From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Bill Clinton
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:57:19 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Nov15.045828.22486@zooid.guild.org>
goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes about Clinton's statements
regarding deadbeat dads:

>In our society, such as it is, comments like this, though biased only
>against the male side of the equation, are cheered and admired.  

I saw many comments biased against the female side of the equation
being cheered in the Republican convention.  We have problem with
sexism in our society; both sexes are to blame.  That is not
inconsistent with discussion of a particular situation where the
empirical reality is such that the actions of one sex force the other
sex or another group to bear an unfair burden.  Thus, people argue
that deadbeat dads cause women and children to live in poverty.  At a
simple descriptive level this statement is true, but incomplete.  I
agree with Will that a more general description of the situation is
that the failure of one parent to pay child support harms the economic
situation of the other parent and the children.  I don't think Clinton
was cheered because he vilified men and made long-suffering icons of
women and children.  I think he was cheered because he described a
real national problem and solution that many persons thought was just;
he should have been more careful to avoid images that although
frequently true are not always true.

>Now then, just imagine if Bill Clinton had said *this*:
>"I know how awful it is for a kid to never grow up, because somewhere
>out there, there is some mother who aborted her or him.  I just -- it
>infuriates me.  And so, do I think we ought to have a Draconian system
>to make sure that we save babies?  I sure do.  I really believe that.
>I do."

I think if people viewed forced financial support as equivalent to
forced bodily servitude, then they would be hypocritical to be
outraged by this statement but not by Clinton's actual statement.
Since most people do not draw that equivalence, one need look no
further to explain why they react differently to the statements. 

>Can you imagine the uproar, and the screams of "Misogynist Pig"?  And
>naturally, he would lose all hope of winning the election.  But since
>these are the days of the War on Deadbeat Parents, err excuse me,
>Deadbeat *DADS*, it is more fashionable to pick on men nowadays, which
>is no more fair than when the majority of societal biases were
>directed against women.

Definition of full of shit: (1) someone who believes that it is more
fashionable to pick on men than on women.  If your statement is meant
to argue that women do seem to be making some small gainst, then you
should use less inflammatory language.  You seem to be doing precisely
what you accuse Clinton of doing.  If you seriously believe men do not
continue to dominate, I suggest you consider: holding of elected
office, winning elections, holding top management positions in
organizations, etc.

>The reason why I bring up the very controversial subject of abortion,
>is *not* in order to guilt-trip women who have been through the
>experience, but in order to point out a fundamental, and very
>hypocritical flaw in Clinton's words.  While twenty to thirty years
>ago, any person who even dared to posit that a woman should have the
>right to abdicate parenthood before the fact, would be instantly
>lynched, but now, it is almost fashionable.

The right to life amendment was part of the Republican platform this
year; you do not need to go back 20 to 30 years to find the beliefs
you are attributing to the distant past.  Please give supporting
evidence for your belief that descriptions of abortion as fashionable
are common.

>  However, does he believe
>that men should have this same right?  Apparently not.  While on one
>hand, he valiantly fights for a woman's right to not be forced into
>the servitude of unwilling parenthood, on the other hand, he is
>leading the Inquisition against fathers, including those who decide,
>for whatever reason during pregnancy, that they do not wish to be
>parents.

It is up to the courts to make the determination of whether a parent
should be able to abdicate financial reponsibility for a child.
Clinton is leading the charge against those who have been denied the
right to abdicate but have abdicated anyway.  He should use neutral
language to describe this situation.

>Remember, Clinton's primary goal is *not* to "defend the innocent" ;
>it is to get into office, and to do that, he'll press as many
>emotional buttons as he can possibly get away with.  If this had been
>twenty or thirty years ago, he would be raving about "saving babies
>from murderous, godless women".  In those days, "murderous women" were
>the favoured cannon fodder ; now it's "deadbeat dads".

Speaking of pushing emotional buttons, I think you are making August,
1992 in Houston sound like much more distant in time than my
perception of 90 days ago?

>Bill Clinton doesn't really give a damn about kids.  If he did, he'd
>be willing to see *every* side of all the issues, instead of tossing
>around the day's most popular bugaboos.

I think Bill Clinton will do much more to help children in four years
than Reagan-Bush did in twelve.

I agree with Will that most of the language around child support is
quite sexist against men.  This is wrong and it should be changed.
However, I see his post as laden with two big bugaboos that I see
bandied about by fundamentalists of all stripes.

(1) There is a failure to recognize that financial and bodily support
are completely separate.  It can simulataneously be true that the
language around child support is sexist in labelling the perpetrator
of failure to pay as male and the victim as female and that women
should be given the sole authority over the decision to abort.

(2) Actions by disenfranchised groups trying to get a more equitable
share of societal outcomes are equivalent to actions by
disproportionately rewarded groups to keep their disproportionate
share of the pie.  I disagree that this is either always or true or
true in the situation of relations between the genders.  I justify
this disagreement on the basis of the size of the inequities.  When
inequities are very large, I believe that the disenfranchising of
groups is very damaging to the productive potential of the society.
Relatively small redistributions of wealth can make the whole society
better off while making a privileged few only slightly less well off
in relative terms.

SJM

  
Newsgroups: talk.abortion