Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Re: <<< Note 888.30 by LANDO::PATTON >>>

    I find it disheartening that you are a proponent of deliberately
    distorting and slanting the news.  The first station was inaccurate and
    *that* should be the object of scorn.  The second was accurate and
    should be applauded.

    I'm sorry about the man's actions and his choice of words, but it's
    what happened, and you can probably look forward to the word "Feminism"
    dropping another notch in respectability because of this.

    Deliberate distortion of the news, something that you seemed to support
    has a name.  It's called "propaganda."  I hope you think this through
    and change your evaluation...

                              Roak

    to 888.40:
    
    What do you mean when you say the word feminism will drop
    another notch because of this??? Because of what? because
    a homicidal maniac used it as he shot women or because
    some radio station personnel whose sex we don't know decided
    to use the word women instead of feminists?  Either case, it
    makes no sense that you feel the word is "dropping a notch."
    My gut reaction is that anyone who could say such a thing
    probably didn't have much respect for the word feminism
    before the Montreal incident.  Personally, the horrible
    incident in Montreal makes me want to wear a large pin saying
    FEMINIST.
    
    Sue Kallas
    

    	RE: .40  Roak
    
    	> I'm sorry about the man's actions and his choice of words, but 
    	> it's what happened, and you can probably look forward to the word 
    	> "Feminism" dropping another notch in respectability because of 
    	> this.
    
    	Actually, I seriously doubt that this will happen (unless people
    	begin to sympathize with the killer enough to agree that feminists
    	probably *were* responsible for his woes, and I doubt *very* much
    	that this will be a common reaction.)
    
    	If anything, I think Western societies will begin to realize that
    	feminists are often blamed unfairly for the perceived "ills" of the 
    	world since women have gotten more rights, and that whether the
    	women killed were actually feminists or not, the women's movement
    	is composed of women *like* the ones who did die:  women engaged
    	in the business of living their lives (as students, engineers,
    	teachers, lawyers, housewives, secretaries, doctors, or what-have-
    	you.)  
    
    	The villians that the killer (and some of the rest of our culture) 
    	sees in feminism simply don't exist (the way they envision us.)
    
    	Perhaps this senseless tragedy will open more people's eyes to
    	how wrongly feminists have been judged in the past 20 years or so.

    Re: last few...
    
    Screeeeeeeech...
    
    Hold on people.  Look, I don't care what a person's sex, color or hair
    color or whatever is, so before you accuse me of not having much
    respect for the word "feminisim" or "feminist" perhaps we should all
    step back a bit and see what I said (and note that I did not condone
    it, I merely pointed it out).
    
    Note that I can also point out that this will lower the term "gun
    owner" another notch, but by saying that does that make me anti-gun,
    right?  I think that most of you know that I'm the furthest thing from
    anti-gun you can get, but I also think that Canadian gun owners are
    going to loose on this one.  It's an observation, not an agreement with
    the observation.
    
    The word "feminisim" has just gotten some bad press.  The very fact
    that somone objected to them using the word on the radio instead of
    "women" clearly demonstrated that they perceived it as bad press.  Is
    this now understood?
    
    Are we back on the same side again?
    
                             Roak

    re .40:
    
    >...and you can probably look forward to the word "Feminism"
    >dropping another notch in respectability because of this.
    
    Well, the man only singled out *women*, not *feminists* when
    he opened fire.  He came into the classroom, forced the class
    to divide into two sides - men and *women*, not *feminists*
    and *non-feminists*.  Then he shot up all the *women* in the room,
    *not* the feminists!

    >The word "feminisim" has just gotten some bad press.
    
    How's that, Roak?  Please, explain to me how a man who opened
    fire on a bunch of unarmed women gives FEMINISM *bad press*??!!
    
    To me, *anti-feminism* just got some bad press.  Or did you think
    that this guy was justified in shooting some (his words) "feminists"?
    

    re .48, I don't see why the word "feminism" has just gotten bad
    press.  I hasn't as far as I'm concerned.  
    
    I do think that male gun-owners have just gotten some pretty bad
    press.
    
    Lorna
    

Re: <<< Note 888.51 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice" >>>

    re .40:
    
>>    >The word "feminisim" has just gotten some bad press.
    
>>    How's that, Roak?  Please, explain to me how a man who opened
>>    fire on a bunch of unarmed women gives FEMINISM *bad press*??!!
    
    I'd ask LANDO::PATTON (.30) She seems to think it's getting bad press
    -- she was very much against the radio using the word...  Perhaps she
    would be able to explain...
    
>>    To me, *anti-feminism* just got some bad press.  Or did you think
>>    that this guy was justified in shooting some (his words) "feminists"?
    
    Low blow.  As well as completely unfair.  In my neck of the woods
    accusing someone as condoning murder would require an apology.  How
    'bout in your neck of the woods?
    
    I assume that you just came upon my .40 and have not yet read my later
    reply.  If you still have questions after that, I'll gladly answer
    them.
    
                          Roak

    Ok, if we can stop accusing me of being anti-feminist, someone who
    condones the murdering of feminists, etc., and just listen for a
    second, perhaps we can clear the air.

    First the word "feminist" has just about zero meaning for me because
    the concept of descriminating against someone on the basis of sex is a
    totally foreign concept.  I understand it's meaning only because it is
    a stance that must be taken against descrimination based on sex.
    
    I am disappointed that this society has a structure such that it
    requires the word "feminist" to be necessary.  It'd be nice to take the
    next step where we can dispose of the word because all people are
    treated as peers, no matter what sex, color or whatever they are.  OK? 
    Have I shaken the "woman killer" accusation yet?
    
    Now, onto my line of reasoning...

    Now, in the coming months we (all of us, including me) will talk about
    this incident among ourselves and our friends.  However, looking at it
    I think you'll realize that anything we have to say will be preaching
    to the choir -- no one is going to change their minds, since we're all
    in complete agreement to begin with.  The act was horrible, and it's
    awful that some people are so prejudice that they'd kill.

    Now, let's look at what happens to the closet "feminist-hater" in the
    coming months.  S/he gets some reinforcement of their feelings -- NO
    MATTER HOW ILLOGICAL THIS MAY BE.  Because of safety in numbers,
    they'll begin to talk, and influence people around them.  Unlike people
    like us (I assume) that talk all the time about politics, feminism,
    etc. (noting is indicitive of this), these people have been
    tight-lipped until now; now their feelings have been supported by this
    heinous act, and they'll start to talk to their friends on a topic that
    they have not covered before -- "the ugly spectre of feminism, and the
    problems it causes."  Hate spreads further than Love, unfortunately,
    and even those that don't "hate" feminists will associate feminism with
    something negative, just due to pure repetition.  There's an old
    "Soapbox" saying that has a ring of truth to it: "Repeat something
    enough times and it becomes a fact."
    
    The reader's digest version of the above is that we're going to hear
    the word "feminisim" and "mass murder" in the same sentence a lot in
    the future.  As bizarre as it may sound to us, a lot of people are
    going to equate the two...
    
    I hope I'm wrong.

                           Roak
    
    I really hope LANDO::PATTON replies and tells us why she thought the
    radio using the word "feminism" was so bad.  Perhaps she'd be a better
    spokeperson than I.

    It's an intense subject, Doctah.  It's understandable.
    
    re: Roak
    
    >First the word "feminist" has just about zero meaning for me because
    >the concept of descriminating against someone on the basis of sex is a
    >totally foreign concept.  
    
    You clearly don't understand feminism.  Feminism is for equality.
    'Discriminating against someone on the basis of sex' is what happens
    without feminism!  Gender discrimination is the default.  It's the
    absence of feminism.
    
    >I am disappointed that this society has a structure such that it
    >requires the word "feminist" to be necessary.
                        
    Women are far more than merely disappointed about it.  We either
    have to fight it constantly or go belly up and loose our self-respect,
    (or go belly up with ridiculous survival rationalizations like the
    women of generations past had to).
    
    >"the ugly spectre of feminism, and the problems it causes."  
    
    I want so much to point to this comment as one small example of
    my statment that there's some level of feminist hating in many men.
    What problems does it cause?  Sure there'd be no problem if women
    would just be quiet and take orders.  The only "problems" are those
    caused by the resistance to the ideology of equality and not by
    those presenting such a fair and right ideology.
    
    >Hate spreads further than Love, unfortunately,
    
    I've never believed this.  We can and do turn our backs on hate
    but when we're touched by something loving, we can't stop thinking
    about it.
    
    > There's an old "Soapbox" saying that has a ring of truth to it:
    > "Repeat something enough times and it becomes a fact."
    
    And that, my friend, is what I think happened to give you the idea
    that feminism is an ugly, problem-causing ideology that incites
    women to believe they are better and more deserving than those base
    animals, men.  Dare I say this is a picture painted to help patricarchy
    dismiss the true underlying call of women for fairness - for what
    is right.  A true feminist does not believe in reverse discrimination.
    Even if she gets a job *because* she is female, rather than loosing
    it for the same reason, her sex was the issue.  Feminism wants to
    wipe out sex as an issue for any reason except the best one - sex!
    :-)

    re .55:
    
    >>>The word "feminisim" has just gotten some bad press.
    
    >>How's that, Roak?  Please, explain to me how a man who opened
    >>fire on a bunch of unarmed women gives FEMINISM *bad press*??!!
    
    >I'd ask LANDO::PATTON (.30) She seems to think it's getting bad press
    >-- she was very much against the radio using the word...  Perhaps she
    >would be able to explain...
    
    Since you repeated it (and it sounded like you thought that way -
    that feminism *is* getting bad press from this event), that's why
    I asked you about it.  I admit I didn't quite understand the reply
    from LANDO::PATTON.
    
    >>To me, *anti-feminism* just got some bad press.  Or did you think
    >>that this guy was justified in shooting some (his words) "feminists"?
    
    >Low blow.  As well as completely unfair.  In my neck of the woods
    >accusing someone as condoning murder would require an apology.  How
    >'bout in your neck of the woods?
    
    Well, it was a leap.  Certainly you don't justify killing people,
    but I guess I saw your note as justifying "feminist-bashing"
    (not to the extent of killing) which I see *quite a bit*, even
    in *this* file!
    
    

    	RE: .62  Roak
    
    	Sounds to me like you're getting yourself in deeper and deeper here.
    
    	> Now, let's look at what happens to the closet "feminist-hater" in 
    	> the coming months.  S/he gets some reinforcement of their feelings 
    	> -- NO MATTER HOW ILLOGICAL THIS MAY BE.  
    
    	Do you really believe that some/many people find the commission of
    	a mass murder as something they can "relate to" (in the sense that
    	it reinforces feelings they already had themselves)??
    
    	I'm having a serious problem believing that.
    
    	> Because of safety in numbers, they'll begin to talk, and influence 
    	> people around them.  Unlike people like us (I assume) that talk all 
    	> the time about politics, feminism, etc. (noting is indicitive of 
    	> this), these people have been tight-lipped until now; now their 
    	> feelings have been supported by this heinous act...
    
    	Really??  Do you think that people feel support when they find out
    	that an obviously deranged mass murderer had the same feelings *they*
    	might have tossed around quietly themselves on occasion??
    
    	Do you really believe that many people will want others to catch
    	them sympathizing and/or empathizing with a mass murderer enough to
    	start trying to promote the message *he* sent out by killing 14 women?
    
    	> ...and they'll start to talk to their friends on a topic that
    	> they have not covered before -- "the ugly spectre of feminism, and 
    	> the problems it causes."  
    
    	Was this statement really necessary to throw at a notesfile with many
    	feminists, in a topic about 14 women who were brutally gunned down
    	because a madman blamed feminists for his own failures (as the result
    	of his having embraced the prejudice against women that is inherent in
    	many cultures)?  Did you really need to press this particular point?
    
    	> Hate spreads further than Love, unfortunately, and even those that 
    	> don't "hate" feminists will associate feminism with something 
    	> negative, just due to pure repetition. 
    
    	Let's not forget here that feminists were the *targets* of this
    	mass murder - we were *not* the murderers!!
    
    	> The reader's digest version of the above is that we're going to hear
    	> the word "feminisim" and "mass murder" in the same sentence a lot in
    	> the future.  As bizarre as it may sound to us, a lot of people are
    	> going to equate the two...
    
    	Perhaps feminists will be associated with the event in the sense
    	of being the "victims" of a mass murder, but why on earth would anyone
    	want to associate us with the crime as if feminists *committed* it
    	(instead of being the victims of it)???
    
    	> I hope I'm wrong.
    
    	You and me both.
    
    	What I don't understand is why you felt you needed to rub this nasty
    	scenerio in our faces at a time when you *know* how difficult it must
    	have been for the many dedicated feminists in this notesfile to find
    	out that 14 women were senselessly murdered because some deranged man
    	couldn't handle the reality of women fighting for our rights.
    
    	Sorry, but I think it was rather tasteless for you to bring up in the 
    	first place, and downright insensitive for you to pursue as an argument.
    
    	Can we let this line of thought rest now?

	 FWIW.

	 I believe that Roak has a valid point.  I believe the
	 "Feminist movement" will suffer from this as well.

	 There are people in our society that are Anti-Feminist.  This
	 could quite possibly re-inforce their believe that "women are
	 the root of all evil."

	 I can hear it right now, "See what Feminists drove him to
	 do.  How long can this nonsense go on."

	 I'm definately not AGREEING with that attitude, but I can
	 EASILY see it.

	 I see a reinforcement, instead of a heightened awareness in
	 some people.

	 kath

    	RE: .68  Kath
    
    	> I can hear it right now, "See what Feminists drove him to
	> do.  How long can this nonsense go on."
    
    	Sort of like what people said when the children in Stockton,
    	California were gunned down, right?  "See what children drove
    	him to do.  How long can this nonsense go on."  
    
    	Perhaps I have more faith in humankind than you and Roak do.
    	I don't buy it.
    
    	Although I do realize that there will always be those who can't
    	resist taking cheap shots at groups they already dislike anyway,
    	I find it hard to believe that many people will wish to capitalize
    	on this particular opportunity to cut feminists down more than they
    	usually do.

>               <<< Note 888.69 by CSC32::CONLON "Feministique" >>>
    
>    	Sort of like what people said when the children in Stockton,
>    	California were gunned down, right?  "See what children drove
>    	him to do.  How long can this nonsense go on."  


	 Suzanne...I don't understand why you refuse to face the
	 facts.  The Feminist Movement has a bad name....pure and
	 simple.  Whether that bad name is warranted or not is not the
	 issue here...the issue is that those that believe the
	 Feminist Movement to be "bad" will milk this for what it is
	 worth.

	 Children in Stockton, California do NOT have a "bad name" in
	 society.  How you can even make the comparison is beyond me.

	 These women were killed in a "fight against Feminism".  That
	 is FUEL to those that are against the Feminist Movement.

	 FWIW, in the check-out line at the supermarket today, I heard
	 this exact comment ("Look what those #$%@ feminists caused.")
	    
>    	I find it hard to believe that many people will wish to capitalize
>    	on this particular opportunity to cut feminists down more than they
>    	usually do.

	 Where the hell did you get a "many people" comment?  I never
	 used it.  I said it could be fuel to the Anti-Feminist
	 movement.....


	 kath

	 BTW, Suzanne.

	 Please note that I do not agree with this happening, but I
	 face the facts that it already is.

	 I'm NOT "Anti-Feminist" and please don't talk to me like I
	 agree that this attitude is right.  I don't, and I sincerely
	 doubt that Roak does either.

	 It's simply a matter of realizing that it WILL happen with
	 some people in our society and they WILL use it as more fuel
	 in undermining the Feminist Movement.

	 People are very good at twisting things around to further
	 their cause....and don't believe for a second that they
	 won't.

	 kath

    	RE: 888.71  Kath
    
    	> Suzanne...I don't understand why you refuse to face the
	> facts. 
    	
    	What facts???  The scenerio about people aligning themselves
    	with a mass murderer against feminism is nothing but pure
    	speculation.
    
    	Although it shouldn't surprise me to find people even in
    	=wn= so ready and willing to jump on the tragedy of these 
    	murders to repeat their negative opinions about feminism.
    
    	You show me the people who are standing on the side of the
    	person who committed this brutal senseless slaughter of
    	innocent women, and maybe I'll believe that it's a matter
    	of "fact."
    
    	Do you personally associate yourself with individuals who
    	identify with and support maniacs who commit mass murder??  
    	If so, then I have to seriously question your judgment when
    	it comes to your choice of friends.  If not, then where is 
    	your proof that such individuals exist?  Speculation isn't
    	good enough.

>               <<< Note 888.73 by CSC32::CONLON "Feministique" >>>


	 Suzanne, you are blowing totally out of proportion what I am
	 saying.  Actually READ what I am saying, without adding to
	 it, and you'll see the point. Okay?
	 
    	
>    	What facts???  The scenerio about people aligning themselves
>    	with a mass murderer against feminism is nothing but pure
>    	speculation.

	 No. No, no, no, no, No.  Did I EVER say that I was talking
	 about people "aligning themselves with a mass murderer"?? No.
	 I said that this would add fuel to the Anti-Feminist feeling
	 that *IS* out there.

	 I don't believe ANYONE is going to "okay" what this guy did,
	 but I DO know that people ARE saying "see what those
	 Feminists are driving people to do!" and other such comments.

	 The FACT is, that, like it or not, to some people, the
	 Feminist Movement has a "bad rep".  And many of those people
	 are going to push some of the blame of this horrid incident
	 onto the Feminist Movement.
	 
>    	Although it shouldn't surprise me to find people even in
>    	=wn= so ready and willing to jump on the tragedy of these 
>    	murders to repeat their negative opinions about feminism.

	 Are you implying, Suzanne, that I have "negative opinions"
	 about feminism?  NOTE, Suzanne, that I am stating what other
	 people are thinking NOT what I feel.  NOTE ALSO, that I have
	 NEVER expressed "negative opinions" about feminism....I've
	 only stated that *I* am not a Feminist because *I* do not
	 believe in some things the Feminist Movement does.  That can
	 NOT be interpreted as a negative opinion about the Feminist
	 Movement.

	 So, I do hope you are not implying that *I* am expressing
	 "negative opinions"....because if you are attempting to imply
	 that, you are wrong.

         I'm stating what I happening in some people's minds because
         of this horrid incident...not what is happening in MY mind.
	 
>    	You show me the people who are standing on the side of the
>    	person who committed this brutal senseless slaughter of
>    	innocent women, and maybe I'll believe that it's a matter
>    	of "fact."

	 Again, Suzanne, you are attributing things to me that *I* did
	 not say.  No one is "standing on the side of this person",
	 they are merely shoving some of the blame for it onto the
	 Feminist Movement.

	 Is this "right"?  No.  Is it happening?  Yes.
	    
>    	Do you personally associate yourself with individuals who
>    	identify with and support maniacs who commit mass murder??  
>    	If so, then I have to seriously question your judgment when
>    	it comes to your choice of friends.  If not, then where is 
>    	your proof that such individuals exist?  Speculation isn't
>    	good enough.

	 Suzanne, I would appreciate you dropping the condescending
	 attitude and sticking to the facts.  Who I associate with is
	 none of your business.  By trying to discredit me this way
	 with petty digging jibes, you are doing nothing by
	 discrediting yourself.  Stick the facts, and leave your
	 judgement of my personal life out of this.

	 Where is my proof that these people exist? (BTW, since you've
	 changed the meaning of "these people", I'm changing it back
	 to what I said.  "These people" means "people that will
	 attribute some of the blame of this to the Feminist
	 Movement.")  Where is your proof that they don't?  You're
	 living in a glass house if you feel that there aren't any
	 people out there that feel Feminists are "bad."

	 Some Anti-Feminists are just LOOKING for anything like this to
	 give them fuel.....Just like Some Pro-Lifers are just LOOKING
	 for anything to show Abortion is "wrong."


	 And, I'm not going to tell you again, Suzanne.  QUIT
	 insinuating that these are MY beliefs and opinions.  They are
	 NOT what I believe, but rather what I REALISTICALLY know is
	 happening out there.


	 If you don't feel there are any radical Anti-Feminists out
	 there, Suzanne, something is wrong.


	 kathy

    re: Kath and D!
    
    We already know there was one *sick*, *sick* piece of human pond
    scum out there who killed 14 women.
    
    If what you say is true - that there are and will be people who will
    respond by blaming *feminism* for this incident - then they are *also*
    *sick*, *sick* pieces of human pond scum as well!
    
    These mail messages I am reading just seem to say, "Oh well, there's
    these people out there who will think such-and-such, and we have to
    acknowledge and accept that."
    
    Well, okay, I'm acknowleding it, but I *don't* accept it and never will!
    
    Kath, I could accept your replies if you acknowledged how *sick* these
    people you're talking about, but you seem particularly *accepting*
    (and I *know* you don't agree with it) of such horrendous thinking!
    
    So let's all acknowledge what *bigotted* *sick* pea-sized brained
    people there are that might think like this!  Let's *never* simply
    "accept" it.
    

    	RE: .84  D_Carroll
    
    	It doesn't hurt to hear negative opinions of feminism - after
    	all, those opinions occur because the women's movement has been
    	so effective at bringing about change for women.
    
    	I guess I am simply curious as to why some people in this topic
    	have to go into such DETAIL to express the same idiotic opinions
    	about feminism (that they *deny* holding themselves and that we
    	*all* know are exceptionally unreasonable) in a topic about women
    	who died at the hands of a man who held those same beliefs.
    
    	In our society, the expression of the beliefs that are used to
    	justify violence against women are more acceptable than the grief
    	and outrage against the violent expression of attitudes that made 
    	feminism a *NECESSITY* in the first place.
    
    	My personal opinion is that the massacre in Montreal will open
    	people's eyes somewhat to the degree of sexism that still exists
    	in our culture.  Of course, it is logical to assume that there
    	will be some bigots in our culture who will blame feminists for
    	terrorist acts against women, but I think that the majority in
    	our society are intelligent enough to recognize the real impetus 
    	behind the severe problems of violence and the murder of women.
    
    	Thanks again to those who might be willing to refrain from yet 
    	additional repetition of the views of the man who committed this
    	murder.  If some people absolutely can't resist repeating these
    	views again, I'd sincerely appreciate it if you would put them
    	in topic 178.  Thank you very much.

    
.86>	My personal opinion is that the massacre in Montreal will open
.86>	people's eyes somewhat to the degree of sexism that still exists
.86>	in our culture.  
    
    	Somehow I don't think so.  From the media standpoint, it already
    	has been pushed aside for today's news.  I think because it's so
    	vastly common for men to lash out at women in a violent fashion,
    	this is just another event to chalk up for huMANity.
    
    	And that is really too bad.  To say the least.
    
    	Carla
    

	 RE: Suzanne

	 I don't believe in "sugar coating" this incident.  I believe
	 in making people more aware of the repercussions that will
	 arise because of it.  I believe in using it to arm ourselves
	 as well, because it's given QUITE A BIT of ammunition to
	 Anti-Feminists and those for Gun Control.

	 If you don't want to be fully aware then that is your
	 business, but awareness is what I'm trying to bring to this
	 discussion.  Awareness that while it does help the Feminist
	 Movement, it is also giving great ammunition to the
	 Anti-Feminist Movement as well.
	 

>       <<< Note 888.85 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice" >>>
    
    
>    These mail messages I am reading just seem to say, "Oh well, there's
>    these people out there who will think such-and-such, and we have to
>    acknowledge and accept that."

	 No!  No, NEVER will I "accept" this attitude and or condone
	 it.  I've said MANY times already that I don't believe in it,
	 nor do I accept and condone it. *PLEASE* separate fact from
	 opinion....that's necessary thing to be able to do when
	 you're trying to understand my point.

	 We MUST accept, however, that this train of thought DOES
	 exist.  If we do not accept that it exists, then we can never
	 hope to fight it (we can't just ignore it and hope it goes
	 away).
	 
>    Well, okay, I'm acknowleding it, but I *don't* accept it and never will!

	 Neither will I, and I've tried to make that clear over and
	 over again.
	    
>    Kath, I could accept your replies if you acknowledged how *sick* these
>    people you're talking about, but you seem particularly *accepting*
>    (and I *know* you don't agree with it) of such horrendous thinking!

	 The problem here (and in other notes as well) is that there
	 is a difference between stating facts and expressing
	 opinions.  The facts, and my opinions of those facts are two
	 totally separate and distinct issues (and as you will see in
	 Suzanne's notes to me, she is trying to combine the two which
	 I've told her over and over again that she should NOT do.)

	 We must accept the fact that people like this DO exist and
	 WILL capitalize on this.  However, I do not CONDONE these
	 acts and these beliefs.

         People that are refusing to accept that these facts (ie.,
         that people like this exist) are living in a fairytale world
         and are NOT going to be ready when they need to battle these
         people.  These people are NOT going to "disappear"
         today....and probably will not disappear in our lifetimes.

	 So, what should we do, ignore the fact that they exist and
	 that they will use this as ammunition and become PREPARED for
	 this?  Or should we act like these people don't exist and
	 just comfort the hurt ones and sit back idly and watch the
	 Anti-Feminists have a hayday?


         This is EXACTLY the same as the "secretary incident."  I
         stated the FACT that the way our free market system works,
         secretaries are ranked at a certain place in the pay scale,
         and *our system and our society* would have to change in
         order to change secretary's place on the pay scale (ie,
         conclusion: that idle griping about it is not going to get
         you more money, action and education will)  I was then VERY
         offended when I was told "well, we know you are prejudice
         against secretaries." Hence, I was labelled by many in this
         file as "looking down on those that are not as 'fortunate' as
         me." (And believe me, I use the word 'fortunate' there in
         very sarcastic terms)  BULL!  You see, people in here cannot
         separate the statements of FACT from the expression of
         opinion.

	 
	 What should I have to do when I'm stating facts? Tack a huge
	 disclaimer on the top of every note?  Seems I'm going to have
	 to.  Because no way, no HOW am I condoning the acts that
	 happened in Montreal and no way no HOW am I condoning and
	 expressing sympathy for people like this.  I've stated
	 SEVERAL TIMES that I abhore it, but people conveniently
	 bypass my statements of opinion and take the statements of
	 FACT as my opinion.

	 Regardless of what Suzanne is leading people to think about
	 me, I do NOT condone this action nor do I like the fact that
	 Anti-Feminists and Pro-Gun-Control people now have more
	 ammunition for their fight.  But it's a fact.......from this
	 incident they profit.....however abhorrent that is to me, I
	 don't have blinders on my eyes so that I don't see their
	 profit.

	 kath

    	RE: .88 Carla
    
    	> I think because it's so vastly common for men to lash out at 
    	> women in a violent fashion, this is just another event to chalk 
    	> up for huMANity.
    
    	It's interesting to note that the subject of "Feminism" made the
    	cover of Time magazine (with a cover story that included many
    	positive statements about the movement) on the December 4th
    	issue - just a week or so before the massacre (in the midst of
    	a month or so of startling events in Europe.)
    
    	The news media may be playing down what happened in Montreal,
    	but I've also seen evidence that groups that work against violence
    	towards women are gaining additional support.
    
    	A few months ago, even George Bush spoke to women's groups about
    	the problems of violence towards women in our culture - and he
    	used the very words, "the WAR against women."
    
    	In my opinion, the problems of violence towards women will not
    	be successfully pushed aside (by the media or anyone else) in
    	the long run.

    re .91:
    
    Well, Kath, I'm asking you now to tackle *two* issues at once -
    the facts and your opinions.  Do you think you can handle it?
    You've already covered the facts.  Now how about your opinions?
    
