From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:52:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.094933.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.001824.16688@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>> 
>> Excuse me, but you just checked out on the male's responsibility for his
>> conduct.  This is one of my big problems with the right to life MOVEMENT
>> (as distinguished from the general idea that abortion should be
>> infrequent).  There's been a tendency for the woman to be made responsible
>> for her decisions as well as HIS.  You just bought into it.
>
>     Before you judge whether I have bought into anything, please read
>my reply.  You'll see that we agree on many points.

Well, interestingly enough, I had sent you e-mail trying to clarify some
points before I posted this.  It came back as undeliverable--but several days 
later.  My editor is very buggy.  It posted an entire paragraph I thought I had
deleted.  Oh, well, back to our discussion.

>     By no means did I mean to imply that the male should not take
>any responsibility for his conduct, and secondly, I have not seen any
>evidence that leads me to believe that the right-to-life movement
>favors male irresponsibility.

I think that when Quayle took on Murphy Brown he failed to acknowledge that
the father of the ficticious child had cut and run.  I also hear "women"
this and that when it comes to sex. When Quayle and other male leaders
stand up and say "it's time to talk to our young men about what it is to be
a sexually responsible man who doesn't father children he doesn't plan to
care for and cares for the children he fathers," we will have a balanced
and sane approach to premarital sex and unwanted pregnancy.  That is not
happening now, and it needs to happen.
      
>> Yeah, I know you are going to say that a woman should know the character of
>> the man she marries or has sex with, but the way you use that it is as a
>> complete defense to the man's conduct!  I am sick of women being
>> responsible for the general state of male irresponsibility because "they
>> should have known who they were involved with."  How about the concept that
>> a MAN, as opposed to a *male* faces up to lifes responsibilities and is
>> deserving of condemnation if he does not?
>
>     Once again, I am not defending the conduct of males.  Whether
>by nature or nurture, males are more irresponsible than females
>(in my opinion).  If you look at crime data, you can see that
>there are 5 times more men arrested in the US than women.  When
>it comes to rape, 100 times more men are arrested than women.
>This may sound like an anachronism, but I believe that without women,
>men would be practically uncivilized.

Okay...I don't want to take your head off, so imagine this is not being
said at a sound level that would cause glass to shatter, but...
This is one of those statements that sounds like a compliment but is
actually a power trap (if I understand it and its implications correctly).
It's on the order of "but you pull the chestnuts out of the fire so
_well_."  It sounds like there's a hook on the end of this line that says,
'since women are more civilized than guys are, we have a special
responsibility and can't expect equal performance from men.'  Or, 'they just
can't do any better.'  I don't buy that.

>     Here is where we have to start discussing morality.  A man with
>a solid moral foundation would (and should) face up to his 
>responsibilities.  But, let me put myself in the position of an
>immoral, irresponsible man; let me give "his" supposed reaction
>and arguments when he finds out his partner is pregnant; I will
>give my replies; and then you can reply.

First, there is no inherent barrier to the creation of men with a solid
'moral' foundation other than our refusal to insist on such standards of
conduct and send clear messages to young men regarding *their*
responsibilities to children.  I've never heard the RTL discuss this
issue.  Second, the problem or concern many people have
is what you mean by 'morality.'  I think it does include many diverse views
and situations.  However, many people mean, 'my specific beliefs only.'  If
we don't start linking 'morality' to specific political goals, like banning or
legalizing abortion for example, just about everyone would agree that a child 
is entitled to 2 committed and responsible parents on a moral basis.

>     1. "I don't want this baby -- just go and abort it.  I'll pay
>         for half."
>
>This is where the immediate availabilty of abortion is a crutch for
>this guy.  He can just take the easy way out -- he can tell the
>woman he will leave her unless she gets an abortion.  In this case,
>the right to an abortion is actually promoting male irresponsibility.

Or, more sadly, abortion is illegal and we return to the '50s version of
such a male:  "I don't want this kid.  I'll get my buddies to prove you're
a slut.  I'll deny paternity, I'll make you go to court, I'll fight child
support, and, if you make me pay, I'll insist on lots of visitation in the
new state I'm moving to, or I'll go after custody."

A jerk is a jerk is a jerk.  Abortion doesn't change this leopard's spots.
Also, as an older netter, I recall that single moms became acceptable in
society only when there was abortion as an obviously rejected alternative.
When abortion is gone, they may go back to being bums.  There will
certainly be no obvious claim to having made a more "moral" choice.

>     2.  "Go ahead and have the baby -- but I want nothing to do
>          with it.  You call always get aid for dependent children
>          from the government."
>
>I'll call this the "deadbeat dad" syndrome.  Once again this guy can
>take the easy way out since the government will always be there
>to provide minimal subsistence.  Once again, male irresponsibility
>is actually being promoted by a plan that seemingly helps women.

Establishment of paternity and support enforcement from dads of kids on
welfare is a high priority here.  I don't know about other states, but out
here, this is not a low cost solution for dads.  As for the "I don't want
nothing to do with the kid" problem, yeah, that happens all the time.
Actually, the more common problem is that these guys--and a lot of other
dads--are completely unpredictible in their contacts with their kids.  Makes
a point that fathers are in denial of their own importance.

>     3.  "I'll pay child support, but I want my freedom.  My behavior
>          cannot be immoral since there is no law against me leaving."
>
>This is another problem: the equivalence of legality and morality.
>Many men and women believe that if something is legal, then it
>must be moral also (e.g. abortion is legal, thus it is not immoral) and
>if something is illegal, then it is immoral (e.g. cocaine is illegal,
>thus it is immoral to use cocaine).  Male irresponsibility is
>also promoted by this myopic philosophy.

