Conference quark::mennotes-v1

                          The White Ribbon Campaign
                 Breaking Men's Silence To End Men's Violence
                          December 1st to 6th, 1991

    If it were between countries, we'd call it a war.  If it were a disease, 
we'd call it an epidemic.  If it were an oil spill, we'd call it a disaster.  
But it's happening to women, and it's just an everyday affair.  It is violence 
against women.  It is rape at home and on dates.  It is the beating or the 
blow that one out of four Canadian women receive in their lifetime.  It is 
sexual harassment at work and sexual abuse of the young.  It is murder.
    There's no secret enemy pulling the trigger.  No unseen virus that leads 
to death.  It's men.  Men from all social backgrounds and of all colours and 
ages.  Men in business suits and men in blue collars.  Men who plant the 
fields and men who sell furniture.  Not weirdos.  Just regular guys.
    All those regular guys, though, have helped create a climate of fear and 
mistrust among women.  Our sisters and our mothers, our daughters and our 
lovers can no longer feel safe in their homes.  At night, they can't walk to 
the corner for milk without wondering who's walking behind them.  It's hard 
for them to turn on a TV without seeing men running amok in displays of 
brutality against women and other men.  Even the millions of women in 
relationships with the majority of men who are gentle and caring feel they 
cannot totally trust men.  All women are imprisoned in a culture of violence.
    Men's violence against women isn't aberrant behaviour.  Men have created 
cultures where men use violence against other men, where we wreak violence on 
the natural habitat, where we see violence as the best means to solve 
differences between nations, where every boy is forced to learn to fight or to 
be branded a sissy, and where men have forms of power and privilege that women 
do not enjoy.
    Men have been defined as part of the problem.  But we are writing this 
statement because we think men can also be a part of the solution.  
Confronting men's violence requires nothing less than a commitment to full 
equality for women and a redefinition of what it means to be men, to discover 
a meaning to manhood that doesn't require blood to be spilled.

With all of our love, respect and support for women in our lives:
  � We urge men across Canada to hang a white ribbon from their house, their 
    car, or at their workplace and to wear a white ribbon or armband from 
    Sunday, December 1 through Friday, December 6, the second anniversary of 
    the Montr�al massacre.  The white ribbon symbolises a call for all men to 
    lay down their arms in the war against our sisters.
  � We ask unions, professional associations, student councils, corporations, 
    and government bodies to make this an issue of priority, starting with the 
    circulation of this statement.
  � We urge all levels of government to radically increase their funding to 
    rape crisis centres, shelters for battered women, and for responsible 
    services to treat men who batter.
  � We call for large-scale educational programs for police officers and 
    judges, in work places and schools, on the issue of men's violence.
  � We commit ourselves to think about sexism in our own words and deeds and 
    to challenge sexism around us.  We urge all Canadian men to do the same.
  � We urge men to circulate this statement to other men, to send donations to 
    women's groups or to us, to continue this campaign.  We ask the media to 
    show their concern by reprinting and broadcasting this statement in full.
  
                          The White Ribbon Campaign
            253 College Street, Box 231, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1R5

    Bob,
    
    	I would love to send money to your wounderful cause. Problem....
    What of battered men. Men who are thrown in the streets on a trumped up
    charge of violence? Will your org give money to help these men? Will
    your org give money to help these men get a fair divorce? They are
    battered too. 
    

    Gosh, RUAH, I think that sounds like a splendid but different cause. 
    Why don't you organize it and leave this one alone?
    
    Ray

    "Men don't batter their wives, PEOPLE batter wives"

    How true.  I guess it's just human nature ... when we came off of
    active duty it was very aptly pointed out to us that if we, for
    whatever reason, beat the bejesus out of someone it won't be "CITIZEN
    BEATS BEJESUS OUT OF ASSAILANT" .. it will most assuredly be "EX-MARINE
    BEATS BEJESUS OUT OF ASSAILANT".

    However, Mr. Ruah does have a point ... does he not?

    re.2
    Good question. Does the base noter have a responce?
    
    -j

    RE: .2

    The base notes seem pretty clear to me.  I don't think the
    focus will be on battered men.

    FWIW - it seems to me that women suffered silently and alone
    for an awful long time before men organized something like the
    White Ribbon Campaign.  It wasn't until women pulled together
    and raised their voices loud enough that institutions began to
    respond.  I'm aware of anecdotal evidence regarding the plight
    of male victims of domestic violence (both physical and psychological)
    and a similar campaign on their behalf would certainly be a 
    worthy effort.  My guess is that it will take a lot of organizing
    on the part of male victims of domestic violence, before we see
    a lot of focus on this problem, however.

    As an aside, there are groups of men organized to protect other 
    men from violence.  In most big cities, gay bashing is a serious
    problem that is ignored (generally) by the majority.  There's been
    no straight "White Ribbon Campaign" for gays, so gays have had to
    help themselves.  That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with
    the intent, focus, and goal of the White Ribbon Campaign, and I,
    for one, applaud their efforts.  I have five, young, attractive,
    sisters and statistics suggest at least one of them will definitely
    become a victim at some point.  I'll support any effort that might
    sway the odds in their favor.  (and I will emphasize, just in case
    there's any confusion, that support in favor of my sisters - women -
    doesn't mean I don't support efforts in favor of men.  I know that
    despite my saying this, some people will assume otherwise....)

    /Greg

	Relax guys.  This is another wonderfully "safe" stands
	taken by the great poseurs of our time.  Like the TV
	station that "take a stand" on child abuse, or wife
	battery, etc.

	Hardly controversial.

	But it makes them feel so good.....

	Steve H

.6> As an aside, there are groups of men organized to protect other 
.6> men from violence.
    
    Name them.
    
    Bubba

    
    Perhaps we can start a separate topic for what we can do for battered
    men, and another for what we can do for battered gays.
    
    The energy we need to focus on all three topics needs to be coherent
    and powerful enough to make a difference, to be heard.  It is so easy
    to let the energy dissipate by people saying "what about this, what
    about that."  If it is important, please discuss it, please support it. 
    But if you believe this topic has validity, please let it stand and
    help it focus by actualizing your beliefs and your energies about other
    causes in other topics.
    
    Yes, the causes are parallel.  No, there is no need to invalidate one
    cause just because it isn't all causes.  There are many causes.  This
    is one of them.
    
    Can we save the world one action at a time?  Can we support several
    causes at once?  Can we afford the strength to allow EACH to stand on
    its own, without dismissing one as not serving all purposes?
    
    I am not saying they are not all important.  I am saying they are all
    important enough to deserve their own topic.
    
    -Jody
    

    Guys,

    		Before we get all wacked out over this, stop and think.

    		1. Men in total are not the problem concerning domestic 
    	violence.

    Domestic violence is a problem for both genders. To lay it totally at
    the feet of men is incorrect. If we allow that to happen the
    ramifications are far reaching. *SOME* men and women perpetrate domestic and
    public violence, not all men nor all women.

    		Domestic violence is not cut and dried. Self-defense comes
    to mind. As an example. Now, before I give the example let me state
    that this is not condoning violence on women or men, just an example
    from a male perspective nothing more.

    ***************************EXAMPLE ONLY*****************************
    	My ( wife or girlfriend ) have an argument ( we both have bad
    tempers ). She gets very angry and goes to the kitchen and gets a
    knife. I try to talk her into putting the knife away, she lunges at me.
    I beat the hell out of her. Am I wrong? Maybe, is she the victim, I
    don't think so.
    **********************************************************************

    	What I'm saying is it is not cut and dried. We need to find out why
    people get to this point not tie ribbons all over the world. Above all
    we can not allow all men to be portrayed as beaters of women.

    		Other wise situations such as the one in Utah will happen
    everywhere. In Provo, Utah women are asking for a curfew for men one
    night a week so they can feel safe. Can anyone see whats wrong with
    that picture. I have never, and can see no situation except
    self-defense, hit a woman. I have been hit by a woman. Should I blame
    all women for that, no I don't think so, after all it was one woman
    doing the hitting not the whole gender.


    		I can never support a statement of "stopping the violence
    on women by men". I can never support a statement of "stopping the
    violence on men by women". I will not condemn a whole gender because of
    the actions of a few.


    		Let us discuss this issue and all the ramifications of not
    so well thought out solutions.

    		I think it's more personal than cultural. People are losing
    it, unless we find the root cause "it aint gonna get better".


    			HAND
    			Wayne    

    You are ABSOLUTELY correct, Wayne that Men in total are not the problem
    concerning domestic violence. Some of the personal testaments to that
    in this conference have been painfully elequent supporting that.
    
    I think it may the case that American women are much more apt to be
    'emotionally violent' whereas American men are much more apt to be
    physically violent. We could debate for hours as to which is worse. My
    personal guess is that the emotional pain of 'emotional violence' might
    well be just as intense as the bodily pain of physical violence.
    That might be a useful discussion.
    
    In my opinion, when looking for bad guys, there is lots of room for
    people of both gender. I wonder whether that position is acceptable in
    a men's conference. In my opinion, it didn't fly -that position- in
    WOMANNOTES and I would be (very pleasantly) surprised if it can fly here.
    
    
    				herb

    
    
    Re:  Bubba (a few back)
    
    There is a newly formed group in Chicago.  I believe they are calling
    themselves "The Pink Patrol".  They patrol the streets around one of
    the clusters of gay bars where they have been many incidents of
    gay-bashing in the past couple of years.  It's men protecting men.
    
    	GJD

    As I stated in a deleted note. The difference between mens and womens
    politics? Nothing. Both are the ugly and dark side of humanity. Even
    Norman Leir who was a stonch suporter of the Womans Movement of the
    70's says that women can be just a vicious and cruel as men in the work
    place. And to make a statement that men are the cause of this
    abonimation is a case in point of blaintent sexual discrimination to
    the highest degree. Broad brushing us? Sad, very sad. This looks like a
    case of feminazi with a pink bow tied upon it.

    RE .12
    
    		Herb,
    
    		I'm all for it. I know for a fact that there are men and
    women not playing with a full deck. All men are not bad and all men are
    not good. Why can't we point the way for WOMENNOTES in open and honest
    discussions. 
    
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    
	think i'll just watch for a while    
    
    				herb

    .13
    Glad to see that there is some protection for these men..

    I'm going to give a little of my life history on domestic violence.


    		My mother and father fought a lot. Often getting physical.
    My mother always blamed my father. They divorced when I was 12. She
    remarried a nice gentle man. My step father never once raised his hand
    in anger toward her, but on many occasions I had to pull her off of
    him. She would hit and kick him. To this day my mother insists my
    father beat her, I think it was self-defense.


    		Now for the kicker, according to pop psychology, I should
    be an abuser. I have never raised my hand against my wife. I have a
    difficult time spanking my kids, yet I would not consider myself a meek
    person. I think we have been taking the easy way out in diagnosing
    domestic violence. Blame men, blame parents. It's much more complex and
    certainly not black and white.

    		I have personally seen women in the role of abuser. That is
    why I don't buy it as male problem. My mileage won't vary, I've been
    there. Women can also be made of snakes, snails, and puppy dog tails.


    		Yes, some men do abuse some women, but there are some very
    abusive women out there.

    		The problem is domestic and public violence and IT IS NOT
    GENDER SPECIFIC, *** ASK THE CHILDREN ***.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

I want to echo Jody's sentiments - do you go complain to the American Cancer
Society that they don't also fight heart disease?   Violence by men against
women is real, and is far more prevalent than violence by women against
men.  Let the "white ribbon" folks fight for the cause they have chosen.  If
you don't want to support them, fine.  If you want to support your own cause,
start your own group.

Stop the finger pointing and start looking for solutions.  What do YOU have
to offer that's constructive?

				Steve

    I will however make one point. That point is that I believe it would be
    instructive to understand the cause of violence in America. (whether
    inflicted by males or by females). 
    
    (and I know that many of you might be tempted to say something like 
    "How can I worry about where the flooding comes from when I am up to my
    "*ss" in alligators)
    
    
    				herb

    I believe I understand the cause of violence in America. I believe that
    the cause of violence in America is child-abuse. Physical, emotional,
    sexual child-abuse. Which is being perpetrated by ordinary garden variety
    &*^%()@s of both gender.

    Survivors of this abuse become violators. Sometimes they violate
    themselves (with addictions, by self-abuse), sometimes they violate
    their children, sometimes they violate their spouse, sometimes they
    violate younger siblings, sometimes they violate other members of
    society, sometimes all of the above. ( often they violate each other)

    Look at a violator. You are looking at a former victim!
    Look at where most violence takes place. In private homes, among
    famililes.
    The perpetrator of most(statistically) physical violence in our homes
    is probably men. But it is very uncommon for a man to be a
    violator in his home without the at least the tacit complicity of his
    mate.  On the other hand, it is quite possible for the 'woman of the
    house' to be a violator in the home, without the man of the house ever
    knowing it. (All of which doesn't speak very well of "traditional"
    parental roles in our society, but there you are.)
    
    

    Steve, Jody,


    		It's a band-aid. How many band-aids do you apply while the
    patient is bleeding to death. Unnecessary violence is the problem, not
    gender specific violence. We need to deal with the root problem not
    just one symptom. This problem is spreading to out teen-agers, we cannot
    get sidetracked with band-aids. No one here is discounting violence
    against women, but it's only one part of a much larger problem.


    		Violence is perpetrated against:

    			men
    			women
    			children

    		by:

    			men
    			women
    			children

    	It's a national problem, not just a problem for one specific group.
    At some point we need a doctor not a band-aid! I think that point is
    now.
                                              

    			HAND
    			Wayne

    The focus of this topic should be (IMO) what men can do about
    violence against women.  Some men decided to start this ribbon
    campaign.  We may disagree with some of their rhetoric, but
    isn't the goal a worthy one?

    I agree you can't blame an entire gender for the crimes of
    individuals, and I don't think anyone is really suggesting such
    a thing - the statement "men's violence against women" doesn't
    mean "*all* men's violence against *all* women" - I hope we
    aren't going to get too hung up putting qualifiers around
    everything....
    
    No, you can't blame an entire gender.  But you can see patterns 
    and notice trends.
    
    How many of you out there, as adolescents, didn't learn the
    crystal clear lesson that if you didn't fight your were a 
    sissy?  In how many of our television shows has violence
    been the mainstay over the past twenty years?  Clearly the
    vast majority of men do not turn into monsters because of
    childhood taunts and omnipresent cops-n-robbers images on
    the TV.  However that doesn't mean there is no value in
    trying to determine if there is something in male socialization
    that encourages violence.  If we could find that "something"
    in others or in ourselves and put an end to it (or channel
    the energy into something productive), wouldn't that benefit
    everyone?

    /Greg
    
    P.S. Jerry - I don't have official names of groups at hand.  Living
    	 in the suburbs, I'm not in as much need of their protection.
    	 I can second Greg D's comment about the Pink Patrol (I think	
    	 there's a chapter in NYC which may be men and women).  There's
    	 also a group in Boston which I saw interviewed on TV a while
    	 back.  And several QN chapters are sponsoring "Take back the
    	 Night" actions.  If you'd like further references, please contact
    	 me off-line.  Thanks.
    
    

    <Now for the kicker, according to pop psychology, I should be an
    <abuser. 
    Yes, Wayne, and pop psychology is full of crap.
    It is the case that most, most, most, abusers (violators) have been
    abused, it is NOT the case that most abusees become abusers of others.
    (On the other hand, a pretty damn good case can be made that most
    abusees end up abusing SOMEONE, if only theirselves. At least until
    they work through the stigmata of former abuse)

    Oh - Wayne, I agree with you that violence is a national
    problem and I agree that violence is committed by
    and against people of both genders.
    
    However I don't think you can lump all violence into
    one category as if it were one illness that could be
    cured by a single doctor.
    
    Breaking the problem down into pieces makes each individual
    piece easier to deal with because you can focus on what it
    is that's unique about that piece and act accordingly.
    
    /Greg

    Breaking it down in little pieces also makes it possible for narrowly
    focused people to use it as a weapon, to inveigh against their favorite
    target

    RE: .27
    
    True.  I don't think that is the case with the group in the basenote
    however.
    
    

    .19 Steve,
    
    	You have made a valid point here. Buy why not call it 'Violence
    against People' instead of 'Violence agianst Woman' if these folks were
    on the up and up of stopping violence and not finger pointing us to be
    the perp's of these heinous crimes? If you want to go one more step,
    why not let folks who are in Digital post ralleys for the American
    Nazi's or the KKK? They think the same way as the base note. Just
    change the costumes. The games the same. Broad stroke paint brush.
    Why dont they didn't they make statements that the also wish to
    sterolize violent men as not to pass geneticly on to other generations.
    Get that one! You lift a hand to defend youself and your in line. Where
    is the martial music that I hear in the back ground? 

    <True>
    
    Well, since we agree that it is true, I wonder whether we can agree
    that that the best thing that can be said for the men in .0 is that
    they are well-meaning dupes. 
    

    Well, you could call it a band-aid, or you could call it choosing to
    patch up the largest wound first, or you could call it not asking the
    cardiac surgeon to set your leg.
    
    FYI, I got into one of my biggest YODUDENOTES battles by maintaining
    that husbands get battered too; I KNOW it happens. But I also know that
    it more usually happens the other way, and I don't begrudge an
    organization for choosing to work on that any more than I begrudge
    Planned Parenthood for not spending my donations on support of unwanted
    children.
    
    Ray

    No, I really don't think we'd be able to agree on that, Herb.

    For one thing, I don't personally know the men involved or
    know the specifics of what motivated them to embark on 
    this campaign.   

    In any event, I don't see any reason to demean them (or accuse
    them of not being on the "up and up").

    /Greg

Re: .29

I disagree strongly that approaching the subject from a general case of
"violence against people" is reasonable.  There are specific societal
causes of men's violence against women which don't apply to other forms
of violence.  The men who assault women largely do so because they believe
that they "own" women and that this is their right.  For many years, we've
even had laws which supported this notion.  Men's violence against men, and
women against men comes from different causes.

I see the purpose of a group as described in .0 to help eliminate the
notion of "women as chattel" which permeates our society.  To do so, one needs
to take a different approach than one would if one wanted, for instance, to
eliminate gang-related slayings in the inner cities.  I think it's wrong to
require that those who want to make an effort for a cause spread themselves
out so thin as to acheive no purpose whatsoever.


I also disagree with Herb's obviously heartfelt belief that child abuse is the
cause of all or even most such violence.  Instead, I feel that some child abuse
is a sublimation of violence that would otherwise be directed at women (and
sometimes is paired with it).   I would agree that an approach of "people
are not chattel" would, if effective, reduce child abuse as well, but I would
not deny the "white ribbon" people from picking their own fight and
concentrating their efforts appropriately.

This is, of course, not the first time we've seen this sort of reaction here
in MENNOTES.  Indeed, each time someone says "we have to stop violence against
women by men", many others shout "not till you stop all violence!"  It's
real, folks.  Maybe you and I arent wife-beaters, but there are many, MANY
men out there who view women as natural targets for their anger and not as
human beings.  What can we do to help?

				Steve

    RE -1

    		It is nothing more than special interest groups at their
    best. I can't understand why these groups love to pick on ( average men
    ) as the perpetrators of all things evil since the beginning of time.
    Unless we try so hard to do whats right we become dupes. The long term
    ramifications are what scare me.



    			HAND
    			Wayne

    re .34
    
    
    		I meant re .30
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    .33 Steve,
    
    	I think the thing to do is to stop finger pointing and calling each
    other names. And get involved with something that will change. Mens and
    womans suport groups. Go to trails in court, talk and call your local
    state reps will also help. If your cought up in a fight, stop, get
    help. Get the .0 to change its policies and tatics and call it People
    agianst Violence and remember that it is. This crappie of men always
    being the bad guys is getting thin.

>    		It is nothing more than special interest groups at their
>    best. I can't understand why these groups love to pick on ( average men
>    ) as the perpetrators of all things evil since the beginning of time.
    
    What special interest group?  The organization is MADE UP of men
    (probably even white men, given that they're based in Canada) and it's
    "picking on" men who ABUSE WOMEN, who are only "average men" in the sense
    of looking like regular guys. (At least I hope that less than 50% of
    men physically abuse women; if not, we got ourselves a bigger problem
    than I thought...)
    
    I have doubts that the white ribbons will really achieve much other
    than preaching to the supposedly converted, but I don't think they're
    wrong for having a focus.
    
    Ray

    RE: .34  Wayne

    Perhaps the problem is with your perception that these people
    "love to pick on average men"  - there is no evidence the
    group in the base note is trying to portray the average man
    as the "perpetrator of all things evil since the beginning of
    time."  It is easy to disagree with a characterization you
    created yourself.

    Why is the valid claim that some men are violent so threatening
    to you (i.e why does it scare you)?

    General questions;  why does the effort to call attention to
    violence against men have to involve an attack on the effort
    to call attention to violence against women?  How come every
    time I see efforts to stop domestic violence against men, it
    is in *reaction* to a similar effort to stop violence against
    women?  Why can't both efforts be worked in a positive way?

    /Greg

    Well you are certainly saying it with convincing authority, but I
    believe you are wrong.
    It is LIKELY the case that men assault women because they believe it is
    their right. 
    It is also the case that men assault children because they believe it
    is their right. 
    Just as it is also the case that women assault children because they
    believe it is their right.
    (Just as It is also the case that women assault men because they
    believe it is their right)
    And where did this divine right come from?
    "Mommies and daddies must have had the right to abuse kids, look what
    they do to me."
    "And Daddies obviously have the right to abuse mommies because Daddy is
    always doing it."
    And, "Mommy is getting beat up by daddy, again; wait'll I grow up, i'll
    show those penis bastards"
    And some kids learn there is a pecking order, that big abuse little...

    Steve,

    		As long as inflammatory statements as in .1 are made about
    men they will take a defensive posture. No solution can be reached when
    people feel they must defend themselves all the time. 

    		Domestic violence is just that domestic violence. Why can't
    we deal with it from that perspective as opposed to which subgroup is
    is being abused. As a side note I believe there are as many men being
    abused as women, they just don't report it. Anyone can disagree with
    me on this point but that belief is why I am taking this position.


    		In any argument or fight there is culpability. I will not 
    absolve women of their complicity and culpability in this problem. At
    the same time I will not assume responsibility simply because I am male,
    that's absurd. Those people in .0 are asking for our assistance, I am
    simply stating why I won't give it. I think it is just another way of
    trying to jam radical feminist agenda down our collective male throats.