    Do you acknowledge that the people who think this way are
    *sick*, *bigotted* pieces of human pond scum?  If you agree with
    this assessment, then perhaps we do agree.  But simply not
    *condoning* this attitude just doesn't go far enough in my book.
    

>               <<< Note 888.86 by CSC32::CONLON "Feministique" >>>

    
>    	I guess I am simply curious as to why some people in this topic
>    	have to go into such DETAIL to express the same idiotic opinions
>    	about feminism (that they *deny* holding themselves and that we
>    	*all* know are exceptionally unreasonable) in a topic about women
>    	who died at the hands of a man who held those same beliefs.

	 This argument started because Roak stated that "Feminism will
	 get bad press from this." [paraphrased].  You went on to rage
	 that it wouldn't.  Now i read the following excerpt from your
	 note.
	     
>    	My personal opinion is that the massacre in Montreal will open
>    	people's eyes somewhat to the degree of sexism that still exists
>    	in our culture.  Of course, it is logical to assume that there
>    	will be some bigots in our culture who will blame feminists for
>    	terrorist acts against women, but I think that the majority in
>    	our society are intelligent enough to recognize the real impetus 
>    	behind the severe problems of violence and the murder of women.

	 Which is EXACTLY what Roak and I are trying to get across!!!!
	 That with SOME people, Feminism will LOSE, and that with
	 others it will WIN.

	 You argue and scream against Roak and I, then you say the
	 same thing!


	 But. perhaps I don't feel my "majority" of intelligent people
	 is as big as yours, you see, I'm cynical, I've already heard
	 some comments about it, and I know that Feminism is getting
	 some partial blame for the incident from many more than just
	 a "very small minority."  There are a lot of pig-brained
	 clods out there that think equality is BAD.
	 
         And this does NOT belong in 178, it belongs here because it
         is directly applicable to this incident.  No one is trying to
         simply express their views on Feminism as you think they are,
         they are just trying to heighten awareness about the
         repercussions of this incident.


	 So, it's finally clear that we are arguing about the same
	 thing, so we can drop it right now. (And makes me wonder why
	 it ever started in the first place except for perhaps just to
	 have something to argue about.)

	 Thanks.

	 kath
	 

>       <<< Note 888.92 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice" >>>

>    Well, Kath, I'm asking you now to tackle *two* issues at once -
>    the facts and your opinions.  Do you think you can handle it?
>    You've already covered the facts.  Now how about your opinions?

	 It's sad that I read condemnation and ridicule into the
	 statement "Do you think you can handle it?"  I feel backed
	 into a corner here, I feel labelled as an Anti-Feminist, I
	 feel hated by you and Suzanne, all because I'm just trying to
	 bring awareness.

	 Okay, putting your obvious ridiculing aside, I'll answer your
	 question.

	 I've already used the words "do not condone", "abhore"
	 (numerous times), "pig-brained", "hatred for what
	 happened"...I've also stated many times that I've cried and
	 that I feel it hit home with me because these women were
	 engineering students and that feels really close....I've
	 already STATED these things, over and over....how many times
	 do I have to do it?

	     
>    Do you acknowledge that the people who think this way are
>    *sick*, *bigotted* pieces of human pond scum?  If you agree with
>    this assessment, then perhaps we do agree.  But simply not
>    *condoning* this attitude just doesn't go far enough in my book.
    

	 No, I'm not going to "acknowledge" this.  I won't be forced
	 into agreeing with your words.  I don't call people names and
	 condemn them at a drop of a hat.  I don't believe people are
	 sub human because they believe in something different than
	 what I believe in.  I try not to judge people and pass
	 sentence on them, that is NOT my place to do that.

	 I'm sorry that "not condoning" doesn't 'go far enough' in
	 your book, but I won't be bullied by you or anyone else into
	 calling people names and judging them and labelling them.  I
	 just WON'T do it.

	 I've already stated my opinions over and over again, that I
	 hate what happened, that I don't condone the behavior, that I
	 believe that behaviour like this is WRONG and needs to be
	 corrected in our society, etc, etc, etc.

	 But if you're looking for me to judge these people and pass
	 sentence on them, you're going to be waiting a long time.

	 kath

    	RE: .93  Kath
    
    	> You argue and scream against Roak and I, then you say the
	> same thing!
    
    	You haven't read my notes with much of a degree of comprehension,
    	Kath, nor have you relayed my arguments accurately.
    
    	When I start screaming, you'll know it.  Up to now, I've excercised
    	a tremendous degree of restraint.  I encourage you to do the same.
    
    	My argument is that you (and others) have been endlessly *REPEATING*
    	expressions of the same political attitude that caused the 14 women
    	to be gunned down.  Yes, I acknowledged your claim that these are
    	*not* your opinions, yet I also pointed out that you keep repeating
    	these views (almost to the point of chanting them) to a group that has 
    	a feminist majority.  I keep wondering why you're doing this.
    
    	These views (and speaking of how anti-feminists will attempt to
    	benefit from the massacre) almost amounts to *gloating* over the 
    	deaths of these women ("see what you've done now???") and I am 
    	exceptionally offended by this implication in a forum that has as 
    	many feminists as ours does, whether the people expressing these views 
    	actually hold them personally or *not*!
    
    	Normal human decency would have compelled even the most outspoken
    	critics of feminism to hold their tongues in the midst of feminist
    	co-workers (or so I would have thought,) instead of playing up how
    	other critics might capitalize on this tragedy.
    
    	> No one is trying to simply express their views on Feminism as you 
    	> think they are, they are just trying to heighten awareness about 
    	> the repercussions of this incident.
    
    	It's not a matter of wanting to hold my head in the sand and refrain
    	from facing the truth about how our society regards women.  You don't
    	happen to be my only source of news on any given subject, so you
    	don't have an obligation (nor an invitation) to slam your assessment
    	of the significance of this event down my throat.
    
    	In case you need this spelled out - I *know* how much contempt society
    	has for women in general - as well as the contempt society has for 
    	feminist activists for trying to change it.
    
    	I would simply prefer it if *you* (and a couple others) didn't act 
    	as the spokespersons for those who wish to exploit the murders of 14 
    	innocent women for their own anti-feminist agendas.
    	
    	If such people exist in this conference, let them speak for themselves.

>               <<< Note 888.98 by CSC32::CONLON "Feministique" >>>

    
>    	My argument is that you (and others) have been endlessly *REPEATING*
>    	expressions of the same political attitude that caused the 14 women
>    	to be gunned down.  Yes, I acknowledged your claim that these are
>    	*not* your opinions, yet I also pointed out that you keep repeating
>    	these views (almost to the point of chanting them) to a group that has 
>    	a feminist majority.  I keep wondering why you're doing this.

	 Why?  Because when the original statement was made, it was
	 challenged.  A REstatement was made, and THAT was challenged,
	 etc, etc, etc.  If you agree with it, then WHY did you carry
	 on with a fight about it?

	 If I feel I'm not being understood, I will reiterate my
	 position, until I'm not misunderstood any longer.
	    
>    	as ours does, whether the people expressing these views actually
>    	hold them personally or *not*!

	 Do you wish me to "sugar coat" the facts then?  Is that what
	 you are asking?  Since the majority of the community is
	 feminist, I should not present Non-feminist ideas?
	    
>    	Normal human decency would have compelled even the most outspoken
>    	critics of feminism to hold their tongues in the midst of feminist
>    	co-workers (or so I would have thought,) instead of playing up how
>    	other critics might capitalize on this tragedy.

	 Sorry, Suzanne, I discuss issues whether they are "hot
	 issues" or not.  I'm into awareness of the other side, not
	 sugarcoating of the other side.

	 I believe it is important for the feminist movement to
	 understand the impact this gives the anti-feminist movement.
         From what I gather from what you are saying, you don't feel
	 that the anti-feminist views should be brought into a
	 predominately feminist file.

	 Oops!  Better not discuss homosexuality with vehnement
	 heterosexuals around.

	 I'm not into that=, Suzanne, I'm sorry.....I feel views
	 should be expressed, not hidden.

	 And as the quote I just got in mail from another noter says,
	 "the biggest danger is in ignoring what *IS* and dreaming
	 about what *should be*."
	    
>    	If such people exist in this conference, let them speak for
>    	themselves.

	 Are you kidding?  They would be skinned alive by the likes of
	 you.

	 It's important to know all sides of an issue, not just
	 discuss only yours.

	 kath

    	RE: .99  Kath
    
    	Another good demonstration of your lack of comprehension with
    	regard to what I'm saying, Kath.
    
    	>> I keep wondering why you're doing this.

	> Why?  Because when the original statement was made, it was
	> challenged.  A REstatement was made, and THAT was challenged,
	> etc, etc, etc.  If you agree with it, then WHY did you carry
	> on with a fight about it?
    
    	My original note was a simple disagreement about what will happen
    	as the result of the massacre in Montreal.  Why should my simple
    	disagreement cause you and others to begin **endlessly repeating**
    	the attitudes that caused the deaths of 14 innocent women in a
    	note that was set up to memorialize them?
    
    	>> as ours does, whether the people expressing these views actually
	>> hold them personally or *not*!

