From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:30:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsk.1992Oct17.033042.1293
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <MUFFY.92Oct16171951@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>those darn context things again.  I've read enough of Sami's posts that
>that address went in my kill file this morning.  We definitely do *not*
>agree.  I suspect, given Sami's other posts, that this one is more
>likely to mean that *only* women should be responsible, although, of
>course, I can't be absolutely certain.

Two comments:  1)  Women are given all the decision making authority in
deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.  That is a right that
many women fought long and hard to obtain.  The man has no say in
whether or not the pregnancy, whether by accident or not, can ever be
terminated.  Women have absolute authority in this regard up to the end
of the first trimester.

Unless a woman was raped, she is 50% responsible for the pregnancy.
She was there during the act of procreation.  She participated.  She
accepted the consequences of the act when she consented to sex without
absolute birth control.

If a woman decides to terminate the pregnancy, she is absolved of
responsibility for what would have been a child.  If she decides to put
the child up for adoption, and unless the man has a great deal of money
and fights aggressively to assert his parental rights to the child, the
child will be adopted and again the woman will be absolved of all
responsibility for the child.

If she has the child and decides to keep it, the father of that child
is legally obligated to provide financial support for that child for
anywhere from 18-years to death (the burden for mentally retarded
children does not end at any age in some states - only until the
mentally retarded person can emancipate him or herself).  At present,
she is not legally obligated to provide for the child.  Right now, she
could stay on welfare and never work until the child turns 18.  Believe
me, I've met women who have been on welfare for 18 years.  That could
change soon and she might be limited to a 2-year stint of full support,
but then some limited form of support until she surpasses some minimum
standard (probably poverty level) income.  She also, by default, would
be the sole custodial parent of the child, unless the father went to
court and fought to assert his rights for visitation, or his rights to
joint custody/shared parent, or his rights to be sole custodian (rarely
happens if the couple is not married).  He must pay to get his rights
enforced, and if she decides to shirk on abiding by the court decree,
it is likely that the court will do nothing to her.  If she does so, he
will have to keep paying to try to get the courts to enforce his
rights.  At the same time, he would be paying child support for a child
he could not even see.  In naming the father of the child, the mother
is granted free legal assistance in every state to secure the child
support.  The state will pay all her legal fees, unless he is found to
NOT be the biological father.

So, she has all the rights, is not obligated to financially support the
child unless she chooses to, he has no right to terminate the
pregnancy, is not allowed to terminate his parental rights and
financial obligation to the child unless the mother consents.  She has
all default rights, he has none.  Any rights he has he must pay to
obtain and pay to enforce.  None are given to him for free.  He must
buy his rights, and even then, he has no guarantee that those rights
will ever be enforced.

Yes, he was there.  But so was she.  They are both 50% responsible, but
he ends up being held about as much as 99% responsible in some cases,
with her being held as little as 0% responsible in some cases (abortion
at someone else's expense).  She has an absolute out, he has none,
unless she grants it to him.

Yet, you seem to think it was all his fault that the pregnancy occured -
like he impregnated her without her knowledge or consent - like she
wasn't even there.  Well, guess what, SHE WAS THERE!  It might have been
her idea (not that any women out there have ever wanted to get pregnant,
nor have they ever coerced men to impregnate them), she might have
instigated the whole thing.  (I know it is hard to believe, but some
women have actually seduced men.  Hey, it can happen.)

2) An Observation:  I've noticed many times when people have announced
to the net that they are putting someone in a KILL file.  I use KILL
files, but rarely do I put someone in a KILL file - usually it is some
really boring thread that just won't die.   KILL files take up space,
and although I have access to 180 gigabytes of hard disk space on other
machines, I'm limited to 400 1k blocks on this machine.  I don't use
them much because I don't have room for them.   I censor with the "n"
key.

Now, my ex2b has this obnoxious habit of never, ever giving me the
opportunity to express myself about anything.  Yet, I usually let her
have her say, unload her vitriol at my expense, let her RAVE ON!  Well,
I kind of have to - because she pretty much gets to call the shots
about when I get to see my children, right now.  Because I've been
taking all her garbage and not giving her any back, despite the fact
that I sometimes want to rationally express my opinion, and because I
have been spending as much as $100 per week on her and my sons - on top
of the $1038 per month net I pay in child support, she is letting me
see my sons as often as 5 day per week.  I continue to do this because
I want to see my sons as often as possible and until the court puts
down a more liberal schedule that she must abide by (which they haven't
found all that important to do recently because I'm getting to see my
sons (but having to jump through hoops to do it)), which probably won't
happen for another month, she can treat me like a jerk, say whatever
garbage she wants to say to me and  I just have to take it and be nice
back to her - otherwise, we go back to the last schedule the court
granted which only insures that I see my sons 48 hours every two
weeks.

When she unloads on me and spews her contempt and vile, bitter words, I
take it, because I almost have to to see my sons.  But if I try to say
anything, she puts me in her KILL file.

I'm not against anyone using a KILL file, it serves a purpose.  It just
seems strange to me to want to discount a person because you and that
other person don't agree on several points.  If you and Albert Einstein
disagreed on a few points, then you would be robbing yourself of the
opportunity to relish those things which Albert had to offer.  We all
can't agree on everything.  I've learned many things from people with
whom I've disagreed on many other things.  I don't write them off or
put them in a KILL file unless I determine the bad is greater than the
good.  I can't normally make that determination from just a few words.

But, I can make that determination.

Into the KILL file you go, Muffy.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer ;-)
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM