From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Rights and Responsibilities
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:34:05
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: 0
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:23:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.012331.21691@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>This seems to bother Hillel, and Muffy thinks the guy should get a
>vasectomy or give up sex. Although she says 'for the paranoid',
>this seems to apply to all males in America who have sex, paranoid or
>not.

What are you saying here, Rich?  That you do not believe that I only
meant for the paranoid?  Well, fortunately, I just happen to have found
the article that Hillel reposted, so you can now see for yourself that
you have misrepresented me.  In particular, please note the sections on
using condoms (starred).  Here's the post:

>From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
>Newsgroups: alt.feminism
>Subject: Re: Choice for men
>Message-ID: <715956255@lear.cs.duke.edu>
>Date: 8 Sep 92 12:44:16 GMT
>References: r.cs.duke.edu> <MUFFY.92Sep7225413@remarque.berkeley.edu>
>Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
>Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)
>Lines: 118

#I claim that Muffy supports choice for women, but she is
#against choice for men.  She sees nothing wrong if a
#birth control failure destroys a man's life.

In article <MUFFY.92Sep7225413@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>Actually, I have never said that.  Hillel posted what I *did* say, but
>here's some more of what I *really* think...*grin*.

I reread all your original 100 lines article (it was in soc.feminism,
so you can grab it from the archive); it sounded like anti choice
for men and demanding child's support regardless of any action (e.g.
birth control) by the man or the woman.

I repost it here, in full, for other people to decide for themselves.
(They can also guess what's Gordon opinion about the subject...)

########################################################################

In article <676577065@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes:
   In article <9106062203.1796@mydog.UUCP> gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
   >I may have missed something, but everyone in this discussion
   >seems to be forgetting that the claim against the father comes
   >not from the mother but from the child.

   1) If the claim comes from the child, then why the *mother* gives it
      up in a case of artificial insemination?

Do you think that the combination of two gametes is capable of signing
forms?  In that case, I'm surprised you're not vehemently arguing
against abortion.  The mother gives it up because she will act (legally)
for the child until it is a legal adult, which will take many years.

   2) If the claim comes from the child then why the man should be sued
      even when the woman has enough money?

Because it is his child, too.  Every child has two parents.  Both are
equally responsible for the child.  They can go through legal
contortions to eliminate the legal responsibility of one person or the
other, but they each contributed to the creation of the child.

      Why a woman can not take
      a full responsibility for the result of her choice?

Which choice?  You are ignoring *many* possible situations in favor of
just one.  You seem to be imagining that women are running around
forcing children on men all the time, and that this is the only
important thing.  In fact, the most important thing is that if a child
*is* created, it will need to be taken care of for many years.  I think
that that is what the original poster meant in saying that the claim
comes from the child - it is the child that needs the money.  The child
has an equivalent claim on the mother, by the way, but this whole line
of argument seems to be based on the idea that the mother is raising the
child, so I'm not talking about mothers being sued for support, although
that would be equally reasonable.

      Why is it
      so bad if she will pay for her choice, but it is just fine if
      she charges someone else?

*Why is it so bad if he pays for his choice?  If a man chooses to have
*sex with a woman, he has to consider the possibility that a child will
*result.  If he does not wish to take this risk, he can avoid sex with
*women.  If he wishes to attempt to avoid the risk, but still have sex,
*he can wear a condom or get a vasectomy (which is, by the way, *much*
*less painful and dangerous than an abortion).  If the condom breaks, he
*can always sue the condom company for the child support, eh?  Also, of
*course, he should check out Consumer Reports and find out about the
*brands with less failures.

(Perhaps, though, the best solution is simply for women to avoid sex
with irresponsible men.)

   3) If the claim comes from the child, then why the support is by
      percentage of the father's income?

Because if the father raised the child, he would spend a percentage of
his income on it, right?  That's what the mother does.

      E.g. Were the $1356 that
      Allen Wells was ordered to pay a child's support or an alimony?

Who is Allen Wells?  Anyway, alimony is a silly idea based on the
concept that women should be supported by men.  Child support is very
different.  The woman can at least get a job to support herself.  Very
few babies can do that.  Or do you think that children should just
starve, rather than impinging on the man's right to have a good time?

   >Hillel, and usually his
   >antagonists as well, persist in avoiding this point so they can
   >get on with the war between the sexes.

   I think that in practice women's rights come before child's right,
   and child's right before men's rights. 

You would think this.  I won't argue it, but lots of people don't see it
that way.

   Gordon persists in avoiding
   this point, but he tries to give moral and legal arguments why a
   break in condom (or a woman's lie about birth control) should
   destroy a man's life.

*It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
*so worried, let him get a vasectomy.  If he's willing to take the risk
*of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break.
*Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
*(abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in
*condom"?  *Everyone* involved needs to be responsible.

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn