun. 
    
    						=maggie

    I think part of the problem we're having here is that there are really
    two pretty distinct meanings to the word "father".  One of them is
    "male person who contributes 50% of the child's genetic material"  and
    the other is "male person who provides parental nurturance to the
    child".  It's important to distinguish between those two roles, and
    part of what's happening here is that we're not.
    
    I will argue that anyone who abuses a child is more or less completely
    undeserving of the Nurturing Father mantle.  Such a person can at best
    be a BioFather which is usually in and of itself pretty inconsequential
    so far as whether the child will grow up well and happy is concerned. 
    The important part of the father role is the nurturance, and any man
    who does that is fully deserving of the title Father regardless of
    whether he contributed --or was even ever able to contribute!-- to the
    child's genetic makeup.
    
    Father's Day quite properly celebrates and honors the Nurturing Father. 
    Men who fill that role deserve every good thing they get and more
    besides.  
    
    The women were protesting the honor blindly paid to men who don't damn'
    well deserve it.  
    
    Now, is it a good thing that they trashed somebody's property?  Jeez, I
    dunno.  Is it invariably a good thing to be well-adjusted?  Most
    psychiatrists, social workers, and even psychologists will tell you
    Yes, but [as the late Eric Berne pointed out] what of the guard in the
    concentration camp who's happy and fulfilled in his work?  Is it a Good
    Thing for someone to feel okay about oppressing others?  I suspect that
    this problem may be analogous.
    
    						=maggie

    re:.30    
 
    It would be helpful to me, anyway, if you stated that it was your
    *opinion* that "The women who went on a rampage were driven by hatred
    and a deep willingness to flaunt the law..."
    
    Your opinion in my opinion minimized the fact that sexism and sexual
    abuse could possibly motivate someone to lash out at a porn shop.
    
    Ann Marie, the noter
    
    
    

    The Herald article attempted to discredit the demonstrators by using
    labels such as militant feminists and man-haters.  I seriously doubt
    that the participants described themselves as either, which is evident
    in their flyer.  It amazes me that a woman is considered a militant
    feminist for protesting about being sexually abused as a child by
    her father.  On the flip side it amazes me that people don't expect
    some hostility towards men from women who have been repeatedly abused
    by them.  I am offended by the Herald putting the phrase in quotes
    that they did, as if to say the *alleged* abuses.
    	Linda

    re .31>Fathers Day quite properly celebrates and honors the 
          >Nurturing father
    
    For that reason, the choice of date was in poor taste. But 
    sometimes tasteless behavior is a necesssary ploy, for 
    dramatic reasons. 

    
    to underline: I have no opinion of the motives or character of the
    demonstrators: I wasn't there and the only things I have seen on
    the subject are in this conference.
    
    I am not surprised that people who have been abused show hostility.
    
    I am however deeply surprised that legitimate hostility should be
    perceived as an excuse to ignore the properly enacted law...
    
    /. Ian .\

Something about .33 brought the song to mind:

"You only hurt, the one you love" [or is it always...]

Which led me to the thought that I don't believe in axioms where emotions are
concerned.
	Mez

    Re: .38
    
    Maggie, are *you* really suggesting that only laws with which you agree
    are those that should be adhered to?
    
      Alan
    

This string is beginning to remind me of #544, which began with a discussion 
of a talk and slide show on violent pornography by one of the women who 
spoke at the rally last Sunday (Gail Dines) and ended with people swapping
notes on what's good in porn these days. 

What about the issues that the women at last Sunday's rally were addressing in
the first place? What about a society that allows rape, wife battering,
international trafficking of women, and the other topics mentioned on the
flyer? Can we talk about these as legitimate grievances, or do we have to
keep on denying these issues? 

Dorian

I was really struck by the statement in that 'statistics' article from National
Review that said that 'men are, of course, more aggressive'. I was really
insulted for the men I love. But nobody else seemed insulted, so I wondered if
it was really a complement I didn't understand.
	Mez

    <--(.39)
    
    um, fundamentally, Alan, yes. That's what most of us do, as adults.
    
    There are only four reasons, after all: (1) we agree that it's right
    (2) we fear the consequences of disobedience (3) we just don't care
    enough (eg, it's illegal to fly a powered aircraft without some grade
    of pilot's licence; I obey that law because I'd have to go out of my
    way *not* to) and finally (4) it's the law and ipso facto it must
    therefore be obeyed.  Ian appears to support (4), but that's the one
    that fires the ovens as Stanley Milgram's (in)famous experiment
    demonstrated to our national horror and it's hard for me to believe
    that I can be reading Ian correctly.
    
    						=maggie

    I think I agree with Marge's evaluation of the event:  it attracted
    attention, but probably not any wide support.  I feel uncomfortable
    about it, myself...and yet I feel somewhat sure from my atavistic
    reaction at the Model Mugging graduation I participated in ["attended"
    doesn't cut it :-} ] that I would cheer if I heard that some abuser had
    been, eg, castrated by a group of former victims!  
    
    Now, what's the difference?  I'm not sure.  Maybe the indirectness of
    the connection in the case of pornography: the person who takes the
    economic hit of having his property destroyed is not the actual abuser.
    On the other hand, a reasonable case has been made in my opinion for
    considering a porno peddlar to be implicated in that class of crime
    generally (rather as a pusher or a fence is implicated in robbery or
    burglary).  So what the hell *should* happen?  I dunno, maybe take
    pictures of the patrons and post them in public places?  It's a hard
    problem, and women and children will continue to suffer abuse until
    *we* solve it.
    
    						=maggie

    re: .42
    
    In fairness, Dorian, the discussion that began was about the
    conduct of some of the demonstrators and how that conduct might
    be perceived.  I don't see the ensuing replies as "denying" any
    of the issues raised at the demonstration.  Just for the record,
    I believe that any ". . .society that allows rape, wife battering, 
    international trafficking of women. . ." has major trouble on it's
    hands; this is bad stuff that needs fixing.
    
    But it seems to me that by trashing the porn shops, some of the 
    demonstrators have made it easy to turn attention away from those 
    problems.  Though the level of violence is different, their actions 
    strike me as being similar to terrorist actions in the sense that 
    they focus attention on what should be done about the demonstrators
    or terrorists instead of what should be done about rape, wife 
    battering, or the conditions that the terrorists were decrying.  
    That's how this string started in the first place.
    
    Steve

Actually, I think this string started with an anonymous posting that pushed all
the wrong buttons....
	Mez

Re: .42

> This string is beginning to remind me of #544, which began with a discussion 
> of a talk and slide show on violent pornography by one of the women who 
> spoke at the rally last Sunday (Gail Dines) and ended with people swapping
> notes on what's good in porn these days.

That's not the way Notes seem to go. Sorry you're feeling the loss of total
control of the situation. 

> What about the issues that the women at last Sunday's rally were addressing in
> the first place? What about a society that allows rape, wife battering,
> international trafficking of women, and the other topics mentioned on the
> flyer? Can we talk about these as legitimate grievances, or do we have to
> keep on denying these issues?

Sure, *you* can keep on talking about these issues. Some of them are even
legitimate.

However, to purposely stage such a demonstration on Father's Day, a day
set aside to show Fathers that they are loved, respected and cared for by
their families is particularly tacky and uncalled for. 

It's also going to piss off a lot of people, male *and* female.

Some of these looney-tune groups are beginning to attract the derision
they deserve.

  Alan

    <--(.49)
    
    Alan, if there's anything "tacky and uncalled for", in my opinion it's
    ignoring the large issue (child abuse!) in favor of complaining about a
    smaller one (demonstrating on Fathers' Day).
    
    Sheesh!
    
    						=maggie

    Re .49
    
    Fine, I will keep on talking about those issues - but with people
    who are genuinely interested in them, rather than in burying their
    heads in the sand.
    
    Dorian

Do you think it's time for a cool-down period on this one?
	Mez

    If you people can feel for women who have been abused by their fathers,
    and understand why they might not like men too much, then I presume
    that you can feel for men who have been abused by their mothers, and
    understand why they might not like women too much, right?
    
    I know of no place where it is written that men are the only ones who
    abuse their children.  They may perpetrate most, but not all, of the
    sexual abuse committed against children, but they are far from alone in
    perpetrating other forms of child abuse. 
    
    If this notes file were my only source of information, I would have
    no way of knowing that women are just as capable of abusing their
    children as men are.  Of course, you all agree with me, right?
    
    Mike

      Back to the issue of what tack civil disobedience might have taken
      in this demonstration. The women could have lined the sidewalk in
      front of several porno shops and done nothing but look intently at
      the men entering them. They probably would have been arrested for
      loitering or some such but they would have made a dent in who
      entered the shop and they would have made a sympathetic picture in
      the press. Their actions, which responded to violence with
      violence, hurt their case IMHO.

      In one of the towns I lived in the police were not able to control
      prostitution. They kept arresting the hookers and it did no good.
      Then they hit on the idea of printing the names of the men who
      were caught with the hookers. It was a much more effective tool
      when the names of these fellows made the newspapers. It seems the
      same sort of thing might work here.

      FWIW, I don't like violent pornography, I also don't like
      censorship. I find the second a more frightening problem in a free
      society. liesl

    I have no objections to the demonstration on the Common.  I don't even
    mind the timing, but then, I'm not terribly sentimental about Mother's
    Day and Father's Day.
    
    The big problem, of course, is the vandalism.  In a way, such a violent
    and destructive action is like terrorism:  it attracts attention to the
    cause, but at the cost of alienating potential sympathizers.  I can
    understand how it might have come about (group dynamics being what they
    are) but I can't say I approve.  In an ideal world, the organizers of
    the event would have foreseen the need for emotional release and
    suggested or provided less destructive channels.

    I'm glad to have more information about the events that took place.
    While I support the goals of the initial demonstration (a world
    free from child abuse, etc.), I am extremely discouraged by the
    link to Father's Day, and the implication that fathers are
    implicitly child abusers.  (You may argue that they didn't say that,
    but that's the meaning I got from it.)
    
    As one of the "Nurturing Fathers" (as Maggie so aptly put it), I find
    my ability to sympathize and support the event severely compromised
    by what I consider to be an unfair and unwarranted attack on
    fathers in general.  I disagree that "sometimes it is necessary" to
    do such things for the added publicity - indeed, I would argue that
    the leaders of this event actually harmed their cause by providing
    such an easy hook for people to dismiss the entire agenda.
    
    What I see here is a repetition of an all-too-frequent situation -
    a group seemingly going out of its way to alienate exactly those
    people whose support and cooperation they need.  It saddens me.
    
    Lastly, in no way can I support the willful damaging of property
    that followed the demonstration.  This is just plain ugly.
    
    					Steve

       Which is the greater insult to Father's Day: the anti-abuse
       demonstration taking place on that day, or the existence and
       operation of the dirty book stores on that day?  Neither one is
       exactly supportive of the notion of the Happy Family Unit that
       Father's Day properly champions. 
       
       Anyway, Tarbet's point is well taken -- it's a red herring to
       overlook the function of the demonstration (the protest against
       abuse) because of the form that it took.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    I think it's important to separate the methods used (vandalizing
    porn shops) from the basic intention of the rally/demonstration.
    
    As someone who co-leads workshops for survivors of sexual abuse,
    I know that I could use a rally like that every time we finish a
    weekend workshop with survivors.  I have to deal with my own anger
    for every participant and for myself every time I do it.  I work
    mostly with women, and most women were abused by men, although some
    were abused by women.
    
    More and more information is coming to light on sexual abuse by
    both men and women.  The two best books on the subject I know are
    "The Courage to Heal" by Ellen Bass (about women) and "Victims No
    Longer" by Mike Lew (about male survivors).  You will find all the
    statistics you want in those two books.  The perpetrators are male
    and female, but mostly male in both cases.
    
    The techniques at the rally may not have been what we would have
    chosen, but then, who are we to judge what the participants got out of
    it? If some of those women stood up in public and named their abusers
    and said "I am a survivor and I am healing!" out loud for the first
    time in their lives, they may have reclaimed their right to their
    bodies and their lives and started on a journey towards reclaiming what
    was taken from them through violence. 
    
    In our workshops, women have a chance to express anger by using a
    baseball bat on a large punching bag in a carefully controlled
    situation.  Some women want to do this, some want to watch, and some
    don't want to be anywhere near where this is happening.  We honor all
    three ways of dealing with this.  It always amazes me to watch a woman
    who is seething with anger walk up to the punching bag and start to
    beat it.  The tension in her body mounts, horrible things come out
    of her mouth, and tears often follow the angry screams. Afterwards,
    though, when she is finished, a small smile of satisfaction appears. She
    holds her body with power and dignity.  Her voice is not choked with
    anger, pain and fear.  She is often receptive to receiving affection
    from the other women in the workshop.  I often feel that I am seeing
    her for the first time behind her mask of anger. 
    
    This process needs to happen for some people to heal.  At this rally,
    people made a similar process happen in their own way.  I don't
    think that our approval (or lack of approval) was what this was
    about for the women who participated.  If anything, they were declaring
    their own freedom from living for the approval of others!
                                                            
    Holly
    

RE: .40, =maggie
    
In .36 Ian spoke of objecting to "legitimate hostility" as "an excuse to ignore
the properly enacted law."  I agree with him, and think your objections and
your list of four reasons that we obey the law miss the point (just a little,
anyway :-) ).

    >There are only four reasons, after all: (1) we agree that it's right
    >(2) we fear the consequences of disobedience (3) we just don't care
    >enough (eg, it's illegal to fly a powered aircraft without some grade
    >of pilot's licence; I obey that law because I'd have to go out of my
    >way *not* to) and finally (4) it's the law and ipso facto it must
    >therefore be obeyed. 

The laws broken by the women probably involve disturbing the peace and
destroying private property.  I don't believe that anyone in this notes
conference objects to the existence of those laws -- we do, in fact, agree that
those specific laws are right, don't we???  In general, we obey those laws for
your first reason, not your fourth.

What the demonstrators objected to was the *content* of the storeowners'
private property, the perceived relationship between that content and the
women's victimization, and the legalization of the materials.  They didn't
"trash" the stores because they were opposed to the right to *all* private
property.  

A specific strategy could be devised to protest the right to own private
property, OR to protest the legal offering of those specific products to the
public.  During the Vietnam war, some demonstrators consciously planned, and
carried out, actions that involved destroying (government?) property.  They
knew what laws they were breaking; they knew the significance of the symbolism;
they thought carefully about the possible reactions, both in terms of
increasing support for their cause and in terms of legal action against
themselves. 

