[thechat] outburst

Tara Cleveland tara at taracleveland.com
Thu Jan 20 17:49:10 CST 2005

Deacon, and all,

I'm tempted to not reply at all. Your email was so disgusting to me I'd 
really rather ignore it. But I'm not sure I can. To me, it's like a 
stinking pile of crap left in the room, and although I'd like to 
pretend it's not there, it smells like shit.

On 19-Jan-05, at 3:06 PM, deacon wrote:
> Well, no, actually, I meant women's oppression of men.

Okay... Let's see where this is going...

> Traditionally, the master has worn silk and jewels, while the slave 
> does
> heavy, dirty, dangerous and unpleasant work. The reason why women,
> as a rule, earn 70 cents on the dollar for men is because, as a rule,
> you don't get paid for what you do, you get paid for what you put up
> with.

Um... and what exactly is that meant to mean? It doesn't make a hell of 
a lot of sense really. Who puts up with what? Are you saying women put 
up with less and so they get paid less? Cause' that would be funny if 
it weren't so idiotic. You want a breakdown of top jobs by gender and 
their average wages and then we can see who "puts up" with more.

Top Jobs US 2000
(from http://www.detnews.com/2003/careers/0305/07/a05-155382.htm) I'm 
not sure how accurate is - since I wouldn't necessarily rate the 
Detroit News as an authoritative source - but it's a good example 

Eliminated duplicates in the top ten list for men and women. Median 
salaries (according to salary.com) are in brackets.

Secretaries, typists, stenographers ($33,071. - Level II Administrative 
Bookkeepers ($32,489)
Registered Nurses ($55,270)
Elementary school teachers ($45,221)
Nursing Aides, orderlies, attendants ($22,196 - Nursing assistant)
Bookkeeping, Accounting, auditing ($32,489)
Waitresses ($17,974 - Room Service Server - Casino)
Receptionists ($25,653)


Truck drivers ($33,848 - heavy truck driver)
Janitors and cleaners ($22,650)
Carpenters ($39,475 - level two carpenter)
Computer systems analysts and scientists ($61,741  Applications Systems 
Analyst II)
Laborers, not construction ($25,229)
Sales representatives, not retail  ($64,912 Sales Representative II)
Construction laborers  (Helper- Brick and Stone Mason $23,936)
Auto mechanics ($38,698)

I don't see any correlation between putting up with stuff and good pay 
here. I'm not sure which one is worse - the men's jobs or the women's. 
They all have to "put-up" with shit - although Nurses and orderlies and 
Elementary Teachers probably put up with more actual excrement than 

> In the 18th century, men and women had similar lifespans; she tended
> to die in childbirth and he died in industrial accidents. We've made
> childbirth pretty safe, but ignored his working conditions.

So what you're saying is that childbirth has been made safe, while 
there has been no significant improvement in the mortality rate in 
industrial accidents in the last 200 years. Also that a significant 
number of women no longer die in childbirth while a significant number 
of men die in industrial accidents - significant enough to make up the 
difference between male and female lifespans. I always thought that 
heart disease and/or cancer (depending on where you're from) was the 
leading cause of death (see 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_16t1.pdf  "Deaths: Leading 
Causes for 2000, table 1" from the CDC), and the major differences 
between men and women's lifespans were lifestyle differences (like more 
men smoked more for longer and therefore died of smoking-related 
illnesses) but I could be wrong, although all the studies I've read 
indicates that I'm right. Care to back up your assertion with some 

> When a man and a woman commit crimes together, you often hear
> that the prosecutor offers to let the woman get off scot-free if the 
> man
> pleads guilty and takes a prison term. I've never heard of a deal being
> offered where she goes to prison for him; have you?

I don't remember ever hearing of a guilty women getting of "scot-free" 
and the man taking the prison term if he pleads guilty. I have heard of 
women ratting men out and getting lighter prison sentences. 'Course 
I've heard of men ratting out men and getting lighter prison sentences 
too. Got any sources?

> If a woman doesn't want the responsibility of a baby, she can give the
> baby up for adoption. If a man doesn't want responsibility, he can go
> fish.

I hate to point out the obvious, but women don't have the choice of 
whether or not it's *them* that gets pregnant. Boy, I'd love to have a 
kid and my hubbie be the one to carry it, breastfeed, and do the 
majority of the child rearing. However, I do know several men that have 
walked out on their children, and not even come close to paying their 
fair share of the child rearing costs. Needless to say... you should 
know by now that if you don't want the risk of pregnancy and/or 
children you shouldn't have sex - whether you are a woman or a man.

Having said all that, what you said is just simply not true. In most 
places (obviously I can't check out all jurisdictions), both parents of 
the child you must give consent for adoption. If you aren't recognized 
as the father (on the birth certificate etc) you can still petition the 
court to prove paternity and get your parental rights and stop the 
adoption. So women can't just give up the baby for adoption. Both 
parents have legal rights and responsibilities when a child is born.

> When a neighbor calls the cops on a domestic dispute, two times out
> of three, the cops find a woman attacking a man.

I think the statistics will contradict you very sharply. In my own 
experience, witnessing domestic violence, it has been the opposite - 
and stats will back that up.

In the US, women are 5 to 8 times more likely to be the victims of 
violence by an intimate partner than men.

In Canada, 85% of the victims of spousal assault were women.

And quite interestingly, "The BCS [British Crime Survey] estimates that 
there were 635,000 incidents of domestic violence in 2001/2 (514,000 
against women and 122,00 against men)... results from the 1996 BCS 
self-completion module on domestic violence were published in Home 
Office Research Study No.191. This more confidential approach to 
measurement revealed that the proportion of women that were victims in 
the last year of domestic assault was over three times higher than in 
the main BCS. "

>> Well, it could be because there is a history of *very* strong
>> discrimination in the fields of science and engineering.
> I can testify to that. When I was in Chemical Engineering at UD, there
> were six fellas and one womanl. She not only got the *highest* offer,
> but she got seventeen of them; the six guys combined had eleven
> offers. The previous year, there were seven men and one woman. The
> highest offer that year went to a woman, too.

Well it's not discrimination unless you can prove that those two women 
were unworthy of such offers and the men were worthy. I also don't know 
what affirmative action laws you have in place in your jurisdiction so 
I can't comment upon that.

>> See
>> http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-70-398/disasters_tragedies/
>> montreal_massacre/ for an extreme example of this attitude.
> That too. Once in a while, you find a slave revolt.

That is a disgusting and abhorrent comment. It crossed the line for me 
both from a personal and a general outrage perspective. I'd like an 
apology for that comment.

Mark Lepine was a mass murderer that brutally killed 9 female 
engineering students because they were women that had the audacity to 
succeed in a field he considered the realm of men. He hated women and 
wanted to kill them for being uppity. One of my very close family 
friends was on his "hit list" of prominent Canadian women he was 
planning to kill. It traumatised women (and men) across the entire 

Male engineering students are as far from slaves as I can possibly 
imagine. To call them slaves trivializes the incredibly tragic and 
terrible reality of current and historic slavery.

In all ways I can think of to call the Montreal Massacre a slave revolt 
is just simply... revolting.

>> It could be that I've heard totally sexist and demeaning things said
>> to me in the course of my work countless times
> No doubt. Everyone seems to get assaulted in that manner, male or
> female. So why is it different when offensive sexual jibes are made to
> women than to men? I don't think *anyone* should have to "shut up
> and take it like a man."

Well I'm not humourless or against sexual jibes of a friendly nature 
between *friends*. And that wasn't specifically what I was talking 
about. I am against a workplace where sexual jibes have a tinge of 
nastiness to them and are constant and unfriendly. I've just never 
heard any going the other way - women saying nasty and intimidating 
things to men - although I'm sure it happens.

I was also referring to people who made comments about women being less 
capable, being the ones who were meant to clean up, being expected to 
be social directors or "secretaries" (and not in a nice way), women 
being less assertive, women being bitchy, power-hungry whores when they 
*are* being assertive, women having less smarts, strength and chutzpah, 
women being lazier, etc. etc.

> But men are taught at their mother's knees that their only reason to
> exist is to support and serve.

Oh, so I expect that you were taught that it was your duty to cook, 
clean, do laundry, change diapers, feed babies, etc. etc. And you were 
told that that was your reason for existing? To create and serve your 
family. To reproduce. To honour and obey. You know, we are all taught 
to support and serve in one way or another. The question is who ends up 
with more autonomy and power resulting from their service?

> It starts with sexual mutilation at birth,
> something that's considered barbaric when it happens to females,

Some people consider circumcision barbaric. I'm not sure I'd call it 
barbaric, but I certainly wouldn't circumcise a child of mine.

But lets not compare the two... because the equivalent would be 
chopping off the *head* of the penis and perhaps other parts of the 
genitals of a 4-8 year old boy, not cutting the foreskin off of a small 

"The girl is immobilized, held, usually by older women, with her legs 
open. Mutilation may be carried out using broken glass, a tin lid, 
scissors, a razor blade or some other cutting instrument."


I'd have said that was barbaric if it was happening to a male child as 
well. Unfortunately, this extreme version of genital mutilation happens 
to females and rather than being about hygiene (which is what many use 
as a reason for circumcision) it's about eliminating sexual pleasure 
and preserving "virginity".

>  and
> as he grows up he learns that it's not proper to hit back when girls 
> hit
> him.

I was told it was improper to hit *anyone*. I was also taught it was 
improper to hit anyone back. I'm sorry if some of your childhood 
playmates were told it was okay to hit you - boys or girls. But if 
you'd like to extrapolate that to a general statement and to adult 
behaviour... well, see the crime stats above. The vast majority of 
violent crime is committed by men. In the vast majority of male/female 
violent crime, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators.

> As as adult, he learns that "if you play, you pay" - but only if you're
> male; females get a tax-free income stream for 18 years if the joy of
> sex turns fruitful.

What are you talking about? Tax-free income stream? I don't know where 
you are (I'm assuming the US) but here in Canada women don't 
automatically get a "tax free income stream". I'm guessing you're 
talking about some kind of baby bonus? Baby bonuses and tax credits 
here are claimed by either parent - usually a custodial parent or if 
custody is shared, whichever one it benefits most.

Baby bonuses/child tax credits are meant to offset the enormous costs 
of raising a child. If you are going to count that as an income stream 
you should also count the costs of a child as an income drain. I think 
the income drain would far outweigh the tax relief - considering that 
raising a child, on average, costs between 6 and 12 thousand dollars a 
year (in the US and depending on your income level). Those tax bonuses 
are meant to encourage people to have children and to help people who 
already do have children (especially lower-income families).

Or are you talking about child support payments? Which on average are 
inadequate and don't cover the cost of raising children 
(http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/FENR%20V11N1&2/fenrv11n1&2p29.pdf). Child 
support payments are there to support the *child* in the same way you'd 
pay if you were the custodial parent for these items. It's a transfer 
of funds from the non-custodial parent to the child. However, since 
most children are not capable of that responsibility the money is given 
to the custodial parent in order to provide for the child. So why would 
the custodial parent pay income tax on it?

>> When we get rid of all that discrimination, sexism and nastiness, 
>> well,
>> maybe then you can start telling women it's all in their heads.
> Actually, he was saying it was structural, rather than psychological.

Yes I know. That was kinda the point. It was a little bit of irony 
about how women have been told it's "in their heads" for years meaning 
psychologically, now they are being told it's *really* in their heads 
biologically - with the same results in discrimination. But I guess 
that was a bit too subtle for you.

Yah, I know this was a long email. Thanks for reading to the end.


Tara Cleveland
Web Design

More information about the thechat mailing list