From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 06:25:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep10222947@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <716147821@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>>Telling a woman "if you will get pregnant, even if you cheated him
>>about birth control, then we'll either help you take him to the cleaners
>>or we'll pay you welfare," is a great way to create irresponsible women.
>
>Telling a guy "if you get a woman pregnant, even if you lied to her
>about birth control, you can just wander off and leave her to deal with
>it" is a great way to create irresponsible men.  Once again:  BOTH
>people have sex, BOTH people have to be responsible. 

The only posts that I have seen reposted (from Muffy) state that the
man should either get a vasectomy, or abstain. There have been no
quotes where the women has any responsibility. Please be so good as to
fill me in on what I must have missed. Where does the woman become
responsible for her actions? Short of rape, whch is still -not- the norm,
the woman has made a decision in every case as well.

>                                                        If they don't
>trust the other gender, they can have sex with their own gender or avoid
>sex or whatever works, but they should NOT just dump the problem on the
>other person.

I missed this part as well. Nature is so -awefull-, there aught to be a law!
:^)
 
>>(Note that most of those who object to "choice for men" in the name
>>of responsibility have nothing to say against the above approach.)
>
>Prove it.  I have certainly consistently urged (even in the excerpt of
>mine you quoted originally) responsibility on both sides.

For those who do nor read soc.men or soc.women, could you fill us in? The
reposts I have seen do not support this statement BTW. (And this is your
chance to set the record straight, please, no "so what" responses)
 
>>Taking men to the cleaners seem, to them, like the real equality approach....
>
>Right.  Better to take the *woman* to the cleaners, right?  

This answer certainly clears things up. Is it possible to cut through the
swordplay, and cut to the throat? What do you consider 'fair'?

>                                                               Look, they
>were both there...there couldn't have been a child otherwise. 

So at which point does either party gain sole financial responsibility?

>                                                                   *IF*
>there was reliable birth control, education about and access to same,
>and safe, readily available abortion for the occasional failure, *THEN*
>your solution of "choice for men" would be a fine one (and I think it is
>reasonable in some cases now), but as it is, you're essentially saying
>"let the woman deal with it."  Not that that surprises me, since you
>seem to think that anything which helps women must necessarily oppress
>men.

What I have seen posted is that the women has sole choice, no matter what 
the man feels, but the man bears full 18 year financial responsibility for
the womans choice regardless. The courts and women have not been known
to be fair (by even extreme measures) even when the man -wants- to raise
the child, and the mother is unfit. Where is this fair or non-sexist?
 
>Muffy
>
>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism