Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel
From: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexism vs. Men's Oppression
Message-ID: <676060423@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 91 18:33:44 GMT
References: <675774990@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Jun4.152009.1931@cs.warwick.ac.uk>
Sender: news@aero.org
Organization: The Piranha Club
Lines: 20
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org



#pay child's support, no matter why they don't pay.  The fact the women
#have had a choice for abortion the last 17 years makes no difference
#for feminist organizations.  They also want the choice to take the
#father to the cleaners, if they feel like that.

In article <1991Jun4.152009.1931@cs.warwick.ac.uk> (Ben Dessau) writes:
>	How can you say, Hillel, that a woman would have a *choice* of
>whether to have an abortion or not, in your senario of men being
>relieved of their financial obligations if he wanted an abortion and
>she didn't. The woman's *choice* comes down to: have an abortion or
>keep the child and suffer major financial problems for a long time. 

1) She has one more choice - giving up the child for adoption.

2) It seems to you unfair that the women will "suffer major financial 
   problems for a long time" because of her decision not to abort, but
   I've not heard you (feminists) complain because the *man* "suffers 
   major financial problems for a long time" because of *her* decision. 

   Somehow, expecting a woman to pay, like a man, the price 
   for her choices is so un-feminine and un-feminist.