From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:51:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <Bz7L6y.4Ep@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1g54gsINNkaf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>Where does he suppose the tender years doctrine *came* from, if not a societal
>>expectation that *mothers* have an obligation to support their children?!?!?!
>I have to disagree.  
>"Tender years" did not come from an expectation that *mothers* had an
>obligation to support their children.  It came from an expectation that 
>they were the only people qualified to >mother< their children.  That, in
>and of itself, is a sexist viewpoint unsupported by any hard evidence.

Define "mother", brother.

For the bulk of human history 'mothering' children has had to do with
supporting children.  Now, I'd agree with you that the tender years
doctrine is crap, and that the social dinosour that only men bring home
the bacon is likewise crap.

I don't think that translates into your claim that society expects men
to support their children, but doesn't expect women to.  Society as every
expectation that women will feed and house children when it awards them
custody.  In many cases, society expects a man to help pay for that food
and housing, but absent the man, it STILL expects it of women.

>the woman was the only one qualified to >mother< the child, the man got to
>support her in the bargain -- like it or not.

horseshit.

there is such a thing as alimony, which provides for the 'support' of a 
woman.  (OR of a man -- depends upon whom alimony is awarded to at the
dissolution of a relationship).

Child support, on the other hand, for the support of children, and is
separate and distinct from alimony.

>The way this was and is effectuated is to provide, under penalty of law,
>transfer payments from >men< to >women< purportedly for the children's
>benefit.

Horseshit again.

It provides for transfer payments from NONcustodial parents to custodial
parents, and it doesn't require accounting, whether the custodial parent
is male or female.

>those funds, as to just where and on what they were spent, a logical person
>would conclude that the funds were really transferred for the benefit of the 
>>mother<, not the child.

A logical person would not necessarily conclude this, Karl.  Armed with the
facts, a logical person would conclude that the law is gender blind, but
the application of the law is not.

Cheap shot avoided, here.

>Every generally accepted principle in accounting and law says that if you
>are the custodian of a thing, and that thing (or person) requires upkeep,
>you must keep records to substantiate that the funds you receive and spend
>for that upkeep are really spent on what they should be and are not
>converted to your own personal benefit and use.

And horseshit for a third time.

This is true when we are talking of a corporation, who has fiduciary duties
to shareholders and/or must account for expenditures when claiming exemptions
for business expenses.  It holds true where multiple interests have reason
to concern themselves with the finances of a public trust.

It does not hold true in personal finances, and never has.  The "sole" 
exception is hardly child support -- the exception is ALL personal finances.

These arguments are sieves.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.women