From: shedevil@leland.Stanford.EDU (Paula Abdul Jabbar)
Subject: Re: When the father is out of a job.
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 06:11:02 GMT

In a recent missive thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu tells us:

*And you, Aaron, probably think it's fair that women still make, on the
*average, about $.70 for every dollar a man makes, that the standard

Most recent figure I heard, Monday, from a professor of Women, Gender
and Equality at Stanford was .84 cents.  Not great, but better...still,
not good...but I doubt Aaron is to blame for that.

*of living goes down 74% for the mother and children and up substantially
*for the father after divorce, 

In the first 1-2 years.  Studies show that in the 3rd to 4th year that
trend reverses, and custodial mothers are better off financially than
are their ex-husbands.

*that in 75% of the cases where the father contests custody, he wins 
*(figures used in that California case you mentioned)

Completely false, not to mention wrong.  The Stanford Child Custody
Study concluded that where both father and mother each request custody
for themselves, fathers get sole custody in less than 10% of the cases.
This was concluded just last year, in California.

*Control that for socio-economic factors.  The kids who get in trouble
*are, by and large, kids being raised in poverty as 1 in 5 children
*in the U.S. are - mostly because their fathers aren't contributing
*to their support, the mothers don't get paid enough for the jobs
*they do and don't get any support services.  

Are you saying that the reason kids get into trouble is because they
don't get enough MONEY from Daddy (and Mommy's job)??? I can't believe 
that is *really* what you meant to say...can you please clarify?


*Or because they're tired of being treated like second class citizens
*by their own husbands.

Uh...are you by chance a divorced woman who is just a TAD bitter?

*My honor student daughter (who has seen her father 3 times in 10 years) 
*would be surprised to hear that.  So would the children of many friends
*of mine who have done just fine - because they were lucky enough
*to be in relatively stable economic circumstances.

Or perhaps they were lucky enough to have at least one really good and
on the ball parent?  You seem to be demeaning at minimum your daughter's
friends' parents, and perhaps yourself as well if you are saying that is
why your daughter is an honor student.

*Aren't you the one who is defending
*pulling the support out from under the kids?  How does that fit in
*with your above assertion?

Look, whoever you are [I'd use your name, but you haven't revealed it to
us]  I don't know of a SINGLE person in this group who has even ONCE
advocated NOT supporting their child/ren.  You come across as an
incredibly bitter and angry person, and no doubt you have right and
rason to be.  But you do NOT have the right nor the reason to spill it
out onto people who are not the cause of your anger, nor your problem.

*Not putting your kids through school is a sure way to end up with
*them moving back in with you - and their 3 small children- a few
*years later when they can't support themselves.

So?  Isn't that their choice?


-- 
    LOOKING FOR: Michael Hobson, Alex Craven, David Runyon, & Lorna Taylor
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, law student, shedevil@leland.stanford.edu or @vix.com
     	  founder of FREE, the Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange.
 The fathers' rights paper & FREE files available via ftp: gw.home.vix.com;/pub