From: rinat@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu (Rinat Kedem)
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY at Stony Brook
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:21:38 GMT

Okay, you declared war here (with your sensitive and intelligent last line).

In article <14APR199202473175@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu> sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.192820.9255@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu>
>rinat@dirac.physics.sunsyb.edu (Rinat Kedem) writes...
>
>>In article <1992Apr7.232853.5138@nynexst.com>
>>em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>
>>>In article <4591@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
>>>>  Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime 
>>>>  by Ron Sonenshine
>>>>  San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
>>>>  -- 
>>>>  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
>>>>  arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
>>>>  is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.
>>>
>>>I wonder if she supports homosexuals and drug addicts should pay the
>>>bill for AIDS; women should pay for breast cancer; homeless people
>>>pay for homeless hotels; Congresspersons pay for the federal deficit;
>>>women pay for "everything" related to abortion; etc.....
>>>
>
>>Of this list, note that most women who have breast cancer  DO have to
>>pay to have it treated, and they DO have to pay for abortions.
>
>This is only partly true.  They have not paid for all the time and money
>that has gone into research that studies breast cancer (and other
>maladies).  Our tax dollars over a number of years has played the
>major role in this.  The majority of money that is paid for treatment
>does not go to research it goes to hospital costs, doctors fees etc.
>If we expected women to literally pay for the costs of developing new
>drugs and techniques to treat cancer very few would be treated.  I
>would not want these women to pay for all of this.  Most could not and
>would probably die.
>
>I'm not sure how abortions fit into the above scenario.  I don't know
>enough about the research/data collection in this field.
>

  No, you don't.  In fact there is so little research being done on
breast cancer compared to the severity of the problem that it seems a
pittance.  Much less money than is being spent on AIDS.  You being a
sensitive male doubtless know that breast cancer is also a growing
epidemic; the frequency of breast cancer cases is increasing rapidly,
and cures today have no better rate of success than those of twenty,
or thirty years ago.  I won't go on about it because it does not belong
in this newsgroup.

  The federal government is doing its darndest to make sure no federal
money goes to anything having remotely to do with abortion.  Research
is not being done in this country. Of course, these are "women's
problems" and we shall not burden you with them.  They have nothing to
do with politics.


>The Napa writer has set up a silly argument (if the summary above is
>a fair representation of it).  I would have to read the book to see what
>is exactly said.  On the basis of Ron Sonenshine description, however,
>it is pretty stupid.
>
>Why stop at "women should pay for breast cancer"; add everyone pays
>for everything that they want and pay for nothing that helps others.
>Just get it over with once and for all.  Let's dissolve society.
>Screw you and your problems.
>(just a little sarcasm)
>
>
 
  Granted that the Napa writer had a silly argument, but silly arguments can
be used to advance not so silly points.  I don't know anything about the
said Napa author, so it may be that my point (which I thought was fairly
obvious) has nothing to do with hers.  I have written off the net to another
responder but it looks like I will have to respond publicly since it isn't
obvious to more than one person:
  
  You state the logical extreme of the Napa writer is that each person pays
his/her own way, society falls apart.  I agree that is the conclusion.

  The logical extreme of the opposing point of view is:  from each according
to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs/vices.
 
  Both have been designated silly.  Therefore we currently operate at a point
in between.  Therefore there has to be some unfairness in the system.  And
according to the examples which were brought up, women bear a large part
of this unfairness.  (Bring up other examples and it may not seem so.
I do not claim to quantify anything.)  That is my point, it is very clear,
and if you choose to negate it, it must be due to bias.

  Please keep all further responses off the net to keep this from becoming
-- 
-rinat