From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:43:29 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <MUFFY.92Sep10222947@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article<716147821@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>>Telling a woman "if you will get pregnant, even if you cheated him
>>about birth control, then we'll either help you take him to the cleaners
>>or we'll pay you welfare," is a great way to create irresponsible women.

>Telling a guy "if you get a woman pregnant, even if you lied to her
>about birth control, you can just wander off and leave her to deal with
>it" is a great way to create irresponsible men.  

1) You assume that men don't give a shit about what happens after 
   birth control failures.  Abortion, when they don't want it may 
   have some any negative effect on them.

2) A woman can cheat about birth control easily (e.g. I'm on the Pill).
   A man can't cheat in a similar way about condoms.
   
>Once again:  BOTH people have sex, BOTH people have to be responsible.  

And if she acts in a irresponsible way (e.g. tells everyone that she is
on the Pill, never used birth control and had 15 abortions), what do
you suggest to do *legally* against her?  Why is it OK to use legal
sanctions against irresponsible men but not against irresponsible women?

>If they don't
>trust the other gender, they can have sex with their own gender or avoid

Sometimes I trusted the wrong people; not everybody is 
as perceptive as you, you know.

>>(Note that most of those who object to "choice for men" in the name
>>of responsibility have nothing to say against the above approach.)

>Prove it.  I have certainly consistently urged (even in the excerpt of
>mine you quoted originally) responsibility on both sides.

You had justified the legal sanctions against men even if the 
problem had been a birth control failure, but you have never 
suggested any legal sanctions against irresponsible women.  

>>Taking men to the cleaners seem, to them, like the real equality approach....

>Right.  Better to take the *woman* to the cleaners, right?  

If they keep having babies that they can't support, even though there
is a legal option of abortion, and they don't give them up to adoption,
then they certainly have a *major* influence on what causes them to be
in poverty.  I can't see why it is so terrible when people who make
bad choices, having enough data to know that these choices are bad, 
end up in poverty; it was there choice.

>Look, they
>were both there...there couldn't have been a child otherwise.  *IF*
>there was reliable birth control, education about and access to same,
>and safe, readily available abortion for the occasional failure, 

I bet that you can find in ten minutes a place for abortion 
using the yellow pages.  Women can think, you know...

>*THEN*
>your solution of "choice for men" would be a fine one (and I think it is
>reasonable in some cases now), 

My suggestion has been to tie it to choice for women (choice for men
only if abortion is legal); I was flamed by feminists who don't want
to see *anything* tied to women's abortion right.

>but as it is, you're essentially saying
>"let the woman deal with it."  Not that that surprises me, since you
>seem to think that anything which helps women must necessarily oppress
>men.

I posted quite a few pro-choice-for-women articles in several newgroups.
I think it contradicts your claim about my thinking.

>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

Hillel                                      gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Recently there were some statistics posted in alt.child-support about how 
good fathers who got joint custody were at paying their support.  I don't 
know if anybody else noticed What's Wrong with This Picture."
                                               --  Eric Pepke