    	To quote an intellectual scholar " Homey don't play that". 


    		HAND
    		Wayne
                                                                    

    <How come every time I see efforts to stop domestic violence against
    <men, it is in *reaction* to a similar effort to stop violence against
    <women?  
    
    I can't believe you cannot "hear" so called average men say "I am
    hurting"
    
    I can't believe that one who can so strongly articulate the validation
    that gays need, the validation that women need, can not do any more
    that at most pay lip service to the "pain that average men" are
    feeling.
    
    They are telling you they are in pain, and you are saying no you
    aren't; only the women and gays are in pain.

    It is very difficult for me to believe you are so unaware of what is
    going on in our society that you could ask that question in any way
    except to achieve some sort of debating point.

    
    if wearing a white ribbon will make me seem a humane and sensytyve
    myn with tender feeling for opposite gender, and mebbe helps save
    the gentle wimmin from a beating at the hands of some neanderthal,
    then i'll certainly be willing to wear one. 
    
    

    .42 I wanna wear a black one for those who believe that violence is not
    a gender specific case. It comes in all forms as Herb has pointed out.

    Greg,

    		Definition: Average male, one who does not rape, pillage,
    or burn, one who is doing the best he can in this confused society.


    		What I said was the ramifications scare me. It is true men
    control the decision making process, but they can and do pass laws that
    restrict my freedom while not complying themselves. They are a special
    interest group. They pander to voting special interest groups. Average
    men as a group have not exercised their voting power, we have just taken
    heat from female and male special interest groups. To me, .0 is more of
    the same.

    			Just for fun add gay or black in front all the men, man,
    male references and see what it sounds like. 


    		HAND
    		Wayne

It's interesting that I read the basenote and had the same reaction that
many of you had - What about violence against men?  I've stepped back and
asked myself why I feel this way.

One of the biggest myths in this country is about men.  Men
have their sh*t together.  They strut around confident that the world is
theirs to do with what they will.  They TAKE what they want be it women,
positions in Corporations and they EXPLOIT everyone in their path.  They are
not nuturing toward their children and they only want females for ONE
thing.  They are selfish and self centered.  They are football watching,
beer guzzling, slobs that treat women like servants and their children even
worse.  They are the cause of all wars, violence and crime.  They hold the
checkbook and give nothing to nobody.  They are testostorone propelled
*ssholes.

Let's face it guys, in the last couple of decades we have learned a lot
more about women and their needs than they've learned about us.  The focus
in the last two decades has been toward women and we've been bombarded from
every direction from Ophrah to Anita Hill.  I  personally have learned a
hell of a lot about what women are about.  I feel they know almost nothing
about us.  Why?  Because they think they have us all figured out.  A little
sex once a week, a case of beer every payday, fishing with the boys a
couple times a summer and any man would never want anything more.

The current trend seems to be men manifesting self-hatred.  It's like if
you want to show that you are a cool dude you bash men.  You tell women
that they're right that all men are jerks and should be castrated; at the
very least.

I would like to see more focus on mens issues.  I KNOW that women are
abused in this country every day but it's still a hell of a lot safer to be a
woman than to be a Black Man aged 22 - 35.

Let's treat the problem and end the cycles.   The problem is violence, not
men.

flame off

patrick

    
    well violence against myn is another topic.
    
    this one is about wimminbeaters and efforts to
    make 'em desist. you can start one about anti
    black male or any other kind of violence if 
    it suits you...
    

    RE .46


    		I will say this nicely. Do not tell grown men what they can
    and cannot discuss in this string. Also, I assume you spell some words
    incorrectly on purpose, if not you should correct them. Wimmin does not
    equal women.


    		HAND
    		Wayne

    RE: .44
    
    Wayne, if that is your definition of average men then I don't
    understand what the problem is with the group described in
    the base note.  They are, as best I can tell, average men who
    have decided to do something about a problem.  I'm afraid I
    don't follow what you mean when you talk about men controlling
    the decision making process and then say men as a group have
    not exercised their voting power and then say men are a special
    interest group.  I think you are referring to different sub-sets 
    of men, but I don't know how you manage to figure out which man
    belongs to which group, or if membership in one group precludes
    membership in another.
    
    Again, saying "men's violence against women" is not the
    same thing as saying "all men behave violently towards women."
    But many people here are responding as if it were.
    
    /Greg

>    the base note.  They are, as best I can tell, average men who
>    have decided to do something about a problem.  I'm afraid I

	Pardon me, Greg, but that's a load of it....

	These guys are just going to "wear a ribbon", or make proclamations,
	or bemoan the fate of a woman who's been beaten.

	Fine.  But don't let them kid themselves that they're
	really *doing anything* that will make any difference.

	A wife-beater is a coward, or a boor, and will be utterly
	unimpressed by your ribbons, posters, and impassioned pleas
	in the local "Peace and Justice Commission" meeting hall.

	These guys generally don't beat their wives in public,
	so what are the incensed "white ribbon boys" gonna do ?

	Break down the door of a suspected wife-beater once a week ?
	Once a day ?  They gonna tell a 6'4", 280-lb lumberjack to
	knock it off, right to his face ?

	I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the "white-ribbon coalition"
	would not even rush in to use physical force against an act
	of wife-beating they personally witnessed.   Care to bet
	that "Violence Never Solves Anything" is their watchword ?

	My point is, posturing about something EVERYONE agrees is
	wrong is not taking a bold stand.

	Don't forget the huge numbers of women who repeatedly return
	to their attackers' beds despite the existence of the battered
	womens' shelters.  We need to understand this pathology, too,
	to get a picture of the violence done in these homes.

	Regards,

	Steve H

    
    re .47
    
    did i tell you to do anything? no.
    
    did i hint that you might be off topic? mebbe..
    
    you really ought not rush in to take offense so easily, you'll
    end up looking silly..
    

    Now .49 is a gripe which makes sense.  It's not that the group is
    unfair to ME (a more average guy than whom you couln't hope to find)
    but I don't see how "awareness" alone solves anything. 
    
    I'd go even farther and say that some of the white-ribbon wearers might
    BE abusers and not recognize themselves as hypocrites. "Cowards and
    boors" come in a lot of subtle variations...
    
    Ray

    RE: .40
    
    > -< Listen to them, 'average men' are hurting, too >-
    
    So why don't you start a ribbon campaign for average men who are
    in pain.  I'll even buy a ribbon from you and wear it on my arm.
    (FWIW - by Wayne's def. I am an average man too.  The above is a
    serious offer.)
    
    >    They are telling you they are in pain, and you are saying no you
    >    aren't; only the women and gays are in pain.
    
    No I'm not.  That's a lie, Herb.  I'm only saying that to support men,
    there's no need to trash men who want to support women.
    
    /Greg

FROM .1
    
>Not weirdos.  Just regular guys.
>    All those regular guys, though, have helped create a climate of fear and 
>mistrust among women.  
    
>Even the millions of women in 
>relationships with the majority of men who are gentle and caring feel they 
>cannot totally trust men.  All women are imprisoned in a culture of violence.
    
>    Men's violence against women isn't aberrant behaviour.  Men have created 
>cultures where men use violence against other men, where we wreak violence on 
>the natural habitat, where we see violence as the best means to solve 
>differences between nations, where every boy is forced to learn to fight or to 
>be branded a sissy, and where men have forms of power and privilege that women 
>do not enjoy.
    
    
    
    This pretty much sums up the defination of 'men' from their
    perspective.
    
    1st we define "regular guy"
    
    then they say "have helped create a climate of fear and mistrust 
    among women."
    
    then they describe (they lost it here and showed their agenda) how men
    wreak havoc on men, women, and "the natural habitat.."
    
    and where "men have forms of power and privilege that women do not enjoy."
    
    
    Steve

    RE: .53
    
    Gee, I read:
    
    "the majority of men who are gentle and caring"
    
    ...and concluded something quite different.
    
    > then they describe (they lost it here and showed their agenda)
    
    And showed their agenda to be....what?
    
    /Greg

    I think they are telling you, they feel hurt by a discussion in
    'their' space that importunes _them_ sort of 'to be good to women'.
    I think they are telling you that they feel insulted that they should
    be bearded to support women's oppression when they are feeling
    oppressed themselves.
    I think they are telling you that the introduction of this topic itself
    is insulting.
    Should they feel that way?
    Irrelevant, in my opinion, they do feel that way.
    I think showing some sensitivity on the matter would be welcome.
    
    <>    They are telling you they are in pain, and you are saying no you
    <>    aren't; only the women and gays are in pain.
    
    <No I'm not.  That's a lie, Herb.
    
    Sorry that my poetic license didn't work.
    I do believe that an important impact of the women's movement has been
    to make 'traditional men' -whatever that means- feel isolated,
    vulnerable, put upon etc. I'm sure you understand that to be true.
    I would like to believe that you care.
    I think that many men are truly feeling that a White Ribbon topic is
    inconsiderate and offensive, and in that sense is denying the pain that
    many are feeling. 
    My hunch is that -if prompted- these 'traditional men' might EVEN say there
    IS another place for men who support women, womannotes, there IS
    another place for men who who want support for and to support Lesbigay
    matters. For Gods sakes, please let us have OUR space. 
    
    (this doesn't require any moderator pronouncements)

    Then why don't they say that, Herb.
    
    Why do you have to translate their feelings for me?
    
    It is obvious that violence against women is a problem.  Some
    *men* want to help stop it.  I wish those with the feelings 
    you have described would explain why such a statement is so
    bothersome.  Haven't we talked about men's issues enough to
    know that when people say "men" they can mean anything from
    their SO to all mankind (and every possible sub-set in between)?
    
    
    /Greg
    

    Dammit, sooner or later i will learn that trying to communicate with
    you is a waste of my time.

    RE .50

    	I don't mind looking silly, I have before and I will again. I
    prefer direct language not newspeak, it looks so silly in print.


    	RE .51

    		I agree, Steve ( do I know you ) Hall has put his finger on
    something.


    		Now that we have determined that men are not the problem
    how do we set about to understand and correct the situation as much as
    humanly possible. Not the dreamers approach but a
    realistic one. Some forms of violence will always be with us and maybe
    they should. I think we all agree that lighting candles and
    wearing ribbons won't do much. 



    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Greg,

    		Men = plural. Try using men to refer to a SO, it won't
    work. When someone says "men do this", I take that to refer to all men.



    				HAND
    				Wayne

Re: .59

How have "we determined men are not the problem"?  Just who is it who is
raping and beating up these women?  Aliens from the planet Macho?

			Steve

    Steve:
    
    I think it is pretty small minded of you to react just to the "we
    determined men are not the problem" statement and ignore all the
    context.

    Steve,

    		Reread .60. All men are not the problem. Women are not the
    only abused creatures on this earth. Please be constructive not
    destructive to this discussion. You don't need to posture and defend
    women they are very capable. I will not be coerced into a "Big Daddy"
    role for women.



    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Wayne - how many times have you heard a women complain about 
    her boyfriend and then say in a frustrated tone "Men!" ???
    
    Men .nes. *all* men.  Plural is an adjective that means "more
    than one" (not "ALL").  

    *
    
    And Herb, if you come to the conclusion that communicating
    with me is a waste of your time, I won't stand in the way of
    you doing what you have to do...

    I do understand you, FWIW - and I most wholeheartedly disagree.
    If you were to purge all the men from this conference who
    support women and gays, you'd soon find another target.  Why
    can't you define the conference in terms of what you want
    and then just note in a positive way supporting that instead of
    attacking people who desire something a bit different?

    /Greg

    re .64

    		Then I suggest the woman in question change the way she
    references men. Her problem was with a man not men. Do you really think
    women would except this blanket statement, no, and I agree with them.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Re: .62
    
    Small minded or no, I read and reread the note and the preceding
    notes to which it refers and can't see another way to interpret
    the statement.  Please enlighten me.  If I've misunderstood, I'm
    willing to take my lumps.
    
    This all reminds me of an old joke which I'll paraphrase as follows:
    
    	Joe: Did you know that once every 30 seconds a woman is attacked
             by a man?
    
        Bill: Really!  We've got to find that guy and put him in jail!
    
    Everyone's so busy trying to say "Not me!" that they're unwilling
    to admit that it MIGHT be the guy next to them.  And of course, since's
    it's "not me", it's by definition not a problem.
    
    When people report bugs in the FORTRAN compiler to me, do I say "Hey,
    you get the C people to fix their bugs first and then I'll worry
    about it."?  No, I take responsibility for what I can fix, even if I
    didn't create the bug in the first place.  It's about time that we
    took some personal responsibility for what, on the average, we ALL
    do (some do, some don't, but enough DO) to try to "fix the problem".
    
    				Steve

    Steve,

    		We have all admitted that there is violence committed
    against women. All we are saying is that it is only a part of the problem.
    We need to solve the whole problem. I've spent a large part of my life
    looking out for women, they can do it themselves now as far as I'm
    concerned. I will assist and support them but men's issues are my focus
    at this point in my life. To me child abuse is far more important than
    adults abusing themselves.


    				HAND
    				Wayne 

    There's currently a discussion going on in 882 of SOAPBOX.  Briefly, it
    concerns a minor altercation that I was involved in.  Someone pointed
    out that since it was me, a male, the discussion centered around
    whether or not I was justified in a physical response (the consensus of
    opinion was that I was justified) ... but .. had it been a female that
    was involved ... the verdict would have been, without question,
    "JUSTIFIED RESPONSE!" and the discussion would have centered around how
    bad the "bad guys" were ... as it is ... the discussion really centers
    around whether or not *I* was bad in responding!

    Go figure?

    Bubba

    Solve the whole problem of violence?  Hey, you might as well insist
    that all wars must be stopped before any muggers can be arrested. I've
    never been mugged; mugging victims can look out for themselves as far
    as I'm concerned, most of 'em are tourists anyway...
    
    Men ARE the problem when it comes to violence against women.  Not ALL
    men are the problem any more than ALL women are the victims, but real
    life tells me that battered wives and girlfriends are beaten by men,
    who often think themselves justified because they ARE men.

    It's true that: 1) Saying that doesn't do enough to fix it, and 2)
    There's a different (smaller) problem of domestic violence against men.
    
    Neither of those points magically equalizes the statistics.

    Ray

    RE: .0
    
    I would like to know how the organization uses donations
    
    If giving money only goes to the creation of nice arm bands
    and travel to and from rallies....Then there are better
    organizations to donate
    
    If however, an organization used donations to establish legal
    defense funds to get victims legal representation and pay legal
    fees, provided decent shelters, provided counseling and vocational
    training ... then I would gladly make regular contributions
    
    Does such an organization exist ?
    
    BTW, Jody, no attempt here to solve all the worlds problems,
    I'll leave that to crusaders
    
    

    If women are being attacked by aliens from a far and distant planet,
    then who are men being attacked by? Who is throwing them into the
    streets? Who is making them indentured slaves? Who is this broad brush
    being brushed by? When one opens their eyes and shuts their mouths and
    reads beyond much of the crappie here, one realizes that the reason
    many women are getting sacked is that the justice system isn't working
    for men or women. And that women get put away because of the
    frustration of the men in the divorce situation. Estrained wives, girl
    friends. etc.  
    
    If there is some valuing diferences to be differed here, I would say
    that many of ours are being violated. And wish that the notes
    moderators would realize that there is a broad brushing here and that
    the base noter should state some men or that both sides are at fault
    and either delete that base note or have it re-written. 
    

    Let's deal with men's issues here not men's issues as they relate to
    women. I am getting tired of the "what about women" crowd dominating
    the discussions.



    		HAND
    		Wayne

re: .72
    
>    Let's deal with men's issues here not men's issues as they relate to
>    women. I am getting tired of the "what about women" crowd dominating
>    the discussions.
    
    But this topic is *about* men's violence against women.
    
    There are some 700 other topics in this notesfile.  And only one other
    one (360?  320?  something like that) is about this topic.  Surely
    there are more fruitful places for you to put your energy - please
    spend it on helping discussions you would like to see flourish to GROW,
    rather than attempting to derail or dissipate the energy that could
    develop in this one.
    
    -Jody
    

Re: .71

George, I really don't understand your position.  What is being "violated"
and how?  Where is this "broad brush" you speak of?  Perhaps you believe 
that men's violence against women in our society is an individual problem
no different than, say, shoplifting, but I and others believe that there
are widespread and pervasive attitudes in our society which, as Ray says,
encourages men to be violent towards women BECAUSE they are men and they think
this is what they're supposed to do.  I don't know of any other form of
violence (other than perhaps that spawned by racial hatred) which compares.

If you choose to say "Not me!" and deny that the problem affects all men (not
all men perpetrate the violence, but all men are affected by the existence of
said violence), then that's your right.  But I disagree.  Just because I don't
have AIDS (I don't think) doesn't make me deny that AIDS is a serious problem.

I've never (to my knowledge) acted violently towards a woman.  But I've seen
women act in fear of me just because I was a man, and they weren't sure if
perhaps they'd be the next crime statistic.  I've also known many (too many)
women who had been assaulted and abused by men to deny that male violence
against women is pandemic. 

The time is past for finger-pointing.  The time is now for "what can I do
to help make this world one in which women need not fear men just because
they are male?"


Re: .72

Wayne, this is very much a men's issue.  If you choose not to discuss it,
that's your right.  Please allow others the courtesy of discussing the topic
if they so desire.

					Steve

>no different than, say, shoplifting, but I and others believe that there
>are widespread and pervasive attitudes in our society which, as Ray says,
>encourages men to be violent towards women BECAUSE they are men and they think
>this is what they're supposed to do.  I don't know of any other form of
    
    I'm sorry Steve (and anyone else), but I find too many similarities
    between "white ribbons and men" and "black armbands and Jews", and
    "white hoods and Blacks" to be be comfortable in supporting this
    particular group.
    
    That does not mean, however, that I am not concerned about violence
    and injustice against any group or individual.  I am just not
    comfortable in supporting this particular (imho) hate campaign.
    
    fred();

    
    what similarities? 
    
    what a scurrillious comparison...

    
>    what a scurrillious comparison...
    
    	What a PC statement.
    

Steve,
 Your attitude on this issue is such a joke, you will
crawl through a knot hole to maintain your "I'm a feminist really" 
position. Right to the point of completely throwing your credibility
out the window. Most of the guys here are saying yes, there is a problem,
but this approach will force society to answer the question "MEN,when will you
stop abusing woman".

And your replies, albeit humorous, show your willingness to maintain your 
position at any cost.

>I want to echo Jody's sentiments - do you go complain to the American Cancer
>Society that they don't also fight heart disease?  
....Well lets see if the the American Cancer Society said "We will only 
support cancer in woman".....

>Let the "white ribbon" folks fight for the cause they have chosen.  
..Even if that cause is done in a way the vilifies a large number of
innocent(men who really don't beat their wives but are assumed to
by default in court.) hard working people.

>Stop the finger pointing and start looking for solutions.  What do YOU have
>to offer that's constructive?
...How is this note constructive.



>Men's violence against men, and women against men comes from different causes.
 ...Your point I assume, is if there is one, is that men's 
violence is so different it needs to be singly attacked the way deadbeat
DADS are the only reason sooooo many woman are on welfare....


    
>    	Joe: Did you know that once every 30 seconds a woman is attacked
>             by a man?
>    
>        Bill: Really!  We've got to find that guy and put him in jail!
    
I think, your position is:
         
     	Joe: Did you know that once every 30 seconds a woman is attacked
              by a man?

         Bill: Really!  We've got to round up all the men and horse whip
               them until we find out who's doing it.


>    on the average, we ALL
>    do (some do, some don't, but enough DO) to try to "fix the problem".
 
 This comment is the reason I wrote this note, c'mon who can believe
this!!!! Most do?? Most try to fix the problem, yea, you got that right
by blaming it on someone else?? 
 There are better solutions, the answer to a problem that polarizes cannot
be further polarization, The answer lies in education and information not
mis-information, scape goats and mis-diagnosed signals. 
 Groups with goals to access blame first rather then support current needs 
and find root causes are usually self serving, I think this one is.
 
 But when you say Most try to fix the problem! To identify your lack of 
understanding of what is being discussed is underscoring the obvious.
 MOST MEN DON'T BEAT THERE WIVES, 
  BUT, IT IS NOT BECAUSE MOST MEN ARE CONTROLLING ARE URGES TO 
  BEAT THEIR WIVES,IT IS SIMPLY BECAUSE MOST MEN DON'T HAVE THOSE URGES.
 MANY MEN DO BEAT THERE WIVES, THEY WONT STOP BECAUSE MEN WHO DON'T
 BEAT THERE WIVES ARE BLAMED. 

Mick





   

	The latest manifestation of this bunch of horse-droppings 
	is the movement at Brigham Young University, where some
	very vocal women are petitioning for the confinement of
	ALL MALE STUDENTS one night each week so the women
	"can feel safe walking across the campus."

	Now, as this policy flies in the face of everything
	our country stands for ( like, say, no confinement without
	formal charges; no discrimination based on race, creed,
	sex, etc. ), we must assume that the folks who propose
	this have no concept of several truths:

	1) All men are not rapists/attackers.
	2) Locking up one group of men ( who are subject to a set
	      of rules because they attend the same institution )
	      will not protect the women from "townies" or drifters.
	3) This is no more right and just than was the internment
	      of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
	4) Using the force of "law" to promulgate an injustice does
	      not erase or "even the score" of different, past
	      injustices.

	When I was in Gainesville, Florida at UF 16 years ago, the
	crimes of rape or murder that had female victims were most
	likely to be committed by drifters.  Gainesville sits at
	the junction of several major highways and an interstate,
	so creeps and weirdos could drift in, commit some atrocity,
	and be gone in a day or so.

	Locking up male students may have had an effect on the DWI
	arrest rate, and that's about it !

	Let's hope the PC crowd at BYU gets told firmly and
	unequivocally to move to Cuba if they want to lock people
	up without evidence of criminal activity, formal charges,
	and adjudication.

	Steve H

    As someone, who worked his way through college in the 60s as an
    elevator operator in a girls dorm (8 floors), I have to grin at the
    idea of locking up all the men.
    I must say -though- that it DOES make somewhat more sense than locking
    up the women which is the situation that existed through -roughly- the
    end of the 60s. 
    Now?
    My daughter shares a BATHROOM with men at her school.

