From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Challenging assumptions about child custody
Date: 3 Sep 1992 17:21:45 GMT
Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet,                 Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

The Men's Movement has become a big issue in soc.feminism lately.  I'm not
sure if this is because of posters from the men's movement stirring up the
pot, or because of the book excerpt by Phyllis Chesler et al. posted here
a few weeks ago, or a combination of both.

In any case, I've seen what I feel to be some pretty gross misinterpretations
of men's issues from critics of the men's movement.  I posted some of my
beliefs about the draft issue several days ago, responding to some men's
movement critics who professed to belief that the draft was a trivial issue
because a) we haven't had a draft in all of 20 years, b) we aren't likely
to have one again, c) the draft actually ensures male privlege, d) even
including the draft, women still have it worse.

Now my dander is up again.  The latest old chestnut working its way through
soc.feminism is this one:

	Child custody isn't a big issue for men and shouldn't
	be an excuse for a men's movement because after all,
	when men actually contest custody, they win very often.

Now many posters have since pointed out that the reason most men don't contest
the default custody arrangement is that they are told, in many ways, that they
don't have a chance.  This is true, and it's important, but I want to focus on
something else.

The underlying assumption of this whole argument is that there is a default
custody arrangement.  When critics say "If men just fight for custody, they'd
win" they're ignoring the fact that women DON'T have to fight for custody.
They already have it by default.  The man has to take affirmative steps to
win custody, the woman only has to engineer things so that these affirmative
steps by the man aren't taken -- and the legal system, with it's great cost
and frustration, often does this for her.

Furthermore, I'm not sure I believe the data used in this argument in the
first place.  I've heard it quoted so many times, I'm almost ready to believe
it.  But I haven't seen a cite, so I hesitate.  Since this almost constitutes
a challenge to come up with a cite, I'll include some cited data of my own,
the only similar data I've come up with so far:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From:  _Divorce_Reform_at_the_Crossroads_ Ed: S. Sugarman & H. Kay (1990)
"Private Ordering Revisited: What Custodial Arrangements are Parents
Negotiating" by  R. Mnookin, E. Maccoby, C. Depner & C. Albiston.

(Interviews with 900 divorcing families in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
in California in 1984-1985 [Note: I believe joint custody was in vogue in
California at that time, but I'm not sure])

When the mother requested sole custody and the father requested joint custody:
	Mother received sole custody:		68.6%
	Joint custody awarded:			25.8%
	Father got sole custody:		 2.4%
	Split custody:			 	 3.2%

When the father requested sole custody and the mother requested joint custody:
	Father received sole custody:		42.9%
	Joint custody awarded:			42.9%
	Split custody:				14.2%

When both mother and father requested sole custody:
	Mother received sole custody:		46.2%
	Father received sole custody:		 9.6%
	Joint custody awarded:			36.5%
	Split custody:				 7.7%

(Split custody is when the children are split up with some being in custody
 of the mother and others in custody of the father)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So these statistics at least call into question the common folklore hereabouts
that men who ask for custody are handed it on a silver platter, and it's only
those fathers who are too lazy to ask who have their kids taken away.

But again, I think the men's movement is challenging the assumption that the
kids should be with the mother as the default.  Why should a father have to
fight for his kids, while the mother does not.  What would happen if a father
left the marriage with the children, and the mother had to raise the funds for
a legal battle if she wanted to see her children?

And frankly, I'll repeat what I said in my post about the draft:  You can't
get rid of only half of the sex roles.  The emancipation of women goes hand
in hand with the destruction of the pedistal woman has been placed upon.

If women want to retain the maternal advantage in divorce court, it is going
to be expected that they will be seen as less capable and more burdened in the
workforce, that they will be more valued for their reproductive capabilities
and less for their other abilities, and that the men who are paying child
support but not participating in child care will have the time and the
incentive to work the overtime it takes to get promotions and break through
the "glass ceiling."

The whole system of sex roles is symbiotic.  You can't just throw away the
ones you don't like and keep the ones you're fond of.  The whole system has
to go.  Maternal preference in child custody is the linchpin for a whole
family of sex-roles having to do with mother-as-caretaker/homemaker and
father-as-breadwinner/public-sector-actor.

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I am utterly convinced that when a little child is taken from its loving
 mother, even for visitation, it may lose its natural protector and its
 security."			-- Dr. Elizabeth Morgan (remember her?)


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.