From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:33:25 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct1.085206.7509@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.094933.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.001824.16688@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
> 
> Well, interestingly enough, I had sent you e-mail trying to clarify some
> points before I posted this.  It came back as undeliverable--but several days 
> later.

     Hmmm...I do not know why??
  
>>     By no means did I mean to imply that the male should not take
>>any responsibility for his conduct, and secondly, I have not seen any
>>evidence that leads me to believe that the right-to-life movement
>>favors male irresponsibility.
> 
> I think that when Quayle took on Murphy Brown he failed to acknowledge that
> the father of the ficticious child had cut and run.  I also hear "women"
> this and that when it comes to sex. When Quayle and other male leaders
> stand up and say "it's time to talk to our young men about what it is to be
> a sexually responsible man who doesn't father children he doesn't plan to
> care for and cares for the children he fathers," we will have a balanced
> and sane approach to premarital sex and unwanted pregnancy.  That is not
> happening now, and it needs to happen.
>
     I would not characterize Quayle's original speech as one "taking
on Murphy Brown" -- he basically cited Murphy Brown as a show
glamorizing single motherhood.  One problem I do have is Quayle had
never watched the show (and neither have I) so he does not know
all of the circumstances involved.  I, also, would love to hear a
leader of this country talk about the responsibility of men,
but if we are using only a 'relative' definition of morality, then how
can this be justified?  In other words, one might say: "that 
responsibility thing is not part of *my* morality," and would
accuse the leader of "intolerance" and "hatred."  Look at the
heat Buchanan took after his GOP speech.
         
>>     Once again, I am not defending the conduct of males.  Whether
>>by nature or nurture, males are more irresponsible than females
>>(in my opinion).  If you look at crime data, you can see that
>>there are 5 times more men arrested in the US than women.  When
>>it comes to rape, 100 times more men are arrested than women.
>>This may sound like an anachronism, but I believe that without women,
>>men would be practically uncivilized.
> 
> Okay...I don't want to take your head off, so imagine this is not being
> said at a sound level that would cause glass to shatter, but...
> This is one of those statements that sounds like a compliment but is
> actually a power trap (if I understand it and its implications correctly).
> It's on the order of "but you pull the chestnuts out of the fire so
> _well_."  It sounds like there's a hook on the end of this line that says,
> 'since women are more civilized than guys are, we have a special
> responsibility and can't expect equal performance from men.'  Or, 'they just
> can't do any better.'  I don't buy that.
> 
     You are reading too much into my statement.  My point is that
without a conscious responsibility to family (which necessitates
a women, unless a single man adopts a child), men can be uncivilized.

>>     Here is where we have to start discussing morality.  A man with
>>a solid moral foundation would (and should) face up to his 
>>responsibilities.  But, let me put myself in the position of an
>>immoral, irresponsible man; let me give "his" supposed reaction
>>and arguments when he finds out his partner is pregnant; I will
>>give my replies; and then you can reply.
> 
> First, there is no inherent barrier to the creation of men with a solid
> 'moral' foundation other than our refusal to insist on such standards of
> conduct and send clear messages to young men regarding *their*
> responsibilities to children.  I've never heard the RTL discuss this
> issue.

     Do not base your opinion of RTL on the actions of Operation
Rescue nor the network news coverage.  I believe in the so-called
"right-to-life" and I am discussing this issue.

>           Second, the problem or concern many people have
> is what you mean by 'morality.'  I think it does include many diverse views
> and situations.  However, many people mean, 'my specific beliefs only.'  If
> we don't start linking 'morality' to specific political goals, like banning or
> legalizing abortion for example, just about everyone would agree that a child 
> is entitled to 2 committed and responsible parents on a moral basis.

     You've hit the problem people have with morality on the head.
The predominant argument I hear is that "your morality is just
denying me a good time."  A "deadbeat" father could give the same
argument to our ideas about responsibility.  It would be nice
if everyone could have their own definition of morality, but the
problem is that the *variance* of this definition from person-to-person
is so large that the thought of a moral absolute is ridiculed.
Regarding linking, you just have to realize that there is an
established morality position that views both abortion and parental 
desertion as immoral -- regardless of politics.
 
>>     1. "I don't want this baby -- just go and abort it.  I'll pay
>>         for half."
>>
>>This is where the immediate availabilty of abortion is a crutch for
>>this guy.  He can just take the easy way out -- he can tell the
>>woman he will leave her unless she gets an abortion.  In this case,
>>the right to an abortion is actually promoting male irresponsibility.
> 
> Or, more sadly, abortion is illegal and we return to the '50s version of
> such a male:  "I don't want this kid.  I'll get my buddies to prove you're
> a slut.  I'll deny paternity, I'll make you go to court, I'll fight child
> support, and, if you make me pay, I'll insist on lots of visitation in the
> new state I'm moving to, or I'll go after custody."

     I looked up some percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women data
in my almanac -- here it is (for the U.S.):

     Year     1989   1980   1970   1960   1950
       %      27.1   18.4   10.7    5.3    3.9

Even with abortion, if 1/6 of the men today give the arguments you
listed, it is still worse than if *all* of the men in 1950 did it.
(27.1/6 > 3.9).  When I look at these numbers, my first reaction
is one of horror!

> A jerk is a jerk is a jerk.  Abortion doesn't change this leopard's spots.
> Also, as an older netter, I recall that single moms became acceptable in
> society only when there was abortion as an obviously rejected alternative.
> When abortion is gone, they may go back to being bums.  There will
> certainly be no obvious claim to having made a more "moral" choice.

     In my opinion, abortion is not the panacea for single mother
acceptibility.  I personally believe it causes more problems than
it solves.
 