    				_______
				|||||||
				 ~   ~
		@ @		(o) (o)    	@ @
		 >	       O|  ^  |O	 <
		\_/		| \-/ |		\_/
				 `---'
    				
				_______
				|||||||
				 ~   ~
		@ @		(o) (o)    	@ @
		 >	       O|  ^  |O	 <
		\_/		| \-/ |		\_/
				 `---'
    

    re .79

    	Steve's note brings home the ramifications of these male bashing
    efforts. It's real folks, and if we as males allow it to continue the
    reactionaries in our society will dominate every aspect of our lives.
    These insidious efforts to demean men must be stopped. 

    		MEN ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, VIOLENT PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM, BE
    THEY MALE OR FEMALE, YOUNG OR OLD.  

    
    yes, it's real.  Male-bashing exists.  Female-bashing exists.  Child
    abuse exists.  But you're muddying the waters of this topic.  Please
    let them settle.  Please take your energies where they can craft a
    brilliant plan that can bring out the reduction of violence by people,
    against people.  Why is it so bad to talk about this topic in this
    topic?  What is wrong with men wanting to end violence by men against
    women?  Why can we not eat the meal one spoonful at a time, instead of
    having to swallow the entire plate?  
    
    Please start a topic with .81 as a basenote, if one does not already
    exist that will suit your needs?
    
    -Jody
    

    There is nothing wrong with men wanting to end violence.
    
    There is a lot that is felt to be wrong with petitioning a MEN'S
    conference to support a campaign directed against men.
    After watching this and other conferences for years, Jody, you know
    there are many things that are felt by many men to be wrong with it.
    
    This conference just went through two days of turmoil. Much of that
    turmoil was specifically about men's attitudes about other men.
    
    I have trouble understanding how one could pose that question again, so
    soon.
    
    

Re: .78, others

I don't believe I ever said "I am a feminist".  It's not something I'm likely
to say.  And I really don't care whether or not anyone else thinks I am such.

I see a lot of people here viewing the statements in .0 and .1 as a "witch
hunt".  I'm not entirely sure why these folk feel that way.  But my larger
point was that the problem of men's violence against women affects ALL men,
not just those who are being violent.

For your consideration:  There's a radio ad running locally in which you hear
the footsteps of a woman in high heels, the voiceover tells you she's in
a parking garage late at night, walking towards her car.  From not too far
away a man's voice shouts "Hey lady, where you going in such a hurry?".  Her
footsteps quicken.  The man's voice, closer now, shouts "Hey, wait up!".  The
voiceover tells how she now presses the button on her car alarm remote to
make it sound off, supposedly scaring away someone who presumably meant to
do her harm.

What's wrong with this picture?

How is it possible to sell a product on the basis that it will give a woman
protection against potential assault by men?  What kind of mental climate do
we have in which we accept as perfectly natural the concept that a woman should
reasonably fear the presence of an unknown male?

I disagree with some of the wording in the "campaign statement" in .1.  
Unfortunately, it tends to use phrasing which is seen all too often, and isn't
fully thought out.  In particular, I noted the use of the word "epidemic".
This suggests that the behavior they decry is a relatively new phenomenon and
is spreading rapidly.  Not so.  It's been with us for thousands of years and
is everywhere (which is why I used the word "pandemic" in an earlier note.)
These attitudes permeate our society and our thinking to such a degree that to
many people, they can't think of any other way it could be.  What is recent is
a growing effort to say "this is wrong!" and get people to think about it.

I disagree that the intent is to look for "villains", and I believe those who
look on it that way are reacting defensively to a non-existent attack.

In .78, Mick says:

> MOST MEN DON'T BEAT THERE WIVES, 
>  BUT, IT IS NOT BECAUSE MOST MEN ARE CONTROLLING ARE URGES TO 
>  BEAT THEIR WIVES,IT IS SIMPLY BECAUSE MOST MEN DON'T HAVE THOSE URGES.
> MANY MEN DO BEAT THERE WIVES, THEY WONT STOP BECAUSE MEN WHO DON'T
> BEAT THERE WIVES ARE BLAMED. 

Wife-beating is only part of the overall problem.   And I don't think it matters
whether or not "most" men beat their wives (or girlfriends, etc.).  The problem
is that many do, and others use violence against women in other ways,  and our
society and its laws turn a blind eye to this abuse.  Laws which presume that
wives are owned by their husbands are still on the books in the US and other
countries, and these laws often allow men to do physical violence to women
with impunity.  It's an overall attitude which is pervasive, not just in men
but also in women who "buy into" it.   Men have to come to understand that
the violence is unacceptable, as do women. 

I don't want a world in which a woman is afraid of me just because I'm male.
And I don't think you (collectively) do either.  How do we change the attitudes
that promote the violence?

				Steve

Re: .83 (Herb)

>    There is a lot that is felt to be wrong with petitioning a MEN'S
>   conference to support a campaign directed against men.

Two points of order:

	1.  This is not a "Men's Conference".  It is a conference for discussion
	    of topics pertaining to men.  There's a big difference.

	2.  You evidently perceive the campaign as "directed against men".
	    I see it as "directed to men", asking them to think about the
	    problems and do what they can to put an end to them.  If men are
	    not to be asked to help end the violence men do to women, who
	    should be asked?

				Steve

    A third point of order:
    
    The campaign is created and run by men, as well as targetting a male
    audience.
    
    Ray

<Dear Friends and Colleagues:
<
<    We are part of an ad-hoc, non-partisan group who are initiating a national 
<men's response against violence against women.  It is time for men to speak 
<out with a clear and strong voice in support of women, to say men's violence 
<is our issue, our concern, and our responsibility.

<How do we change the attitudes that promote the violence?
    
    I don't know how, you don't know how. (But I DO know it gonna require
    changes in both females and males.)
    
    But we both goddamned well DO know that aint NO attitude gonna be
    changed by one stinkin iota by trying to stuff it down the throats of a
    lot of men who don't want to hear it.
    

    Cant wait till they round us up in a work camp. Gee, wheres the martial
    music? Whats that swastica arm band for? Why is that woman wearing jack
    boots?

    and until that and several other fundamental sociological facts are
    understood and accepted, there is going to continue to be guerilla
    warfare in this conference.

    sociological, anthropological, cultural, psychological, ethnic...
    

Re: .87

Read it again, Herb.  It says "against violence", not "against men".

Re: .88

>    But we both goddamned well DO know that aint NO attitude gonna be
>    changed by one stinkin iota by trying to stuff it down the throats of a
>    lot of men who don't want to hear it.

You got that right.  Too bad there's an awful lot of such men out there.

				Steve

    re last few.
    
    
    You ask what is wrong with dealing with the issues one at a time?
    My answer as a 10 year veteran of the divorce/custody wars PLENTY.
    I've seen too many men (and children) raped by "the system" because 
    this is considered a one-sided (male) problem.  Again I state I AM 
    AGAINST ABUSE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.  I *HAVE* taken action.  I 
    HAVE placed my body in harm's way more than once to protect someone 
    else from abuse.  And because I AM against abuse in any way, shape, 
    or form I cannot support this movement.   If you do something take 
    away the inequities of one group while ignoring the enequities of 
    another, you *increase* the enequities of the other group simply by 
    removing some of the balance between those groups.  Yes it's sickening 
    that *this* has to be the nature of the balance, but it's also sickening 
    that this is viewed so hypocritically and narrow-mindedly as such a 
    one-sided problem.
    
    And again I state that IF *YOU* WANT *MY* BUY-IN to this "movement", 
    then you're going to have to come up with a better offer.  
    
    fred();

    Stop and think of this. You to Steve Lionel. There is a womans only
    bank in Boston mass. Women who want loans for their womens business.
    Doesn't this sound like Jim Crow to you yet? How about the womans only
    marathons?? On Oct. 14, 1991 there was a Bonnie Bell road race run in
    Boston Mass. Don't we have an open door with the age old clasic BAA
    marathon? What of womans only gyms? Vs co-ed? Gee, it seems to me like
    some one is making walls that says that they want walls down. Sounds
    like we have a clear idea that we have a two sided soward that cuts in
    one direction. I am getting through to you yet Steve? 
    
    What if a man said to a woman in a bank that he wasnt going to loan a 
    woman money cause she was a woman? What if we told some woman, you 
    cannot workout here in this gym cause your a woman? What would happen if 
    we said to the women that you can no longer run in the male only BAA
    marathon? I think that this would be a very dark and ugly world. 
    Equality doesnt start with just saying your a man, quit beating your wife 
    and picking on other women. It starts with TRUST, INTEGRETY, HONESTY. 
    Sounds like words that have left our society and its fame to make a 
    perfect society. 
    
    Guys and gals, I got a daughter too. And I want to help make her world
    a safer world. I want to make the world for her and other children 
    a fair footed one. Gender bias, is like anyother words of
    discrimination. And you don't have to be a WASP to be the
    discriminator. And it seems that if your one, tuff cookies, eat the
    dust. 

    You really don't get it!
    You really do think that one last dig is going to help!
    Or maybe you just need to feel a little better. A little morally
    superior. That too is helpful
    Mr smart guy

    re: .94
    
    thank you for stating, clearly and succinctly, why you do not believe
    in this movement.  I think it's valuable food for thought when someone
    tells me WHAT they believe and WHY, and does not try to convince me
    that their way is right, and my way is wrong.
    
    I appreciate what you wrote, and I hear why you have decided to believe
    as you have.  Kudos!
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .95
    
    does the fact that there is a women's bank and a women's gym mean that
    the basenote does not support a valid cause?  Should women who decide
    to do business with other women be abused or hurt?
    
    It sounds like apples and oranges to me.
    
    And a topic on inequities between "women-only" and "men-only" things,
    and what is supported in this society and what is not, sounds like it
    would be WELL received in this notesfile!  Go to it!
    
    -Jody
    

    and you can go huffin' off 
    secure in the conviction that you are morally superior 
    to "us thugs"

    re .84
    
    <I'm not entirely sure why these folk feel that way>
    
    
    Nobody, is ever even approximately or partly sure why these folk (or
    any other folk) feel that way (or any other way).

    re: .99
    
    No, I love many of "you thugs" quite strongly,  if that is how you wish
    to refer to men.
    
    I do not consider myself superior, but I certainly consider myself
    equal - strong in certain ways, and weak in certain ways, as are all of
    us.  And equally free to walk the streets at night without having to
    worry about looking over my shoulder, listening for footsteps, without
    having to check the back seat of my car in case a man who intends me
    harm is lurking there.  Equally free to live and love a man who will be
    justifiably punished if he abuses me, and equally free to leave that
    man and have the courts decree he cannot approach me if he has abused
    me physically in the past.
    
    MESA (Men to End Sexual Assault) has a "portable wall" that they carry
    to functions with just a month's worth of articles on rapes, murders,
    mutilations, etc....crimes by men against women....and the sheer
    numbers of these events in but a single city are staggering.  
    
    No, I am not superior.  I merely want to live in safety.  I want all of
    the men here who are reading this note, and who have not heard the
    message yet, to pull closer to the screen, ignore the ringing phone,
    and listen for a minute.  
    
