From: rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:30:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov5.163044.14483
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Nov5.080057.13807@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>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....
>

I think you should check out the list of the world's wealthiest people
- all men by the way.  Maybe you thought I was talking about income.
Even when it's income it's not 50-50, but when it's wealth it's more
like 90 to 10 in favor of men.

>>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....
>

Your real problem is not with women, but with the rich.  It is they
who are concentrating the wealth in their hands and leaving the rest
for us to fight over.

>>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.
>

In fact it is possible to fertilize an egg with an egg.  So far they
haven't succeeded with human eggs, but when they do men will have
become biologically obsolete.  Let's hope that we won't be obsolete
for other reasons.  


>>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."
>

You are quite right.  In my parent's generation women had no option
but to establish their standard of living through marriage.  And was
it women who wanted it that way?  Men wanted it that way and so why
should they complain if women use the only advantage they've got,
their ability to raise children.
 
Even today most men I know - even the politically correct ones - want
to marry women who will cook and clean and raise their children for
them.  And more then than they want them to get jobs and bring in
income too.  Many middle-age men I know who married independent women
during the 60's and 70's are now dumping their wives and marrying
younger women.  The fact is men want the financial advantage they
have.  So can it be any wonder that women want to hang on to their
biological advantage?


>>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 


I have two daughters in their 20's, and I sincerely hope they don't
run into someone like you.  I can understand that you might have some
problem with a particular woman, but the hostility towards women in
general exhibited by you here borders on sickness.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.supermodels,alt.sex,alt.feminism