NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/men/19485

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 4.6 KB | 95 lines

Newsgroups: soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!mmm.serc.3m.com!mmc.mmmg.com!timbuk.cray.com!walter.cray.com!lonesome!jsw
From: [e-mail] (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons fo
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 82
Nntp-Posting-Host: lonesome.cray.com
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:50:10 CST

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>However, for those women who have had the baby, either through a belief that
>abortion is a moral wrong, or a desire to become a mother, this isn't true.
>A mother is as obliged to support her child as a father, under the law.
>
>And, if we split child support down the middle, 50% of the time giving sole
>custody to the mom (and requiring a support payment of the dad) and 50% of
>the time doing it the other way around, you would see this clearly demonstra-
>ted.
>
 A studied just recently concluded in the state of Wisconsin clearly shows
a bias in joint custody cases. The state found that fathers were still
required to pay full child support and women were NOT ordered to pay child
support in cases where joint physical custody was granted. They found a
substantial bias involving shared physical custody against fathers. The
gender bias in favor of women in child custody and support issues is
overwhelming and it is only recently been brought to the attention of
the public through 'studies'. The Wisconsin study was a joint effort
by the Univ. of Wisc. Madison and social services.

>Of course, some people would then have another complaint, that being that
>the women ordered to pay child support generally make less, and therefore
>would be paying out less, but that's a different social problem altogether.
>
 Good point. Are you suggesting that women should not be considered as
custodial parents if their income indicates the children would be better
off with dad. In most states, the legislature stresses the importance of
maintaining the children's standard of living. When groups such as
ACES are asked why there is such a disparity, they usually remark that
being the custodial parent, their should be consideration for the
sacrifice mothers endure for being a sole custody person,  due monetary
compensation. In other words, mothers should be paid for being mothers.
Not only does this logic demean mothers and fathers the world over,
it reduces children to nothing more than a commodity. This 'thinking'
in my opinion is morally corrupt and would be a very good reason
to deny custody. Why should anybody be compensated for doing
what parents are supposed to do. "Since I kicked yo butt out, you owe
me for takin' care of your kids". This is the logic I hear from
Sen. Berglins office (Mn State Senator), ACES and other women's groups
when I question the child support amounts as being one sided. My
ex's income was NEVER considered in the child support award. Whether
she moves to Alaska or not does not change the support award.

 A second and plainly stupid reason for the disparity in child
support awards from a women in Ms Berglins office was, since women
were screwed out of low child support awards in the 50s and 60s, it
is time for women to stick it to men today. Does this sound like some-
one whose priorities are her children?

 I love my children, but not enough to give my ex 30% of my after tax
income so she can make bigger house payments, trips to the Bahamas and
purchase 520 hours a year of babysitters. Where is the accountability?

>>While it is true that women also
>>contribute financially, this contribution is usually _voluntary_.
>
>So, I say a better solution would be to strengthen men's rights to tehir
>children, to reduce the incentive an unscrupulous woman might have to
>voluntarily soak a man.  If she's as likely to lose the child, and have
>to pay support herself, she's not going to 'trick' anybody.
>
 Sounds good in theory but our society cannot solve and resolve custody
on a month to month basis. Reduce the financial insentives and one
parent physical custody biases. That will diminish the unscrupulous ones.

>And, of course, if these women don't exist, there is no problem with
>unscrupulous women, and men gain the full measure of their paternity,
>EQUALIZING the parental benefit and responsibility.  What a concept.
>
>>A more equitable situation would have custody of the child
>>automatically go to the state, requiring _both_ parents to sue for
>>custody, and with judgements equitably distributed between men and
>>women.
>
>What I said.
>
>Adrienne Regard
>