.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 478
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 82
Date:         Sun, 24 Sep 89 01:40:23 EDT
From:         Homer 
Subject:      Re: HOMER: He Offers Mindless Excremental Rhetoric (and is a
 sexist swine!
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Sat, 23 Sep 89 23:38:12 MDT from 

>By the way, I want to point out that saying "of course..." and
>"MUST..." does not constitute a defense of your position.  It
>merely restates it.
This is technically known as
>"question-begging", and is generally avoided among responsible
>philosophers.
>
     I was not defending my position, I was merely stating it
emphatically lest anyone have any doubts what I believe.

>
>>     Dykes who want to get pregnant and do so (by a man) but then
>>chose to live with a woman are as sick as it comes.
>>THIS is using MEN a THINGS.  It is fine if you want to be a lesbie homo,
>>but don't bring men and children into the matter.
>
>Commenting on this statement would be like putting ketchup on a good
>piece of prime rib. The flavor of pure, mindless fear and hatred should
>be savored as it is.

     Mindless fear and hatred is the purvue of the dykes not mine.
>
>Homer, this may come as a shock to you, but there are many, many
>women who don't seem to need men to "take care of them". And this
>is not to say that they shun men; as I've suggested, there can be
>serious, intimate, beautiful, strong relationships which are not based
>solely on the kind of domination/subordination model you espouse.

     Is the relationship between mother and child one of domination
and subordination?  If not, then neither is the relationship between
man and woman nor between God and man.

     Lastly, SOME women seem to feel they can get along without a man,
even with a child, because of the enormous structure of society
that has been built around them BY MEN to take care of them in the
absence of a personal mate.

     I suggest that all men go on strike.  Kick all women out of yourlives,
don't fuck them, don't give them children, don't give them food or clothing,
let them fend for themselves, take back all your buildings and dams and
bridges and INVENTIONS and ART and let women see how happy she is.

     Of courwse if women were to go on the same strike, men would not
be too happy either, but men do not look to women to provide
their survival for them.  With men there would still be buildings,
and communication lines, and bridges and modes of transportation and
advanced electronics.  With women, there would be much less.

     I propose that women would give up on their strike against men
way before men would give up on their strike against women.

     Just as a parent going on strike against a child would have a
greater effect than the child going on strike against the parent.

     If a parent were to do that to their child, the child would
quickly change its tune about 'needing mother'.  It might take some
women a little longer.

     You should spend more time trying to understand what I am trying
to say rather than putting my statements into the common cubby holes
that many truely sexist men would put women.  The proper
relationship between the two is not one of ownership or mastery,
anymore than it is between mother and child or God and men.

     It IS however one of Master and Apprehentice which applies
at all levels of life.  This perhaps is similar but not identical
to what you are claiming I am saying.

     The problem is Mark, you re too busy trying to make a fool out
of me to take the time to listen to what I am really saying.

     You have a hidden agenda.  You would faint if you ever had to admit
Homer might be right on.

 Homer               Adore-l list         9/24/89*HOMER: He Offers Mindless Exc