    If you have never abused a woman, this is not about you.
    If you never do abuse a woman, this is not about you.
    But if you know of someone who abuses women, who hurts, who rapes, who
    may slap the old lady around once in a while when he's had one too
    many, maybe you can ask him to stop. Maybe you can raise a hand to
    protect, raise a voice to protest, those who do abuse.  Maybe you can
    even accept finally that men are capable of this, and finally hear that
    even though you are a man, YOU may not be directly responsible.  And
    you can decide at this point whether you want to say "whew!  they're
    not talking about me..." and go on about life as usual, or whether you
    want to get more involved in this effort.  
    
    THIS IS NOT AN EXERCISE IN LOGIC.  THIS IS ABOUT WOMEN'S LIVES that are
    TAKEN BY MEN.
    
    Yes, women kill women, and women kill men, and men kill men, and adults
    kill children, and sometimes children even kill adults.  And yes all
    these crimes are equally horrid.  But that's not what this topic is
    about.
    
    Thank you for listening.
    
    -Jody

In accord with the biosocial feedback model I use I believe that violence is 
a masculine trait, and thus is endemic to but not limited to men.  To be a 
man is in part to come to terms with your innate propensity to violence.

It is no coincidence that that hormone which enables the biological 
transformation from female to male is also present in larger than normal 
quantities in that segment of the population most prone to violence, which is 
to say testosterone in young men.  This prenatal development predisposes men 
towards some types of behaviour which are qualitatively different to certain 
feminine modes, and these are facilitated by patriarchal mores.

This is not, however, to necessarily condemn masculinity, and I draw a 
distinct line between what I say here and what I say about misandry in the 
'No Targets Here' topic.  Aggression can be, indeed should be, useful.  In 
Bly's terms we need to distinguish between the Savage Man and the Wild Man.  
(The former is aggression misdirected and uncontrolled).

That women can commit violent acts is without question, but the simple fact 
remains that on the whole women are far less violent than men.  In general 
they simply are not predisposed to acquiring those type of behaviour.  Note 
that peope can learn or act against predispositions.  A predisposition makes 
something easier, but is not a necessary limiter.

The biosocial feeback model offers a foundation for a more comprehensive 
solution to the problem of violence than mere sociology.  It allows for 
sociological concerns, such as traditions, language, customs and so forth.  
But it also recognises our biological reality, and examines the way biology 
and sociology interact.

For example, certain pollutants (such as lead) have been linked to increasing 
aggressive tendencies.  Thus, any comprehensive approach must not only 
include things like investing people with values on human rights, but also 
must address the environment in which we live.  To use an extreme but 
contemporary example, it is ultimately useless to educate a man about 
responsibility, personal control and so on if he overindulges in significant 
quantities of steroids (which are derived from testosterone and can 
dramatically increase aggressive behaviour to the point where they overwhelm 
acquired behavioural inhibitions).

What this points to is that the complex interactions of our biology, 
sociology and environment prevent any single, simple solution.  When we talk 
about violence we are talking about a gamet of behaviours which have a wide 
variety of explanations.  It is therefore proper to group like behaviours and 
try to tackle them from whichever angle is appropriate.  

Accordingly, recognising that male violence against women is a significant 
social problem I have little difficulty with the goals as stated in the base 
note, nor do I see that asking men to recognise this (potential|actual) facet 
of themselves is an attack on men generally or dismissive of the notion of 
individual responsibility.

    <And equally free to walk the streets at night without having to
    <worry about looking over my shoulder, listening for footsteps, without
    <having to check the back seat of my car in case a man who intends me
    <harm is lurking there... 
    
    Then you are a fool and that makes me very, very sad.
    Because fools are much more apt to get hurt than prudent people of
    either gender.

    re .103

    		This topic is NOT about violence against women. This topic
    is about the base noter asking the men here to join them in condemning
    men and the violence they perpetrate. Several of us are refusing on
    the basis that we believe it is male bashing. When it comes down to it
    this string is about how much more PC abuse men can take, it is not
    about women IMHO.


                    HAND
    		    Wayne

    
    
    I really get the feeling that a number of you are truly paranoid!!!!
    There's a group of men that have decided to take it upon themselves to
    attempt to work to end violence by men against women.  In them doing
    so, I don't see them saying that there isn't also a case for working to
    end violence by women against men.  They have simply chosen to attack
    one part of the larger problem in hopes of lessening the greater
    problem -- violence in general.  These folks are DOING SOMETHING about
    the problem.  What are you doing?
    
    	Sheesh!
    
          Greg
    

Re: .106

You're half right.  It's about condemning violence and the men who perpetrate
it.  Not all men.  Please show me what is in that text that makes you think
the writer is condemning all men.

			steve

Re: .104

Hey, David, I agree with you here! 

		Steve

    .108
    Steve,
    
    
    	Read .1 Second para.

    re .107
    <What are you doing?>
    
    asking them not to bother us

    re .103
    
   
>    Yes, women kill women, and women kill men, and men kill men, and adults
>    kill children, and sometimes children even kill adults.  And yes all
>    these crimes are equally horrid.  But that's not what this topic is
>    about.
    
    Jody,
    
    From my side of the elephant this is *exactly* what this not *is*
    about.  Men get abused too, maybe not physically.  The the wounds
    run deep and take longer to heal than physical injuries.  I doubt
    if ANYONE in this file would tell you that men *should* be able
    to abuse women.  Probaly most *would* take action to stop abuse
    if they witnessed it.  HOWEVER, there a lot of men here who have
    witnessed and experienced the abuses that men suffer.  They view
    the proposed solution to the abuse of women as being the *increase*
    of the abuses of men.  They will *never* buy into that solution.
    If you want to sell your argument, then you must deal with that
    fear and deal with *both* sides of the problem.
    
    fred();

    but I don't want to sell anything.
    
    if you don't wish to back them, don't.
    
    if you wish to start a campaign against women harming men, please do
    so!  there is a topic existing where this can be expanded on, and
    supported, creating new possibilities of ending this kind of suffering.
    
    but please don't inhibit the progress that could be made against men
    who harm women by the people involved in the white ribbon campaign.
    
    -Jody
    

re: .113
    
    I think I just got an *aha*
    
>     They view
>    the proposed solution to the abuse of women as being the *increase*
>    of the abuses of men.  
    
    Is that really how all of you view this? 
    That's not what I got out of the basenote, but it may be what many
    other people got out of it.....
    
    open-eared, and wide-eyed
    
    -Jody
    

    re .105
    
    Some correspondence has suggested I was insulting you Jody by saying
    "then you are a fool and that makes me very sad"
    
    I did not intend to be insulting you. I apologize if you felt I was
    insulting you. What I was thinking and feeling was that walking streets
    at night can be both foolhardy and asking for trouble.
    That is why I said both
    "with affection" and
    "it makes me very sad"
    It was an attempt to humanize and soften the statement. I'm sorry that
    it did not uniformly succeed in accomplishing that.
    At the time time it was trying to communicate how intemperate it
    feels to me for a woman to expect to walk streets at night with the
    same safety a man feels.

    Jody,
    	I think that there is a conventional wisdom about spousal abuse
    that says that the man is almost always the guilty party and almost
    always the initiator.  The reality is from my observation much more
    equal.  If you want to get some real information, spend a monday
    morning at a city district court.  Just hang out in the lobby and
    listen.  What you will probably hear about is a lot of nasty fights
    between men and women.  It will probably be very difficult to determine
    who is the "guilty" party.  If you just hear one side of any of the
    stories, you would be likely to sympathize with the teller.  If you
    actually attend a trial to hear both sides, you will probably say that
    both parties are scum and ought to be punished.  Judges often will find
    the man guilty and issue a restraining order because:  He is
    larger, more dangerous, the judge is conditioned that men are the
    guilty party, the woman is the plaintiff and the man is the defendant
    and you can't find the plaintiff guilty.  
    	There are lawyers who actually encourage women to initiate or
    provoke violence in order to get a better divorce settlement.  There
    are also women who will initiate or provoke violence in order to gain
    the upper hand in a power struggle type relationship.   
        Lawyer references available upon request.
                                   	John
    

    I'll suggest a term to use to describe what is going in
    
    Harassment.
    
    'politically correct' men 
    
    			harassing 
    			badgering
    			battering
    
    their 'myopic' brethren for not
    being able to see the errors of their ways. And dunning them with
    message after message after message after message after message 
    of the form
    
    you are a bad guy
    you are a bad guy
    you are a bad guy
    you are a bad guy
    your values are worthless
    your values are worthless
    your values are worthless
    your values are worthless
    you don't deserve consideration (but BE SAVED! TAKE ON MY VALUES)
    you don't deserve consideration (but BE SAVED! TAKE ON MY VALUES)
    you don't deserve consideration (but BE SAVED! TAKE ON MY VALUES)
    you don't deserve consideration (but BE SAVED! TAKE ON MY VALUES)
    
    I think that evokes the feeling. 

    
    
    The term paranoid, again, comes to mind.
    
    	GJD

    
    I have been an "observer" of this notes file for a long time, but this
    discusssion has been the one to pull me into the fray.
    
    First of all, PLEASE do not start your argument with "the problem in
    America...." as some have done.  You will note that the campaign is a
    Canadian one, and this is an international notes file.  Also, there are
    some significant differences between your "America" and Canada.  Of the
    15,628 murders last year in the US, 4,399 were women (that's about
    28%).  In Canada, of 422 murders, 234 (55%) were women.  Of that 234
    women, a study from the University of Victoria and the University of
    Toronto has shown that 62 percent of the female murder victims are
    killed in their homes by their husbands or "significant others".
    
    Now honestly, can we say that 62 percent of males murdered are killed
    by their "significant others"?  I doubt it.
    
    Here's another fact (albeit Canadian). Of every four women in Canada,
    one will be sexually assaulted during her life. I'm afraid I don't have
    the number for males.   With a population of about 25  million, three
    sexual assaults  are reported every hour, two women a week die at the
    hands of a husband or lover.  
    
    It seems to me that there is a problem of violence against women, and
    that violence comes from men. Not all men, but some men.
    
    Mr. Haddock, I challenge you to give me statistics showing that
    violence against men is as rampant. NO, NOT PSYCHOLOGICAL, BUT
    PHYSICAL!  
    
    The campaign that the basenoter is advocating is an admirable one.  I
    believe that the first step in working to end the violence against
    women is to recognise that THERE IS A PROBLEM, specifically directed
    towards women. Given some of the replies, that will be a tough battle.
    I'll be the first to agree that the problem is not ALL men, but some
    men. It's these men that we have to reach. To let them know that it is
    not acceptable. I think that the best way to reach these men is through
    other men.
    
    Next week, I'll be wearing a white ribbon. It won't solve the problem.
    What it will do is demonstrate that I recognise there is a problem,
    which is the first step. It's all about awareness. It's not a "hate
    campaign against men" (Haddock), but an attempt by men to demonstrate a
    willingness to work with women to end the violence.
    
    Steve
               

re: .116

>    Some correspondence has suggested I was insulting you Jody by saying
>    "then you are a fool and that makes me very sad"
>    
>    I did not intend to be insulting you. I apologize if you felt I was
>    insulting you. What I was thinking and feeling was that walking streets
>    at night can be both foolhardy and asking for trouble.
>    That is why I said both
>    "with affection" and
>    "it makes me very sad"
>    It was an attempt to humanize and soften the statement. I'm sorry that
>    it did not uniformly succeed in accomplishing that.
    
    I, at first, wondered if you had taken the statement to mean that I did
    just that, not caring where or when I walked.  But I assured myself you
    were considering my safety, and did not respond either via notes or
    mail because no offense was taken.  But thank you for clarifying your
    intent.  I appreciate it.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    >    There is an equal group in Boston Mass. The town where there is a 
    > womans only bank. So, pal, your international note does run itscourse
    > across the country.
    
    I see.  Then you would agree that the Canadian statistics showing that
    62% of all female murder victims were killed by their current or former
    significant other, also applies to the US?
    
    Then you would also agree that one in four AMERICAN females can expect
    to be sexually assaulted?
    
    >  I am going to the local tatoo parlor this weekend
    >  to get my SS number totoo'ed on my forarm.
    
    Perhaps you should get a white ribbon tatooed while you're there. :^)
    
    	Steve

I don't see that men in this note have a problem recognizing that violence
against women at the hands of some men is a problem.  I see that we have a
problem supporting a problem that seems to be getting a lot of attention
while the problem of divorced men etc. are ignored.  It's like we are already
bombarded with things like:

a.  Let's give Israel 15 billion dollars to relocate Soviet Jews to the
West Bank while at the same time we're ignoring our own homeless, 25% of
which are veterens.

b.  Let's spend a billion a day to save Kuwait from Sodom Insane and then
let him stay in power.

c.  Let's send billions to China to support the same maniacs who have
demonstrated that Tieneman Square was just a warm-up exercise for them.

What I'm saying is that we men are being asked to bleed more blood and
we've already lost so much are heads are reeling.  What you ask in the
'white ribbon' campaign is for us to slit our only good wrist.  Some of us
just can't answer the bell on this one.

patrick

    Stats, can be changed to make anyone look good or bad. Many men go into
    court, feeling bad that they have had a duke out with the SO. And
    because they have been played upon since youth not to hit a woman. They
    have violated a basic comandment of youth. So, the majority of the time
    they will not file agianst a woman. So, in the words of Mark Twian,
    there are liers, polititions, and statitions. The Statatition is the
    biggest liar of them all. We have also seen studies done with women
    biasing the out come of the studies. Such as children are always better
    off with the woman than with the men in a divorce. Newer studies show
    differently. And they show that its depends upon the parnet. 
    
    The real issue here is that the stats are out of whack. And because you
    believe that these are true, you will set forth in seach of the Holly
    Grail of this new found cause. And in its wake, you will harm many good
    men who were in situational positions. So, again, Steve, you haven't
    read the last 100 responses. 

    re Duncan.
    
    One more time--
    
    I do not disagree that violence (all violence) is a problem.
    My problem is with the biggoted, hypocritical, narrow-minded,
    reasoning about the *cuases* of that violence and the solutions
    proposed.  Come to think of it, I haven't really seen any solutions
    proposed (other than perhaps the castration and incarceration of 
    men).  What I see is yet another group seeking an admission
    of guilt and justification for *their* biggotry.  From the discussion
    in this file alone, I am not alone.  I believe that violence is
    only a symptom.  Until we take a look at the *real* problem and
    *all* the real problems, not just one narrow-minded view, 
    the violence will continue (no, I do not intend this as a threat,
    just a prediction) if not grow worse, and opposition to these
    "anti violence against female" groups will just keep growing stronger.
    
    fred();

    re .23
    <The focus of this topic should be (IMO) what men can do about
    <violence against women.  Some men decided to start this ribbon
    <campaign.  We may disagree with some of their rhetoric, but
    <isn't the goal a worthy one?
    
    The focus of this topic is an attempt to solicit us for support.
    It is an attempt to convince men that we should join the campaign.
    We don't want to join the campaign. And I for one don't want to be
    solicited.

    The main reason for my opposition to this solicitation is the all
    inclusive approach. In my mind there are two types of people involved in
    domestic violence. The first is just your ordinary person caught in a
    situation where physical violence occurs ( there are many reasons for
    this and the fault is not always the males ). The second is the person
    who loves to dominate by physical force. The second type of person is
    not always male and I don't believe they are rampant. The base note
    is trying to dump types one and two in the same category and say they
    are always males, to me, this is nonsense. There are many shades of
    domestic violence and women play a large part. People can deny this if they
    still believe the myth that women are sugar and spice and all things
    nice. I've lived to long to believe that crap. 


    		HAND
    		Wayne 

    Real life situation:
    
    One of my older son's friends mother just got divorced. She had J with
    her 1st husband. He just up and left one day, I have no idea why. She
    remarried to a never before man. She had 2 daughters with him. The 2nd
    husband wanted to adopt J. Now that they are divorced, she does not
    want J to see his step father. She _told_ my wife that she told her son
    the lie that _his step father_ didn't want to see J because he was 
    angry with J. 
    	When this boy grows up.
    	When this boy finds out this lie (and he will eventually)
    	When this boy becomes physically strong.
    
    Will he:
    
    	Just hate his mother
    	Just hate divorcees
    	Just hate all women
    	Just do physical violence to nnnn
    
    His mother _IS_ creating this monster/time bomb. Maybe she should wear
    a ribbon!
    
    
    Steve

    .129   Real life question:
    
    why did J's father leave him?  and did his step-dad also abandon him?

    re .130
    
    		WHAT ABOUT WHAT THE MOTHER IS DOING. JESUS, GET A LIFE .
    
    
    			DHAND
    			Wayne

    RE .130
    
    Dad? don't know, before we knew them. In the military at the time.
    
    Step dad; don't know for sure, he got the house, she got the kids
    
    My wife's feelings: She works (likes it) as a cocktail waitress. Maybe
    looking for love in all the wrong places... She is a good looking
    woman.
    
    As .131 stated. LOOK AT WHAT SHE IS DOING TO THAT BOY! If he grew up to
    abuse women/SO/wife would it just be another stat? Could there be a
    _reason_ why he might have an attitude about women? Think about how you
    would feel if one of your parents kept you away from the other with a
    selfish LIE!
    
    
    MY OPTIONS:
    
    	A.  Tell J
    	B.  Try to talk his mother out of this (My wife tried)
    	C.  Do nothing
    	D.  Wear a ribbon

            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 685.10                   Men Against Violence                      10 of 21
BSS::P_BADOVINAC                                     51 lines  25-NOV-1991 10:12
                    -< Female violence against little boys >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a good friend.  Her name is Ruth Prather.  Ruth is a State Police
Officer for the State of California.  She heads a department that licences
Child Care facilities.  She also investigates hundreds of child abuse cases
and is considered an expert on the subject.

Ruth tells me that in the state of California the most unreported crime is
violence by single women against their SONS!  She explains that because
there are now so many divorced women who are head of households the stress
level for these women has gone off the meter.  Typically these women
(especially those recently divorced) have very strong anti-men feelings.
The young males in the household, some of course may strongly resemble
their fathers, are often the target of abuse.  Ruth feels it goes
unreported because schools are often told that the little boy hurt himself
playing "You KNOW how little boys are."  Schools and other agencies are
more accepting of these explanations for males than females.  They report
the female cases at a much higher frequency than the males.  They also
report the female single parent cases much less because many of the school
officials feel that since there is no adult male in the house there will
not be any abuse.

I am 41 years old.  I was taught NEVER to hit a female.  (The word 'NEVER'
almost cost me my life but that's another story).  Young males today are
still being taught NEVER to hit back.  If you are a young male and your
mother is a single parent with an attitude toward males you may be in deep
trouble.  I have heard single mothers make broad statements about males in
the presence of their young sons (All men are ***holes!)and then turn to
the young man to try and rephrase (Not YOU honey, you'll never be like your
father!)  This can be very confusing to a young boy.  In order to be loved
by his mother he must hate his father and ALL males and instead he should
be like his mother who could very well be consistently abusive to him.  AND
he is taught never to hit back.  I think there are a lot of little Ted
Bundys out there.  FYI I got custody of my son recently and while I'm not
ready to go into details, let me just say that he is struggling with his
identity more than an 11 year old boy should have to struggle.

My points:

	1.  Women as well as men are victims of violence.

	2.  Women as well as men are perpetrators of violence.

3.  If some little boy grows up to be a mal-adjusted Sociopathic Misogynist
there is a good possibility that a woman had a hand in it.

	4.  If we lay ALL blame of violence on men we will never solve the
problem.  It is not politically correct now days to even hint that women
may be responsible in part for violence against them; we need to recognize
the female role in violence against them and BY them.  We have to be able
to talk about this and then educate.

patrick

    re.128
    Exactly!
    
    -j

    I must admit that I haven't read most of these replies but I do have
    to offer something regarding men being physically violent and women
    being emotionally violent.
    
    I am not condoning verbal abuse or any other type of abuse. I know that
    words can cut like a knife, however, words are not knives. What's a
    knife to me may be a joke to you.
    
    What constitutes verbal abuse? to take a silly example for lack of a 
    better one: If you called my husband fat, his feeling's would be hurt.
    I have a friend who doesn't care in the least bit if someone teases him
    about his paunch. It's all subjective. A verbal abuser does not have a
    telepathic connection with the person she/he is abusing. They don't
    really know how much it hurts. We all misunderstand each other so often
    that it's hard to keep up with even our own feelings. What we do know
    is that a good hard punch hurts like hell. It hurts a man. It hurts a
    woman. It'd hurt my husband. It'd hurt his friend. The very act of 
    physical violence is emotionally abusive in and of itself. 
    
    More Ramblings Later,
    Kate
    
    well. 

    re: beating men.
    
    I am close to average in size and strength. There is no way I could
    beat a man who's close to average in size and weight. I couldn't even
    beat a man who's the size of an average woman.
    
    In case some of you have failed to notice men are stronger than women.
    The size of a man's fist dwarfs a woman's. If I were to have to spa
    with a person 50 pounds lighter than I, it would certainly not take
    much. Maybe one small push. And I certainly would think it unfair to
    beat someone 50 pounds lighter because he/she hurt my feelings.
    
    Most murderers are men. When we see our mostly male politicians ad-
    vocating capital punishment do we say they're male bashing? Chances are
    that if you would have to use arms to defend your life it would be
    toward a man. Do you thing the NRA is male-bashing? 
    
    regarding child-abuse:
    
    I would assume that some abuse of children is done by women. Since,
    even in this day and age the average woman spends much more time with
    her children it seems logical. Do I have to state that most mothers do
    not sexually abuse their children? I should hope not. 
    
    Kate
                                                           
    

    re .137
    
    Yes, men are (generally) larger and stronger than women.  This does not
    prevent women from physically abusing men though.  Men are trained from
    childhood that you do not hit women  (it doesn't "take" in all men),
    and some men can not break this training even when they are attacked.
    
    Rich
    P.S.  My martial arts training tells me that skill is more important
    than size/strength in a fight.

RE .137
    
>    I am close to average in size and strength. There is no way I could
>    beat a man who's close to average in size and weight. I couldn't even
>    beat a man who's the size of an average woman.

	  	You sure could if the guy would not fight back. If my step 
father were alive he would tell you exactly how it could be done. 
    
>    In case some of you have failed to notice men are stronger than women.
>    The size of a man's fist dwarfs a woman's. If I were to have to spa
>    with a person 50 pounds lighter than I, it would certainly not take
>    much. Maybe one small push. And I certainly would think it unfair to
>    beat someone 50 pounds lighter because he/she hurt my feelings.