Apparently the action Sunday was *not* a planned strategy.  Unfortunately, it
sounds to me more like a temper tantrum, which is certainly not an image that
women need to promote.  That's why I agree that "legitimate hostility" is not
an excuse and is, above all, a poor substitute for carefully planned strategy.

Nancy
(who_challenges_maggie's_conclusions_about_Ian's_statement_with_fear_and_
trembling!)

    Not to worry, Nancy, I won't come 'round to your cube and start ripping
    things up [hehehehe].
    
    Seriously, though, I think I can't have explained myself well.  Ian's
    thesis seemed to be "it's a law *and therefore* it should have been
    obeyed".  The intrinsic social worth of the law didn't seem to be in
    question.
    
    Your questions about whether our =wn= community support laws concerning
    Disturbing the Peace and Destruction of Private Property feel too
    broadly brushed to me.  Do I support them?  No, certainly not
    unconditionally!  "DtP" laws are notorious for being used as a weapon
    against the powerless; it's why the Supreme Court has overturned them
    as being unconstitutionally vague.
    
    Similarly, I don't support the private-property laws unconditionally
    and I suspect that you don't either.  Let's take the example of the
    neighborhood in Detroit where drug dealers were forced to quit the
    neighborhood by having their house and cars repeatedly vandalised by
    the neighbors.  Presumably the dealers bought the house and cars and
    thus were in fact the legal owners.  So we have destruction of private
    property.  So, Good Thing or Bad Thing?   Why?  
    
                                          	=maggie

    =maggie,
    
    Given Ian's response, I guess you're right as to his thesis!

    Good point on disturbing the peace - I concede on that one!  However:

    >Similarly, I don't support the private-property laws unconditionally
    >and I suspect that you don't either.

    Well, I try (not always successfully) not to hold "absolute" views.
    I support the private-property laws *in general* and have not yet faced a
    situation where I personally felt I had no alternative to destroying
    someone else's property.  If I let myself go on *that* I could find all
    kinds of "reasons" to destroy various millionaires' property, all in the
    name of "justice"!  Pretty risky business.

    I had mixed feelings about those who poured "blood" (red ink?) on govt docs
    during Vietnam -- but I fully respected their actions *because those
    actions were part of a well-thought-out plan of civil disobedience!*
    (Basically I'm a coward and don't want to go to jail -- but I can
    imagine that changing under the right (wrong?) circumstances!) 

    My argument is one of strategy.  In the case of Sunday's demonstration, the
    women are opposed to the legalization of pornography.  The reports I've
    heard and read led me to believe that the actions were the result of
    "acting out" their legitimate rage in an uncontrolled way. (Thus my tantrum
    analogy.)  It did not show any evidence of strategic planning. And,
    presumably, the women are, or can be, part of a group that could 
    effectively strategize and demonstrate for social change.  They MIGHT
    *choose to include* the destruction of property as *part* of that strategy.
    
    >Let's take the example of the
    >neighborhood in Detroit where drug dealers were forced to quit the
    >neighborhood by having their house and cars repeatedly vandalised by
    >the neighbors.  Presumably the dealers bought the house and cars and
    >thus were in fact the legal owners.  So we have destruction of private
    >property.  So, Good Thing or Bad Thing?   Why?  

    Do I understand their feelings? Sure!  Would I have participated?  Quite
    possibly (I'm not much of a risk-taker, actually...).  Do I think it
    parallels the Sunday action?  No, not very well (except for the rage)
    because:

    (1) The drug dealers, unlike the porn shopowners, were the *direct cause* of
    the people's problems.  This is more analogous to dealing directly with an
    individual abuser than to the Sunday episode. 

    (2) If it was a typical inner city neighborhood, the
    people were very likely much more powerless than Sunday's group
    *could become*.  Abuse occurs across all social and economic groups.

    (3) It worked because it was repeated, whether or not it was part
    of a planned strategy over time.  There is no current
    *indication* that Sunday's episode is the first in a series.

    Nancy

  I can't quite grasp the reasoning of those who have said that this
  demonstration was somehow "inappropriate" on Father's Day.

  Put yourself in the shoes of those who have been abused by their
  fathers.  They must live year-round with a terrible load of extremely
  unpleasant feelings.  How much worse would these feelings be on a day
  when the entire country is paying homage to good ol' Dad?  The very fact
  of this demonstration is a reminder that some would be better off
  without a father.  

  So we're trading off the feelings of people living with abuse (who might 
  well need support on Father's Day more than on any other day) against
  those fathers who take any mention of abuse by a father as a personal
  affront.  I think the latter group should apply the "if the shoe fits,
  wear it" rule.  I would think that the true Nurturing Father would be
  among the most upset/disturbed by the existence (however prevalent or
  rare) of the abusive father.  No?

  NB, I think that the flood of schmaltz on Mother's Day is even more
  annoying because the volume is so much greater.  And I'd have no
  problem with a Mother's Day demonstration by  people who were abused by
  mom.  My feelings are probably the result of reading Philip Wylie's "A 
  Generation of Vipers" at a formative age...

  JP

    
    The choice of day doesn't bother me.
    
    If they'd hung and burned an effigy of archetypical abusers, that
    wouldn't have bothered me.
    
    If they'd picketed porn shops in protest at porn, that wouldn't
    have bothered me. Provided they didn't winge when fined for breaking
    the law against obstructing the street/sidewalk.
    
    *BUT* they carried out what I think of as "secondary action", and
    in doing so commited a serious breach of the law (there is a difference
    of more than degree between being arrested for loitering whilst
    peacefully picketing and commiting criminal damage...)
    
    /. Ian .\

The article from Monday's Herald that was entered in .18 was not included 
in its entirety. FWIW, I'm adding the remainder of the article here. It may 
be worth pointing out that, as is made clear in this portion of the
article, the police are not 100% certain that the people who vandalized the
porn shops were the same as those who held the rally on the Common. 

What follows resumes where .18 stopped:

"Rhea Becker, a co-organizer of the rally, last night denied the group had 
any involvement in the bookstore bashing.

"But Becker told a reporter at the afternoon rally: 'We're going down to 
the Zone and try to occupy one of the stores.'

"She would not be specific, but offered her home phone number to provide 
more information on what a press release touted as 'a march and action in 
the Combat Zone to protest...pornography and prostitution.'

"Police called to the scene by at least one bookstore employee apparently 
arrived too late to apprehend any members of the group, who reportedly 
fled down Boylston Street and back toward the Common after the rampage.

"Police said last night that they are 'almost sure' the vandals and the 
Common protesters were one and the same.

"'It looks like the same group,' said an Area A police lieutenant who did 
not want to be named. 'We're investigating a link.'

"Bobby, an employee at Love Toy Book Shop at 646 Washington St. who didn't 
want his last name printed, said he was sitting at the back of the store 
listening to the Red Sox game, when 'this group of women came in 
screaming.'

"'I told them they couldn't come in here because they had minors with 
them,' Bobby said as he stood amid the broken glass and torn magazines 
strewn over the floor of the shop.

"'They just pushed their way in, turned over the video case, ripped 
magazines off the shelves and picked up the postcard rack and threw it 
right through the door,' he said, pointing to the metal stand and shattered 
door.

"'We had to form a human chain and push them all out,' Bobby said. 'They 
did a few hundred dollars' damage, easy.'

"Workers at the nearby Fantasy Land bookstore stood in front of a 
shattered window as they picked books off the floor and re-stacked them 
yesterday afternoon.

"'We saw 50 or 60 of them walking up and down the street holding signs and 
chanting and all of a sudden they were in here,' an unidentified employee 
said.

"'They kicked in the glass and came and turned over the bookshelves. We 
grabbed them...and pushed them out and started yelling at them. We didn't 
know what hit us.' A third store, Daddy's, was not as heavily damaged.

"Earlier in the day, philosopher Bonnie Mann told onlookers at the rally: 
'It's better to fight than to lay back and take it.' Many women in 
attendance held placards with slogans such as 'Mad at Dad' or 'Father 
Doesn't Know Best.'

"'Men aren't like dogs. When the dog under attack shows its throat, the 
attacking dog backs off,' Mann said. 'If we show men out throats, they'll 
rip them out.'"

    re: .66
    
         I've deleted .56 because .55 was deleted and reentered as I
    wrote .56.  The line I was challenging was modified and the note
    is no longer relevant.
    
    ASP

Yeah, that caught my attention too. Also that the rally was to help survivors,
but the action in the bookstores was to protest pornography and prostituion.
So, I'm even more confused.
	Mez

	Re: =maggie's comment on vandalizing drug dealer's cars & houses..


	Bad thing.  *Very Bad Thing*.  Supporting the logic that "doing bad 
things to bad people is OK" is very dangerous.  That sort of logic can be used
to justify any actions you wish to take against any group of people you don't
like...

	Consider... (all of these opinions are for example only and I have
		     reason to believe the opinions are held by a
		     non-trivial segment of of the American population, though
		     I don't believe most would resort to the actions 
		     described.)

	o Abortionists are murderers, so it must be ok to vandalize, or
	  set fire to abortion clinics...

	o Rock records promote Satanic rituals/Promiscuity/Parental disrespect,
	  so it must be ok to ban records, or destroy them in the evil stores
	  that carry them...

	o Illegal aliens are taking away jobs from "real" Americans, so it
	  must be ok to beat them up, or kill them so they won't keep coming
	  here...


	I'm sure lots of other examples could be put forward by almost anyone
who reads this conference. (I deleted one of my examples I though might trigger
a knee-jerk reaction.)

	I support everyone's right to peaceful assembly.  I can't be the least
sympathetic for the destruction of personal property, as I believe the law,
while far from perfect, must be applied equally.

						--Doug

    Wow, this note has two distinct tracks, and it is interesting how
    people are more interested in discussing the lawbreaking/vandalism
    issue than the sexual abuse issue.  To the person who asked about
    Mother's Day, I would definitely support a protest rally on that
    day by people who had been abused by their mothers.  What better
    day to remind people that the loving parent ideal is not the
    experience every child had?  I am not a mother, but if I was one,
    I believe this kind of protest would make me feel sad for the survivors
    and angry at their parent.  And renew my dedication to being a good
    mother to my children.  And be thankful that my child was not growing
    up in a living hell where they were raped, beaten, and tormented
    by the people they are dependent on.
    	Linda

    I've gotten mail that indicated that there was pain about this
    note given a recent death of a person's father. I'd like to remind
    everyone in this file that there are degrees of pain and that
    those who love their paternal parents have a right to say that
    such demonstrations are painful to them.
    
    Bonnie

    I suppose that the biggest problem I have with the link to
    Fathers Day is that it is the attribute of being a father that
    is being degraded.  Yes, it's absolutely true that many men who
    are fathers abuse their children and/or wives, but is it the
    aspect of being a father that is to blame?  Why pin the stigma
    on being a father? 
    
    Despite those who don't think I should be allowed to feel hurt,
    I do.  And I stand by my earlier comment that these people did
    themselves much more harm than good by choosing Fathers Day as
    the theme of their protest.  I'm sure it made them feel good.
    Wonderful.  It also made them a lot of enemies.
    
    Was it worth it?
    
    				Steve

    	RE: .79  Steve Lionel
    
    	> I suppose that the biggest problem I have with the link
    	> to Fathers Day is that it is the attribute of being a father
    	> that is being degraded.
    
    	Well, that's your opinion, but I don't happen to agree.  I
    	absolutely adore my own father (and I called him on
    	Fathers Day to wish him a good one!)  I don't consider him
    	*or* his attributes as a Father degraded by the demonstration.
    
    	We're all entitled to our opinions on this, of course.
    
    	> Despite those who don't think I should be allowed to
    	> feel hurt, I do.
    
    	Well, your feelings are valid for you (and you don't need anyone's
  	permission to feel hurt.)  I feel sad that this has hurt you (as
    	I feel sad for the person whose father died recently and now
    	feels sad about this protest, as well.)
    
    	However, I *also* feel very sad for the women at the rally who 
    	were there because THEY hurt as victims (but who are NOW being 
    	treated by some as if they are worse than their attackers for having 
    	found what many consider an "unacceptable" way to relieve their pain.)
    
    	> And I stand by my earlier comment that these people did
    	> themselves much more harm than good by choosing Fathers Day
    	> as the theme of their protest.  I'm sure it made them feel
    	> good.  Wonderful.  It also made them a lot of enemies.
    
    	Well, I don't see how they acquired any personal enemies since
    	no one knows who the women were (and unless they work for Digital
	and read notes, I'm sure they thought that the tiny news story
    	went largely unnoticed by the rest of the state.)  
    
    	It went mostly *un-announced* in the rest of the country, so they 
    	probably have no idea that so many people (at Digital) are so 
    	utterly and completely outraged by all this.  (Or at least I hope 
    	they aren't really aware, for their sakes.)
    
    	As for making them feel good, one can only hope that some of
    	their pain was relieved in the process of acting out their
    	anger.  
    
    	As a former victim of violent assault myself, I can tell you that 
    	there are *very few things* that ever make me feel "good" about 
    	my experiences with violence.  Sometimes I feel more or less "at 
    	peace" about them, though, which is what I hope (with all my
    	heart) has happened for the victims of violence that took part in 
    	the Fathers Day demonstration.
    
    	> Was it worth it?
    
    	Perhaps.  Only they know for sure.  I hope it was.  (Not that
    	I would be enthusiastic about seeing a *repeat* of the event.)
    
    	Holly's description of workshops that deal with this kind of
    	pain sound *much* more appealing and appropriate to me.  I hope
    	that the women from the demonstration are able to seek something
    	like this at some point.  It sounds good.

Those who were intrigued by the fact that there's a porn shop called 
"Daddy's" in the Combat Zone (see the Herald article, .71) may be 
interested in the following items excerpted from a list of porn titles 
(books and films) published in the Commission's Report on Pornography a few
years back. The category is "Incest": 


	Daddy's Sweet Slut
	Daddy's Hot Daughter
	Serving Her Dad
	Daddy Tastes So Sweet
	Over Daddy's Knee
	Nights With Daddy
	Kneeling For Daddy
	Dad & Daughter Ecstasy
	Daddy's Girls
	Spank Me Daddy
	Daddy Dearest
	Daddy's Day of Reckoning
	Dad Goes Down
	Panties For Daddy

    as regards the demonstration:
    
       I can empathise with those who wished to gather together on Father's
    Day to try to accomplish some healing.  I love both of my parents very
    deeply, but have experienced frustration and sadness prior to both
    Mother's Day and Father's Day every year.  My mother bitterly abused me
    emotionally and my father's choice was not to see it.  I have had
    healing and I have forgiveness. I'd go shopping for cards, and out of
    _hundreds!_ cannot find one that says that I am thinking of them with
    love without also praising them to the skies for being there when I
    needed them -- they weren't -- or making me feel special -- they
    didn't.  Sometimes I'd leave the displays in tears because it brought
    it all back.  Now I buy beautiful blank cards and write in my own
    sentiment, and sometimes a quote or some of my poetry, letting them know
    that I love them -- I do -- and that I wish them a happy day -- I wish
    that _all_ their days be happy.
    
       If _any_ person experienced healing in attending the demonstration,
    _because_ the day it was held, allowed her/him to acknowledge without guilt
    that her/his love for her father is not without some reservation, then
    I feel that the day was chosen well.  [I know that reports have only
    women attending, but men have been abused as well]
    
    
    as regards the destruction of property:
    
       I don't like this one little bit.  [although I would probably enjoy
    trashing a porn shop or two myself...] I feel it was an innappropriate
    expression of an extremely valid rage/hurt.  I feel also that the
    outrage it provokes/d will make it harder for the victims of abuse to
    receive the hearing they so richly deserve.
    
      Ann
    
       

	There are two things happening here.

	One: Father's Day is the day we "honor" our fathers.  But what
		are we really honoring - the man who abused us, who
		chided us into being "men" and not human, not caring
		about our well being or the well being of the world
		and drilling that into our heads with his actions toward
		our mothers, our sisters and any woman that crossed his
		path.

		My father is a dear sweet bigot whom I love and dislike
		at the same time.  Is some of the emotions being expressed
		here because of the mixed feelings we have about our
		fathers? and the fact to face the fact that a large number
		of fathers don't deserve to be called fathers, and in 
		fact barely deserve to be called rational humans.

		If you are a father or if your father has not "fit into
		the shoe" of the abuser then you should be out there with
		the women protesting - for it is not the women who are
		denegrading fatherhood but the men who abuse the title.

	Two:  Distruction of personal property - our societial values are
		in such a mess that we argue over the right to distroy
		property but not people.  We have laws that protect the
		property-holders but not that protect the intergrity of
		humans.  Until we as a people begin to value people (and
		all other life forms - I know that is asking a lot) we
		will have outbreaks of anger towards the symbols of our
		oppression and not have ways to eradicate the cause of 
		anger.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			The Goddess does not own the world
			She is the world
			The powerful display of anger by a
			woman is Hers

			

    <--(.83)  *WELL* said, Peggy!

    I wonder if we're looking at the glass is half full/glass is half empty
    here.  I would prefer, for myself, that we honor correct behavior and
    hold it up as an example for others to follow.  That seems to me an
    appropriate use of the holiday.
    
    I believe we have 364/5 other days in the year to publicly protest
    those individual's behaviors which are abusive.  As I said, when's the
    next "Take back the night?"  I've marched before; I'll march again...
    just not on Father's Day.
    
    Other's opinions may, and do, vary.
    
    Marge

    Re: .83
    
    >But what are we really honoring - the man who abused us, who chided us 
    >into being "men" and not human, not caring about our well being or the 
    >well being of the world and drilling that into our heads with his
    >actions toward our mothers, our sisters and any woman that crossed his 
    >path.
    
    I do wish you hadn't used "we."  I'm having a very difficult time
    accepting what you've said because you've made a blanket statement.  It
    implies that what you've said is true for all cases and I know that's
    simply not so.  When you make sweeping statements, I stop trusting your
    judgement and discernment and I'm more likely to believe that your
    opinion is not worth my time.

	The "we" was because of the number of people, men and women
	who over the past n years have expressed to me (and I really
	don't know why) the words I wrote - I was writing for them.
	If my words do not match your experience then you are not
	part of the "we" but then again in this society the image of
	fatherhood and the experience of fatherhood has been more of
	the mode of the "distant, stern, untouching" (in a truly loving
	way) person.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			The Goddess is Mother to all
			and accepts us, female and male,
			as we are, for who we are.

    Re: .88
    
    I suspected "we" had a specific definition, because that's what the
    rest of the note indicated.  It's, well, surprising to see it used in
    that way without qualification.  Also, given some replies that indicate
    that some men think women all share the same brain, it makes me a
    little nervous.

    
>    If this notes file were my only source of information, I would have
>    no way of knowing that women are just as capable of abusing their
>    children as men are.  Of course, you all agree with me, right?
    
>    Mike


    Mike,

    VICTIMS NO MORE by Mike Lew published in November 1988 is a good
    book to persue on the issue of Male Incest Survivors.  It is 
    available at Wordsworth Bookstore in Cambridge, MA for $16.95.

    This book covers the issue of incest/sexual abuse for male victims
    but can easily be found to be quite helpful for female victims.  There
    is also a chapter on partners of survivors and what they go through
    by being so close to the survivor.

    Hope this helps.

    justme....jacqui

    re: "we" in NOTES
    
    I agree with Chelsea on this one; while I was fairly certain
    of the implied specific context of "we", I was somewhat uneasy
    with it's unqualified useage.
    
    It seems to me that in public NOTES conferences using unqualified
    words and phrases can (and often does) easily lead to misunder-
    standings.  "We" is a word which indicates the speaker and other 
    individuals, but the problem within written media is that without
    some explicit qualifier, *which* other individuals isn't obvious.  
    
    I realize that being obvious or explicit can be an annoying exercise, 
    but if one of the principal objects of writing here is to further our 
    clear understanding of each other, I feel that implicit qualifications 
    are counterproductive.  As a possible alternative, if Peggy's reply
    (.83) had read ". . .what are we, the abused, really honoring. . ."
    I would know immediately whether to include or exclude myself from
    that "we".
    
    Steve

    	After reading 90+ notes and reserving my reply for three days,
    I've seem to find many common threads in this string.
    
    1. Everyone, to a man or woman is horrified by the amount of abuse
    that is taking place against children.
    
    2. Everyone agrees that something must be done to enlighten people
    and end the problem.
    
    3. Everyone agrees that the demonstrators had the right to present
    their points to the public.
    
    Then a parting of the ways.
    
    I find it hard to believe that anyone in here can in one breath
    agree that these women have the rights under the first amendment
    and in the next deny those same rights to the owners of adult
    bookstores. I find it difficult to believe that those who decry
    abuse and violence then use violence against others. I find it hard
    to believe that support and sympathy can be given for an attack
    against a legitimate business by these women and yet the same
    sympathizers decry anti abortionists protesting at clinics.
    
    I could go on, but the point is useless in this string.
    
    If you support this type of action by these militant people, then
    you had better be ready for the re-action. Those women who attacked
    those stores were fortunate that they were not shot!! The proprietors
    could have killed a couple of them and claimed they were being
    assaulted and probably could have gotten away with self defense.
    A good lawyer could easily have gotten them off. I see what they
    did as a pre-planned and well executed display of hate, not anger.
    Notice they didn't go anywhere and challenge a group of men of equal
    number. 
    
