From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:49:33 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep28.001824.16688@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.162502.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.050847.3122@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>  [adoption debate deleted]
>>> I am entirely willing to raise a child on my own.  What I am not willing to
>>> do is saddle a child with a flakey, uncommitted father.  I will not
>>> fascilitate male irresponsibility by 'doing the noble thing' and having the
>>> baby but not expect him to be part of it.  I have done too much paternity
>>> law and support enforcement to put up with absent or half-assed fathers
>>> because they screw up kids too. 
>>> 
>>     The only way this can occur is if you consent to sex with a
>>flakey, uncommitted, half-assed man.  I can now see one problem
>>with America -- the issue of character is unimportant when it
>>comes to the selection of both a sex partner and the President.
>>(Note that with Gennifer Flowers and Hillary, this is the same selection.)
>>
> 
> 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.

     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.
      
> 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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

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

>                         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.
 
> When we can see around corners, read minds, and have a toll-free 800 number
> that will give us a bias-free report on how the guy is when he feels his
> responsibilities have become 'inconvenient,' I think you will have a point.

     Hopefully, I have a point without an 800 number. :-)

> Until then, women who date unmarried men who appear responsible,
> professional, considerate, caring, and compassionate can be excused if they
> do not foresee that he will only behave this way unless they break up--at
> which point he will become a self-centered boor and run like hell. 
> 
> If you are talking about dating guys that "ooze slime from every pore,"
> then sure, the lady should figure it out.  If you think the only men who
> could behave in the manner I described are "slimers" you are very naive. 

     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.
 
> In the cold cruel world, I see women with 20 year marriages left because
> their husbands have a "mid-life crisis."  The phrase is  societal permission
> slip to check out without social stigma.  Men who do not support their
> children include such people as doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants,
> university professors, and any other profession you can name.  Many of
> these men are quite charming and professionally responsible.  They function
> as responsible adults until the marriage breaks up--then they are flakes
> because there are few legal and no social consequences for it.

     I agree -- the legal and social environments actually promote
male irresponsibility (as I have discussed earlier).  But, realize
that women are also guilty of mid-life crises (not on the same order
of magnitude as men, I admit).  The mother of a friend of mine
decided one day that she needed to "find herself" (back in the 70's).
She left the family -- this completely shocked my friend.  But,
let me ask this of you: how can there be social consequences
when so much public discussion ridicules morality?
 
> It is NOT the woman's fault that she doesn't know thay will do this if the
> relationship breaks up.  But if you still think it is, you must know
> how they should know.  In that case, YOU ARE SITTING ON A GOLD MINE!!  Send
> me e-mail today, and I will gladly help set you up in this money making
> venture.  (I've been reading about Ramtha, and we can make big bucks here.)
> Call today!

     If one really knew how to cure the social problems in this country,
that person would be publically ridiculed and crucified.
     Have you been following the J.Z. Knight divorce also?? :-)  
 
> select your dates on the basis of lengthy acquaintance-ship and full
> knowledge of character -or- do you experience sexual attraction, and then
> pursue the woman?  If you do the former, you are so rare you ought to be
> declared a national historical monument!  As a woman who will *not*
> consider a man as a 'date' or see romantic potential until I have known him
> platonically for quite some time, I can tell you that I have yet to meet a
> man who accepts this arrangement willingly.  Men are impatient and date to
> explore the potential for a sexual relationship and are not willing to
> spend the time to find out what character is like before they have sex. 

     Something may have gotten cut off in your last paragraph.
Personally, all of the long-term relationships I have had were
with women I first knew as friends for about a year.  (No need
to build a monument...)  Character is extremely important to me --
which is why I get turned off by women who want too much too soon.
This also promotes male irresponsibilty -- if you do not "give it"
to him, he can easily (I emphasize *easily*) find another who will.  
I view all of this as just a symptom of a breakdown in society.

     Let me throw out one final area of discussion.  This "rights
and responsibilities" thread started with the question "if
women have a right to an abortion, what is their responsibility?"
Let me put on my male-irresponsibility cap and pose the following
question "if men have no rights in the decision to abort their
biological children, why should they have any responsibility?"
[Just to be clear, that question does not echo my view, but
rather is an interesting topic for debate.]

     Cary Perttunen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.usage.english