.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 147
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 242
Date:         Fri, 14 Apr 89 00:18:44 EDT
From:         "Homer W. smith" 
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Wed, 29 Mar 89 14:16:00 CST from 

>
>THERE EVIDENCE STATES THAT WOMEN ARE SUPERIOR TO MEN FOR THEY LIVE
>LONGER, ARE STRONGER IN THE LONG RUN, ETC.

     There is also evidence that women are NOT superior to men.
Living longer (because they do not do all the worrisome work) and
being stronger 'in the long run' (what ever the hell that means)
are not necessarily the only qualities one should look at in
deciding superiority.

     Anyhow, let's not get into reverse descrimination.  If men are
not better than women then for SURE women are not better than men.
>
>HAVING A BABY IS NOT ONLY THE MOTHER'S RESPONSIBILITY.  WHY IS IT THAT
>WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH A CHILD PEOPLE LOOK TO THE MOTHER TO FIND
>SOME DEFECT IN HER.  WHAT ABOUT THE FATHER?  IT'S A 50/50 PARTNERSHIP.

     In the long run it is a 50/50 partnership, but in the early years,
the father is often away working or trapping tigers or whatever, and
the mother is home at the camp with the other women and children.

     Later in life, the child goes out with the father to the frontiers,
and then the father begins to have a deep effect.

     It is naive to think that the child does not cleave to the mother
more than the father in the early years JUST BECAUSE it spent 9 months
being part of the mother.  The father is a harmonic stranger to the baby
when it is first born.

     Anyhow there is nothing more boring than someone argueing with me
for something I have not said.  I never said the father has nothing
to do with it.  I only said it is not true that the mother has nothing
to do with it.  And in my opinion, she has much more to do with it
than women in general or their sons will let on.

     Women tend to blame men for everything.  Men are bad, men are rough,
men are evil, men are criminal. WOMEN of course never did a thing wrong
in their whole little sweetness and light lives.  Such ilk.

>THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE WOMEN HAS THE BABY INSIDE HER AND
>DELIVERS IT.  SHE SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD'S ACTIONS
>20 OR 30 YEARS AFTER IT IS BORN.

     This arguement is inherently ridiculous.  People are effected
for the rest of their lives by the traumas and indignities they suffered
at the hands of careless supressive parents.  Children that are sexually
abused often do not even remember this was so until many years later
after much psychotherapy.  In the meanwhile they suffer from depression,
delusion, floating hatred and cruetly towards their own children, the
source of which they can not fathom.

     The idea that the parents responsibility for their children ends at
18 is a convenient lie for parents who never had any reponsibility in the
first place.

THE CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO BE IT'S
>OWN PERSON.

     Yes I agree.  But as long as it walks around with supressed and
forgotten trauma, it can not be its own person.  Its sort of like,
if you treat it right, it will become its own person in short order and
maybe then the parents can say 'well now you are your own being.'
But if you treat the child wrong, then the child never becomes his/her
own person and the parents are guilty 'till the end of time for the
bad things the child commits that result from their original abuse.

     Abuse does not have to sexual.  It can be goal abuse too.  Stopping
the child from persuing its basic purpose, or forcing it to go on goal
lines it finds stupid, idiotic and repugnant.  Sort of like attending
school.

>IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT THEN WHAT ABOUT THE FATHER.  WHAT ABOUT HIS SAY-
>SO.  OH, BUT OF COURSE YOU CAN'T BLAME THE FATHER BECAUSE HE IS A MAN AND
>MEN HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR CHILDREN BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A PART OF
>THEIR BODY.  THAT IS NOT CORRECT.  THE CHILD IS THE FATHER'S RESPONSIBILITY
>ALSO.

     I never said the father had nothing to do with it.  You are making
yourself out to be a stupid boor who cant read what is written.

     If you want to take up what the father has to do with it,
we can do that, but first lets find the fault with the mother.
There is plenty later to find with the father.   The father married
the bitch after all.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.  THE ISSUE YOU RAISED IS WHETHER THE
>MOTHER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD'S ACTIONS EVEN AFTER IT IS AN ADULT.
>HOW CAN SHE BE?  IT IS NOT HER PROBLEM WHAT THE CHILD DOES AFTER IT IS
>OUT OF HER HANDS.  YES, SHE HAD SOME EFFECT ON THEM WHEN THEY WERE KIDS,
>BUT NOW THAT THEY ARE ADULTS IT SHOULD NOT BE HER PROBLEM UNLESS SHE
>MAKES IT SO.  YOU DON'T PUNISH THE MOTHER BECAUSE THE CHILD DECIDED TO
>GO KILL OTHERS.  SHE DID NOT TELL THEM TO DO THAT AND SHE CANNOT BE
>HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

     I disagree.  If the child turns out criminal, then one or both
parents were covertly or overtly criminal.  One does not have
to steal or kill to be a criminal.  Douchebag-ism comes in many subtle
forms all resulting in a killer kid.

     The parents are 100 percent responsible for the issues of their loins.
This throwing our hands up and saying 'We did our best, but...'
is Divinity lying at its best.

>
>IT IS NOT THE WOMAN'S FAULT THAT SHE MUST STOP EVERYTHING WHILE SHE HAS
>A BABY.  YOU CANNOT BLAME A PERSON FOR WALKING OUT OF AN IMPORTANT
>MEETING OR CLASSROOM BECAUSE THEY MUST RUN DOWN TO THE BATHROOM TO
>USE IT FOR RELIEF OR BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED TO CATCH THE FLU.  THINGS
>HAPPEN BIOLOGICALLY AND THEY CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE REVERSED AND YOU
>CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUCH THINGS.

     Of course you can.  If a persons natural or unnatural biological
condition keeps them off the job for a significant amount of time
to the point where they fall chronically behind in their training
and advancement, then you have every right to let them take a walk
and put someone on the job who can BE there.  We all have to be off
the job once in a while, but chronic sickies are not a good investment
in the company or the GNP.

     People should find work where they can be on the job the most,
and not where they get some false self esteem about being just as
good as a man because they 'can do a man's job as well as he can.'

     They can't.   I know women who claim they can support themselves
just as well as a man.  Well whoppie do.  Can they support themselves
AND 3 or 4 kids AND a man at home WITH the kids as well as a man could?
And send the kids to college?

>AS FOR THE SECOND SENTENCE, WHAT ABOUT THE FATHER?  AREN'T THEY LEAVING
>BEHIND THE CHILDREN WHILE THEY GO TO A CAREER.  WHY IS IT ALWAYS THE
>MOTHER'S FAULT.  JUST BECAUSE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MOTHER WHO STAYED
>HOME TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILDREN DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE OR SHOULD
>BE THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE.  IT IS JUST THAT SOCIETY HAS MADE IT THE
>WAY IT HAS BEEN AND NOW WHEN WOMEN DECIDE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE TREATED
>AS INFERIORS ANY LONGER THAT MEN CHOOSE TO COMPLAIN THAT THEIR CHILDREN
>AREN'T BEING TAKEN CARE OF.

     Who is this SOCIETY that made such decisions?  Did WOMEN have
any say in it?  I bet they did.  And you what?  They were RIGHT.

CAN'T THE FATHER'S DO JUST AS GOOD A JOB
>AS THE MOTHER IN RAISING THE CHILDREN.
>
     No.  And the woman can not do just as good a job as the man
in building the trade lines of the planet.

     Women are best at teaching young children what they need to know
to prepare them for the things that men are best at teaching.

     MAYBE YOU ARE NOT SUCH A MAN.  MAYBE YOU FEEL THAT YOU AND A WOMAN
COULD CHANGE PLACES.  But don't go judge the rest of us by that.
>
>BELIEVE IT OR NOT, DAY CARE IS NOT NEW.  WHAT ABOUT NANNIES?  THE MOTHER'S
>DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF THEIR KIDS BEFORE.  THE NANNIES WERE IN FULL CHARGE
>OF THE CHILDREN AND THE PARENTS HARDLY SAW THEM.

     Just because it has been going on for 1000 years does not mean
it is good for anyone.

AND IN ANY CASE, WHY
>IS ONLY THE WOMAN'S FAULT THAT THE CHILDREN DO NOT GET TAKEN CARE OF BY
>A RELATIVE?  WHAT ABOUT THE FATHER AND HIS RESPONSIBILITIES ALSO?
>
     What does this sentence say?

     Look the father is at fault too.  You must hate yours the way
you are going on and on about how unfair I am being to women.

     The point is, men are ALWAYS blamed.  I just want 50 percent of
the blame put on the woman.

     So stop ranting about fathers.  I am getting sick of it.

     Fathers are jerks too.

     But they all had mothers.  It is not true they all had fathers.

>    Tell us how it is good to not teach your children at home.
>
>IT SHOULD NOT HAVE TO ONLY BE THE MOTHER'S RESPONSIBILITY.  WHY IS IT
>THAT THE CHILDREN ARE ALWAYS ONLY THE MOTHER'S EXCEPT WHEN THE CHILDREN
>ARE GOOD?  THEN THEY ARE A "CHIP OFF THE OLD (FATHER'S) BLOCK".

     Yeah this is the first good point you have made.

     The MOTHER is responsibile for both good and bad.  Not the father.

     The father gets his turn later in life.  But the personality
of the child should have already found a strong basis in good
from the MOTHER.
>
>I AM AFRAID THAT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT LEASH LAWS ARE.

     That is because you should probably be on one.

>
>     Tell us how the time to fix and educate men in to being civil
>towards women if AFTER they have grown up and not during infancy
>when the mother has some say so and can set an example.
>
>IT IS NOT ONLY THE WOMEN WHO ARE LOOKING AFTER THE CHILDREN.  WHY CAN'T
>THE FATHER SAY ANYTHING?  BUT IN ANY CASE, IF THE CHILD HAS NOT LEARNED
>TO ACT CIVIL TO PEOPLE IN CHILDHOOD, WHAT OTHER TIME THEN THE PRESENT
>TO EDUCATE THEM.
>
     Yeah right.

>     I mean to have something come out of YOUR body, and not know
>if it is going to rape, kill or suck blood must really be
>something else.
>
>IT WAS PART OF THE FATHER TOO.  AND WHAT THE ACTIONS OF THE CHILD ARE
>SHOULD NOT REFLECT ON THE PARENTS.

     Yeah but it is the MOTHER who FEELS that it is HER doing that
the child is born.  The father and mother can start it, but the
mother can end it.  So she feels more responsible.

     If the child turns out a killer, the mother takes it to heart
in a special way.  The father can be dead 2 minutes after intercourse,
the but the fact that the child is born, means the mother was there for
at least 9 months.  The mother child relationship is SPECIAL.

     Of couse maybe you were born out of a toilet, and never experienced
the shaping influence of a mother.

     If you want to end war, look to the mother.

     From ADORE:

     Every woman CAN turn her son into a monster.

     Men are monsters.

     How do women do it?

 Homer W. smith      Adore-l list         4/14/89 No subject