From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Guilty?
X-To: STEVE NOVAK
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:16:00 GMT

steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes...
SN> > = (Will Steeves) writes:
SN> >SG> = (Susan Garvin) writes...

SN> >SG> I'll answer your other article, as well.  You did some nice
SN> >SG> creative editing, but you still don't seem to understand
SN> >SG> the difference between defending or avenging a loved one
SN> >SG> and killing for spite.

SN> >And it seems as though you don't consider it to be "defending a loved one"
SN> >a man *does* unfortunately become violent or forceful to protect a "foetus"

SN> No.  In this case, a man has unfortunately become deluded enough to
SN> consider a mindless fetus a "loved one" worth defending, to the point of
SN> killing the alive, breathing human being carrying the fetus.

So the foetus is irrelevant, then?  According to you, "it" is, if the man
wants "it"...


SN> >Surely, wouldn't Janis have been equally as violent in her descriptions of
SN> >"defending her child" had she needed to defend "it" during pregnancy?

SN> She'd be defending herself AND her fetus.

Oh!  So the foetus ISN'T irrelevant when the woman wants "it", then...


SN> >SG> (I read Steeves' comments as they originally appeared, btw.
SN> >SG> His present backpedaling is beside the point.)
SN> >                ^^^^^^^^^^^^

SN> >Backpedalling?  There has been no backpedalling.  I was only explaining the
SN> >hypothetical context of my remarks.
SN> >
SN> >It seems, however, that nobody is giving *Janis* the Fourth Degree over *he
SN> >remarks, though...

SN> I gave quite an extensive reply to a Don Beaver posting on this Janis
SN> person; ignoring that fact heightens my disdain for the pro-LIE
SN> contingent and their selective, and dishonest, memories.

I did not ignore it, but your "condemnation" of it was half-hearted if not
outright disingenuous - you raved and raved at what *I* said, and you *STILL*
insist that *your* version of what *I* said, is what I *meant*, but what did
you say about Janice?  A few paragraphs, saying "I thought that it was sick".
This is hardly comparable to the volumes of insults you levelled in my
direction.

As for "pro-lie"...Oh please!  For someone who is misreprenting ME by insisting
that HIS version of what I said, is "THE TRUTH," I would say that your charge
that the "pro-life" side is misrepresenting your side, is somewhat hypocritical.


SN> >SG> I have no desire to continue this, Beaver.  You don't seem capable
SN> >SG> of rational discussion.  If you believe your entire sex is
SN> >                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SN> >SG> evil, as you said, you should really get some help.
SN> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SN> >He *never* said this, Susan.  He was saying that a large number of you have
SN> >pre-judged men to be "potential oppressors".

SN> Men ARE potential oppressors.

So are women.


SN> Men DO have fantasies of control and rape;

So do women.


SN> many men do indeed act upon these fantasies, at which point
SN> they're no longer "potential".

So do women.


SN> Men DO, in percentages large enough to make similar women's percentages
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SN> in the single digits, try to physically and mentally control those unhappy
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SN> relationships and marriages.

While it may be "single digits" to say that 1 in 24 husbands is abused, (you can
get the *exact* figures from Suzanne Steinmetz and others...) consider the
oft-quoted statistic by feminists that "1 in 8 wives are abused" (some are
also saying 1 in 10...  "Make up your minds, already!").  If this is so, then
this means that for every three wives who are abused, there is one husband who
is abused.  From this, it follows that 1 in four abuse cases, affects husbands.
And THIS is ONE QUARTER, 25% of abuse cases...a far cry from the "single digits"
that "1 in 24" look like....


SN> At least, they used to; the fact that women are becoming more independent
SN> and better protected by the law is the only reason you control freaks
SN> feel so threatened.                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

First, we're "turkeys".  And now we're "control freaks".  Okay, so you've aptly
proven that you're good at throwing insults... So what???

---
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 * "Data, I thought you were dead!"   "No, Sir. I rebooted!"