From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:26:02 GMT

In article <1jg739INNl6g@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>>the second frees men from all responsibilities
>
>>Why not? Making women fully responsible for their unilateral choices would
>>almost certainly reduce the incidence of illegitimate birth, which would, if
>>the statistics are to be believed, have a beneficial economic effect overall.
>>Sounds like a valid option to me...
>
>Ah, if only life were free of all responsibility.  Only most of us outgrew 
>that with toilet-training.

Huh? I write a paragraph about making women responsible, and you respond with
some heavy sarcasm implying that I advocate IRRESPONSIBILITY? What kind of
rhetorical crap is this you're trying to pull?

>If men didn't have to pay for children -- if they could have "responsibility 
>free" sex and then call it quits when conception occurred....
>
>There would be a lot fewer *legitimate* births.  Why have a man in the 
>picture claiming priveleges and getting in the way if he isn't even going 
>to help pay the bills.  Marriage is no insurance folcs -- remember no-fault
>divorce?  He can walk away at any time.

Sure, but he loses his shirt. Post-divorce child-support is as bad or worse 
than paternity child-support, and then there's alimony too.

>In this scenario:
>
>Why hire men?  They only take paying jobs away from women 
>(who are supporting children, remember?)

Hire someone who's qualified. Whether they have children to support should 
not IMO be an important concern of the employer.

>Why let men vote?  After all, they *aren't* custodians of the next
>generation.  

Since when one must a gender "buy" the right to vote by agreeing to be
"custodians of the next generation"?

>The more enlightened elements of society have worked very hard over the
>past couple of decades t get men involved with their children. 
>Judging from what I read on the nets many men seem to relish being
>involved in their childrens lives, contributing to their upbringing.

Some people like bungee-jumping too. Should we therefore force everyone to 
bungee jump?

Living in a Constitutional Republic means we don't force the preferences
of the majority on a minority without a DAMNED good reason. Nor am I entirely
convinced that _most_ victims of paternity child support care to become
"involved in their childrens lives" at the point that the accidental
pregnancy is discovered (as for what happens after that, is distorted by
the current legal aberrations -- since the man is being reamed financially
ANYWAY, why not try to salvage _something_ out of the deal, right?).

As for "enlightened", I question the "enlightenment" of people who support
policies which cause male suffering, and then try to ride in like Fairy
Godmothers, preaching to these oppressed men how they should "make the best 
of a bad situation" by getting involved with their originally-unwanted kids.
Kinda reminds me of the guy who murdered both of his parents, and then begged
the court for mercy because he was an orphan...

Enlightenment means, to me, identifying and correcting the root causes of
problems, not sugar-coating things after the fact. The root cause of unwanted 
children is people who fail to exercise (all of) their birth control options. 
Reduce the incentive for women to bear illegitimate children, and I think
you'll find that those same men who are now reluctant fathers would be MUCH 
more likely to go on and find Mrs. Right and raise a HAPPY and ABUNDANTLY-
SUPPORTED family. So whom are these self-styled do-gooders helping, really? 
Not the men, certainly. Not the children. I don't even think they're helping
the women in the long run either (many of whom I'm sure regret their stupid
decision, although they'll never admit it, maybe not even to themselves).
Maybe the do-gooders have good intentions, just dangerously misguided ones.

>But if a man can just walk away at any time, why on earth should
>woman let him have anything whatsoever to do with *her* child?
>
>No responsibilities, no privileges either.  
>
>Is this really what you want?

I want a man to be able to renounce all responsibilities AND privileges
wrt the child. As for all of these negative secondary effects you're 
foreboding, I think that's just facile scare tactics. I don't think they'd 
ever materialize. Or, at least, I'm willing to take the slight risk. The old 
laws can always be re-instituted if it doesn't work out.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.men