Laws are not the only, or even the primary, transmitters of morality.  The
family is.  Parents who send consistent messages to their kids about
keeping responsibilities raise child who are responsible--with or without
laws.  Morality cannot depend on the state but on individual action based
on personal commitment.

>     What I'm trying to suggest is that current laws, social programs,
>and philosophies are promoting this male irresponsibility.

While there are places I can agree with this, I don't agree that abortion
is a cause of male irresponsibility.  It existed before legalized abortion.
The idea that women should relinquish legal abortion in order to achieve
some unarticulated future state of male responsibility for the children
they father, is a crazy trade for us.  There is nothing on the table.  We
stand to lose the only certain factor we have:  the ability to have control
over whether we remain pregnant or not, and not be dependent on the whims
of the man.
 
>> What any woman over 25 finds out is that many men are two-faced:  there is the
>> face she sees when he is trying to establish the relationship and the face
>> he shows at the end.  There is no reliable indicator that many of these guys 
>> are flakes in the end-game.  Blaming women for this is one of those
>> psuedo-"personal responsibility" arguements that is really part of what
>> gives guys like this permission to continue to be flakes and have others
>> pay the prices for it. 
>
>     Hopefully, women under 25 will find this out too.  But, let me
>point out one character flaw that I have observed in *some* (not 
>*many* or *all*) women: they look at men in terms of their potential.  
>In other words, they take the "I will change him" attitude.  I have 
>personally witnessed this many times -- women know that their
>boyfriend has a serious character flaw, and tries to deny this by
>saying that "I know that I can change him."  Hopefully, women will
>realize at an early age that this is not possible.

This is called codependency in some literature.  What you would find if you
picked up a woman's/girl's magazine is that it women are trained to be this
way.  Read your paragraph about men being savages unless women were around.
*That* is the essence of the problem.  Any woman who agrees is set up to
believe she changes the man. He is not her moral equal, and therefore she
is responsible for him.

>>                         The adult community has no social stigma or
>> significant consequence for a man who behaves like a jerk and abandons his
>> responsibilities to children.  The reality is that many men will be highly
>> solicitous and responsible while there is something in it for them, and
>> disappear when things become inconvenient.  This did not happen very
>> frequently in the past because they were stigmatized.  Now we run
>> psuedo-psych bullshit to say, 'well, the woman should have known what she
>> was getting into.'
>
>     There should be a major social stigma for this!!  But take a look
>at the social trend in America.  If you watch Donahue, Oprah, Sally, etc.,
>you'll see that many of their topics deal with de-stigmatizing
>alternative types of behavior.  This, once again, deals with
>morality -- which, for some reason, people do not want to
>recognize.  I think that Quayle was almost correct
>when he said that "the importance of fathers is being mocked."  I
>would change that to: the importance of having a *good* father
>is being mocked.

I agree with 'good fathers' being needed.  I hope the men's movement will do 
something about this--not rhetoric.  Real action.  There's enough talk about 
reasons and explanations.  

On morality:  There is certainly a wide range of reasonable behaviors that
are moral.  When people start talking about morality, they usually mean a
strict code of specific and detailed behaviors.  I happen to think that
people can get divorced and be moral.  They do not act lightly or in haste.
They commit to the discomfort of counseling and doing the work suggested.
If things fail, though, they do not walk away from their children.  I 
stood my career on its head to make myself available for my child and to
preserve her relationship with her dad.  This is moral to me.  I left a
practice to be around when I felt she needed an at home mom (I have an
in-home office and 1/2 the income).  That is moral to me.  Responsible
parents can operate in a variety of forms.  What they do in that family
form is what is most important.

Finally, this country needs to learn that we can have acceptance of differences
without giving someone permission to be a flake.  The singles life-style
does not inherently include child neglect.  The linkage of the 2 is the
fallacy of the life-style issue.  The failure to appreciate the difference
between promoting tolerance and permission to be a flake is a big problem
for both conservatives and liberals.  The 2 are not inherently linked.

This may be like pornography:  I can't describe it, but I know it when I
see it.   
 
>     It's interesting you bring up naivete.  If I had to succinctly
>describe the *worst* flaws, in general, in men and women, it 
>would be: men have evil hearts, and women are naive about men's
>intentions.

I do not agree that men have inherently evil hearts.  I will not take
responsibility for men by agreeing to be morally superior to them or
responsbile for how they act on their impluses.  Lots of us have evil in
our hearts.  We do not act on it.  When we do, it is because we have been
given permission to do so--at the expense of others.

Women act naive because men have power and women want to believe that power 
is legitimate and earned.  Women are naive about men's intentions because 
they buy into the idea that the exercise of power by men is legitimated by the 
man's honorable conduct and standards.  In other words, that men will earn their
power by their conduct.  When they discover men who accept the power and
privilege without coming through in their conduct, women are confused and
their understanding of the basis of social organization is threatened.  In
lieu of revolution, they choose confusion and denial of reality.
 
>let me ask this of you: how can there be social consequences
>when so much public discussion ridicules morality?

See discussion of difference between flakey and flexible.  People are
trying to reject rigidity and self-righteousness.  Their error is the idea
that someone is doing them a favor if they "understand" why you don't
behave with honesty, compassion, and responsibility and do it in a way that
allows you to continue the behavior. 

>     If one really knew how to cure the social problems in this country,
>that person would be publically ridiculed and crucified.

Literally, or figuratively?  Seriously, I think most people operate at high
levels of denial.  They would just ignore you and say you didn't understand
and do what they wanted to do.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion