On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Matt DeVries wrote:

> Jeffrey also ignored this principle of distinguishing an argument's value from
> the character of someone who makes the argument.  Here Jeffrey is ostensibly
> defending Margaret but is really unjustly attacking Diane when she critiques
> ad hominem arguments.
> Diane wrote:
> >You use the same reasoning as
> >my staunch conservative brother-in-law uses who tries to discredit the civil
> >rights movement because he thinks that Louis Farrakhan is an idiot. 
> 
> And Jeffrey responded:
> >I'm under the impression that Margaret is clear on the different
> >factions in the movement, whereas your brother (the idiot) is not. If
> >Margaret is doing something in the same way as an idiot, would this not be a
> >comparison?

Matt -- where exactly is the "attack" ?

> By the way, Diane does not have a brother.  

If you want to be picky, it should be brother in law, and you know who
first said that? Diane did. 

> Jeffrey was also a little
> overzealous in his response to Diane's assertion that whistling could be a
> form of sexual harassment:
> >if I get thrown in jail for whistling
> >at a female because some asshole tried to assault you, it would be a
> >terrible injustice.

Whereas Diane was calm, cool and collected, clearly debating her points
without the slightest hint of zeal.

> This is confusing since Diane never stated that sexual harassment should be a
> criminal offense.  I wish Jeffrey could clarify why he felt so threatened by
> Diane's argument about sexual harassment that he'd rather imagine himself as
> the attacker than a victim. Is Jeffrey suggesting that it is not in fact a
> woman by herself at night that should be frightened when a stranger whistles
> at her, but in fact the *whistler* who should be afraid?  I'm wondering why,
> instead of offering support or suggestions about how to stop a real
> problem--women being the victims of harassment and attacks by strangers in
> public--he fantasizes himself the victim of some grotesque distortion of
> Diane's argument.  By the way Jeffrey , unlike you, I am not just mocking you
> but your issue too.

Jeez. Now I fancy rape fantasies. When the only example of a whistle (as
sexual harrassment) involves a man whistling at, then trying to rape a
woman, I'm going to worry. It sets up the assumption that every man who
whistles at a woman wants to rape her, which is what bothers me. I have
probably never whistled at a woman in my entire life, but that doesn't
mean I'm going to deem it sexual harrassment. Attitudes like that land
innocent men in jail.  Or in a million dollar lawsuit. Or out of a job. 
Do you, Matt, place a whistle on the same plane as physically grabbing
someone?  Have you ever noticed that when you try to argue a point with an
obviously "threatened" person, they accuse you of being the target of
their arguement?

> Most forms of sexual harassment are not criminal offenses.  Harassment are
> acts that make an environment hostile for someone.  No one can be arrested for
> making a woman feel like she is mainly an object for sexual gratification, but
> in the work environment, people who face a pattern of unjustified harassment
> have legal means to redress that hostility.  Imagine yourself at a job where
> people of color were referred to with racial epithets and what type of
> workplace that would be.  Would they have equal opportunity there? Racial
> epithets, like whistles, are not always a hostile act.  It has to do with the
> relationship, so that a racial epithet from a stranger is just as unwelcome as
> a whistle.  Racial epithets and whistles also work similarly--there are a
> reminder to someone that they are not a person but only a member of a devalued
> group.

Here we go again, a comparison of a whistle to an act of racism.

> I am not part of the newsgroup, but I can find out about responses from
> Diane's account.  Individual responses can be sent to me at:
> matt_devries@unctv.org
> 
> -Matt

I promise I'll stop replying if any lawyers are brought in.

J