From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 12 Sep 92 23:15:59 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) posted the parable
of Mary, the Quintessential Welfare Queen.

gf:
| #I hadn't seen this, but I said that there were problems with
| #Plan #2, and this story expounds, at length, on one of them.
| #So what's your point?

hg:
| % The point is that most women, feminist or not, will not tolerate a 
| % woman like Mary even for one minute *if* they had to pay for her
| % irresponsibility.  They support her today just because they can
| % shift the cost to someone else.

gf:
>Ach!  Then let us make them, too, pay taxes!!

hg:
| 1) Then they demand that men will have no choice so they 
|    will not have to pay for women like Mary.

That's not just the women.  Take your plan before the
average taxpaying male and you'll get the same response,
at least in this country you will.  When you hear "If you
play, you must pay (sometimes)," it's not uteruses talking,
it's pocketbooks.  We'll be getting into this.

| 2) Welfare, as practiced today, is a way for the government to 
|    take money from the entire population to finance people like 
|    Mary.  I don't like that at all.

I don't think this is the proper venue to discuss welfare in
general.  There is about one go-'round every three months or
so in the general political groups.  Queen Mary is not the
only welfare case; in fact, she's rather atypical.  For
instance, most welfare mommas have one or two children, not 
a whole raft, and most of them get off welfare before very
long.  Facts fade, and myths endure.

We're going to have to make some assumptions about welfare
when we contemplate "choice for men," though, so I'm going
to assume you're against it, basing my assumption on the
many negative remarks you have made about it.  "Choice for
men" is to be implemented in a welfare-free society -- other-
wise we're sneaking into Plan #2.  If my assumption is 
incorrect, please correct it.

Now, for an outtro, let's do the Communism Rag....

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| >| Communism is bankrupt; there is not communist state where most people
| >| support it and want to be there.  The repression is just a by-
| >| product of this situation.  The kibbutz system in Israel is also 
| >| falling apart for reasons that I'm not sure that you want to hear.

gf:
| >Small-c communist.  Large-C Communism is bankrupt because it was
| >actually a distorted form of capitalism.  But this is political
| >theory; try to catch my act next time I do this number in
| >talk.politics.theory.  You might learn something.

hg:
| Is there any experience, or a serious of experiences, that can 
| convince you the communism can't work? ....

See above.

gf:
| >As I said, though, I think my conception of the ideal polity is
| >probably irrelevant to this discussion.

hg:
| So why did you raise that?

Because these discussions tend to run off in a lot of different
directions, and because one of your favorite methods of arguing
in the past has been indulge in ad-hominem attacks.  Thus, if I
say I think your plan is bad, I'm a "liberal" who wants to
bankrupt the U.S. Treasury and turn it over to welfare mommas. 
I want to make it clear that we're discussing your plan, not
my preferences.  I'm not the subject of thread; your proposal,
"'Choice for men' in a welfare-free society" is the subject.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )