home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky soc.men:23434 alt.feminism:7728
- Path: sparky!uunet!crdgw1!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
- From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
- Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
- Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan27.193727.25595@netcom.com>
- Date: 27 Jan 93 19:37:27 GMT
- References: <C19CED.6n7@panix.com> <727986448@lear.cs.duke.edu> <C1IsMF.8A4@panix.com>
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- Lines: 72
-
- In article <C1IsMF.8A4@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
- >This has become, essentially, yet another item in the the
- >perennial welfare argument, and no longer belongs in the
- >present newsgroups -- in my opinion. Carole's story is
- >valid if the welfare queen myth has truth in it, and not
- >otherwise.
- >
- >My basic contention has been that there are alternatives to
- >individual responsibility for fatherhood (or other
- >contributions to the results of reproductive behavior)
- >besides dumping the whole burden on those who happen to have
- >female bodies and aren't quick enough on the uptake to get
- >an immediate abortion unless they have in hand an armor-
- >plated contract from someone to support the outcome.
-
- Who dumps the whole burden? Surrogate mothers have been unable to
- part with the child, and kept them, after the hopeful parents had
- paid all expenses for nine months. The courts upheld her right to
- do so.
-
- You can always blame society. Or better yet, whatever man is involved.
-
- >Hillel thinks that would mean we would all start breeding off
- >the bottom and collapse socially. I suggest we agree to
- >disagree until the next great talk.politics.* welfare circus
- >comes to town.
- >
- >I've also taken exception to the way in which the issue of
- >paternal responsibility has been discussed -- very largely
-
- "taken exception"???
-
- >without any concern for the well-being of the possible
- >children involved or the community as a whole. This is a
- >criticism of all ideological positions, _pace_ Will Steeves.
-
- Then you miss the rather obvious fact that the welfare of the
- children is a direct consequence of the welfare of the parents.
- Parents who cannot take care of themselves cannot take care of
- their children.
-
- >In fact, I think it's more of a criticism of feminists,
- >since I expect them to be intelligent and perceptive,
- >especially about social issues
-
- There is a remarkable similarity between percieved attacks on
- feminism and consipracy theories, everything proves them both.
- It has been repeatedly shown here that any negative statement
- about any aspect of feminism, or about any feminist, is taken
- as an attack on feminism as a whole (which oddly does not exist).
-
- Also, again you foster stereotypes, that women are "intelligent and
- perceptive" (about social issues), and in contrast, men are not.
- Feminism seems to be less about social issues than womens personal
- standard of living, that is, enlightened self interest. Is this a
- social issue? It does not seem to be whan a man is so accused.
-
- > -- much more than I do their
- >opponents. In fact, it's been my disappointment with the
- >feminist contributions that got me into this thread.
-
- Perhaps some of your views are unique?
-
- >--
- >
- > )*( Gordon Fitch )*( gcf@panix.com )*(
- >( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
-
-
- Rich
-
- payner@netcom.com
-