Hyerdahl wrote:
> Physical abuse is much easier to discern and to punish, than any
> perceived verbal or mental abuse.

Here's where you show your callousness: "Perceived." There is such a
thing as real verbal and mental abuse, and it has nothing to do with
perceptions and everything to do with fact.

> The old child's rhyme says "sticks and stones will break my bones but
> names will never hurt me".

That's very wrong. I repeat. I hear it again and again, from women who
have been in bad situations, that it was the verbal and mental abuse
that hurt far more than did physical violence. Therefore, out of
deference to opinion of the women, I conclude that verbal abuse is just
as wrong, if not more so, than physical abuse, and that it must be
prosecuted in the same manner if the court system is to maintain any
semblance of integrity.

> > I am a romantic idealist.
> Yes, but you appear to be very one-sided in your approach.

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. I repeat: I would treat a woman who
does wrong and the man who does wrong in the same manner. And I will
treat a woman who does right and a man who does right in the same
manner as well. You want equality? Then step up to the plate and accept
accountability. This is true for minority groups as much as it is for
women.

My approach is fair. It is honorable. It is, above all, respectful. If
you want your freedom and equality, then be prepared to be treated the
way people in such places treat each other. And while I consider it
indispensable to teach people who haven't been accustomed to power and
freedom the habits and beliefs that are necessary to wield power and
freedom intelligently, I in no way condone abuses of such things - by
anyone. Whether it be the harpies on the Left, the Taliban, or the
Hutus.

> You want to falsely convict a man of rape?> Knowing what such men go
> through, I'll treat you the way I would treat
> > a murderer or a brutal rapist.
>
> Do you KNOW a woman who has done so?

For over 50 stories in media of that happening, check Waldo Weaver of
soc.men.

>  You want to nag and be verbally abusive> to your man day in and day
> out? Knowing what many women have said about the perniciousness of
> mental abuse, I'll treat you the way I would  treat a man who beats
his
> wife every day.
>
> Again, you don't get to treat women any way you like.  The law
decides
> and they don't treat nagging wives the same way they do spousal
> batterers.

Then that's a problem with the law. Nagging wives do just as much harm
as do brutes, and what's worse they spoil the place for other women.

>  You want to write misandrist garbage and spread hatred? I'll treat
you
> the way I would treat a> neo-Nazi.
>
> But...who really cares?  You have no effect on law.

Is law almighty? Is there no other way for people to express their
likes and dislikes?

This is litigiousness elevated to status of religion. It is more
intelligent to elevate class struggle to the status of religion than it
is to elevate litigiousness to the same level.

> > Want equality with men? Know what that requires of you. And know
that
> > the many, many women who by choice prefer the traditional roles -
> women
> > who find it more close to their hearts to take care of their man
than
> > compete with him - whatever the party line of women's
self-appointed
> > spokespeople, have absolute right to their choices (if, that is,
the
> > women's self-appointed spokespeople believe what they claim to
espose
> -
> > women's right of choice).
>
> Yes, dear; women are chosing, and they don't seem to be choosing you
or
> men like you.

Men like me? I don't know any.

As for women's choice, I have had some of the most spectacular, most
talented, most erotic, most exciting, most loving and caring and wise
and sexy women that live in America.

You may not choose me; but neither do I choose you.

Nor will I.

Smooches,

Ilya Shambat.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/12/05 2:44:20 PM ---