Re: Fwd: the silver bullet: death to ORDINANCE NO. 2002 - 13

[Tami Stinebaugh <tamis@uidaho.edu>]

I am a woman, and consider myself a woman's rights supporter.
However, I do not feel welcome at this *rally* due to the fact that I
support the ordinance.  There appears to be many men feeling the need to
go to the rally, to support WOMEN'S RIGHTS, just because they DO oppose
the ordinance.   go figure...

Tami Stinebaugh

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, sean wrote:

> >"I'm looking for law breakers." [snip]
> >
> >I'd rather have a law that punishes those who offend a top free
> >person with stares and gawks.  Punish those who are a real threat.
>
> What law would a gawker be breaking?  If a topless female is
> revealing nothing in need of concealment then whey would this be
> different than staring at, say, her arm?  I fail to see how a person
> staring is a threat unless you are suggesting that a man staring at a
> woman's revealed breasts may indicate his willingness to verbally or
> physically assault her.  If that is the case, perhaps this is another
> practical reason to say it's not a good idea to (un)dress this way.
>
> >
> >Hope to see you all at the Woman's Rights Rally this saturday, 7/27
> >at 1pm at Friendship Square.  We'll have our petitions ready to sign
> >to put this to a referendum vote, or better yet, have the city
> >council draft a more reasonable law.
>
> Will all women's views of their rights be represented, or only a
> feminist perspective on rights (and wrongs)?  If both, then am I to
> presume petitions will be on hand to both oppose and support the
> ordinance's representation of "women's rights"?  I suspect not, but I
> may be presuming too much.  Will there be speakers?  If so, will
> women of either persuasion on this issue be encouraged to speak?
>
> --
> Thanks,
> s
>
>
>          * * * * * * * *
>          Sean Michael
>          .dwg
>