From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Organization: gte
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:33:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.164216.22779@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> | >The theory itself is vacuous, since the issue is not whether
> | >abortion is good or bad but whether the state has, or ought
> | >to have, the power to prevent it and force childbearing.
> 
> In article <715763942@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
> | By quite a few feminists the state should have the power to force
> | *moral* behavior.  E.g. the FBI should run after dead-beat dads,
> | no matter why they don't pay; porno should be censored; affirmative
> | action quotas are a great idea; a forced socialism is a good thing.
> 
> What are we doing now, Hillel, the number where everything
> including the weight of the moon is material for attacking
> feminism?  Oh, well; let's go through the list.
> 
> 1.  The FBI should run after dead-beat dads.  This is not
> only a feminist position, it's a taxpayers' position.  It's
> already been explained to you more than once, but that, of
> course, isn't the point.

I'm a taxpayer, to the tune of more than $10,000 per year
in income taxes *alone* and I do NOT support the FBI going
after deadbeat dads!  Local law enforcement should go after
deadbeat dads and, at the same time, jail mom's who refuse
court-ordered visitation (a good percentage of deadbeat dads
have been denied visitation and are fighting back the only 
way they can -- no it's not right, but neither is the 
complete lack of enforcement of visitation rights.)

Why the heck would any taxpayer support a redundant federal
effort?

> 2.  Porno should be censored.  I'm a feminist, and I'm
> opposed to any form of censorship.  I think you'll find a
> few others who are, too, if you care to look.  But lovers
> have eyes only for their love.

You cannot have censorship of porno, but nothing else: once you
give the power of censorship to gov't, it can only grow and be 
abused in ways you cannot imagine (haven't they done so with
every power given them already?)

> 3.  Affirmative action quotas are a great idea.  Once
> again, you can find feminists who are opposed to affirma-
> tive action and non-feminists who are in favor of it;
> quite a few, in fact.  It's not part of the credo.

What's so great about saying that this no-good, lazy, useless
worker gets to keep his job while an honest working person 
gets laid off (and don't tell me it doesn't happen -- I've
seen it first hand).

Affermiative actions quotas are simply racial discrimination
agains a majority.

> 4.  A forced socialism is a good thing.  That one is
> breathtaking; all those hot-shot feminist bankers and
> brokers and investors are socialists.  Now tell me about
> the Protocols of the Elders of NOW; that must be where
> they hide their secret Plan.

Items 1-3 are pro-socialist viewpoints, whether or not you realize
it.  We have been trained to believe that socialism is bad, so we
naturally do not want to believe that what we think is right could
be socialistic (bad).  A social economic system is one where the 
government "takes care of the people" and uses a socialistic 
economoic basis.  The socialistic economic system is where the gov't 
owns or controls all means of production.  #1 says gov't should take
care of poor mom and the kids when dad splits -- it implicity supports
the welfare system, which is socialistic.  #2 says gov't should make
people good.  #3 says gov't should take care of the poor minorities
and force control of the means of production.  These statements all 
implicitly support a socialist form of gov't.  #4 is a natural assumption
based on the underlying implications of #'s 1-3.

> | If you cross the above idea with the idea that women are "closer" to
> | nature and they should follow nature instead of changing it (a green
> | idea IMO), feminists-against-abortion is a possible result.

How can women be "closer" to nature when both men and women are a 
*part* of nature?  Everything we do is a part of nature as we 
are inescapably part of nature.  

> No one said that "feminists against abortion" wasn't possible.
> Any kind of thing is possible, especially stupidity.  What I said
> was that their theory was vacuous.  In that, it's like almost
> all the anti-abortion theory I've read.  Did you have something
> to say about that, or not?

I fail to understand how feminism could be supportive of pro-life --
which, to me, says "You dirty little slut, you got pregnant now you
*live* with it."  Not to mention that a man can easily have sex
and walk away leavng the woman "in a bind."  It seems to me that 
a feminist viewpoint would want to give the woman the power to 
take action to better her own future following a serious mistake.


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.feminism