From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.junk,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:34:15 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

nelson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Mike Nelson) writes:

> In article <1992Sep03.224317.10654@uumeme.chi.il.us> drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (B
> >>
> >Hear, hear. It constantly amazes me that so many take it as reasonable that
> >the father "just naturally" must pay for the kid(s) upkeep, often seemingly
> >with no rational basis. I fail to understand why it seems to be carved in 
> >granite that the mother always has custody of the kid(s), even if the 
> >separation involved and her own lack of salable skills (FAR from being alway
> >the case, BTW... much kudos to those females who can handle themselves in th
> >real world!) would make her reliant on child-support and/or welfare...
> >
> 
> It shouldn't amaze you. It's the evolution of our society. Not that
> long ago mothers did not work outside the home.

What you say is very true. But when we have identified a change in the
general social structure, shouldn't we be a bit irked when the government 
(read: Law) is so slow to adapt to those changes.

Sure, government is bureaucracy and that in itself is the definition of
slow --or is it? We've recently watched the government move to right the
ills of those harmed by hurricane Andrew. In a matter of days, those who
govern have started the process to create ordinances, rules of exception,
and execute the other powers they may employ to make a bad situation
better. 

I don't expect government to move *quite* that quickly when it comes to
the inequities and damage that occurs due to societal change, but I do
believe that it should make _some_ motion without having to be driven
like so many unwilling oxen. Think in terms of the numbers. Hurricane
Andrew negatively affected nearly 3/4 of a million Americans. That's a
lot of people. But think in terms of the number of marriages that break
up each year (approximately 50 percent) and you get a look into numbers
which render those harmed by Andrew into a tiny fraction. Add to that
the fact that divorce is an ongoing circumstance, and you have a Bad
Thing (tm) that needs to be dealt with, and with as much rapidity as
might be mustered.

More than running the country, government is *supposed* to represent
the people. When it comes to the topic of family law, the job it does
is reprehensible.

> Fathers were not expected to be nurturing. It was taken as fact
> that fathers could not be the "mother" of the children.
> Courts might even remove children from the father should the
> mother die.

Well, it's been a __looong__ time since that sort of thing was common.
To associate it with your "not so long ago" statement is similar to
saying that Not So Long Ago, the primordial soup rendered forth life.
However, if you mean in terms of planetary history (see: Carl Sagan's
mihlly-yenz and mihlly-yenz of yeers), then I suppose I agree. 

> As our society changes so do the roles of mothers and fathers. It
> follows that the courts will reflect these changes (often much later)
> 
> BTW what's this real world stuff. With one statement you insult
> all persons who are unemployed or stay at home parents, regardless
> of their personal situations. 

I interpreted it as pertaining to the lack of responsiveness of the
society to its own changes, and the lack of governmental response to
the changes. "Tender Years" is hardly 'real-world.'

> Work is
> Work. Family is Family. It's all the real world. For me most of the
> challenges at home are tougher than at work.

I don't think that's an unfair statement to make. But I think I'd have
said it that real world is the work performed both inside and outside
the home. 

> I'd rather see more cases of joint custody. The child would live
> primarily with the mother (or 50-50). The father is then not
> so removed from the situation. He doesn't then support the
> child, he is being one of the childs parents. 

Huh? I'd rather see a presumption of 50-50, and the best circumstances
of the individuals involved (the family --mom, dad, the kids) determine
and deviation from that presumption. Perhaps that would favor the mom,
and perhaps it wouldn't. What it would favor is the fact that those who
are embroiled in divorce are individuals, and not some hypothetical
statistic with hypothetical resources (read: unlimited income/time).


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights