*Note*
This e-mail is not from Diane Wininger but from *Matt DeVries.*  I am unable
to access my e-mail account at this time.

>> 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....
 
>Jeez. Now I fancy rape fantasies

I apologise if I insinuated you had rape fantasies.  What I meant to ask was
why  you didn't put yourself in the shoes of a woman alone at night on a
motorway instead of a man driving comfortably by and whistling at a stranded
women who was probably already scared.  It was a mistake to use the word
"attacker" in that context.  I used the verb "fanatize" to refer to your
seemingly irrational inference that Diane thought that whistling should be a
criminal offense.

>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?

Jeffrey, it appears you are not arguing from the points that Diane was
making but are instead inferring her point of view from a personal incident
she described.  Because Diane cited an incident where a man whistled and
then attacked does not mean she believes that a whistler should be arrested
or that all whistlers are rapists.  The point she was making is that a
whistle can be a form of sexual harassment--that is an action, which
reflects sexist attitudes and creates a hostile environment. Rape can also
be a form of sexual harassment as we have seen recently from accusations
made about Army officers. I will briefly restate Diane's point that rape and
whistle are on a continuum of harassing behaviors.  They are related
behaviors in that they are both motivated in part by the belief that a woman
serves first as an object of sexual conquest.   One is clearly a traumatic
and brutal crime, and the other a verbal communication that may or may not
be hostile and also that alone does not merit imprisonment or litigation.

If you believe that most women do not in fact see a whistle as a hostile act
but as a compliment, try to imagine the last time you saw a female loitering
in front of a construction site to bask in the glow of the amorous
compliments that were showered on her.  Or do you think that women are
irrational to find the whistle as a warning of a possible threat or do you
think that women may know that it's not worth the risk to trust that man, a
lesson that they've probably learned from experience?  Again, I do not think
that all whistlers will rape given the chance, just like I know everyone who
flips me the bird on the road won't next pull out a .45--but I've heard
about it happening.  This is an imperfect analogy, but as a man in this
culture I simply do not know how it feels to be sexually threatened.


>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 do not believe you are justified in your concern about Diane's citation of
this example.  I am concerned that you are more preoccupied with a
hypothetical and seemingly unreasonable deduction of Diane's and my point of
view--drawn from a description of an actual assault--than the reality of
sexual assaults, rape, and sexual harassment.  No person that I have read in
this discussion has advocated that all whistlers should be treated as
potential rapists, neither do I think that is a reasonable conclusion from
any points made in the debate.  However, I would agree that a whistle as
part of a pattern of hostile behavior directed againat a woman or women in
the workplace can lead to litigation and or firings, and clearly I don't see
that as unjust or the men as innocent.  Perhaps you could trace the
conclusions that led you to the assumption that describing sexual harassment
will lead to unjust litigation and imprisonment.

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

That is correct.  I believe an act of sexism is similar to an act of racism.
I think there's precedence, especially in work place harassment, of a
comparison.  Look at Affirmative Action or EEOC.  To restate my point,
whistles and racial epithets both serve to isolate an individual as a member
of a demographic group that has suffered and suffers discrimination.  They
are a reminder to both parties of traditional inequalities in power.  I am,
however, unclear as to what you believe.  Do you think that no whistle can
be classified as an act of sexism or do you believe that sexism is not
comparable to racism?

>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?

I did not understand this question.  If you are looking for a response,
please clarify what you mean by a threatened person accusing their opponent
of being the target of the threatened person's argument?

-Matt