	  Through personal experience I have shown you size is immaterial.
    
>    Most murderers are men. When we see our mostly male politicians ad-
>    vocating capital punishment do we say they're male bashing? Chances are
>    that if you would have to use arms to defend your life it would be
>    toward a man. Do you thing the NRA is male-bashing? 
 
	  	People murder, who cares what the percentage is. We need to 
	  stop it.
   
>    regarding child-abuse:
    
>    I would assume that some abuse of children is done by women. Since,
>    even in this day and age the average woman spends much more time with
>    her children it seems logical. Do I have to state that most mothers do
>    not sexually abuse their children? I should hope not. 
    
>    Kate
 

	  	You can state it but you can't prove it.

	  Regarding emotional abuse, women have been using that one in 
divorce court for years when they could not get the man on physical abuse.
                                                          
    

	  		HAND
	  		Wayne

 > >    Most murderers are men. When we see our mostly male politicians ad-
 > >    vocating capital punishment do we say they're male bashing? Chances are
 > >    that if you would have to use arms to defend your life it would be
 > >    toward a man. Do you thing the NRA is male-bashing? 
 >  
 > 	  	People murder, who cares what the percentage is. We need to 
 > 	  stop it.
 >    

    If the ratio were close to even, then "who cares what the
    percentage is" would make sense. As it stands, the ratio (of men
    to women among murderers) is anything but close to even. If the
    goal is "to stop it", then ignoring such statistics is to bury
    one's head in the sand. You don't stem the flow of drugs by
    distributing DEA agents uniformly throughout the country. You look
    at the statistics and try to find out what they tell you about the
    flow of drugs, and concentrate efforts based on the best
    information at hand. If you want to stop murders, you don't ignore
    statistics about who commits murder.

    Kate,
    
    	So whats the differnce? Beating men or beating women? Both are
    deplorable as the base note points out. But only one side is
    represented? Or perhaps you did not read the article where this man
    takes his life for his wife, who is into marshal arts, beats him. And
    no one wants to get involved? Whats the difference between men and
    womens politics? Nothing! Both can be a very dark side of humanity.

    Re .140

    		It all depends on what those statistics are used for. I
    have heard and read in the last week that this society needs to:
    castrate, impose curfews, force drugs that take away the sex urge and
    other assorted remedies. All to keep males under control. The thing
    that is blowing me away is that there are men openly supporting these
    grotesque ideas. Remember all ye that support the feminist agenda, all
    it takes is one accusation and you are history.



    			HAND
    			Wayne 

    <I must admit that I haven't read most of these replies...>
    
    Upon reading them, I think you will agree that this topic is about
    mens' reactions to being solicited to support a Canadian mens group
    that is campaigning against violence by men to women.
    
    I do recommend reading them. I think the discussion provides some useful
    insight on how strongly many men feel on both sides of the matter.

    > The thing that is blowing me away is that there are men 
    >openly supporting these grotesque ideas.

    Who are the men "openly supporting" castration, curfews, and
    the forcible injection of drugs?  Who are the women supporting
    such things, for that matter?

    I know of one news article about a college where some women
    have proposed a one night curfew for men.  I think it is an
    absurd idea myself and suspect it was proposed as a publicity
    stunt, though I don't know for certain.  Other than that, no
    where have I seen support for castration or any of your other
    "assorted remedies."

    Can you document these charges, Wayne?

    /Greg

    re .144

    		I will have to go into my garage and see if I kept the
    papers that contained these remedies. 



    			HAND
    			Wayne 

Actually, for the past couple of days the "Dear Abby" column has been running
reaction letters to an earlier column about the subject of male violence
towards females.  One male letter-writer did say that abusers should be
forced to take Depo-Provera.  Indeed, the range of emotions expressed in this
note "string" is echoed by that shown in the letters printed in the column.

				Steve

    	The mention of castration as a solution reminds me of an article I
    read in a scientific magazine about 30 years ago.
    
    	It seems that pre-war Germany had a problem of prison overcrowding,
    and passed a law that repeat sexual offenders (rapists, p�derasts,
    homosexuals, exhibitionists, ...) could ask for immediate release
    provided they agreed to castration and continued medical supervision.
    
    	The experiment was discontinued after two years. The doctors
    reports showed that the men were still capable of an erection and
    orgasm, though somewhat less frequently than before, and that there was
    no change to the preference of manner or sex of the other person. In
    fact more than half had committed the same offence again within a year.
    
    	It seems that ingrained habits are stronger than hormones.

That runs counter to more contemporary (and probably more scientific) 
evidence from chemical castrations done in Britain and Norway.  They show 
that while learned behaviour can sustain similar types of behavior (to that 
of the offense) for some time, it rarely lasts more than a year before it 
breaks down, at least in part because of the lack of biological drive in 
those directions.

In 'One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest' McMurphy bucks the system but in
particular he stands up to Nurse Cratchet and challanges her authority over
him.  He is given a lobotomy and she wins; he will challange her no more.

patrick

	There is a fascinating analysis of contemporary radical-feminist
	thought about men, violence, and the relationships between
	men and women in Reason magazine this month.

	I will try to key it in this weekend.  It is sobering reading.

	It seems that the most radical (and most effective) of the
	feminists would like to see a society like the one I'll
	describe below.  Corroboration will follow when I key this
	in this weekend:

	1) Two completely separate societies for men and women.

	2) The dissolution of the current justice system where
	   the ideal is the rule of law.  Law is stated to be
	   a male-dominated/created construct, therefore inherently
	   oppressive to women.

	3) The rejection of concepts such as reason, logic, and
	   objectivity.  These women feel that these concepts are
	   also inherently masculine, and therefore, cannot apply
	   to women's thoughts, women's lives or women's existence.

	   They postulate that women "connect, feel, and care-for",
	   rather than reason, plan, measure, and so forth.  They
	   would instill this caring, feeling and connecting as the
	   replacements for little trivial things like the scientific
	   method, etc.

	Objectivists among us will recognize the philosophical
	error of rationalism.

	To give an example of the extremes to which some of
	these women have gone in their pursuit of their "Gyno-Utopia",
	one of their number, Andrea Dworkin, FIRED A RIFLE into	
	a porn bookstore, as she believes that such material
	constitutes and promotes violence toward women.

	Folks, these people are not kidding, and they are EXTREMELY
	dangerous to freedom.  Municipalities in the US have actually
	enlisted some of these women to draft laws regarding
	pornography and so forth.

	Steve H

    P.S. Steve, you forgot to mention that the sky is falling!!!
    
    Geesh, I can't believe the stuff that some magazine is attributing
    to the "most effective" feminist faction.
    
    As a feminist myself, I've never even HEARD all the stuff you
    mentioned, so how effective and/or likely is this alleged 
    campaign?  Not very!
    
    I think I'll go outside to check the sky.

    
    	By the way, Steve Hall, I noticed that the claim (in "Reason"
    	magazine) is that the "ideals" they attribute to some feminists
    	are the kind of society "they would like to see" (which is far
    	different than the society "they intend to create.")
    
    	Feminists (as a group) would never agree to work for the ideals
    	you listed, even if a few radicals proposed it (which I have
    	yet to see.)  
    
    	The article you described sounds like a call for a "witch hunt"
    	against what they believe is a dangerous threat to freedom in
    	our society.  
    
    	When will the feds show up at my door asking me if I am now 
    	(or ever have been) a card-carrying feminist...?

	Hang on, Susan.  I'll key it in, and you can evaluate
	it for yourself.  The article quotes from the writings,
	speeches and interviews of these leading feminists.

	They are not kidding, and I am taking them very seriously.

	If they are a radical fringe, with no constituency within
	the feminist "mainstream", then they are getting a
	great deal of things done by some sort of magic....

	I'm gonna try to get to this tonight, if I can get to 
	my machine at home....

	Steve H

    Suzanne,
    
    The sky wasn't falling the last time I checked, but Steve appears
    to think so. This reminds me of an article I read recently where
    a woman extrapolated from current research into reproduction 
    technology in cattle (taking multiple eggs from one cow and implanting
    the fertilized ova in other cows) to a future society where men
    would put all women into reproductive brothels and selectively
    breed them. 
    
    Now I'm sure that 99% of all men would find this idea absurd and
    preposterous, but this woman *really* believed that men would
    do this if given a chance. 
    
    I think that Steve's fears that feminists would impose the sort
    of society that he described on us all if given a chance is
    equally absurd and preposterous.
    
    As you said, just because a radical fringe proposes someting, that
    does not mean the vast majority of those who call themselves feminists
    are going to blindly buy that proposal, or blindly follow their
    lead.
    
    Bonnie

    Steve:
    
    I hope you can ignore what I chose to characterize as snippy, huffy
    belittling.
    I look forward to the article so we can make some judgements of our
    own, as to whether there are serious and seriously received feminists
    who would like to see AND are working toward such a world.

    RE: .153  Steve Hall
    
    > They are not kidding, and I am taking them very seriously.

    Sounds like they wanted your attention.  (Looks like they got it.) :-)
    
    > If they are a radical fringe, with no constituency within
    > the feminist "mainstream", then they are getting a
    > great deal of things done by some sort of magic....
    
    What "things" are they getting done, though?  Are we all about to
    divide our society into gender-exclusive sections?  Is "logic"
    being outlawed (God, I hope not, since I got my B.A. degree in
    it.  I don't want the feds showing up at my door asking if I am
    now, or ever have been, a CARD-CARRYING LOGICIAN!) :-)
    
    Relax, Steve.  The vast majority of feminists have fathers, brothers,
    sons and/or husbands - and we give birth to new male citizens all the
    time.  Even if the most leading feminist in the world stated a desire
    for a society divided by gender - there is no way in hell that the
    majority of feminists would buy into it (much less the majority of
    our society in general.)
    
    If some feminists happen to say they WISH society could be divided -
    SO WHAT????  Aren't they entitled to think what they want?  It's
    never going to happen (thank God.)
    
    The article you read sounds like a bunch of sensationalistic garbage.

    In the meantime, my personal inclination is that  connecting, feeling,
    and caring-for are attitudes that I find more valuable in my
    interaction with women than in my interactions with men. I would like
    to feel more comfortable with such relationships with men
    
    I do NOT see that as a replacement for the scientific method!
    
    On the other hand it I find it sort of seductive to speculate on where
    science might be if collaboration were somewhat more highly deemed and
    competition somewhat less

Maybe Steve Hall's article could go in a separate topic - it seems
unrelated to this one.

		Steve

    	RE: .159  Steve Lionel
    
    	Well, I agree very much that the article about the alleged opinions 
    	of some feminists has nothing to do with this topic.
    
    	Perhaps Steve Hall would be willing to open a new basenote when
    	he submits the article to the conference this weekend?

    in re academic credentials...
    
    I rather doubt that anybody would attribute my noting style/substance
    to my degree in Mathematics, or even my graduate work in Computer
    Science. Indeed, a good argument might be made that my (good or bad)
    standing as a mathematician, is not terribly dependent on my noting
    persona.
    On the other hand,i'm sure there are some fine thinkers out there in
    noting land who will be embarrassed to learn that my academic
    credentials are in any way associated with theirs. (and hope that I
    never remind them again)
    
    				herb