> Establishment of paternity and support enforcement from dads of kids on
> welfare is a high priority here.  I don't know about other states, but out
> here, this is not a low cost solution for dads.  As for the "I don't want
> nothing to do with the kid" problem, yeah, that happens all the time.
> Actually, the more common problem is that these guys--and a lot of other
> dads--are completely unpredictible in their contacts with their kids.  Makes
> a point that fathers are in denial of their own importance.

     What would your argument be to a guy who says: "my morality
says that the responsibility for those who can not produce 
(e.g. the children, the aged, etc.) should be a social 
obligation rather than a family obligation."  The reason I bring
up this particular "morality" is that it was not the "morality"
of a man, but rather the "morality" given by a FEMINIST named 
Linda Jenness in 1972.  She said that the only way women can 
achieve their liberation is by assuring that society as a whole 
(i.e. the government) must be responsible for bringing up children.
She also said that the family structure must be disbanded.  Are
women allowed to use this argument, but not men?  (Note that I
disagree totally with the argument.)

>>This is another problem: the equivalence of legality and morality.
>>Many men and women believe that if something is legal, then it
>>must be moral also (e.g. abortion is legal, thus it is not immoral) and
>>if something is illegal, then it is immoral (e.g. cocaine is illegal,
>>thus it is immoral to use cocaine).  Male irresponsibility is
>>also promoted by this myopic philosophy.
> 
> Laws are not the only, or even the primary, transmitters of morality.  The
> family is.  Parents who send consistent messages to their kids about
> keeping responsibilities raise child who are responsible--with or without
> laws.  Morality cannot depend on the state but on individual action based
> on personal commitment.

     I agree; unfortunately, that is not what the "new"
generation believes.  That is not what they teach in public
schools either.

>>     What I'm trying to suggest is that current laws, social programs,
>>and philosophies are promoting this male irresponsibility.
> 
> While there are places I can agree with this, I don't agree that abortion
> is a cause of male irresponsibility.  It existed before legalized abortion.
> The idea that women should relinquish legal abortion in order to achieve
> some unarticulated future state of male responsibility for the children
> they father, is a crazy trade for us.  There is nothing on the table.  We
> stand to lose the only certain factor we have:  the ability to have control
> over whether we remain pregnant or not, and not be dependent on the whims
> of the man.

     I never wanted to imply the word "cause" but rather I like the word
"promote" in showing the relationship between abortion, welfare, 
and relative morality with irresponsibility.  What you probably
have realized in your life is that many cause-and-effect relationships
are actually paradoxical.  One that occurs on the RTL side is this
Operation Rescue abortion-clinic-protest-stuff.  I have to admit that
at first I loved seeing this on TV -- "finally, the other side is 
getting a taste of their own medicine when it comes to protesting
things," I thought back then.  But look at what is happening now:
OR is getting bad press, RTL is considered a radical movement,
anyone who talks about morality is a Fascist, etc.  So, essentially,
they have indeed impeded the number of abortions in the short run,
but in the long run they're just energizing their opponents to
the point where the RTL cause is doomed.  As I discussed in the
previous post, I believe that abortion and welfare is having
this same paradoxical effect -- in the short run it indeed did
help women, but now I think it really is hurting women. 

>>In other words, they take the "I will change him" attitude.  I have 
>>personally witnessed this many times -- women know that their
>>boyfriend has a serious character flaw, and tries to deny this by
>>saying that "I know that I can change him."  Hopefully, women will
>>realize at an early age that this is not possible.
> 
> This is called codependency in some literature.  What you would find if you
> picked up a woman's/girl's magazine is that it women are trained to be this
> way.  Read your paragraph about men being savages unless women were around.
> *That* is the essence of the problem.  Any woman who agrees is set up to
> believe she changes the man. He is not her moral equal, and therefore she
> is responsible for him.

     Since I do not read woman's/girl's magazines, excuse me for not
knowing the vernacular.  You do have a good point -- but my idea
of change is probably orders of magnitude less than codependency.  
May I ask what is the accepted responsibility of women given in 
these magazines? 
 
> I agree with 'good fathers' being needed.  I hope the men's movement will do 
> something about this--not rhetoric.  Real action.  There's enough talk about 
> reasons and explanations.  

     I do not know if there is a "men's movement"?  Even if there
were one, I would not want to be a part of it because of the
excess baggage I've notice in the "women's movement."  It's
like the excess baggage associated with OR.
 
> This [morality -- CDP] may be like pornography:  I can't describe it, 
> but I know it when I see it.   

     And look at the problem we have with defining pornography.
Some people look at pornography as being art (e.g. Maplethorpe).
Similarly, some people think it is immoral to have a family
structure (e.g. Jenness).
  
>>     It's interesting you bring up naivete.  If I had to succinctly
>>describe the *worst* flaws, in general, in men and women, it 
>>would be: men have evil hearts, and women are naive about men's
>>intentions.
> 
> I do not agree that men have inherently evil hearts.  I will not take
> responsibility for men by agreeing to be morally superior to them or
> responsbile for how they act on their impluses.  Lots of us have evil in
> our hearts.  We do not act on it.  When we do, it is because we have been
> given permission to do so--at the expense of others.

     You have just proven my point about women being naive about
men's intentions. :-)

>>     If one really knew how to cure the social problems in this country,
>>that person would be publicly ridiculed and crucified.
> 
> Literally, or figuratively?  Seriously, I think most people operate at high
> levels of denial.  They would just ignore you and say you didn't understand
> and do what they wanted to do.

     Both literally and figuratively. 

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48139 alt.rush-limbaugh:5979 alt.politics.bush:6872 alt.politics.clinton:7423 alt.politics.elections:14391 talk.abortion:38793 alt.sex:30985