From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Unfounded Allegations Of Sexism
Organisation: GOiDS "R" We, Inc.
X-To: J H WOODYATT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:53:00 GMT

bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes...
>goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
># bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes...
># JHW> #    -- goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves)
># JHW> >>   -- bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)

>[ Deletia ]

># JHW> I believe the family courts have been perpetuating unfair gender
># JHW> stereotypes in the meting out of family law, and I even believe that
>#      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>#
># How so?  Did you mean "Men should work and pay for the kids, women should
># stay home and support the family"?  I would imagine so.

>That and a few other noxious ideas.

It's good to see that you consider them noxious.


># JHW> mainstream feminist organizations have been shamefully lax in
># JHW> promoting change -- my complaints are simply that much of what the
># JHW> men's child custody rights wing of the men's movement has to say
># JHW> grates on my nerves because of the rhetoric they use.  It turns me
># JHW> right off.
>#
># How so?  What sort of rhetoric bothers you?

>Yours is a clear example of what grates on my nerves.  Sexist,
>anti-feminist pure backlash claptrap most of the time.

Excuse me, but what do you consider sexist, of what I have said so far,
especially on the subject of male choice?  What makes what I say, any
more "sexist" than anything that *you* have said?



> Look, men are
>being unfairly denied custody of their children in divorce cases
>because of sexism in the family law courts.  Women's rights
>organizations haven't been particularly quick on the draw to attack
>the problem -- big surprise eh?  Anti-sexism isn't as popular among
>men as it is among women.  The trouble is that the rhetoric of the
>father's rights crowd doesn't really sound anti-sexist to me.  It
>sounds very sexist.

Oh, why?  Explain some more please...


> How does one defend a lawsuit filed by a man to
>stop his soon-to-be ex-wife from having an abortion on the grounds
>that a woman's right to an abortion isn't as important as a father's
>right to custody of his natural offspring?  How can one do it and
>still claim to be anti-sexist?

You have some pretty prejudiced ideas about the Men's Movement, if this
is what you see in Father's Rights groups.  Most if not *all* of the
Father's Rights groups with which I have had contact, would *NOT* support
the kind of court case which you mention above.  It seems that either you
genuinely believe that this is what the movement is capable of, or you
are looking for some strawpeople to shoot at.


>-----

>[More deletia]

>-----

># JHW> >>>> Something.  Anything.  Shit or get off the pot, son.  Either decide
># JHW> >>>> you're a Real Man and you can take a little criticism, or get used
>o
># JHW> >>>> the fact that you're a snivelling little weasel whose only purpose
>n
># JHW> >>>> life is to keep the Little Woman from ever having to do anything bu
># JHW> ###  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># JHW> >>>> look after the children.
># JHW> ###  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># JHW> ###
># JHW> >>       [ Twelve plus lines of defensive 80-column handwaving deleted ]
># JHW> #        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># JHW> #
># JHW> # It was *NOT* "hand-waving" - I had asked you to PROVE your allegation
># JHW> # that my purpose in life is "to keep the Little Woman from ever having
># JHW> # to do anything but look after the children".
>#
># JHW> Yeah, which is why it was `hand-waving.'  I never made such an
># JHW> allegation.  If you will be so kind as to re-read what I wrote (most
># JHW> of which is still quoted above), you may decide that it makes no sense
># JHW> to read the text in question as literal and not metaphorical.  If,
>#
># I have reread it, and I have found it *very* difficult to find something
># metaphorical in "face the fact that you're a snivelling little weasel..."
># It seems *quite* literal, and doesn't really seem to lend itself to a
># metaphorical interpretation.

>Jeez-loo-eeze!  Okay -- here, I'll rewrite it for you:

>Something.  Anything.  Shit or get off the pot, old bean.  Either
>decide you're a renaissance man and your sensibilities can withstand
>being ruffled by feminist political discourse, or resign yourself to a
>simple existence as a snivelling little weasel whose masculinity
>depends entirely on his ability to be a primary breadwinner for his
>family

Sorry, but I don't always believe in either-or situations.  I am *not*
what you would call a "renaissance" man, NOR do I have any macho
insecurities about having to provide for anyone.  I especially do not
buy into either-or situations which are provided by *others*.


>-- because if you really do approve of equality for women in
>the workplace, you'll learn to accept the fact that equality means
>that they have to play by the same rules you do.

Yes, I do agree, but I do *not* agree to using quotas to achieve the
"same rules".  They do not come anywhere close to looking like the
"same rules".  It seems more like "There is one set of rules for you,
and one set of rules for us".  Call this sexist if you like, but if
you had heard about an institution which refused to hire women until
the year 2000, you'd probably be in a tailspin, calling for equal
rules.  Needless to say, I do *not* see you in a tailspin over the
Ontario College of Art's so-called "Equity 2000" programme, which bars
men from applying for teaching positions until the year 2000.

If *this* is "playing by the same rules," then frankly, I won't play.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Never eat anything larger than your head.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.child-support,alt.dads-right