	> Do you wish me to "sugar coat" the facts then?  Is that what
	> you are asking? 
    
    	Again, you're not talking about facts here, but opinions (of others.)
    	
    	I'm not asking you to "sugar coat" them.  I'm asking you to refrain
    	from *promoting* them (especially if they aren't your views!)
    
    	> Since the majority of the community is feminist, I should not 
    	> present Non-feminist ideas?
    
    	No, I'm asking you for the normal human decency of not promoting
    	the views that killed 14 women in a topic set up to memorialize
    	these women.  I've asked *more than once* for these views to be
    	presented in another topic (and not here!)  You have refused.
    
    	> I believe it is important for the feminist movement to
	> understand the impact this gives the anti-feminist movement.
         
    	You say you aren't a feminist, so why should you care.  Let
    	us assess the impact for ourselves - (given the same information
    	about the event that you have, we are entitled to our own views.)
    
    	> From what I gather from what you are saying, you don't feel
	> that the anti-feminist views should be brought into a
	> predominately feminist file.
    
    	You gather dead wrong.  I've asked you (as a matter of human
    	decency) to promote these anti-feminist views (that you don't
    	hold yourself) in another topic, and *not* in a topic that
    	memorializes the deaths of 14 innocent women.  You've refused
    	to do this *and* now you've misrepresented my request (over
    	and over again.)
    
    	> I'm not into that=, Suzanne, I'm sorry.....I feel views
	> should be expressed, not hidden.
    
    	Fine.  So you win.  We're discussing it.  (I guess it was
    	futile to ask for human decency when it comes to the views
    	of people who don't believe women *should* be treated as
    	human, even if those expressing these views DON'T hold them.)
    
    	>> If such people exist in this conference, let them speak for
	>> themselves.

	 > Are you kidding?  They would be skinned alive by the likes of
	 > you.

    	Again, I ask you to stop acting as one of the spokespersons for
    	those who are gloating over the deaths of these 14 innocent women.
    	
    	At the very least, please refain from doing so in the topic set up
    	to memorialize these women.  

    My gawd, what a mess...

    Ok, I'll state clearly, and simply what I tried to convey so many notes
    ago...

    *I* know that feminism was not the cause of this tragedy.  There are
    *some* who will twist it to make it seem that way.  The world will not
    stop while we grieve for these women.  In fact, the anti-feminists will
    be most active in this crime's wake.

    Grieve, but don't stop fighting.

    Clear enough?

    I've deleted my previously hidden note not by request but because I'm
    tired of beating a dead horse.

                                   Roak

Note 888.84                                                            84 of 115
TLE::D_CARROLL "It's time, it's time to heal..."     46 lines  11-DEC-1989 13:21
                                   -< tears >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The note posting the names of the women (I mistakenly called them girls
in a previous note, for I assumed they were undergraduates...the ages listed
made it clear they were all adults and it was probably a grad class) made
me cry.  That is what *I* think of first, whenever I hear about anything
like this - mass murders, place crashes, even one lone car accident...each
person in that list was an *individual*...now they are just "one of 14
women killed...".

As for the hostility against men at the Canadian vigil...I would like to
think that this would be a time for *bonding* between the sexes against
such insanity.  Do any of you think that the husbands, sons, brothers, 
fathers and boyfriends of the women who died are any less devastated than
their mothers, sisters, daughters and girlfriends?  Surely those close to
the women who died feel a common bond, and unity in anger against the
mudrous madman?  Cannot the rest of us who grieve do the same?

As for whether it isn't "supportive" to discuss possible anti-feminist
benefits in this discussion - I think if we don't talk about neagtive
effects of a negative situation because it "hurts" to hear about, we are
hiding out head in the sand.  Yes, it hurts.   Yes, we are adding insult
(and more injury) to injury.  But it is there, and it needs to be discussed.
Making this discussion less *painful* for those who grieve for 14 Canadian
women will *not* help prevent this happening again.

Personally, I think it is true what Kath and Roak have said...some people
out there will say "Look what the feminists drove that guy too."  Or
even worse "Those poor girls weren't Feminists, but they were killed
*because* the Feminists drove this guy to insanity."  But I think more
people, *many* more people will look at his actions against feminists as
being worse than anything else, and maybe they will realize that violence
against women is real, condoned and deplorable.  Do you think any of the
women's fathers are saying "My darling was killed because the feminists
drove this guy insane?"  I doubt it.  More likely, if he was on the fence
before, he is now infuriated that *anyone* would dare to stand in his
daughter's way, and perhap even see's the Feminists as being the ones who
can stop this sort of thing from happening again.  (They are certainly
the most vocal group against anti-woman actions of which this is such an
extreme example.)

Or, perhaps, like Suzanne, I am being overly optomistic in my assesment
of humankind.

Does anyone know if there is any sort of fund or some such set up for
the families of the women killed in Montreal?

D!

    
    
    re .18 D!
    
      the mailing list that i am on has been having periodical updates. some 
    of the postings have mentioned a fund being set up. as soon as i have 
    more specifics, i'll post them in 888.*
    
    ~robin                               

	First, I want to share my feelings of grief and outrage with
	all of you.  As a father of two grown women, each crime against
	a woman hits home; as a person who detests violence and the
	people who practice it, the unrelenting string of horrors we
	see are sickening.

	I believe the afteraffects of the Montreal massacre of the
	fourteen young women will be:

	The haters will continue to hate.  -Any- event will be used
	by such people to reenforce their positions.  They need no
	reason, for reason does not drive them, but they see things
	like Montreal as evidence that they are not alone.  Indeed
	they may be emboldened into action.

	Feminists, both women and men, may (as we've seen here) feel
	under attack.  Not by the haters, who actually don't appear
	to have much of a forum, and not by the people who offer
	support, but by those who appear cold and unfeeling as they
	attempt to understand and analyze the unthinkable. Logic and
	reason rule the actions of many people.  Although they feel
	the horror, they speak unemotionally.  This isn't wrong or
	right, it's just how they are.

	Many people who are not active workers for women's rights
	may become more involved.  The reason: significant events
	tend to take people off of dead center.  I believe there are
	more decent but passive people than haters by far, so the
	net effect will be positive for the movement, but at -such-
	a great cost.

	As other noters have said, this is a time for us to be together,
	not a time to argue.  We need to hold one another, not point
	at one another.	 There may be times for litmus tests; this is,
	I believe, not one of them.

	dave ( a sometimes analytic who feels very sad today)

    Did anyone hear an interview with a man on All Things Considered on NPR
    last night about the killings in Montreal?  I caught some bits and
    pieces and think that he said that he personally felt responsible for
    what happened and felt that all men should feel responsible (impression
    I got was that he felt this way due to the general "acceptance" of
    violence against women by men).  I don't know whether this man was at
    the funeral or not and don't remember if they said who he was.  Would
    appreciate it if someone could provide exactly what he said to see if
    it really matches what I think he said.  I was really pleasantly
    surprised by this.
    
    						Jan

    I must be getting callous in my old age.  I don't see this event as
    being more significant/tragic than past horrors such as the ones that
    took place at the California McDonalds or U.S. Post Office or...
    
    My feeling is that when your mind is that screwed up some other group
    could just as easily have been a target.  I don't think that it will
    draw people's attention so much to violence against women as insane
    violence in general.  At least, it didn't for me.  Do people think it
    would have been a less heinous crime if he had randomly shot people and
    came up with the exact same casualties?

    re .34
    
    Yes.

    re. 34
    
    In the McDonald's masacre the man was after Hispanics.  In the
    school-yard shooting last year the man was after Orientals.  In
    the Post Office killings the man was after anyone in authority.
    
    There is an understanding in society that racism exists.  That
    xenophobia is present and more-or-less ingrained in our collective
    minds.  As ugly as it is and as horrible as some of the crimes are
    which have been committed in the name of race, hatred and hostility
    have historically been funneled into racism.
    
    The Montr�al Masacre was different in that it made blatantly clear that
    the channel for hostility also includes gendercide.  It brought into
    all the comfortable, loving lives and warm, safe homes the stark
    reality that, in a society where every individual is supposed to be
    free to pursue their own happiness without fear, women are suppressed
    and hated for trying to achieve.  Not "women", as in the "gentle sex",
    but rather "Women" as in your mother, your sister, your lover, your
    wife.
    
    It's the difference between a benign and a malignant cancer.
    
    Kris 
    

Kris,
    
>    It's the difference between a benign and a malignant cancer.

I don't understand this analogy - can you explain it?  Do you mean that
the McDonalds and Post Office massacres were equivalent to "benign cancers"
where as the Montreal killing was due to a "malignant cancer"?

D!

    Obviously it will be seen as different in =wn=. They were women, for
    crying out loud. If the guy had killed black people, you can be certain
    an equally loud outpouring of feeling would occur in Blacknotes. In
    this context, it is easy to see why any member of a group singled out
    for such violence would find that particular event to be more heinous
    than similar events directed at other parties; it hits closer to home.
    
    The Doctah

    re.34 and heinousness.
    
    No, I do not feel that the crime is more heinous because 14 women were
    killed than it would have been if 14 <insert some sort of person> were
    killed.
    
    But, I do feel more personally connected to those killed in Montreal.
    
    If 14 people are shot at random, I am horrified.  I am a person
    after all.
    
