From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Unfounded Allegations Of Sexism
Note: Sorry folks, this a LONG one, over 200 lines (!)
X-To: J H WOODYATT
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:52:00 GMT

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)

JHW> >>>> Men still have the lion's share of power in human society, Mr. Steev
JHW> >>>> -- it is apparently wasted on you.
JHW> ###
JHW> ### Perhaps, though *not* in family issues - this point is *is* wasted on y
JHW> ### would think.
JHW> ###
JHW> >> Harumph.  I contend that even in family issues, men have the lion's
JHW> >> share of power in human society -- even in Western society.
JHW> #
JHW> # What can support this contention?  90% of court-ordered custody
JHW> # judgements goin to *mothers* is proof of domination of pro-*male*
JHW> # attitudes of family courts?!? It *would* be, if one believed that
JHW> # "men don't care for their children" or, as some slightly more
JHW> # "charitable" feminists have stated "men don't want the children".  But
JHW> # I assure you, this is *not* the case.  Millions of men who have been
JHW> # separated from their children for extended periods of time, yet are
JHW> # still expected to have that cheque sent, would gladly agree with me.

JHW> What is the gender distribution among judges in family courts?  What
JHW> is the gender distribution among the legislators who enact family law?
JHW> (The answers to these questions are not to be taken as support for my
JHW> contention, but rather challenges to your argument.)

In this particular case, gender distribution is more or less irrelevant,
because even though the judges and legislators *are* mostly male, many of
them have the old, traditionalist thinking still ingrained in their heads,
("Women have to stay home and take care of the kids, men have to work and
support the family," etc.), attitudes which I might add, hurt *men* as much
as they do women.


JHW> Which usually has more power to control the family's financial fate --
JHW> the husband or the wife?

It depends on whether the wife has sued for divorce, alimony, *and* child
support, I'd reckon....  Given this, unless she's a rich heiress (even then..),
she's pretty much in the driver's seat - she merely needs to wait for the
judge's order to come down, after which time *she* will *control* up to
one-half (sometimes more) of the man's after-tax income.  I hardly consider
this to be fair.

But in the case where the only the husband is working, and the marriage is
stable, the husband's employment situation *is* pretty much the deciding
factor in the family's financial situation.  But given the state of the
economy, I would *hardly* call this "control," unless you believe that "Do
this, or I'll quit and we'll all starve" is *actually* a threat that a lot of
men might use to gain control of a marriage.  (I doubt it ; it's rather
cutting his own throat as well, wouldn't you say?)


JHW> The kind of power we're talking about here is really power of when and
JHW> how divorce is to take place.  It strikes me as evidence of great
JHW> naivete that you really don't seem to understand how much more power a
JHW> husband can wield against his wife in most cases simply by threatening
JHW> divorce than a wife can wield over her husband, and the reason for
JHW> that stems from the answer to the question above.

Perhaps, but it also strikes me as evidence of great naivete that you really
don't seem to understand how much more power a wife can wield against her
husband simply by threatening "If you divorce me, you'll never see your
children again, not to mention half your after-tax income..."

Not that I'm invalidating your point... I *do* think that the threat of a
divorce is a power tool, but it can be used equally well by both men *and*
women, but by using different reasons to back up the threat.


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.


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?


JHW> ### Don't call me "son".  I don't call *you* "child," do I?  Also, I consid
JHW> ### very hypocritical to hide your own gender and then make a bigoted remar
JHW> ### about someone else who *has* declared his/her gender.  It seems as thou
JHW> ### want to have your cake and eat it too...
JHW> ###
JHW> >> Apologies for the diminution, O Well-hung Warlord, but use of the
JHW> #                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JHW> #
JHW> # Hmmm... Well Hung?????  I never made such a claim?  (How would you
JHW> # claim to know, by the way...?  <-: )
JHW> #
JHW> # And..."Warlord"???  This is an even more bizarre characterisation,
JHW> # considering the fact that *you* were the one hurling insults at me,
JHW> # left, right, and centre.
JHW> #
JHW> # I certainly consider *that* to be a little more "warlike" than my
JHW> # reply to you.

JHW> I wasn't hurling.  I was lobbing.  Believe me, you'll know hurling
JHW> when you see it.

That's exactly my point...  Why do you brag (seemingly, you are bragging
in some fashion) about your ability to insult people?  Can't you strive
to something more worthy, like discussing issues without *needing* to
hurl (or "lob") insults in order to make your point?

This is why I considered the "Warlord" namecalling to be bizarre, since I
haven't exactly been trying to make war with you.


JHW> The `O Well-hung Warlord' was an in-joke at your
JHW> expense that I doubt anyone here understood

And I'm really going to take offense to a joke which I don't understand?  Mind
you, I'd guess that you were referring to Robert Bly and others in the
Mythopoetic Men's Movement who speak about the mythology of men as warlords
and warriors.  Since I so not subscribe to the mythopoetic view of the Men's
Movement, the comment neither offends nor overly amuses me.  Even so, if I
*was* a mythopoetic, I imagine that I *would* have found it rather funny.


JHW> , but if you're going to
JHW> complain about my veiled insults by ascribing bigotry as my motivation
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I wasn't specifically intending to refer to it as "bigotry" as such ; I was
making reference to the fact that many in the Women's Movement have insisted
on being called women, and not "girls," or "dear," etc., yet still feel like
calling men "boys" or "son" or "dear," etc.
>>> Continued to next message
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Gravity: It's not just a fragrance, it's the LAW!
The only reason why I called it hypocritical was because I didn't initially
know your gender, hence it appears as though you were presuming to use a
regular term as a gender-demeaning term (ie., in the sense above) without
telling anyone *your* gender.  Still, it's a fairly minor point, and given
the fact that you seemed genuinely surprised that I considered it to have
been used as a gender-demeaning term, I'm not going to make a mountain out
of this particular molehill.


JHW> for it, I'm probably not going to be as cooperative as you would like
JHW> me to be.

I don't wish *anyone* to be cooperative.  I can't *force* you to say what
I wish to hear, so why should it matter whether one is "cooperative" or not?
Mind you, one will only debate in a constructive fashion, if one wants to
do so, so I can hardly presume to *force* you to do so.

As strange as it may seem, I am *not* the control freak that many in the
Pro-Choice movement have seemingly ascribed to people who don't explicitly
agree with them.


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 to
JHW> >>>> the fact that you're a snivelling little weasel whose only purpose in
JHW> >>>> life is to keep the Little Woman from ever having to do anything but
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.


JHW> after doing so, you are still bent on demanding an apology for using a
JHW> metaphor and not a simile, which you might have understood more
JHW> easily, then I will be happy to deliver one.

Well, I never really asked for an apology ; I merely asked that you prove
(what I thought was) the allegation.  Since you seemingly didn't take it
as an allegation, then I hardly need to ask for an apology or a retraction
for an allegation which you claim that you never intended to made.

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

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Gravity: It's not just a fragrance, it's the LAW!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism