From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:16:10 GMT
	<716222608@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 11 Sep 92 14:43:29 GMT


In article <716222608@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <MUFFY.92Sep10222947@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> >In article<716147821@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> >[...]
> ...A woman can cheat about birth control easily (e.g. I'm on the Pill).
>    A man can't cheat in a similar way about condoms.

  Men can "cheat" about birth control easily.  "It's ok, I'm sterile/had
a vasectomy", "I'll pull out before I come", etc.  The thing you seem to
be saying, though, is that it would give women an advantage of some sort
to cheat.  I guess this goes back to you saying that they can then trap
the man into supporting the kid.  But all the guy has to do is to wear a
condom -- if he doesn't know for sure that she's taking the pill, has an
IUD/sponge/whatever in, whatever, then it's not that big of a deal to
have a little insurance, especially, as you seem to say, if women are
out to entrap men into supporting kids all their lives.

> >Once again:  BOTH people have sex, BOTH people have to be responsible.  
> And if she acts in a irresponsible way (e.g. tells everyone that she is
> on the Pill, never used birth control and had 15 abortions), what do
> you suggest to do *legally* against her?  Why is it OK to use legal
> sanctions against irresponsible men but not against irresponsible women?

  I don't think it is -- but why didn't he use some common sense?  If
you are so concerned about your life being ruined, why not be careful --
why shouldn't *both* people be careful?  I think that most women don't
want to have kids with some random guy that she has trapped by being
pregnant by saying that she was using birth control.  And what if they
guy is irresponsible?  What then?  Is it ok *then* for the woman to get
support, according to you?

> >If they don't
> >trust the other gender, they can have sex with their own gender or avoid
> Sometimes I trusted the wrong people; not everybody is 
> as perceptive as you, you know.

  Does this mean that you're speaking from experience?  Are you a little
biased then, perhaps?  And if not, perhaps people should learn or be
taught (by schools or parents or both) not to be so trusting when it
comes to such important things.

  I don't know what the answer is if there is an "accident", though;
both parties being reasonably careful, and the woman gets pregnant.  It
seems somewhat unfair to hit the man up then, if he doesn't want to have
the kid (perhaps he should be required to pay for 1/2 of typical
abortion fees, no more)... maybe this is where the government should
jump in.

> >>Taking men to the cleaners seem, to them, like the real equality approach
> >Right.  Better to take the *woman* to the cleaners, right?  
> If they keep having babies that they can't support, even though there
> is a legal option of abortion, and they don't give them up to adoption,
> then they certainly have a *major* influence on what causes them to be
> in poverty.  I can't see why it is so terrible when people who make
> bad choices, having enough data to know that these choices are bad, 
> end up in poverty; it was there choice.

  What if they thought that the man was protected, and he "cheated"
somehow?  If both parties are responsible, take precautions, etc., then
it's harder for me to muster up (economic, at least) sympathy for the
woman who still wants the child.  I think that people who don't believe
in abortion as an option would be well advised to inform their
partners... and be more careful with sex, too, unless they want the
kids... I don't particularily want to be supporting men *or* women who
give no thought to their lives.

> >Look, they
> >were both there...there couldn't have been a child otherwise.  *IF*
> >there was reliable birth control, education about and access to same,
> >and safe, readily available abortion for the occasional failure, 
> I bet that you can find in ten minutes a place for abortion 
> using the yellow pages.  Women can think, you know...

  In california, yes.  Not so in many places (with less and less to
come...) in addition, abortion isn't always an option to some, for
religious, health, social, whatever reasons.

> I posted quite a few pro-choice-for-women articles in several newgroups.
> I think it contradicts your claim about my thinking.

  Haven't seen it in this newsgroup.

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism