From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: marriage/parental role models (was Re: social activism)
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:49:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <9209252201.AA06964@mica.berkeley.edu> muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <19vbk7INN58i@agate.berkeley.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1686CCB99.LMEANS@cmsa.gmr.com> uunet!heifetz!rphroy!cmsa.gmr.com!LMEANS@ncar.ucar.EDU writes:

>>>[...] By serving as a
>>>role model however, you can demonstrate the soundness of your
>>>philosophy without explicitly saying a word.
>>>
>>>This approach is particularly effective (essential, probably) with
>>>children, who are perhaps the most important subset of people to
>>>get your message across to, as they are likely to be more openminded
>>>and philosophically malleable than adults.  Even with adults, I find
>>>it effective.
>
>>This is a big reason why the 90% imbalance in child custody awards
>>frightens me.  It means that children and adults will not see male
>>parental role models, and they will continue to believe that children
>>belong with women.
>
>Would it be better for them to lack a female parental role model?  I
>will assume that you would agree that they should have both, if they
>have either, for the rest of this post.

Based only on subjective experience (including male friends wishing to be 
with their kids and female friends saying they can't deal with kids),
I tend to think both sexes are equally qualified, barring external
socialization.

It would be best for kids to have two role models.  If they have
just one, it should not be decided on the basis of sex.


>>Even worse, a man who *wants* to practice such "passive activism"
>>and take care of his children is denied the opportunity.
>
>Actually, that does not seem to be the case, since fathers who dispute
>custody often get it.  However, I do not think that disputing custody
>is a great answer, since it is often very vicious and traumatic for
>the children.

The fact that it is vicious and traumatic for the children means
that fathers who really do want custody will back off -- especially
because the system makes it clear that they aren't likely to succeed.
The second level of denial includes huge court costs and antipathy
>from friends, relatives, court employees, and lawyers.

Those who survive these obstacles are more likely to get custody
because they have the strongest cases.


>What about the couples who stay together?  The ever-popular
>"traditional family" where the man goes out and works and the woman
>stays home and takes care of the children (or works and then comes
>home and takes care of the children)?  What sort of role models are
>*their* children seeing?  The problem is *NOT* just divorce/custody.

I agree that the problem is not just divorce/custody.  But being
unemployed is a great sign for a judge (especially an old-boy) to
declare a man a deadbeat.  Add the predisposition to award kids
to women, and a man who stays home in an intact marriage because 
he wants to raise his kids is taking an IMMENSE risk -- especially 
given a 50% divorce rate.

The imbalance in custody circularly causes men to "leave for work"
and thus also puts pressure on women to stay at home.


>We could fight against these imbalances for years, but that would not
>solve the problem (especially since the role models causing the
>problem are not only divorced couples).  The problem is in the current
>popular view of marriage and families.  Adults who choose to produce
>children should make a commitment to those children, distinct from any
>commitment to a partner.  The people who want to work should be able
>to work, the people who want to take care of the children should do
>so, regardless of their gender.

Yes!  But men are greatly discouraged from entering family roles 
by an imbalanced family law system.  This continues to force men to
"leave for work" and women to give up careers, and it effectively
prevents "role model activism" on both sides.

>"Balancing" the court cases would simply give us some children with
>only a male parent and some children with only a female parent.  What
>good would that really do?

It would take away the circular prejudices of empirical observation.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should 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.