    As to picking and choosing laws....
    
    That is the some of the most dangerous stuff I've ever heard. Anyone
    believing that they can pick and choose what laws they want is edging
    on anarchy. If you think that you can elect to ignore the rights
    of property owners then why can't some one else ignore the murder
    statute and be just as right?? Laws are intended to be for the common
    good not the individual good.
    
    Be ready for the backlash if this type of thing continues.
    
    Ken
    

    .94
    <flame on>                                              
    
    Well I surely disagree that what the women in the protest did on
    Sunday was a 'pre-planned and well executed display of hate, not
    anger'. I don't feel feel it was pre-planned at all, and I think
    that these women do hate--and with good reason--but that the driving
    force was anger.    
                                                           
    I think what one does with the 'head' is not necessarily what one
    does with the 'heart' ... in other words, emotion is usually stronger
    than logic.
    
    I think that it's easy enough to write into a notes file and talk
    quietly, sensibly, and logically about incest, abuse, laws, etc.
    But it's another thing to be actually involved--sure I can
    be intellectally cool here but if I have been abused most of my
    childhood, and just begin to recapture some of my rights as an
    adult, and begin to address and *feel* the injustice and the pain
    and the loss, well, watch out, I just might lose my cool intellect
    and turn into a 'militant', and 'angry feminist.' 
    (An aside--I am *sick* to death of feeling that it is 'bad' to be 
    militant, angry, or a feminist.  These are *not* four letter words, 
    and it's about time that women stop being afraid of being *angry*.)
              
    <bonfire here>
    
    Another point, I don't feel that these women were looking 'for a
    fight'; there was no need to find 'a group of men of equal number'
    and 'challenge' them -- I don't think they were looking for
    hand to hand combat ...
    I think they are furious and hateful of the society that permits
    garbage to be printed and distributed freely--garbage that describes
    and endorses in detail the pain and agony they went through as 
    children.  They *lived* this sh*t that is shown in this 'literature';
    they couldn't close the book and forget it...and they still carry
    the scars.
    
    <flame off>
    
    Where is the compassion for these people who were so hurt and
    victimized?
    
    
    Maria
    
                                                                       

    	RE: .94  Ken Kupton
    
    	> I find it hard to believe that anyone in here can in one
    	> breath agree that these women have the rights under the first
    	> amendment and in the next deny those same rights to the owners
    	> of adult bookstores.
    
    	Where did you see anyone *in here* deny those bookstore owners
    	their rights?  What rights do adult bookstore owners HAVE
    	that can be *denied* by the way ASCII code is arranged on a disk
    	on RAINBO/MOSAIC::?

    	> I find it difficult to believe that those who decry abuse
    	> and violence then use violence against others.
    
    	Well, "abuse and violence" is relative, after all.  Had I been
    	given the choice, I would have *preferred* that my ex-husband
    	tear up my favorite magazines and overturn my bookshelves rather
    	than break my nose, blacken both my eyes repeatedly and shoot
    	me with a high-powered beebee gun.  I'm sure it would have been
    	a lot less painful.
    
    	As for how the women could tear up the magazines and all, I
    	guess you'll have to ask them how they could do it (since,
    	as far as I know, none of us here were involved in it.)
    
    	> I find it hard to believe that support and sympathy can be
    	> given for an attack against a legitimate business by these
    	> women and yet the same sympathizers decry anti abortionists
    	> protesting at clinics.
    
    	It's easier for me to feel compassion for people who commit an
     	isolated incidence of momentary vandalism against magazines than 
    	I am able to feel for those who engage in a sustained, systematic 
    	attack leveled against people seeking medical treatment.

    	> If you support this type of action by these militant people,
    	> then you had better be ready for the re-action.  Those women
    	> who attacked those stores were fortunate that they were not
    	> shot!!
    
    	This sounds like an implied death threat.  Is that what it's
    	supposed to be (or is it just a "death warning"?)  Either way,
    	I think you're out of line here.
    
    	> The proprietors could have killed a number of them and claimed
    	> they were being assaulted and probably could have gotten away
    	> with self defense.
    
    	Undoubtedly.  They probably just didn't think of it in time.
    	I'm sure they're talking about the missed opportunity *now*,
    	though (and won't miss their shot, so to speak, next time.)
    
    	> I see what they did as a pre-planned and well executed disply
    	> of hate, not anger.
    
    	Had it been pre-planned and well executed, they would have done
    	far more damage (and would not have risked being seen or caught.)
    	
    	> If you think that you can elect to ignore the rights of property
    	> owners then why can't some one else ignore the murder statute
    	> and be just as right??
    
    	As far as I know, no one here has committed vandalism (but even
    	if any of us had, vandalism is not the same thing as murder.)
    
    	> Be ready for the backlash if this type of thing continues.
    
    	Hey, the backlash has already arrived (and it's been with us
    	for a long time.)  So what else is new?
    
    	Our society has a very low tolerance for any overt acts of
    	insubordination committed by women against the ruling majority,
    	so I'm quite sure we will be paying for this small outburst
    	of vandalism (by these few women) for a long, long time.
    
    	However, it certainly isn't the fault of the demonstrators that 
    	our society as a whole has so much contempt for women.  I still
    	feel compassion for the women from the rally, and I refuse to 
    	condemn them as if their small act of vandalism was a capital crime.

    	RE:  .97  AERIE::THOMPSON 

    	> Suzanne, Ken was expressing a fear many of us have that somehow
    	> acts of violence by feminists, gays, minorities risks the
    	> result of open hostility between those who benefit from the
    	> status quo and those who seek change.
    
    	Eagles, I realize that the "tearing of magazines" may make those
    	in power mad enough to vow to kill women if it happens again.
    	I just happen to think that the degree of this response to a
    	small amount of violence says a great deal about how women are
    	regarded in this country.  Don't you??
    
    	> While feminist statements like the one above have a valid
    	> context ... demonstrations on Father's Day involving vandalism
    	> may hurt your cause more than they help those who were angry
    	> enough to take part.  How many men and how many "traditional"
    	> women do you gather to your side and how many do you alienate?
    
    	What makes me angry is the fact that *one* demonstration (by
    	less than 100, out of over 100 *MILLION* women in this country)
    	is seen as something that can hurt our cause.
    
    	Women are raped, beaten and killed in this country every single
    	day (every HOUR of every single day,) and if 100 women get angry
    	enough about it to tear up a few magazines, then our cause against
    	such violence is damaged!!  (There is something *exceptionally*
    	twisted about that kind of cultural value system, in my book.)

    	> But you don't want to hear what we men who follow =wn= have
    	> to say about all this ...
    
    	I've heard it.  I don't like some of it.  (Some responses from
    	another conference have made me furious.)  I think the way some
    	people are blowing this incident out of proportion really STINKS!
    
    	> When a few women who are believed to be feminists commit a
    	> foolish act that is offensive to a large voting block ...
    	> Kiss ERA good-bye !!!
    
    	Not that it was about to be passed anyway...
    
    	My feeling is that if the "voting block" to which you refer
    	can be turned against us so easily, then that says a lot about
    	how little tolerance they have for women in general.
    
    	The relative number of men who rape, beat and kill women is
    	**so many thousands of times greater** than the number of women
    	who participated in this event that I find it hard to believe
    	that anyone could find this event significant enough to change
    	their voting habits in any way.
    