    If 14 women are shot at random, I am equally horrified -- no more no
    less, but the horror begins to take on a personal significance.  I am a
    woman.
    
    When 14 women who are engineering students are shot, my gorge rises.  I
    was an engineering student.  A frisson of fear -- of might have been --
    strikes to the heart of me.
    
    These deaths have personal significance to me even though I was never
    acquainted with the women who died.
    
    But it does not change the fact that I would condemn equally a person
    who singled out male veterinary students for slaughter even though I
    have never been either male or a veterinary student.
    
    re. medical analogy
    
    I would have to agree that a massacre could hardly be likened to a
    'benign cancer'.  'Benign' doesn't leap to my mind when the senseless
    destruction of lives is at issue.
    
    Were I to make a medical analogy, I would probably choose an acute
    versus a chronic illness.
    
    Acute illness often kills, but is often limited to isolated incidents
    within the organism.
    
    Chronic illness is present in the organism and can flare up any time
    to become acute and kill.  Such has been the nature of devaluing women,
    and 14 died in Montreal because of it.
    
      Ann

    re: .34 (Jim)
    
    � Do people think it would have been a less heinous crime if he had
    � randomly shot people and came up with the exact same casualties?
    
    I guess that depends on what you mean by "heinous".  On the one
    hand, if a derranged person kills 14 people, it matters little
    whether they were young, old, men, women, white, black, yellow,
    brown, of one particular religion or any combination thereof.
    The victims' families and friends have still suffered a grievous 
    loss.  And I suspect that the family of such a killer/suicide is
    also left in anguish to ask, "Why?".   No matter what the demo-
    graphics, there is more than ample pain for those who survive the
    tragedy.
    
    However, I can't help but feel that madness which plays itself out 
    through a particular political filter is somehow a more horrific 
    event than, say, a Charles Whitman episode.  I feel in some 
    way more responsible for a world in which racial, gender, or
    religious hatred exist than for one in which there are random,
    non-specific acts of insanity.  I'm part of the sum total of the
    world politic and because of this, feel more connected and/or
    responsible for the events in Montreal.  Had I never in my life
    had a single racially prejudiced thought or committed one single
    sexist act, I might feel differently.  But the truth of the matter
    is that I've had such thoughts, committed such acts.
    
    I agree with those who've described the massacre as the extreme
    end of a continuum.  Yes, the killer was insane and yes, had he not
    targeted women there might well be 14 other dead people.  But I 
    can't help but feel that his and similar lethal insanity is somehow
    the fruit of the seeds of hatred and bigottry that we, as a race of
    beings, have cultivated for so long.  Perhaps if we could magically
    rid ourselves of these continua of political hatreds and violence,
    we would see a comparable rise in acts of random, non-specific 
    murder/suicide.  
    
    Perhaps.  But I can't make myself believe that.  And so, because 
    I'm part of that world politic, and because I'm part of that class 
    of individuals that has been so dominant in creating and controlling
    this world, I end up feeling in some manner partially responsible 
    for this tragedy and others like it.
    
    So on the balance, I'd answer that yes, I think the Montreal killings
    were more "heinous" than, say, the University of Texas tower shootings.
    I can accept that there will be occasional, random, violent madness 
    in this world and that my part in that play is of innocent bystander.
    My role in a world in which one group hates another seems, to me,
    to be less clearly innocent.  Perhaps today I'm guilty of having 
    been, in the phraseology of post-WWII times, "a good German".
    
    Steve

    and, it doesn't please me to hear a man express shame at being a man
    because one man has killed or another has raped.  It seems pointless in
    all respects.  It doesn't un-kill or un-rape anyone and it doesn't do
    him any good either.
    
    outraged? maybe he'll do something. raised consciousness? ditto. but
    what does shame accomplish when the one ashamed did not commit offense?
    
    Somehow hearing that some gentleman is 'ashamed' that a _man_ committed
    this slaughter makes me wonder if I stood in the wrong line somewhere.
    
    After all _I_ wasn't ashamed when some _woman_ cut her daughter's heart
    out in Wichita Falls.  I tossed my lunch and I cried buckets, but I
    wasn't ashamed.
    
      Ann

>              <<< Note 892.41 by SELL3::JOHNSTON "bord failte" >>>
>                         -< on a roll [or something] >-

>    and, it doesn't please me to hear a man express shame at being a man
>    because one man has killed or another has raped.
    
    I don't know if you are referring to .33 here.  If you are, I don't 
    think the man in the interview said he was ashamed of being a man, I 
    *thought* he said he felt partly responsible for it because he was a 
    man.  As I stated in .33, I would like to know if someone else heard 
    the same thing I did, since I just heard bits and pieces of this and 
    may not have gotten it entirely correct.
    

      <<< Note 892.38 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "This is just a passing phase" >>>
>>>    Obviously it will be seen as different in =wn=. They were women, for
>>>    crying out loud.
    
    I noticed, but have really had a hard time putting my finger on *why*
    people were reacting to this as strongly as they did and not so much
    (except for the issue of gun control) in the other incidents.  After
    thinking about it and talking with some people tonight, I agree that it
    was a more "serious" crime than just randomly killing people.  Because
    it lends support, in a very crude way, to those people who have more
    benign prejudices against those selected out.  And can even seem to
    encourage that behavior in the future.  A very scary though.

RE:  Steve Mallet.

Nice note.  My thoughts and feeling run along similar lines.

john

    It's my guess that for some people (those who spend very little
    time thinking about women's rights), the Montreal massacre will
    leave them with a very general, sort of bad feeling about the whole
    feminists movement.  I'm talking about the people who are neither
    feminist nor anti-feminist--the people who just don't think about
    this stuff.  When something like the Montreal massacre happens, 
    they simply react.  Their reaction might not be logical, fair, or
    based on fact.   
    
    Consider this:
    
    When I was a teenager, a woman in my hometown was walking home from
    work late at night alone.  She was abducted, raped and killed. 
    When my father read about it in the paper, the first thing he said
    was, "What kind of sick animal would do that to a woman?"  The second
    thing he said was, "What was she doing alone on the street at night,
    anyway?"  The message to me was: Women should not put themselves
    in dangerous situations because some guy might kill/rape her.
    
    Consider this also:
    
    As a woman in the army reserves for six years, I was exposed to
    many instances of sexual harassment of all degrees.  I also heard
    people's reactions to such instances.  A very common one (among
    men *and* women) was, "See what happens to women in the army?  They
    shouldn't be there in the first place!"  The message to all women was:
    Women should not put themselves in vulnerable situations because
    some men will try to take advantage of her.
    
    The messages I got are illogical;  they simply don't make sense
    to me.  After all--if a wild, dangerous animal wanders into your
    yard, YES--you hurry for the house.  But then you call the police
    or grab your shotgun.  Apparently, when that animal is a man, there
    are those who would expect women to stay in their homes forever
    and let the animal run free.
    
    But regardless of how senselessly people react, their reactions
    are real. 
    
    As a result of the Montreal massacre and the fact that the murderer
    used the word "feminists,"  I think that many people's reaction, 
    in some illogical way, will connect feminism with danger.
    
    I *don't* think this reaction will be so drastic as to cause women
    to drop out of college or quit their jobs.  I *do* think their fear
    will subtly pressure some of their decisions.
    
    Just as my parents would not allow me to hold an evening job after
    school when I was a teenager (for fear that I might get caught in a
    vulnerable, dangerous situation), perhaps today, since the massacre,
    they would discourage me from joining a feminist organization (out 
    of the same fear).
    
    I am not saying that a negative reaction is justified.  I'm not saying
    that ALL people, or even SOME people, will have a negative reaction.
    
    I AM saying that women who are the victims of men's violence and
    aggression are sometimes SEEN as part of the blame because--in some
    people's eyes--they have done something to arouse the man or make
    him angry.  
    
    I AM saying that women have been taught to avoid making a man angry
    or aggressive at all costs, even if it means locking yourself in
    your home and letting the animals run free.  
    
    I AM saying that I wouldn't be surprised if a common reactions to the 
    Montreal massacre might be keeping quiet about feminist views or
    discouraging those close to you from expressing their feminist views.
                                                                        

    I have skimmed the notes in this string and in the original string
    reporting the massacre, but I haven't read *every* note.  There was an
    interesting column by David Nyhan in last Sunday's Boston Globe
    regarding the way the media reported the incident, specifically where
    the news articles were placed in the paper(s?).  His opinion was that
    they were not placed more prominently because *men* find this whole
    thing embarrassing.  
    
    Unfortunately, I didn't keep the column, so I can't share it with you. 
    It was very thought-provoking, and I have wished all week that I could
    go back and read it again -- especially after reading the discussions
    in =wn=.  
    
    Does anyone still have it????
    
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    The David Nyhan column is reprinted in note # 888.79.
    
    Still trying to deal with the incident,
    Julie

    re .45
    
    And MEN have to be learn how to express their aggressions.
    
    Why should the onus be on the women learning how to tiptoe around men? 
    It needs to work *both* ways.
    
    Judi
    

Did anyone see this article in today's Globe? I's on page 2. I'll type the 
first few paragraphs...



		Why Did He Kill Women?
		Canadians Gaze Inward


The day after they buried the 14 women whom Marc Lepine gunned down at the 
University of Montreal, a group of men slipped through the darkness to a 
women's dormitory at the University of Toronto and set off a volley of 
firecrackers.

