From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:00:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Nov4.164528.1352@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.135216.15641@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:
>> Would one bleepin' feminist explain to me why a married man in Wisconsin
>>can't get a bleepin' loan without the wife's consent? 
>>
>> ERA my ass. 
>>
>>Jon (I don't make stupid financial mistakes twice, I'll stay single)
>
>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....

>This was not
>accomplished with the permission of women, they just took it.  

Want to give it back, I bet.  Those evil, monster men....  You try
washing them off, scraping them off, and still they just keep coming
back for more.  So, why did men need permission to take 50% of the
wealth, so they could will it back at their early demise, perhaps?
(Don Southern accent)  If we could just put 'em all on the moon, and
give 'em fish and bicycles or something lyack that....

>The one
>thing men don't control about women is their ability to have children
>(I think your emotional reaction to this issue is evidence of the
>difficulty men have dealing with this).  

So, women can have children by themselves.  Interesting.  I hadn't heard
that one.  Does this mean they can support them by themselves?  Hey,
why do we have all these icky men around here, with their B.O. and their
beer-bellies and razor stubble faces?  Hmmmm....  (Don Alice Kramden
accent)  To the moon, Ralph.  One of these days, one of these days.
Pow, right in the kisser.

>Thus if women are to have any
>control over their standard of living, they have to use the one bit of
>leverage they have over men.  

Translation:  If women are to have anything of signficance (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."

>Certainly some women may be abuse this
>leverage, but there are many more men who do worse (women are not
>different from men in their ability to be venal, but they are
>different in their lack of access to power and wealth).  

Evidence?

>If men as a whole would give up their control of wealth, give women a
>chance to earn their own way - and this would require decent child
>care at a price that doesn't completely negate their salaries - then I
>suspect that the need for women to exercise their leverage would disappear.

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?

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 love reading between the lines....

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.men