From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:34:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.191903.9648@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <Bvv5FC.FvE@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>The context was women as soldiers:
>>
>>[M. Bickis]
>>> Why do I cling to this belief?  Because I believe that gender is an
>>> essential aspect of society, and gender is associated with more than
>>> just sex and pregnancy.  If I strip the concept of gender down to its
>>> essentials, I find a nurture vs. protection dichotomy.  To be feminine
>>> is to be nurturing, nourishing and *non-threatening*.
>>
>>[Janis Cortese]
>>> Ridiculous.  If I had a kid and someone threatened it, I'd slit their
>>> throat wide open and drink their blood with a smile in my face.  In the
>>> wild, as you say, women are the protectors and providers for their
>>> children.  This requires that they have a greater capacity for general
>>> nastiness than any male.
>>
>>In light of the controversy over Will Steeves' statements,
>>let me recall some responses.
>>
>>Keith Cochran wrote:
>>> While some men will only THINK those thoughts, some men will ACT on those
>>> thoughts.
>>> And that seems to be a pretty good reason for throwing out every "spousal
>>> notiication" law in the book.
>>
>>
>>Now, let me pose some questions to the above posters (and interested others):
>>
>

>>. Would Janis Cortese slit someone's throat for bumping into her child
>>  on a subway car?
>
>*THREATEN*

Ah, but it is easy to threaten someone without uttering a word.
The point being:  if someone had as strong an agenda against Janis
Cortese as you against Will Steeves, they would certainly choose to
interpret "threaten it" to include even the slightest endangerment
and conclude that Janis Cortese would smile, slit throat, drink blood.

>>. Would Janis Cortese slit the throat of a child who threatened her child?
>
>Isn't this just a tad *too* hypothetical? Or are you just trying to drum up
>support for Will?  (If this is leading into the "but Will was just trying
>to protect the life of *HIS* child, I'd like to remind you that I don't
>consider it a child until it's born).

Actually, it wasn't leading to that point, but as long as you mention it:

Does your belief have anything to do with it?  That is, if a person believes
a fetus to be a child, is their "healthy parental instinct" (your words)
to protect their child supposed to change or be repressed based on 
your beliefs?


>>. Would Janis Cortese smilingly slit the throat of a mother who stopped
>>  a fight between their children by yelling at them to stop or grabbing
>>  one of them?
>
>*THREATEN*

[see above]

>>. Should the moderators of soc.feminism be held responsible for having
>>  posted a threat to anyone whom the unbalanced Janis Cortese imagines 
>>  is antagonistic to her child?
>
>Isn't this getting just a tad too hypothetical?  Will made a very explicit
>statement.  If a woman showed him so much disrespect as to have an abortion,
>and not only not tell him immediatly afterwards, but waited a year, he would
>probably snap right there and kill the woman on the spot.
>
>Janis has made a general comment about protecting the life of her children.
>
>I think most people disagree with the former and agree with the latter.

What is interesting is that some people agree with pardoning wives
who kill their husbands as a result of mental or physical cruelty.

Do you think that waiting a year and then "throwing salt in the wounds"
is not possibly a sign of mental cruelty that goes beyond simple "disrespect?"

Mind you, I don't believe in pardoning husband-killers and I don't
believe in pardoning woman-killers, regardless of whether the murder 
arose from disrespect or mental cruelty.

>>I think not.  In particular, I saw no reason to interpret "with a smile
>>on my face" as a sign of violent insanity; rather, it seems a figurative
>>description intended to emphasize her point.
>
>I'll agree with you there.  What does this have to do with Will's post?

If you couldn't figure it out:  explicit descriptions of violence
are not necessarily literal threats.  They are often used figuratively
to make a point.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women