jeffw@orca.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/31/84)
I have a great respect for Ms. Quigley's intelligence, but her reply to
my question didn't impress me much. To quote partially:
""""""""""
I find it very
tiring to have to explain why "controlling who women copulate with is and has
been very important in most societies". This fact is very clearly reflected
in many customs and laws of most countries. Unfortunately, the only book I can
think of dealing specifically with this issue is in french "Ainsi soit elle",
which I read such a long time ago that I do not remember the name of the author.
I think that raising that point in net.women is equivalent to questioning
the premise that "it has been very important for white men not to let people of
colour get access to the same opportunities" in a net.coloured group. If we
continue debating such basic questions, we will never get anywhere.
""""""""""""
Undoubtedly President Reagan finds (or would find) it very tiring to have to
explain just how supply-side economics is the answer to our economic problems.
The fact remains that this particular economic theory is controversial. Perhaps
Hitler found it very tiring to have to explain just why he thought Jews were
on the level of animals. So what? If the fact is as basic as you contend, you
should not have such a hard time rounding up evidence. And it is a classic
technique of argument to say "oh, that's a basic premise" when evidence of
one's assertion is scanty.
As a point of detail, I did not ask you to explain *why*. I challenged the
truth of the statement *as written*. That is, while I can easily believe that
the phenomenon you describe is common, I seriously doubt if you have studied
the "customs and laws of most countries", as you imply. It is this almost
compulsive use of "very" and "most" which I find so disturbing.
I think a clear presentation of the evidence in this case would be of
interest, and certainly not as tiring to read as it appears to be to find.
Jeff Winslowtoml@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (02/04/84)
[]
I support Sophie's assertion that most societies have strict customs,
or even laws, to ensure that women copulate only with their husbands.
Jeff does not believe this is true, and challenges us to cite chapter
and verse.
Jeff's challenge is really unfair because laws and customs appear,
on the face of them, to be fair to everyone. As an example, the Jim Crow laws
in the American South did not appear to discriminate against blacks. It was
just as serious an offense for a white to drink out of a black fountain as it
was for a black to drink out of a white fountain.
To see the truth of Sophie's assertion, you have to look at the intent
of the law. The intent of segregation in the South was to keep blacks in their
place, and you'd have to be pretty dumb (sorry, Jeff) to be unaware of this.
The custom over most of the world is for a wife to live in the husband's
village, frequently in his parents' house or next door. The intent of this
custom is that the husband's female relatives can monitor his wife's sexual
activities. If women work outside the home, they work in exclusively female
groups. They never hang around the plaza watching the men go by.
Laws only exist to get us to do something we would prefer not to (or to
forbid things we want to do) when custom is not strong enough to enforce correct
behvior. Few men want to get married, for instance, but custom bullies most of
them into "doing the right thing". Even custom won't keep men from transferring
their affections to other women, however, and we need laws to regulate divorce.
In general there haven't had to be laws controlling the movement of
wives because custom (and the vast army of women who keep track of the behavior
of other women in support of custom) is sufficient. I understand that women are
not allowed to drive cars in Saudi Arabia, but that is a society in a state of
rapid change.
Tom Longsteven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (02/08/84)
x > I support Sophie's assertion that most societies have strict customs, > or even laws, to ensure that women copulate only with their husbands. > Laws only exist to get us to do something we would prefer not to (or to > forbid things we want to do) when custom is not strong enough to enforce > correct behvior. Few men want to get married, for instance, but custom > bullies most of them into "doing the right thing". Even custom won't keep > men from transferring their affections to other women, however, and we need > laws to regulate divorce. "Few men want to get married" eh? "but custom bullies most of them into 'doing the right thing'" ???? Oh well, I suppose there must be about 1 Billion Bullied husbands out there, crying into their pillows each night on the unfairness of it all... > In general there haven't had to be laws controlling the movement > of wives because custom (and the vast army of women who keep track of > the behavior of other women in support of custom) is sufficient. And what is this army called? The Army Corps of Oppression of Fellow Women? Vee vill keep you opprezzed, you vemen!! Sieg Mann!! Sieg Mann!! Sieg Mann!! >> I understand that women >> are not allowed to drive cars in Saudi Arabia, but that is a >> society in a state of rapid change. Tom Long Yes, yes, I agree with you. But if you think that societies oppresses both its men AND its women, just think of what those societies do to their children... FORCING THEM TO LEARN ALL THOSE UNPRONOUNCABLE FOREIGN LANGUAGES!! (it makes my blood boil!!). Think of how you would feel, with unfamiliar languages and customs forced upon you when you were but a babe in the womb! Terrible isn't it? Is it no wonder that they all grow up to be heathens, and nonfeminists, programmed as they are from birth. As a solution, I propose an immediate campaign of cultural genocide, to rid this world of people who have different customs than our own. That would certainly teach them not to behave exactly like us...... Steven Maurer