NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/men/21732

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 4.5 KB

Xref: sparky soc.men:21732 soc.women:21859 alt.feminism:6469
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!cos!cos!bob1
From: [e-mail] (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Message-ID: <bob1.725125869@cos>
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:51:09 GMT
Lines: 86

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Harter) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Amy Young Leith) writes:

>>>[e-mail] (Richard Harter) writes:

>>>>For every woman that is the victim of violence there are three men that
>>>>are the victims of violence.  Since "we" see a special need for action
>>>>against violence against women, but not against men, the natural conclusion
>>>>is that "we" feel that violence against a woman is more than three times
>>>>as serious as violence against a man.

>>>>Do you not see that this sort of viewpoint is perceived as amounting to
>>>>saying, "Women are more important, more human than men.  Their hurts matter
>>>>more.  Women are entitled; men are not."

>>Given the statistics, there is a lot of sexism going on here in this issue.

>>Violence against women is seen as a "bigger evil" perhaps because
>>women are still viewed as "unable" to protect themselves, or unfairly
>>"outranked" by men.  This is one possible explaination which is quite
>>sexist.

>>The other could follow the logic that women do not victimize men as
>>much as men victimize women, therefore the latter is a "larger"
>>problem.

>All good points.  The same statistics make it abundantly clear that
>men are the source of the vast majority of violence against men and
>women both.

>As a society, we pay lip service to the notion that the weak are
>entitled to special protection, that violence against the weak is
>more reprehensible.  I say lip service, because it is noteworthy
>that the weak make the best and most convenient victims. [Contrast
>the ideals of chivalry and the practice of feudalism.]

>What no one seems to mention is that violent activity is a source of
>pleasure.  [But not for all of us.]  Ghengis Khan once said that the
>greatest thing in life was to slay your enemy and sleep on the white
>bellies of his women.  As a rule, human societies tend to reserve
>the fine pleasures of rape, pillage, war, looting, mugging, and
>bar room brawls [to say nothing of football] to the male of the species,
>although women will enthusiastically partake of said delights, given
>the opportunity.  It does take a certain amount of training and
>conditioning to participate in these, ah, sports and again, most
>societies are more generous in providing said training and conditioning
>to men than to women.

>Perhaps what we are saying, as a society, is that those who aren't
>players in the great game of blood sports should not suffer the
>associated penalties.  On the evidence, however, we don't seem to
>be terribly serious about it.

Point made. I've often wondered why we train (mostly men) in these
fine arts of war, but once the war is over we spend no money in
re-training in the fine arts of peace. Not having ever served in
the military (for some reason, they won't take people with dis-
abilities) I only know from observation and discussion with friends
who have served. War is hell on peoples psyches, it simply is not
enough to say that 'Well, you were fighting for your country and
you won, congratulations, here's a medal, now come back home and
resume your life.

When my son was in little league hockey, I saw coaches teaching
young boys things that made my teeth ache, but the bottom line
was win at all costs. And as Richard said above, the women
partook - you should have heard some of the mothers at the games.

I guess what I'm trying to say (probably not very well - but it's
a lousy day) is that we are looking at symptoms and are trying to
treat the symptoms (I know, its been said before). We really must
get at the source of this 'disease' and eradicate it.

Oh well, for now have a Happy Christmas and a better New Year.

>--
>Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: [e-mail] Phone: [phone]
>US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: [phone]
>In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
>Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.

Bob.

Who would want to claim these opinions?