From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:21:29 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <3ZmRRB7w164w@cellar.org> rogue@cellar.org 
(Rachel McGregor) writes:

>Compare condoms to the 'variety' of contraceptives available to women,
>all of which are physicaly or chemically invasive.  "The pill" interferes
>with a woman's hormonal cycle, and may cause health problems - including
>cancers - in women who cannot tolerate the synthesized estrogens used.
>Intrauterine devices are often uncomfortable, sometimes painful, and carry
>not only a greater health risk (witness the number of women killed or
>maimed by toxic shock syndrom brought on by the Dalkon Shield) but a 
>lower rate of prevention than condoms.  

What are you excuses with respect to the:
1) Contraceptive foam (98% effective).
2) Diaphragm (97% effective).
3) Carvical cap.
4) Sponge.

>Pennsylvania's, can place on a woman's access to abortion.  Have you ever
>considered the physical and emotional pain a woman getting an abortion has
>to go through?  

Why don't you read talk.abortion sometimes?

There are quite a few men there who explain the emotional pain of
men because of an abortion.  They have a similar mind set to the
anti-choice-for-men feminists - both groups believe that in order
to prevent their emotional pain they should have the right to
destroy their sexual partners' lives.

>Have you ever seen a woman go to a health center, pay
>hundreds of dollars*, 

If there is an agreement between the man and the woman about 
abortion then he should pay at least a half, in my opinion.

>and then lie on a gynecologist's table while the 
>fetus is removed?  Have you ever read the description of a D&C?  

Yes.  I still wonder why women who choose an abortion don't do 
that *early*, so vacuum methods can be used.

>I personally don't get overly excited by imagining different colors and 
>textures on condoms.  I just want them to work.  And the 'excitement' 
>isn't directed only toward women to begin with - many condoms are textured
>on the *inside* to increase the pleasure of the man wearing them.

The *inside* of a condom should stay in its place to work;
try to remember that.

>Granted, in part.  But it shouldn't take more than another ten years (yes,
>I'm being optomistic - why not?) to find a pill that can safely shut down 
>sperm production without interfering with a man's endocrine system or his
>ability to sustain an erection.  

Are not you the same one who explained why playing with
*women's* hormones system is bad?

>Whether you call it sexist or not, the
>pharmaceutical companies are working harder to get it 'just right' for men
>than they ever did for women.

Last month feminists blamed the pharmaceutical companies for not
working hard enough on a male pill and called them sexist; now 
you give the opposite claim.  Can't you keep your story straight?

>    Rachel McGregor (rogue@cellar.org)  research contractor, modem junkie

Hillel                                                   gazit@cs.duke.edu

"In my experience, the usual modus operandi is to demand special protection in
as loud a voice as possible.  Then, when special protection is given, turn
the volume up to 11 and complain that it is patronizing.  It's a fun game, and
it works over and over again."  --  Eric Pepke
Newsgroups: alt.feminism