From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:00:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

This is posted for Ross Williams, williams@caesar.safb.af.mil, who is on
one of those finger nodes where he can read USENET, but not post.

>Kate Perkins replies to Alan Yasutovich, who replies to James A. Carter:

>> >If we aren't willing to "sponsor" our kids for the rest of their life, not
>> >just until they are eighteen, then why the hell did we have them in the
>> >first place?
>> 
>> 	People *did* have kids with the idea of "sponsoring" them in
>> 	many cases... But that's not the issue.  *You*, a male in the unusual
>> 	position of being a CP, are writing/speaking like a maternal CP.

>You know, we spend a lot on our daughter, and I don't see that
>I get a lot back from most of it.  I don't get a lot out of watching
>her eat or wear her clothes and her diapers or go to daycare.
>
>It seems to me the answer must be obvious to the first poster and
>oblivious to the second, that we do these things for our child, not
>for ourselves. 
>
>We love her.  We knew the job was dangerous when we took it.  We
>also knew that it was expensive and we signed on for that, too...

All right Katie.  Time to stop extrapolating from your life and assigning 
propriety on others therefrom.  What seems to you as "obviously" someone's 
"obliviousness" is maybe nothing more than your own parochialism.  

In your first paragraph you indicate a mechanical detatchment from the
day-to-day tedium of child rearing, described in more-than-is-strictly-
necessary detail.  BUT, in the post immediately preceding this one in 
alt-child-support, you indicate -- nay, DECLARE -- that your enjoyment 
of parenting is being instrumental.  (I.e., being there, and watching, 
and reveling in the minutea of the child.  Your words were: "I would 
still want to wake up in the same house with my kids and be a part of 
their daily lives.").

Well, Katie, which is it?  Is a parent properly supposed to enjoy children
a la spartan sacrifice -- EXILED spartan sacrifice, at that? or through 
instrumentality?  Or have you (as a woman who does not have Alan's 
experiences) declared that two separate standards apply?  One for you 
and those you could easily become (div.moth.w/cust), and another for 
div.fat.w/ocust, who must suffer through spartan sacrifice?

I shall not assume you to be a hypocrite, and so I will classify your 
post under "Gee, I never thought about it that way before".  And though 
I cannot speak for Alan, and indeed do not agree with everything he has 
ever said, I think that what he was intending by his post was for those 
of you who do not share his perspective, to OPEN YOUR BLOODY EYES AND 
TRY TO SEE IT THE WAY HE DOES.

But this is just a guess.

In reading Alan's emotionally charged (ergo not too articulate) post I
could easily see how he might be saying, "When I lived in the same
house as my children, I enjoyed the instrumentality of fathering; now
that I'm not (allowed to be) instrumentally involved with my child(ren)
I find the responsibility of fathering (read: being Daddy Deep-Pockets)
more than a little demeaning."

This, too, is just a guess.

But keep this in mind, also, Katie: "we knew the job was dangerous,
expensive, etc..."  This is all very handy coming from someone who gets
the priviledge of having her children live with her.  But I'll bet one
thing that most men like Alan and myself did not count on was that the
job our legal system created ESPECECIALLY FOR THEM includes exile, and
specifically EXcludes instrumentality.

I'm not sure how well you'd be able to imagine this, seeing as how men
are always being told that we can never REALLY imagine what it's like
being a victim of sexual discrimination (irony assumed), but try
anyway.  Imagine you daughter's first step, and you not being there to
watch it; your daughter's first word, and you not being allowed to hear
it.  Your son's first home run, and you not being there to congratulate
him; your child's first date, and you not knowing about it.  THEN
imagine another woman, whose only connection with your child is her
marriage to your child's father, having first and more immediate access
to your child than you do.  Are you burning yet?  No?  Well, let steep
for a few years while you underwrite their household which the court
tells you is more important than your own, and refuses to allow you to
know how your investment in your child is being spent, then we'll see
how you feel.

Do you still love your daughter?  Most assuredly.  Are you insulted?
angry?  cynical? just generally grumpy?  If you're normal, you are.  Do
you get royally p.o.-ed when some naive young waif comes spouting
theory and denying the viability of your experience?  You betcha.

Do I love my son?  More than anything, with the possible exception of
Northern Exposure, but I find it more than a little difficult to
swallow my anger and resentment when I think of all the things in his
life the system requires that I not participate in.  I knew the job was
hard and expensive, but I was never told that I would not be allowed to
be there to do it.  And this I resent.  Deeply.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

>We pay big bucks to be parents[;] and diapers, school fees, clothes,
>food, or whatever you're giving to this person aren't free just
>because you all live together.  Kids aren't much of a financial
>investment.
>
>If you think kids are too expensive a hobby, maybe you should have
>gotten a cat.

If you wish to view the return-on-investment in material/monetary
terms, then kids have not been a sound financial investment for over a
century--since the last time you could really count on your children
providing for your old age.

But if you would rather view the major investment in children, indeed
the preferred investment, as one of time and enjoyment and learning and
experience in all the foregoing, then an attitude such as Alan's is
understandable.  In fact, Katie, you would have to be "oblivious" to
reality if you could NOT understand such an attitude.

And I shall infer that at the time Alan had the choice of fathering a
child or getting a cat, he was under the impression (as were most of
us) that he'd be participating in his child's life in more ways than as
an exiled mechanical financier.

-rw
williams@caesar.safb.af.mil