From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:30:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.023825.10611@rotag.mi.org>
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.180409.6025@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <C03EL2.H24@ddsw1.mcs.com>
>>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.061605.15824@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>In article <BzL9Jq.18y@ddsw1.mcs.com>
>>>>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>>>>>If you are currently the underdog you can achieve equality two ways:

>>>>>1)	Gain rights for yourself.
>>>>>2)	Take them from the advantaged group until you are equal.

>>>>Congratulations on convincing this member of talk.abortion that you
>>>>would *prefer* the latter, but would reluctantly take the former
>>>>instead if you can get more help that way and so get it easier.

>Huh? He presented two alternatives, Elizabeth, why do you ASSUME he prefers
>the latter?

I assume he prefers the latter because he uses threats instead of
moral persuasion.  Karl talks a h*ll of a lot more about taking away
women's rights than granting rights to men.

>Is it just that you FEAR that the latter may become necessary, so
>you're trying to get Karl to repudiate it -- a "pre-emptive strike"
>if you will?

No.  See above.  If you're going to answer the question yourself,
Kevin, why phrase it as a question.

>>>Wrong Elizabeth.  I would prefer the former.  I begrudgingly accept that the
>>>former >explicitly< and >implicitly< includes the latter (specifically: the
>>>right of women today to attach a man's earnings for 18 years) and therefore
>>>the realities of the situation are that women, particularly feminists, will
>>>not support the granting of equal rights in this area to men.

>>If you don't want to make people think you'd prefer to take away
>>women's rights instead of give rights to men, maybe you shouldn't
>>issue so many threats.  

>If those who defend the status quo weren't so close-minded, Elizabeth, maybe
>Karl wouldn't feel the necessity to put a threatening "spin" on his posts in
>order to get their attention and make them THINK about their position. How 
>many recitations of empty platitudes like "children deserve support" do you
>think male-choicers can stand before they feel a need for escalation?

Kevin ... we've gone over child support before; I too think the
current state of affairs is unfair, though my solution is primarily
contract law rather than letting the man renounce his rights and
responsibilities over the future child during pregnancy.

So I'm in considerable agreement with Karl ... and all he does is make
me angry.  Do you *really* think someone like that is a good advocate
to people who don't even start out with any agreement with him?

>>I *know* you've done nothing to me but make me
>>emotionally more hostile to father's rights.  (I still support the
>>same things, but now I do it grudgingly.)

>Grudging support is still support.

Yes ... but I'm less likely to put effort into getting those things
than before.  Don't think the change from support to reluctant support
is costless, Kevin.

>If Karl has stimulated some of the
>undecideds or the borderliners into thinking through the issue, and
>realizing how unfair the current system is, then maybe it has been worth
>the risk, don't you think?

Whoa.  It's not a risk, it's a cost.  Karl has *cost* some of my
support by making me unhappy about helping him.  I believe he's done
the same to other people.  And I think he's more likely to make the
undecideds hostile to male choice by equating people who want male
choice with those who would just as soon get rid of female choice than
he is to win their support for male choice.

>Yeah, I know the old saying about flies and
>honey and vinegar, but there's an equally (?) old term -- "dogmatic
>slumber" -- and the cure for that affliction is an irritant...

Heh.  I think Karl is waking up the undecideds by making them decide
against him.  I think it's a pity because Karl's right about there
being a problem, but I'm not all *that* sorry simply because I find
Karl so irritating.

>>BTW -- where's your support of a woman's right with the help of a
>>willing SO to have a child without going through pregnancy?

>It's got MY vote... 

Do you think that maaaybe some women would want to see some realistic
prospect of gaining that right before considering their right to
decide whether or not to remain pregnant merely a right to support or
not support a child (since in effect the right to abortion is both)?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion