Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: Rich.Berlin@eng.sun.COM (Rich Berlin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: birth control failure?
Message-ID: <14904@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 11 Jun 91 05:13:52 GMT
Reply-To: Rich.Berlin@eng.sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 61
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

farmerl@handel.cs.colostate.EDU (lisa ann farmer) writes:
> How Convenient!  If the male ignores the fact that he has impregnated
> a female he will therefore have no obligation to the child.  By this
> system I can imagine very few males (except those prepared and wanting
> parenthood) to accept responsibilty.  I don't buy it and I won't vote
> for it.

You make it sound as though supporting a child is the man's
"punishment for having sex" the same way pregnancy is the woman's:

        In sorrow shall she bring forth children, and in sorrow shall
        he pay for them!

Do most women share Lisa's view of men as irresponsible?  (I find it
insulting that someone would even think I'd abandon a woman who had an
accidental pregnancy to which I "contributed.")

Nevertheless, how many women define "irresponsible" the way Lisa seems
to, i.e.  "he doesn't want to pay to support a child that he didn't
want but I *did*?"  Remember, the man's obligation to the child comes
into play only if the woman decides not only to carry to term, but to
*keep* and *raise* the child as well.  To my knowledge, an adopted
child has no right to claim financial support from her or his genetic
parents.  This indicates to me that the issue is not solely one of
abortion rights for women, because the *second* decision, retaining
custody of the child, is the one that confers power over the father's
pocketbook.  And I'm a bit surprised to hear the women in this
newsgroup lobbying to retain that right, since it is rooted in the
same patriarchal value system that puts up barriers to women's equal
employment: the assumption that mothers and children are inseparable
and the father's role is to generate the income that supports them.

I understand that some women feel the physical risk of pregnancy
entitles them to rights that men can't share; pregnancy is obviously
an ordeal for many women.  But I would think that the physical
pregnancy, even a nightmarish one, would pale in comparison to the
enormity of the responsibility of being a parent.  (I'd be interested
in hearing from "retired" mothers out there who feel that "eighteen
years of being responsible for them was no big deal, but the
pregnancy--boy, I wouldn't wish that on anyone!")  It appers to me
that we are talking about a legal situation in which that eighteen+
year commitment can be forced on men but not on women.  OK by me--I
have reasonable options for dealing with that situation; all of us can
exercise choice over whom we have sex with.

But I cannot overemphasize my view that the underlying attitude
displayed here befits a capitalist, patriarchical system: children are
the privilege and the responsibility of those (men) who can pay for
them.  (Shades of the Handmaid's Tale....)  In the short run, it
addresses a big problem facing women and their children; forcing men
to pay child support to children they sired but don't want is
certainly one way of handling this social problem.  But the chief,
unavoidable cost of this solution is the strengthening of the
patriarchy.  It seems to me that feminists should be examining and
changing this attitude, not perpetuating it.  To really pursue
reforrm, women will eventually have to give up some of their power in
this area in order to obtain policy changes that make that power
unnecesary.  (I'm reminded of "Right-Wing Women," which Dworkin-haters
should read in order to get a different perspective on her.)

-- Rich