When the explosions shattered the quiet of the dorm where a number of women 
were studying for exams, some of them screamed, thinking another killer was 
shooting at women. During his attack, Lepine has blamed "feminists" for his 
problems.

On Dec. 12, the day that the Toronto Sun reported the firecracker incident, 
the newspaper pontificated from its editorial page that as a result of the 
massacre, "a small clique of bogus intellectuals and professional 
man-haters across the country" had turned the tragedy into an issue about 
misogyny in society.

Despite that view, the photo of its partially clad "Sunshine Girl," 
customarily on page 3, was shunted to the back of the tabloid Dec. 6, the 
day Lepine's rampage left 14 dead and 13 wounded in the worst mass killing 
in Canadian history.

"I felt uncomfortable running" the Sunshine girl "opposite the story," said 
the Sun's executive editor, Lester Pyette. But a lot of male readers called 
to complain. "The Sunshine girl was the reason they bought the paper," he 
said....

"There is still a lot of resistance to the idea that this was an act of 
violence against women," said Hilary Davis, a graduate student in women's 
studies at the University of Toronto.... 

[sorry, I have to go throw up...]

    RE: .47
    
    Thank you, Julie!  I thought *surely* someone had entered it, but I
    couldn't find it!
    
    When this tragedy first occurred, I thought of it as "just another"
    nut committing "just another" mass murder.  The reflections and
    opinions I have read since then have caused me to rethink the incident
    and become much more concerned.  Thanks to those of you who have
    contributed your thoughts.
    
    Nancy

    re  .49
    
    I've never felt ashamed of my French-Canadian ancestry.
    Til now.

    
.49>	Why Did He Kill Women?
.49>	Canadians Gaze Inward
    
.49>	a group of men slipped through the darkness to a women's dormitory 
.49>	at the University of Toronto and set off a volley of firecrackers.

.49>	a lot of male readers called to complain. "The Sunshine girl was
.49>	the reason they bought the paper," he said....

    	There is so much to say.  But I don't have the strength to say it.
    	Or maybe this article just speaks for itself.
    
    	Carla
    

    More from Barry Brown's article quoted in .49:
    
    Elliott Leyton, .... an anthropologist and author of "Hunting Humans,"
    a study of mass and serial killers, said, "What is so disturbing and
    troubling about these ghastly murders is that they have added a new
    category to mass killings."
    
    While serial killers often have preyed on women, he said, mass
    murderers usually target "social groups that usurped their position,
    excluded, threatened or rejected them.  Up to now, that has been racism
    or a class war.  Now, sexism has been added to the virulence of the
    mass murderers' repertoire."

    One more nugget from the article entered partially in .49 - 
    
    Marthe Lawrence, who works in communications for the Montreal mayor's
    office, is quoted as saying,
    
    "...nothing is finished between men and women. Everything has to
    be negotiated again. So many men are just not comfortable with women
    in power.
    
    "A lot of men have been calling psychologists to say they understand
    what Lepine felt, and they also feel uncomfortable with women. That's
    a reality we have to learn again."
                                      

    Yet more from the same article, from memory:
    
    (I believe this was also Marthe Lawrence speaking):
    Maybe we (women) are pushing too hard;  maybe we should back off a bit
    and let men get more comfortable with the concept of equality between
    the sexes.
    
    Karen

    The firecracker incident sparks a lot of anger in me - no pun intended.  
    All I can assume is that the men who participated are from the John
    Wayne school of sensitivity because I have a lot of trouble shrugging
    this off as mere ignorance.
    
    What makes people behave like this?!?!??
    
    Nanci

    pure and simple - immaturity...

    Everyone was immature once.  Many still are.  It's hatred of
    those you believe would usurp your perceived power.  It's fear.  It's 
    anger.  It's the belief that YOU, (by virtue of your sex), have the 
    right to "set them, (the other sex), straight".
    
    It's the result of a thought process too complex for the merely
    immature.
    

>    What makes people behave like this?!?!?? [firecrackers in dorms]
 
My answer, in adddition to Gale's is...tension.  As a recent college grad,
I am very familiar with this type of immature release of tension.  It is
the same as the reason why people set off fire alarms, trash rooms, commit
vandalism on campuses and get drunk the night before finals.  College
is very tense - if Canadian schools follow anything close to US schedules,
they are in the middle of or soon to be starting finals, which makes it
worse.  The recent killings probably magnified the whole thing (I forget
did they or didn't they cancel tests?)

At any rate, this sort of thing happens all the time, at every college
across the country, to various degrees.
   
D!

    Testosterone.
    

>    Testosterone.
    
    So, anyone who has testosterone acts like this? Or is it that anyone
    who doesn't have testosterone doesn't act like that? Either way, the
    implication stinks. SERIOUSLY.
    
    I would think that immaturity and insensitivity coupled with various
    intoxicants and the general carefree college environment contribute
    infinitely more than raw testosterone.
    
     The Doctah

    Reply: 
    
    I should have said *adolescent* testosterone.  That doesn't excuse it,
    however.  The obligation to be responsible and control impulses still
    exists.  My *observation* however, (I CANNOT produce an authority on
    this) is that there seems to be some kind of "craziness" associated
    with being an adolescent male that may be comparable to PMS.
    
    But I'm a woman, so what do *I* know? 
    
    Nevertheless, I'd like to have the possibility of a hormonal
    *component (NOT excuse)* SERIOUSLY considered!
      

	Friday's Boston Phoenix Lifestyle section had an article 
	entitled "Women Speak Out On Gender Violence", where
	various the comments of a variety of women from the Boston
	area were solicited.

	Among them : 

	"I was devastated.  I couldn't believe someone would carry
	 his hatred of women this far.  I thought of Sigmund Freud
	 blaming it on his mother."

	"That's why I keep my doors locked.  I was mugged once, and
	 seriously hurt, and I absolutely live in the anticipation 
	 of something horrible happening, in the knowledge that I am
	 more vulnerable because I am a woman...

	"It also really underscores the vulnerability we feel, how
	 aware we have to be of the fact that so much violence and
	 abuse is directed toward women, that we're a _target_. 
	 And that really makes you angry, that you have to walk 
	 around with these antennae up all the time"
	 [I like the way she worded that ^^; walking around with 
	  antennae up ]

	"So I worry about coypcat people.  Everything -- from the 
	 maiming and killing of women on rock videos to this sort
	 of thing -- has a kind of cumulative effect, something to
	 do with legitimizing violence against women"

							nancy b.

.63>	"So I worry about coypcat people.  Everything -- from the 
>	 maiming and killing of women on rock videos to this sort
>	 of thing -- has a kind of cumulative effect, something to
>	 do with legitimizing violence against women"

	 Huh??!!??!!??!!??!!??!!??!!

	 (maiming and killing of women on rock videos????)



	 kat

	re: .64 (Kathy Gallup)  violent videos

	Sometime over the summer, I saw a video where a woman was being 
	thrown about on a round satin sheeted bed by a blond-haired,
	slender, hard rock singer.  His looks resembled Tom Petty's (but
	it wasn't him), and I flipped to a different station before 
	the credits showed on the screen (it was MTV).

	I recall reading short blurbs here and there about the increasing 
	amount of violence in rock videos.  Maybe it's tapered off as
	of late due to feminist lobbying and consciousness raising?

							nancy b.

	re: .65

	 There is an interesting survey going on with eMpTyV right
	 now.  About _Sexism in Rock_. (ie, write in and give your
	 views)

>	Sometime over the summer, I saw a video where a woman was
>	 being
>	thrown about on a round satin sheeted bed by a blond-haired,
>	slender, hard rock singer.  His looks resembled Tom Petty's (but
>	it wasn't him), and I flipped to a different station before 
>	the credits showed on the screen (it was MTV).

	 I think I know the video....Michael Monroe (possibly).  I'm
	 not denying that women are represented badly in some rock
	 videos, but I don't believe there is real VIOLENCE and
	 KILLING of women in rock videos.  First off, eMpTyV bans such
	 videos....even very sexually explicit videos.

	 Second......I think there is nothing wrong with women being
	 portrayed as desireable and/or sexy.  It's a sad world indeed
	 where we must hide our attractiveness simply because it will
	 influence people 'the wrong way.'  I, for one, will never
	 give this up.  
	 
>	I recall reading short blurbs here and there about the increasing 
>	amount of violence in rock videos.  Maybe it's tapered off as
>	of late due to feminist lobbying and consciousness raising?

	 I've seen violence in videos....but it's been MUTUAL
	 violence, and/or self-inflicted violence.

	 I think some of it gets back to D!'s note in _Is S&M PC?_.
	 some violence is erotic......and it's obvious, many times,
	 that this violence is consensual.

	 But, some violence is portrayed in some videos......and some
	 of those videos get shown.....But is it right to censor that
	 violence?  (ie, Is it right to treat the symptoms, and not
	 the disease?)

	 However....killing of women in videos is something this women
	 has obviously 'been told'...and can not be seen on any rock
	 video station *I've* ever seen.

	 kath

>but I don't believe there is real VIOLENCE and
>	 KILLING of women in rock videos.
    
    I don't think anyone will disagree with you. I think that the point is
    when you realize what age group this stuff is targeted at, it makes you
    wonder what possible benefit violent images could possibly afford you.
    When a young boy sees a barrage of images depicting violence against
    women and everybody nods their head and smiles, the message he gets is
    that violence against women is ok. That's a crappy message.
    
>	 But, some violence is portrayed in some videos......and some
>	 of those videos get shown.....But is it right to censor that
>	 violence?  (ie, Is it right to treat the symptoms, and not
>	 the disease?)
    
    If an artist NEEDS to portray violence for some social end or just
    because s/he feels like it, let the video be shown on a restricted
    channel where children do not have free access. That's not censorship.
    
    The Doctah

    A song comes to mind - by Guns 'n Roses
    Now, maybe it was just a musical lark from their "Appetite For
    Destruction" album....but still...it's pretty telling (I'm not sure
    whether there's a video out yet but ...)
    
    
    "I used to love her
    But I had to kill her
    I used to love her
    But I had to kill her
    I had to put her
    Six feet under
    And I can still hear her complain..."
    
    -Jody
    

>                   -< rock lyrics are sometimes violent too >-


	 True...and so are country/western lyrics, so are pop
	 lyrics...etc....

	 I get really edgy when people start to pick on Rock music,
	 because you have this in every category of music.....not just
	 Rock.

	 BTW...in an interview with Skid Row (A heavy metal group)
	 they talked about how they don't even put women in their
	 videos because they don't think they belong there, and that
	 is on the image they want to project.


	 Now, my question is.....(I know this is totally off the
	 basenote subject).......do we censor these videos/this music?
	 Or do we teach our children right and wrong?

	 Do we treat the cause or do we treat the symptoms or a little
	 of both?

	 (BTW....eMpTyV does show certain videos only between 9pm at
	 night and 6am in the morning)

	 kath    

    the album cover from Jethro Tull's _Passion_Play_ shows a dead
    ballerina with blood leaking out of her mouth, flat on her back on
    stage.
    
    The same scene is the opener for the video ... we hear the heart-beats
    slowing and we see her chest stop moving.
    
    [later she comes back to life...]
    
    Now, this would appear to me to be a classic depiction of the violent
    death of a very female creature.  [This is not to say the the actress
    was 'snuffed' in the making of the video. She wasn't.]  It was also
    completely gratuitous, as ballerinas and such have absolutely nothing
    to do with the content of _Passion_Play_.  The black and white
    cinematography was exquisite, but ICK!!
    
    None other comes to mind at present, but then I don't watch many music
    videos anymore.  This one sticks out in my mind, because I was
    studying ballet in NYC when it came out and didn't find much redeeming
    in the gratuitous death of ballerinas....
    
      Ann
    

re .66, .69

>	 But, some violence is portrayed in some videos......and some
>	 of those videos get shown.....But is it right to censor that
>	 violence?  (ie, Is it right to treat the symptoms, and not
>	 the disease?)


What's the difference here between the symptoms and the disease? If the 
disease is hatred of women (as in my view it is), I'd say that violence
against women as depicted in the media is not so much a symptom as a direct
expression (not to mention a perpetuating factor) of that disease. It's
*part* of the disease. 

But you're right, the real question is, how to treat the disease itself?
How to eliminate the hatred of women that's manifested everywhere in our 
culture, from the Montreal Massacre all the way along the spectrum to the
upcoming "swimsuit issue" of Sports Illustrated? The endless definition, by
men in power, of what women will do with their lives, how they will look,
how they will be used & abused for the purpose of making a buck, etc. etc.?
That's the biggie... 
           
Dorian

    
    	On Oprah or Phil last week they had some rap groups on who are
    	supposedly notorious for their explicit lyrics.
    
    	One guy has a song out that talks about violating a woman with 
    	a flashlight.  At first the woman is screaming because this is
    	not what she wants, but the more he does it the more she likes
    	it.
    
    	The man who sings about this had the nerve/stupidity to try to 
    	pass it off as humor.  "Hey, everyone knows it's just a joke."
    
    	Do they?
    
    	Carla
    

    following are the portions from original notes .73-.94 which still
    belong to some extent in the Montreal topic here.  The rest have been
    moved to the "men are meant to be strong, women are meant to be
    beautiful" topic...
    
    -Jody
    

    Excerpted from:
    
           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 892.73         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           73 of 94
SSDEVO::GALLUP "when it comes to rumours, I'm a dea" 38 lines  19-DEC-1989 12:35
             -< Alright...I feel the heat already coming my way. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                     <<< Note 892.71 by GEMVAX::KOTTLER >>>

>But you're right, the real question is, how to treat the disease itself?
>How to eliminate the hatred of women that's manifested everywhere in our 
>culture, from the Montreal Massacre all the way along the spectrum to the
>upcoming "swimsuit issue" of Sports Illustrated? The endless definition, by
>men in power, of what women will do with their lives, how they will look,
>how they will be used & abused for the purpose of making a buck, etc. etc.?
>That's the biggie... 


	 Ahhh, Dorian...we differ on what is violence/hatred against
	 women and what is not!

	 SI Swimsuit issue is violence/hatred against women?
	 Hardly...I find it to be a glorification of the design of the
	 female body.  
    
    ...
    

	 I don't view the problem to lie in the expressionism of the
	 beauty of the female body, but rather in the lack of
	 expressionism of the worth/intelligence/etc of women.  


...
    
    	 kath

    Reposted In Full:
    
           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 892.80         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           80 of 94
BOLT::MINOW "Pere Ubu is coming soon, are you ready" 26 lines  19-DEC-1989 17:01
             -< When trust in others cannot be taken for granted >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the letters column, Boston Globe, Dec 19, 1989:

	When trust in others cannot be taken for granted.
	---- ----- -- ------ ------ -- ----- --- -------

	The report on the Montreal killer made me so mad.  You spend
	your whole life opening IRAs, bearing children, toiling daily
	for your paychecks, wearing warm clothes to protect you from
	frostbiting winds, wearing seat belts -- all for the sake
	of life and living and the future.

	Sure, I could kill anybody, any day.  It's an easy physical act.
	But every day you trust the person crammed against you on the T
	or in line next to you in the store or driving past you or
	walking around our buildings will not pull a gun and end your life.

	It incenses me when this trust has to be a conscious thing
	instead of something you take for granted and never think
	twice about.
				Susan McAuliffe
				Jamaica Plain


Sue is a friend of mine from my running club (Hash House Harriers).

Martin.

    Excerpted from:
    
           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 892.88         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           88 of 94
GEMVAX::KOTTLER                                      36 lines  20-DEC-1989 08:35
                      -< "Only connect." -- E.M. Forster >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hag on>
    

...
    
Why look for interconnections among things? Why try to gain insight into 
the murder of 14 women -- with the murderer himself citing hatred of women
as his motivation -- by examining other manifestations of hatred of
women, a.k.a. misogyny, in our society? How positively unladylike of me! So
sorry... 

Dorian

<hag off>

    Excepted from:
    
           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 892.90         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           90 of 94
CADSYS::PSMITH "foop-shootin', flip city!"           14 lines  20-DEC-1989 09:48
                         -< move the rathole, please >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think discussion on misogyny in society and how it relates to the
    mindset that produced the Montreal massacre is appropriate here.
    
    I think the specific rathole about are men designed to be strong and
    women designed to be beautiful belongs elsewhere. 
    
    So there.  I've managed to stay seated in the middle!!
    
    Pam
    
...    

    Posted in full:
    
           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 892.91         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           91 of 94
HANDY::MALLETT "Barking Spider Industries"           17 lines  20-DEC-1989 11:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While I agree with the idea that the events in Montreal are connected
    to other manifestations of sexism, I favor moving the some of the
    replies (discussing beauty/strenght and the roles or designs of the
    sexes) in this string to another.  The reason I favor this is because
    it makes it a little easier to discuss using this particular medium.
    
    The problem I see is that, because there is (I believe) a great deal
    of interconnection between events, in allowing ultimate latitude
    in those discussions here, we head towards a very few base notes
    with an unmanageably large number of replies.  I have holistic
    leanings which lead me to think "Why not have just one big note
    discussing everything?", but I find it's useful in the medium of
    NOTES to try and temper that somewhat.  I think it makes particular
    discussions easier to follow.
    
    Steve
    

    Posted in full:
    
           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 892.92         The Aftereffects of the Montreal Massacre           92 of 94
CUPCSG::SMITH "Passionate commitment to reasoned fai" 5 lines  20-DEC-1989 13:21
                                  -< Move it >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: 89.
    
    I vote to move it!  Otherwise (1) the strong/beautiful discussion doesn't
    get adequately played out and (2) other kinds of notes that belong in this
    won't be entered.

    In hopes that this string is not fractured beyond reconnection --
    
    Has anyone thought about, or seen any articles, connecting the new
    developments in the Stuart story with the Montreal event?  It strikes
    me deeply that the kind of premeditated actions that Charles Stuart
    took, and the strange kind of de-personalizing he had to have done on
    his own images of his wife and their baby, represent an extreme point 
    on the spectrum of misogyny in our society.  Much as the Montreal massacre
    does.
    
    It may be true that these events only differ from the everyday in their
    extremism -- the criminals go just a bit farther, and that puts them
    outside the boundaries of what is acceptable.  But what about all the
    others who stay "in bounds" ??
    
    Still musing over these troubling events,
    Julie