From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Repro. Tech. / Father Not. /  Child Support (was kd & gf)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:34:30 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Okay, I'll cut almost _everything_.  That's almost
fair.

gf:
| |But your suggestion implied that men would be _required_ to
| |take the kids, did it not?  To fill that quota? I think you
| |may have invented a new dimension of unfatherhood!

x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
| Boy oh boy....  I don't know who said it but this reeks of;
| men = required, women = choice.  Need I say more?

That's what I'm wondering about Karl Denninger's suggestion.
He said he wanted "affirmative action" (often spelled with
two or more capitals) to be applied to custody until men
were given sole custody in 49% of the cases where joint
custody did not obtain.  At least, that's how I read his
articles.

Now, I've found Karl's proposal -- his whole series of
articles -- pretty interesting from more than one point of
view.  For one thing, there are epistemological questions
like, how does Karl know that there is a sufficient supply
of fathers who are willing and able to make up that 49%?
How does he know that men are angry about the fact that
less than 49% of sole-custodial parents are men? Remember,
this is supposed to be a substantial social problem, so
a few anecdotes won't do.  We need some kind of evidence.

Another thing is that I'm unsure what "affirmative
action" means in a case like this.  I assume we're talking
about quotas because of the use of percentages, so I'm going
to use the word "quotization" instead.  In the case of good
jobs and educational opportunities, the thing to be divided
up by quota is viewed as an unalloyed good which everybody
wants, and which in addition has a kind of uniformity with
other items of its kind; so at the point of hiring or
matriculation or promotion, there are a certain number of
slots which the apportioning agency simply allots per
category.  For instance, posts as Justice of the Supreme
Court: everybody wants the job, and there are eight such
posts, each of which is like the other, so we assign them
four to men and four to women.  However, the post of Chief
Justice is unique, so we can't as easily apply quotization
to it.

Now in the case of custody, we are dealing, of course, with
situations which are all pretty much unique; each child-
slot and custodial-parent slot is different.  For instance,
in many cases where siblings are involved, it is held
undesirable to break up a set whichever way custody is
awarded.  So I would like to know what Karl proposes in some
kind of detail -- how it would be implemented down at the
courthouse.

I would also like to know whether this form of quotization
would be instituted before or after quotization in other
fields of life, such as employment (especially political
office) and education.  As I look around me I am aware that,
at least in my little corner of the universe, something
less than full quotization has been carried out.

Of course, the whole suggestion may be a kind of ploy --
a way of teasing the girls -- in which case we'll have
something else to talk about.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism