From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:21:35 GMT

> = (Don Beaver) writes:
>> = Larry Margolis writes:
>>> = (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>> = Larry Margolis writes:
>>> > = The Beave:
>>> >> = Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):

>>> >> ===   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.

My, that conjures up a rather graphic image, doesn't it?

>>> First, several people chose to interpret Mr. Steeves' posting literally;

Gee.  Just because he swore to "Allah" that he'd kill his S.O. on the
spot?  I sure don't see why.

>>> ...would these same people grant the benefit of the doubt only to women
>>> who make violent statements?

For myself, I can say "No".  I'd like to see the context of Cortese's
statement, but it sounds pretty sick to me.  Since she's describing
protecting her child, and Steeves simply wanted to control an S.O., I
don't think the two are DIRECTLY comparable.  Perhaps you could post 
the rest of the statement?

>>I *did* interpret that she'd kill the attacker literally.

>You thought she might "slit their throat wide open and drink their 
>blood with a smile in [her] face"?

Sure sounds like it.

>If Will's ex said, "I'll kill you if you tell anyone," would you
>accept that as literal?

Depends on the context.  Steeve's entire posting that day, of course,
contained more hate and need for control then just that murderous
statement.

>>> Second, it seems quite reasonable from his posting that he objected to
>>> far more than "not showing the proper respect"

>>It's clear that he also objected to the abortion, but the difference in
>>the two scenarios was waiting a year before telling him, *not* getting
>>or not getting the abortion.

>What about "throwing salt in the wounds" -- ie., mental cruelty?

He needs help for that.  It's really none of his business.  If he
doesn't like the woman, or her actions, he need only leave.  

>And, by taking the "mathematical" difference between the cases, 
>do you wish to imply that the abortion was not a factor in the 
>worse case?  In other words, because the abortion issue was the same 
>in both cases, it must have played +no+ part?

Not according to Steeves, the one who said he would kill her for not
showing respect enough to him (Steeves) by not informing him of the
abortion for a year.

>>> Since certain persons have accepted explicitly violent statements from
>>> women as figurative,

>>Note again:  I accepted the *violence* as literal; it was the "drink their
>>blood with a smile in my face" that I interpreted figuratively.

>Did you accept "slit their throat wide open" as literal?

Without knowing the context, I'd have to say she seems to have a
definite plan.  You're leaving out the fact, however, the Cortese's
reaction would be to *her child being threatened*.  Steeves' reaction
was to a nebulous "didn't show me enough respect".

(BTW, when did you turn from a t.a. fence straddler into a pro-life
apologist?)

>>> Since those persons who complained seem to have an outspoken agenda,
>>> it is no great surprise that they concluded only "respect" was at issue

>>No great surprise, considering that his words were:

[some deleted by Beaver...]

>>#but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!)

>"Not only X but Y," as I've said, usually implies that Y is different
>either in magnitude or character from X.  You chose to assume it was 
>only different in magnitude, ie. "greater disrespect."  You chose to
>rule out any mental cruelty in waiting a year and then throwing "salt
>in the wounds."

I think anyone this unstable and surprised by the state of a relationship
oughta take a break from it and reconsider his priorities.

I think your paragraph is a real stretch at trying to make your point.
I mean, who gives a damn about "respect" when it comes to threatening
physical violence?  What about "respect" by Steeves to the woman he
threatened?  Does she get no respect for making the decision she thought
was right for her and her body?  This tack really makes no sense.      

>>> considering why she might have waited a year to "throw salt in the wounds,"

>>Since you seem to have an outspoken agenda, it's no great surprise that
>>you assume she waited a year in order to throw salt in the wounds, rather
>>than simply not telling him because she knew it would upset him (or because
>>she knew that (a hypothetical) he was deranged and actually *would* try to
>>kill her if he found out), and it happened to come out a year later.

>I assume no such thing, even having heard that she made death threats.
>
>It's clear that there are a lot of possibilities.  I'd give her the
>benefit of the doubt if we were discussing why she would have waited 
>a year and whether we should regard it as a despicable act.  

Ain't you sweet?  Whatever her reasons, it's her body and decision.  Not
Steeves.  If Steeves found that communication between the two of them
was at an unacceptable (to him) state, then it's time to leave that
relationship.  I fail to see the problem.

>At the same time, I'd give Will the benefit of the doubt, especially
>given that he consistently tries to publicize the trauma of abortion
>on men.  If you had read his earlier writings, you might have guessed
>that his explicit description came from a deeply felt agony over abortion
>and the ignoring or mistreatment of men in regard to abortion.  

Since "men" don't have to carry a fetus to term, and since "men" aren't
the ones being faced with forced birth from you turkeys, then I'll
venture that Steeves' "deeply felt agony" is misplaced and unwarranted -
unless you wanna start sanctifying the fetus again.  Was Steeves' S.O.
the only fertile female he could have children with?  NO??  Then Steeves
ought to mellow out and find a woman who *wants* to have children with
him, and someone that *wants* to be upfront with him concerning any past
abortions.

>Hence perhaps a little more than "disrespect" went into his feelings.

You're right.  Control of the woman, possibly murderous, also entered
into it.

>It seems that, on the net, co-partisans are presumed innocent until 
>proven guilty, and all others are presumed guilty even if proved innocent.

A rank exaggeration.  Noticing tendencies and judging on past statements
and proclaimed stances is hardly unfair.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women