From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:18:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.163044.14483@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.080057.13807@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.164528.1352@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>>>I don't have to be a bleepin' feminist to explain it to you.  Men
>>>control wealth and they control access to it.  
>>
>>.59 cents to the dollar and all that rot.  Nay.  `Twas brillig.  Women
>>have equal control of the wealth.  Although they are not directly paid
>>50% of the income in the US, they somehow manage to independently spend
>>50% of the money.  Also, the single sex/age group with the most money is
>>women past retirement age.  Seems men don't hang around all that long
>>after retirement, and everything they worked for typically becomes all
>>her's.  Yes, the starving elderly women and diamonds....
>
>I think you should check out the list of the world's wealthiest people
>- all men by the way.  Maybe you thought I was talking about income.
>Even when it's income it's not 50-50, but when it's wealth it's more
>like 90 to 10 in favor of men.

You are confusing _Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous_ with reality.
The top 20 incomes--Sam Walton, Mr. Matsushita and all that--are not
indicative of reality.  Oh, Sammy boy just died.  Whose money is it
now?  And don't forget Queen Elizabeth II, and the queen of Holland,
owner of, among other things, Royal Dutch Shell.  Hear!  Hear!

Yes, I know what you mean about wealth and not income.  Women control
more than 50% of the stock market--making them the majority holders of
stock and therefore business (kinda akin to wealth).  Oh, and women
under age 40 (they do exist--you have two as daughters) make nigh on $1
for every dollar that equally qualified and experienced men make.  But
still there are quotas that "force" companies to hire women ahead of
men.  Oh, and my supervisor is a woman, my contract house in owned by a
woman, my attorney is a woman and my congressional representative is a
woman.  Obviously, women are way behind in power too.

But, let me repeat the important point here, Ronald.  The single
age/gender group with the most money is elderly women.  When those
billionaire men kick the bucket, their wives are left holding the
proverbial bag.

I know one man, in his late 60s, whose father had bought swamp land in
Florida in the 50s.  Everyone thought he was an idiot.  What he bought
is now part of Port St. Lucie, Florida.  He died, shortly after
retirement, and his investments, at that time, were worth over $20
million.  Who got it?  Who did he give it all to?  Yep.  His wife.
Now, this is kinda funny.  This woman dances the light fantastic, runs
all over the world, has boyfriends who are interested in her because of
her "personality," and she's pushing 90.  And her son, who's pushing
70, is so afraid she will outlive him and he won't get to inherit a
penny, that he practically fumes when thinking about it.  And she won't
give him a dime while she's alive, either.  Man, this woman is going to
outlive her sons enjoying the "wealth."  This man even told his children
to quit kissing his ass about their status in his will because he
probably wasn't going to outlive her anyway.  In effect, "Go kiss your
granny's ass."  One time he referred to his kids as "the bung-hole
smoochers."  I guess they'd be about your age, Ronald.

>>Translation:  If women are to have anything of significance (read my
>>lips, "Wealth"), they must leverage/wrestle/steal that "control over
>>their own standard of living" from men.  Women cannot possibly attain
>>any of the things that men can.  Aside.... Girls, if you want to have
>>diamonds, tie a bed to your back and put on lots of lipstick.  Or as my
>>ex2b's parents said, "Hey, get a job as a waitress in a nice
>>restaurant, one where doctors and lawyers like to dine.  Then, marry
>>one of them.  Of course, because you're a GIRL, you could never be a
>>doctor or lawyer yourself."
>>
>You are quite right.  In my parent's generation women had no option
>but to establish their standard of living through marriage.  And was

You're right, Ronald.  It was illegal for them to go to college, or
anything.  Your parents must have lived, let's see, back in the 19th
century, right?

>it women who wanted it that way?  Men wanted it that way and so why
>should they complain if women use the only advantage they've got,
>their ability to raise children.

Uh, Ronald, that was all sarcasm, dude.

Really now.  My ex2b's parents are about the same age as you Ronald.
They were sexists.  They paid the college tuition for their male
offspring, but refused to do so for their two daughters.  It really
pissed me off when my ex2b told me this.  In effect, they had told her
that her only option in life, because it was a man's world, was to use
her body and charm to snare a man and obtain his wealth as her own.  Now
she recognizes her mistake in marrying me--she married for love, when
she knew damn well and good that she should have married for money.
After all, that's what her parents were telling her all her life.
That I make almost 60% above the average for people with college
educations, well, that just means that she was in the ballpark the
first time.

I perceive your attitudes might be very similar to those of my ex2b's
parents.  You think women are all sugar and spice, they have it so
hard in the world, that men should lay face down in the mud-puddles so
they can walk on our backs, while you subvert their self-esteem by
telling them "it's a man's world,"  "math class is hard--take home ec.,"
"marry a good, loving, intelligent lawyer or doctor" who has access to
the world's gifts because he's a man, and you tell them all this because
you love them so much and you want nothing but the best for them.  Noble
intentions.  Shitty, shitty advice.  Hey Ronald, amazingly, women can
take care of themselves.  They can even be pretty incredible if they
want to be.  They don't have to marry "up" to get ahead in life, they
can become that "up" themselves.

Good line about the "big advantage" women have--"their ability to raise
children."  Go look at some crime stats sometime.  70% of the convicted
child abusers in the US are women.  Children raised by single men
achieve better and have fewer problems than children raised either by
single-parent mothers or in two parent homes.  Of course, that should
not deter us from the common understanding that women are naturally
better parents, better nurturers, ad infinitum.  After all, they do
have tits (among other things).    And, their genetic code has
0.54347826% more mass than that of us Y-guys.  Obviously, they are
superior.  (The calc:  46 chromosomes * 4 quadrants per chromosome = 184
quadrants.  Women have 1 more quadrant than men (Y-guys).
1/184*100%=0.54347826%.  Of course, that's an approximation.  ;-))

>Even today most men I know - even the politically correct ones - want
>to marry women who will cook and clean and raise their children for
>them.  And more then than they want them to get jobs and bring in
>income too.  Many middle-age men I know who married independent women
>during the 60's and 70's are now dumping their wives and marrying
>younger women.  The fact is men want the financial advantage they
>have.  So can it be any wonder that women want to hang on to their
>biological advantage?

Bullshit.  Most men I know are more level-headed and equal-minded than
you could ever imagine, being an anti-male sexist.

Ronald, women file 85% of the divorces in the US.  Who's dumping whom?
In 42 of the 50 states, there are no community property laws.  A judge
can give a woman the house, the cars, the kids, give the man all the
bills, make him pay alimony and child support, and talk down to him for
forcing this poor young woman to have to do this to him.

Wake up, Rip Van Ronald.  While you were raising your daughters, the
world changed.

>>Ah yes, one of the "enlightened" ones.  If men would simply give up
>>their 50% of the wealth--to women, it would surely give women a chance
>>to earn their own way (see, they just got 25 free trips around the
>>board, and each time they collected $200.  Now, the men get to start
>>rolling the dice (in turn with the women)).  That's right.  Go.  
>>
>>Surely that's fair isn't it?
>>
>>Oh, and make men (or whoever it is that pays all those taxes) pay for
>>daycare so that women (who, given the new rules of the game, are way
>>out in front and receiving 50% of the money---finally) can then pay for
>>it (because all women should be the primary custodial parent--even when
>>they are still married) in turn.  Well, that would solve everything.  No
>>more bankrupt women, no more hungry chillens, no more rainy days without
>>bon-bons and Geraldo.  Paradise.  
>>
>>And as Marilyn Monroe would have said it, "Uh-huh (high-pitched squeal
>>uh-huh--not unlike "Happy Birthday Mr. President").  Wwwwelll, after
>>you've showered us little ol` gals with diamonds, then we can finally
>>have our cake (ba-boom, ba-boom (I Love This Dead Woman)) and feed it to
>>our mehen."
>
>I have two daughters in their 20's, and I sincerely hope they don't
>run into someone like you.  I can understand that you might have some
>problem with a particular woman, but the hostility towards women in
>general exhibited by you here borders on sickness.

The Marilyn and _Honeymooners_ stuff was to try to impress upon you how
antiquated your attitudes and opinions sounded.  You're an icon, dude,
right out of 1954.

If your daughters have your anti-male sexist attitudes, I surely hope
to never run into them either (I've already married one anti-male
sexist).  BTW, I'm not hostile towards women, and I was not expressing
hostility towards women in general.  I was expressing, via sarcasm,
hostility towards your anti-male sexism.  I'm hostile to injustice,
inequality, sexism, good-old-boy attitudes and the kind of ant-male
sentiments expressed by people like you.  You think it is perfectly
fine that women, who already have nearly as much wealth as men (stocks,
property, income etc.) and have a virtual monopoly on custody of
children and marital property after divorce, should be treated with
kid-gloves in all regards, that we should bend over backwards to give
them everything possible, that they shouldn't have to earn anything, or
attain anything through any means other than natural law leverage
(women are the kinder, gentler, fairer sex, so we must put them on
pedestals, flower them with gifts, cash money, diamonds and 200-acre
tracts in the suburbs), but I'm a sicko for making light of your
anti-male sexism.

I'm tired of being treated like a second-class citizen, who, for some
reason, simply owes women a living, just because I have a dick.

And don't confuse your love and desire for your daughters with a sense
of fair play.  Do you have any sons?  Maybe if you did, you wouldn't hate
men so much.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  I've been addressing anti-male sexism like your's most of my
life.  In third grade I asked my teacher something like, "Mrs.
Struckman, if women are pushing hard for equality and are trying to get
the ERA passed, how come the girls get to go first to lunch everyday?
If they want to be equal, why don't we take turns going first to
lunch?"

Mrs. Struckman thought I was a rude, insensitive, little kid.  Lectured
me on holding doors open for little ladies, and being a gentleman, and
that girls got to go first because they were girls.  Even gave me Cs in
Citizenship.   But, alas, she couldn't touch my other grades without
getting called on it.  She had to give me what I earned--all As.

P.P.S.  I actively campaigned to get a woman elected judge in Franklin
County.  She won.  I voted for women in all races except for a few
where the women were very much against what I stand for.  I believe
that women have been very much under-represented in our legislatures, so
I was not terrible disappointed when a woman, who had expressed some
anti-male sentiment, beat the man running for Congress in my district.
You see, I'm going to go to her and talk to her about some of the
issues I hold dear, and some of my ideas for real solutions.  If she is
as smart as she paints herself, she'll listen to me.  I voted for a
president whose vice-presidential nominee was a woman--a doctor and a
lawyer too (Nancy Lord).  I'm not the sexist, Ronald, you are.
Anti-male sexist.
Newsgroups: soc.men