From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade for Men!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:25:18 GMT

olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga) writes:

>mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:

>> 
>> 	
>> 	Peter writes :
>> 
>> 	" It strikes me as completely
>> 	bizarre that men talk about being taken advantage of in this regard.  As
>> 	we have (statistically) larger disposable incomes than women, we can
>> 	afford these payments with much less pain than women.  To suggest that
>> 	the woman somehow gets off totally free in this scenario strikes me as
>> 	out of touch to the point of offensive."
>> 
>> -------------------
>> 
>> 	Peter....  you display total misconception regarding this issue...
>> 	It's to be expected I guess, since the idea of parenting
>> 	rights for men is very new.  It takes awhile for society to begin
>> 	to see the issue clearly.... look how long it has been taking
>> 	to see clearly the problems that women have faced....
>> 
>> 	Brifly, it's not about men being "taken advantage of", nor is it
>> 	about women getting off "totally free".  It is not about statistics
>> 	or "disposable income".  It is about principles.  It is about
>> 	a whole class of individuals being held responsible for something
>> 	they have no choices in.  If everyone had no choices about becoming
>> 	a parent, then there would be no problem... but women in this
>> 	country enjoy the benefit of choices along with their responsibilities.
>> 	Men are only given responsibilities.


>BULL! you don't want the responsibilities, wear a condom next time! 
                                            keep your skirt down!
>Not to wear one and depend on the woman to be responsible for 
        do so                      man    
>birth control is *YOUR* choice.  Its also *YOUR* choice to sleep with 
 child support      
>her.
 him.

Amazing how much resemblance this has to the argument which resulted in
legal abortion.  ONly the people who get upset this time are mad about
not getting money.  This despite the fact that women are responsible
adults capable of making economic decisions based on their own earning
potential (the precise argument which is used to support the "right to
choose"). As sole arbiters of the decision to manufacture a child, and 
as suppliers of 99.9999% of the raw material and 100% of the labor, why 
would any rational woman have reason to expect money from someone who
merely supplied an infinitesimal amount of raw material and contributed
absolutely nothing else to the manufacturing process?  

From the emotionalism of your response, one would come to the erroneous
conclusion that a child is created at conception, and that the act of
sex is primarily one which creates responsibility in both the man and
the woman to any possible future child, whether that child is conceived
by the act of sex or not.  As we all know, procreation is merely a minor
and unwanted side effect of what is a purely sensual act, biological
"facts" to the contrary notwithstanding.  

If the woman has no inherent responsibility towards an unviable tissue 
mass, how can the man suddenly have such responsibility forced on him
when he has absolutely nothing to do with the manufacturing processes
imposed upon that mass?  

Obviously the legal liabilities to which men
are currently heir are remnants of an archaic, patriarchal, paternalistic
system which saw women as weak creatures needing male support and 
sustenance.  As we all know, this is certainly not true.  Women need men
like fish need bicycles.  I suggest you take classes in feminine discourse
so that you may widen your horizons and free yourself from the submissive
self-image which the dominant male culture has imposed on you. ONce you
manage to free yourself from the concept that women must somehow rely on
men in order to lead their lives, you will clearly see the need to sever
this last link of paternalism. The idea that males should be held 
responsible for the life decisions of (minor, illogical, incapable,
irresponsible, child-like) women via payment for the damages these "minors"
caused themselves through child-bearing is certainly something no true 
feminist would support.    


>> 
>> 	It is known as inequity.  It is gender-based.  It is sexist, and
>> 	probably unconstitutional.
>> 
>> 	If a woman gets pregnant, she has legal options.... men do not.
>> 	They are along for the ride.
>> 
>> 	Analogy... if a man chooses to move around the world as he
>> 	pursues career choices, should his wife be legally required to
>> 	accompany him?  After all, she made the "choice" of marrying him.
>> 
>> 	-Mike-


>olga@csiatl.gwinnett
>YOW!

Ah, I see. You re-inforce these negative images via the "cat-like" 
onomopoetic device you used at the end.  Please refrain from denigrating
the feminine image in such a stereotypical manner.  If this continues,
you may lose your membership in NOW.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution