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 (And it can be argued that the issue of sex in prison strip-searches should be a non-issue were it not for outdated social attitudes.)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