    	However, if some men can be **so angry** about a few women tearing
    	up magazines, then I would say that our level of anger over
    	women being raped, beaten and killed is ridiculously small in
    	comparison.
    
    	It almost sounds to me as if porn magazines are considered more
    	important than women's lives in our culture.  (How ironic, since
    	the magazines are, themselves, a distorted view of women.)
    
    	> It isn't being right that counts as much as not losing votes
    	> by appearing too radical and crazy to John and Jane Doe when
    	> they go to the polls.
    
    	Well, if all it takes is less than 100 women (out of over 100
    	million women) to make someone change his/her vote about women's
    	rights, then s/he was never on the side of women's rights in
    	the first place.  This incident is nothing more than an easy
    	out.
    
    	> Eagles_Suggest_It_Takes_Very_Little_2_Tarnish_a_MOVEMENT
    
    	...especially when those who wish to tarnish the movement are
    	as opportunistic as anti-feminists are.  (Not meant to imply
    	anything about you personally, or any other individual, of course.)

How many of us are aware of exactly what type of pornography is sold
in the Combat Zone shops the women went into? I've never been in any of
them myself, but I'll wager we're not talking "just Playboy" here. Maybe
someone should pay those shops a visit (is it safe?) and assess whether the
women's anger towards them was legitimate, even if their methods weren't?
    
Dorian

    re: Suzanne...
    
    I never made a death threat. Geezz you read more garbage into a
    reply than most people can dream up. If you are familiar with the
    "Combat Zone" of Boston, you'd realize that what I was saying is
    that by storming a porno shop that area, they could have risked
    getting splattered all over those shops. Many owners/propietors
    of that area used to keep firearms at the ready. Since only a couple
    of establishments exists today maybe they no longer have to.
    
    I stand on my reply that you can't pick and chose laws that you
    wish to obey or not obey, be it a minor traffic violation or a felony.
    I was NOT comparing any one act to another, rather by example showing
    how foolish and extreme that kind of statement can be.
    
    Whether anyone likes or dislikes an adult bookstore, it gives them
    NO right to trash it, regardless of their reasoning. My response
    extolls the RIGHT of the shop owner to legally sell his products
    as well as the right of anyone to protest what he sells. To destroy
    his income and his property denies his rights. He would have no
    more right to go to the demonstration and fire tear gas or something
    that would cause them to disband.
    
    If you can't condemn the action of these women in the willful
    destruction of property, then you can't condemn anti-abortionists
    destroying a clinic, right?? Oh but I forgot, YOU don't support
    the anti-abortionist movement, so destruction of the clinic is wrong.
    Right???? Come on, you can't have it both ways. It's either right
    in all cases or wrong in all cases, no exceptions. 
    
    I fully support equality for sexes, colors, religions. I believe
    in equal pay, status, and treatment. I don't believe in exceptions
    because I believe in a cause, or preferential treatment because I
    support an effort. 
    
    I don't know how long it took to get from the demonstration to the
    shops, but I'm sure that if it was any distance, cooler heads should
    have prevailed. 
    
    Re: Eagle....thanks for you help.
    
    Ken
    

    Re .97 (Eagle):
                                     
    What _do_ you think the average male thinks about having* his wife
    working when he can't find a job?                        
                                                             
    -Tracy
    
    *interest choice of phrase since it implies that the choice is his...
    
    

    
    you guys are absolutely right; we really should be much more careful to
    not challenge male behaviour and attitudes.
    

    	RE: .100 Kupton
    
    	> I never made a death threat.
    
    	Oh.  Was it just a "death warning," then?   Hmmm?  I'm glad
    	I *asked* you what it was, then, rather than making any assumptions.

    	> If you can't condemn the action of these women in the willful
    	> destruction of property, then you can't condemn anti-abortionists
	> destroying a clinic, right??
    
    	Never tell me what I can or can't do, Ken.
    
    	> Oh but I forgot, YOU don't support the anti-abortionist movement,
	> so destruction of the clinic is wrong.  Right????  Come on,
    	> you can't have it both ways.  It's either right in all cases
    	> or wrong in all cases, no exceptions.
    
    	Never give me ultimatims in a discussion.  It only pisses me
    	off.
    
    	As it happens, if the anti-abortionists had gotten upset ***ONE***
	***TIME*** (after some kind of emotional rally) and had torn
    	up reproductive rights **literature** in the heat of the moment
    	(***ONE***TIME***), and had then run off (because it wasn't
    	a ploy for publicity, but was just a moment where their emotions
    	got the best of them,) I wouldn't condemn them for it either.
    
    	That is *NOT* how they operate, however, as we all know, and
    	by the way, tearing up some magazines is *NOT* the same thing
    	as destroying an entire clinic.  

    that is,
    
    Ken, let's keep abortion/anti-abortion away from this note. Thanks
    

If I read another inflammatory note (my call) in this topic before I go home
today, I'm write-locking for a 24-hour (or longer) cool down period.

	Mez

    Re: .98
    
    >The relative number of men who rape, beat and kill women is **so many 
    >thousands of times greater** than the number of women who participated 
    >in this event
    
    Something which is no doubt throwing off perceptions is that those men
    act alone, while the women acted in concert.  To some people, anything
    more than three people acting together becomes A Movement which, as we
    all know, is a threat to liberty and democracy everywhere ....

             
    A few legal definitions...
    
    Depends where you are but three or more people coming together and
    deciding to comit a crime is [the definition of] conspiracy where I am. 
    
    Curiously enough criminal trespass and criminal damage have quite
    modest penalties [here]. But conspiracy has no maximum penalty. 
    Conspirators could easily go to jail for the rest of their lives. 
    
    /. Ian .\

Last night I spoke with one of the organizers of the rally. She made the 
following points:

1. The rally itself was "wonderful," lasting about an hour and a half, very 
healing for the women who named their abusers and described their abuse. It 
was moving, she said, to see these women, many of whom were extremely angry, 
relate such painful incidents in public on the Common. Many found it very 
difficult; some held hands with each other for moral support as they spoke. 
Most of the incidents related were of sexual abuse perpetrated by fathers, 
brothers, doctors (many doctors, she said), and a few women. There were men 
as well as women at the rally, but mostly women. They were from at least 
three states--MA, NH, and RI.

2. The rally was held on Fathers Day because its purpose was to dishonor 
fathers who had perpetrated abuse.

3. The Globe had been invited to attend the rally, but did not.

4. The Herald article was extremely biased. As one example, the term 
"self proclaimed manhaters" did not, as far as she knew, come from anyone 
connected with the rally; she did not know who originated it.

5. As for the incident in the Combat Zone, the original intention was to 
peacefully visit one or two porn stores, chant the following line five 
times, and then move on: "We know who you are and we know what you are 
doing to women." But emotions had been raised to a high pitch and the visit 
turned into a riot. Who exactly the people were who did the damage, and 
whether or not they were among those who had been at the rally, she did not 
know (nor do the police).

She mentioned that she was thinking of organizing tours of Combat Zone porn
stores, so people can see what they're like. When you enter one, she said,
it's immediately obvious what kind of place it is; you see such titles as
"Boy Scout Rapists" and the like. The proprietors generally become very
nervous when women enter the stores. 

