Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: San Quentin strip searches -- a new twist
Message-ID: <2295@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 19:55:36 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2295
Posted: Sat Feb  9 19:55:36 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 06:08:28 EST
References: <3365@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 45

> Now that you know what the newspaper article Cliff posted really
> says, do you feel any differently about it?
> 				--Andrew Koenig

I read about this (female guards being allowed to strip-search male
prisoners) in the LA times.  I really don't feel any differently when
``male'' and ``female'' are reversed--in either case it is a matter of
whether prisoners are given or denied the right to be free of a certain
kind of humiliation. (And it can be argued that the issue of sex in
prison strip-searches should be a non-issue were it not for outdated
social attitudes.)

However, I'm sort of curious just what kind of point the Playboy article
was trying to make.  Sounds like they were making the tired claim ``now
that women have the same rights [sic] as men, they should have the same
liabilities as well''.  They probably trotted out a list of alimony and
custody-dispute horror stories later on in the article to show how much
men are discriminated against.  Maybe they even brought out some cases
of how new laws make it difficult for men to defend themselves against
false rape accusations.

Of course, there may well be a drop or two of truth in the charges these
``men's rights'' folks make.  Just like there is an ocean of truth
behind the charges of those claiming that women are still discriminated
against.  Of course, individual cases of near-equal severity can be
brought out on either side; however, in terms of numbers, the cases of
discrimination against men are so puny and are generally much more
quickly rectified as to show the ``men's rights'' folks as wanting to
both eat their cake and have it, too.

As an example, the percentage of divorces involving alimony has
decreased much faster than the difference between men's and women's
salaries.  Cases where men get primary or sole custody of children have
increased several times just in the past decade.  Yet at current rates
only half of the pay inequity between men and women will disappear by
the 21st Century.

More subtle forms of discrimination against women abound.  Meanwhile,
``men's rights'' people claim the right to be crybabies, saying that
women have the right to be equal to them (though, of course, few are),
but better not show even a temporary and miniscule amount of superiority
(heaven forbid!).

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall