From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:36:24 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <C1IsMF.8A4@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>This has become, essentially, yet another item in the the
>perennial welfare argument, and no longer belongs in the
>present newsgroups -- in my opinion.  

I set the follow up to talk.politics.misc.  
Feel free to suggest another forum.

>Carole's story is valid if the welfare queen myth 
>has truth in it, and not otherwise.

I claim that the "myth" that many women have kids that 
they can't support and then bill the state for that is true.  
Do you want to debate that?

>My basic contention has been that there are alternatives to
>individual responsibility for fatherhood (or other
>contributions to the results of reproductive behavior)
>besides dumping the whole burden on those who happen to have
>female bodies and aren't quick enough on the uptake to get
>an immediate abortion unless they have in hand an armor-
>plated contract from someone to support the outcome.

Have you ever shown any similar sympathy toward those 
with the male body who get stuck with the bill and 
don't have the option of abortion?

What is so wrong about telling a woman "if you want 
a kid then either pay for it or find someone else 
who is willing to pay for it?"  

>Hillel thinks that would mean we would all start breeding off 
>the bottom and collapse socially.  

It happens *now*.

Welfare women have more kids per woman than middle class women.

>I've also taken exception to the way in which the issue of
>paternal responsibility has been discussed -- very largely
>without any concern for the well-being of the possible 
>children involved or the community as a whole.  

Take a look at New York City and see what happens after people 
who care soooooo much about "the well-being of the possible 
children involved or the community as a whole" run a welfare 
system for a couple of decades.  

The bottom line is that, regardless of all your good intentions,
they just can't deliver anything but promises.

>In fact, I think it's more of a criticism of feminists,
>since I expect them to be intelligent and perceptive,
>especially about social issues -- much more than I do their
>opponents.  

Ha?!

Main-stream feminism is about getting women as many extra rights as 
possible, and take away from women as much responsibility as possible.

Feminists said for a long time things like "a woman without a man is 
like a fish without a bicycle."  They demanded the liberal welfare 
system that increases welfare to women who don't live with men.
They fought to make divorce as beneficial to women as possible.  
(Women usually get the custody, the "child's support" is not tied 
to the child's need but to the father's income, etc.)

Now, after the kids who have grown up in a single mother families 
show many undesirable social qualities and destroy the poor 
communities, feminists say that the kids did not get male role 
models and therefore everything is just men's fault.  

Remember: the idea is maximum rights and minimum responsibilities
for women.  The kids certainly have just a second priority.

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                      gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Uncritical support" is a contradiction in terms.  --  Joanna Russ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:68995 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13332