She added that she had been on a radio talk show yesterday afternoon to 
discuss the rally. The host, she said, was "extremely sexist" in his 
treatment of her, repeatedly criticizing her and others associated with the 
rally for being "angry" and "emotional."

She also said that another journalist is writing an account of the rally 
that is expected to appear in the publication "Sojourner" within the next 
few weeks.

For anyone who's interested, the woman I spoke with runs a group called the 
Women's Alliance Against Pornography, P.O. Box 2027, Cambridge, MA 02238. 
Currently they are not holding regular meetings, because of lack of space, 
but this might change in the fall. They'll send out literature on request, 
including a full page of porn titles from which the "Daddy" porn titles
listed in .81 were excerpted. 
    
    Dorian
    

    	RE: .112 Dorian
    
    	Thanks very much for entering your account of the phone
    	conversation you had with this co-organizer!!  
    
    	It helps to be able to hear what another person who was there
    	has to say about all this (including the publicity afterward,
    	especially the unfair labeling of the people at the rally as
    	"self-proclaimed man haters.")
    
    	Thanks again!!

Re: .81

> Those who were intrigued by the fact that there's a porn shop called 
> "Daddy's" in the Combat Zone (see the Herald article, .71) may be 
> interested in the following items excerpted from a list of porn titles 
> (books and films) published in the Commission's Report on Pornography a few
> years back. The category is "Incest": 

The Commission's Report, The Commission's Report... where have I heard that?

Oh!! I remember, now. You must be talking about the Meese report, the report
that most people (even on the Commission) found not to prove any causal
connection between pornography/erotica (mags like Playboy were included)
and violence against women. No matter, though. Ed was busy trying to hustle
support from Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority.

Of course, we all remember Ed Meese and his version of honesty. Now, if you're
looking for a really good definition of a panderer, Ed Meese is your boy. 

I'm not sure what the inclusion of titles with the word "Dad/Daddy" is
supposed to prove, other than it seems to fit in with Fathers Day.

          
Re: .112

> Last night I spoke with one of the organizers of the rally. She made the 
> following points:

This is good news! Now, the police may have some leads in apprehending the
people who got out of hand at the book stores. Maybe they can ask her to
view "mug-shots", to hopefully apprehend the perpetrators of this wanton
destruction of property and assault of our First Amendment Freedom of Speech.

> 2. The rally was held on Fathers Day because its purpose was to dishonor 
> fathers who had perpetrated abuse.

Next year will there be an "equal-time" rally to honor non-perps?  

> 3. The Globe had been invited to attend the rally, but did not.

I presume the Globe felt that either the rally wasn't newsworthy enough, or
else, that the newspaer didn't feel like being manipulated into providing
free advertising for some fringe group.

> 4. The Herald article was extremely biased. As one example, the term 
> "self proclaimed manhaters" did not, as far as she knew, come from anyone 
> connected with the rally; she did not know who originated it.

"As far as she knew" is hardly the same as proving that someone connected
with the rally did *not* use that term to describe the group. And are
there any other examples of this alleged bias?  

 > 5. As for the incident in the Combat Zone, the original intention was to 
> peacefully visit one or two porn stores, chant the following line five 
> times, and then move on: "We know who you are and we know what you are 
> doing to women." 

So much for good intentions if, indeed, that had been the *real* original
plan.

>         But emotions had been raised to a high pitch and the visit 
> turned into a riot. Who exactly the people were who did the damage, and 
> whether or not they were among those who had been at the rally, she did not 
> know (nor do the police).

It's funny. There's a Note going on in another Conference, in which one
of the contributors here tends to get a bit upset if people call the event
a "rampage" or a "riot". This person intimates that it was relatively
innocuous, viz.,  destruction of a "few magazines".

> She mentioned that she was thinking of organizing tours of Combat Zone porn
> stores, so people can see what they're like. When you enter one, she said,
> it's immediately obvious what kind of place it is; you see such titles as
> "Boy Scout Rapists" and the like. The proprietors generally become very
> nervous when women enter the stores. 

Oh God, crusaders.............I love 'em. Would these be like tours of the
White House or the Adams mansion in Quincy?

> She added that she had been on a radio talk show yesterday afternoon to 
> discuss the rally. The host, she said, was "extremely sexist" in his 
> treatment of her, repeatedly criticizing her and others associated with the 
> rally for being "angry" and "emotional."

> 1. The rally itself was "wonderful," lasting about an hour and a half, very 
> healing for the women who named their abusers and described their abuse. It 
> was moving, she said, to see these women, many of whom were extremely angry, 
                                                                        ^^^^^
I don't know what to think here. You, yourself, have used this word. "Angry"
sounds like *"angry"* to me.

> She also said that another journalist is writing an account of the rally 
> that is expected to appear in the publication "Sojourner" within the next 
> few weeks.

I'll make sure I rush right out and buy my copy.

> For anyone who's interested, the woman I spoke with runs a group called the 
> Women's Alliance Against Pornography, P.O. Box 2027, Cambridge, MA 02238. 
> Currently they are not holding regular meetings, because of lack of space, 
> but this might change in the fall. They'll send out literature on request, 
> including a full page of porn titles from which the "Daddy" porn titles
> listed in .81 were excerpted. 

Great! Now I won't have to read the Meese report to find out what's hot
in erotica.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, before the women who "marched" on these few adult bookstores try to
claim a victory when they close, there is some background information for
readers who do not live in the Greater Boston Area. 

Back in its glory-days, Boston's Combat Zone was the officially sanctioned
red-light district, replete with strip-joints, adult book stores, adult
movie houses and hookers.

Over the past 5 years or so, the Zone has been dwindling. What's happened
is that with the popularity of VCR's, people (men and women) can now watch
erotica in their living-room or bedroom. They don't have to patronize
the bars or the movie-houses.

Also, the land which comprised the Zone is worth some very serious money. So,
as leases have expired, the owners of the various establishments have been
selling their property for top dollar to developers.
    
At this time, there are only a few bookstores left, which, I believe, are 
scheduled to be sold off within the next year.    
    
  Alan                                         

    Re: .116
    
    >Next year will there be an "equal-time" rally to honor non-perps?
    
    Nothing to stop you from organizing one.  Of course, as I recall the
    concept of "equal time," it only applies to political campaigning
    within the broadcast media.
    
    >So much for good intentions
    
    You know what they say about the road to hell.
    
    >if, indeed, that had been the *real* original plan.
    
    You're really doing your damndest to see these people in the worst
    possible light, aren't you?  First "fringe group" and now premeditated
    vandals.
    
    >There's a Note going on in another Conference, in which one of the 
    >contributors here tends to get a bit upset if people call the event
    >a "rampage" or a "riot".
    
    I hadn't noticed that slant, but I might not have been paying close
    enough attention.  But yes, it's really wierd how different people have
    different opinions about the same event.  Wonder why that happens?
    
    >before the women who "marched" on these few adult bookstores try to
    >claim a victory when they close
    
    As I understand it, an organization usually claims victory.  However,
    I'm not sure what the organization in this case would be.  To my
    knowledge, the participants were not affiliated with any organization,
    or have they formed an organization.
    
    What I see you doing is casting the events into a preconceived pattern
    of feminist protest.  Rather than examining the event, you examine your
    preconceived pattern.  An easier approach, to be sure, but one that is
    more prone to error.

    Re .116:
    
    No.
    
    Dorian