From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... TH  1/2
X-To: DAN KING
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Followups-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:54:00 GMT


dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...
DK> I made followups to this post alt.abortion.inequity and talk.abortion.
DK> I'm not sure if there is much interest in this in the soc groups.  But
DK> since I have no idea where Will originated this post from, I figured
DK> I should leave the Newsgroups alone.

This subject matter was originated here, not by myself, but by another user,
discussing the issue of father notification.


DK> ws>In article <1992Sep26.010732.2804@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zoo
DK> uild.org> writes:
DK> DK>king@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes...

DK> ws>Note: Quoted Out of Context ... AGAIN

DK> I have on numerous occasions when quoting you, posted your entire article
DK> in question.  I don't know if I did or didn't in this case because you
DK> leave no reference to my article.  I have no plans to try and re-locate
DK> my previous article when you go and make it as difficult as possible to
DK> do so.  If it really was posted out of context like you claim, I will
DK> go ahead and repost your entire post.  I believe your post alone is enough
DK> to convince people of the dangerousness of your position.  So if you
DK> want me to re-post your original post in its entirety, I'll be more than
DK> happy to.

What would be the point?  Everyone else already has, and some have even taken
everything out *except* the "killed her," so it sounded as though I was not
only serious (which I was not!), but had actually done it!  Talk about quoting
out of context...


DK> DK> It would be tough to come up with a more convincing argument for spousal
DK> DK> notification than this one here.  I'll be archiving this post just so I
DK> DK> can remember this argument um... was that FOR spousal notification.

DK> ws>Yes, Dan, it *was*, but my comments were *only* meant to be taken within
DK> ws>*very* hypothetical context.  And unless you have *really* misunderstood
DK> ws>you will realise that I believe that *all* violence is wrong, and is *nev
DK> ws>justified!   But if you believe that it can't happen, or that it cannot
DK> ws>be done by "normal" people, then I would say that you are incorrect.  Ind
DK> ws>even "normal" people, when pushed beyond the breaking point, (as shameful
DK> ws>it is to admit, we *all* have one), are just as capable of it as anyone.


Well, at least you kept in the part where I said that *all* violence is wrong.
Most others have conveniently forgotten it, and are proceeding as though I had
actually been formulating plans, which as you might have guessed, I was *not*
doing.


DK> I refuse to force a woman into the position of being required to inform you
DK> of something that you have said could drive you to violence.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I didn't explicitly or implicity say that it could drive me to violence.  What
I was trying to impress upon you, was that different people react in different
ways, and that even "normal" people, when pushed beyond reasonable limits,
might even react in such negative ways.  In this vein, it could therefore be
said that just about *anything* could drive *anyone* to violence, given a
sufficiently high amount of emotional strain and level of despair.

However, I had assumed (quite wrongly, unfortunately!) that all of you think me
to be, as is just about everyone else here, a "more or less" "normal" person,
in spite of some rather distressing experiences which I have many times
volunteered to explain here.  So, when I wrote my now oft-quoted paragraph, I
was only attempting to personalise the issue, to show that *any* person,
including a "normal" person like myself (foolish of me to assume that you all
believed this...or is it just that my opinions differ from those who have
attempted to flame me?), when given a sufficiently high level of stress, could
be pushed beyond reasonable limits.

I was *not* saying that I "would" or "might" kill *anyone*, but since I have
only been tested by stress a certain number of times, I am probably no more or
less "capable" of violence than anyone else, and I *thought* that I didn't need
to make this obvious to anyone.  However, given that I have survived this
experience alive and sane, (yes, I can be certified sane, if you desire it :-) )
, it is a fair bet to assume that I have a fairly strong sense of self-control
and self-restraint.  Recall the words of Nietzche, who said "What does not kill
us, makes us stronger," and it is also a fair bet to assume that I have come
out of this experience, a stronger person.  Thus, it was probably poor judgement
on my part to have cast myself in a role which I never played (ie., I never
considered or planned violence, but I discussed the issue as though I had) in
order to make the point that we should not dismiss the emotional suffereing of
men whose feelings are cast aside, essentially told to feel "Take it like a
man," which is a truly ridiculous way to handle stress, and a lamentably
insenstive way to deal with someone else's pain, just because that person
happens to be male.


DK> I don't believe I know enough to make this judgement.  But I will not
DK> force a woman that does have more information about your violent
DK> tendencys into that position.                            ^^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^^^^

Oh, please...I have started *one* fight in my entire life, and it lasted
five seconds, at the age of *eight* years old.  I hardly have "violent
tendencies," as you have implid.  Now, if I had had a consistent record of
violent crimes, or especially violent crimes against women in particular, then
you might have a point, but since I do not, then I can confidently say that
you are not at all correct in this opinion of me.


DK> ws>Can you honestly tell me that you have *never* thought "I'm going to beat
DK> ws>smash in/kill/etc that stupid idiot" if you were in a situation where you
DK> ws>have been insulted, or betrayed, etc. ; you did not, of course, commit ac
DK> ws>violence, but letting out your anger through your *thoughts* is a powerfu
DK> ws>healing mechanism which often helps to prevent actual violence from happe
DK> .
DK> ws>Crossing the line is another matter entirely, but most of us have never
DK> ws>committed violence, but only the true saint has never ever had violent
DK> ws>*thoughts*, and even *they* have probably done so as well.

DK> You have missed the point of my reply.  There is a chance you would act
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DK> violently like you said you might, and there is a chance you will not.  I
    ^^^^^^^^^^                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DK> am not capable to make that determination from where I am.


And you have also missed the point of my original message, *and* my reply.
There is "a chance" that *anyone* "might act violently," given a certain
situation and level of distress.  And there is also the fact that you have
admitted that you don't really know what any given person's breaking point
is.  Even trained mental health experts have difficulty in making such a
judgement!

So, given these facts, why do wish to punish *all* men, just because there is
a *small* minority who might handle the knowledge of the loss of a child (or
foetus, baby, embyro....whatever), in a violent manner?  I have already stated
that I would only wish for the information to be told, when the man's emotional
state is stable, and for it to be told by the hospital staff (ie., this is *not*
"forcing the woman to tell the man") within a counselling context.
>>> Continued to next message
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * ...And the only thing the Borg left was this MacIntosh.
You might say "Why bother?  What he doesn't know, won't hurt him," but this
ignores the fact that there is a fairly good chance that the deception will
eventually be found out.  And the longer the time the truth takes to come out,
the greater the perceived feeling of betrayal, and thus, the greater the level
of stress and possible distress (this is why I raised the issue of "if a year
had passed").  *That* is why I suggested that both parties should be counselled
(separately if necessary) and thus be emotionally prepared to handle whatever
feelings arise.  The sooner that both parties are prepared, the less the
possibility of conflict, and the lesser the probability of violence.  I am
*not* justifying violence, but you can't turn your head and just say that
"all violence is control," as the Politically "Correct" have declared, and that
there is no such thing as violence that arises from acute and/or chronic
distress, and furthermore, in turn, that a man's feeling of loosing a child,
is indeed a situation that could in fact, be extremely distressing if
counselling is not offered.

This is really the main reason why I am here - to start up a discussion group
and a counselling and referral service.  If I can save just *one* man from
depression, suicide, or violence, then I will be satisfied that I have
succeeded.  But, if men are deliberately kept in the dark because "all men are
potential abusers," then their level of emotional distress that is felt by
those who *do* discover that they have been deceived, will be even greater, and
it will be ever so much more difficult to effectively counsel them.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * ...And the only thing the Borg left was this MacIntosh.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women