HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Sexual Discrimination
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:24:16 GMT

David Garrod writes in soc.men:
>In article <1993Jan18.104242.1644@actcnews.res.utc.com>,
Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com (Bob Clarke) writes:
>>  .... 
>> Does anybody know what percentage of fathers get custody.  Both nation wide
>> and for the state of Ct would be helpful.  My child is 4 1/2 and I have been
>> told "not a chance".
>
>
>>From a survey of Indiana Court Orders, August 1992:
>
>Sole custody to mother  82.6%
>Sole custody to father   9.6%
>Joint legal custody      2.8%
>Split custody            5.0%   (Split custody is each parent getting
>sole custody of at least one child.)
>
>For Connecticut statstics, I would suggest you contact one of the
>father`s groups there.  The Children`s Rights Council used to have
>a CT chapter: 44 Franklin St., Trumbull, CT 06611, (203) 452-9624
>
>David Garrod

In 1974 a man in Columbus, Ohio named Dave Jordan filed a suit against
the Franklin Country Domestic Relations Court for sexual
discrimination.  He named specific parties to the suit--judges and
referees.  At that time the law in this state said that judges and
referees were to award custody to parents without any gender bias.
Amazingly, the judges and referees were awarding custody to women in
well over 90% of all cases--and there was no such thing as any form of
joint custody.

This case took about six years to come to loggerheads.  During the
case, it was submitted to the US Supreme Court on appeals.  The US
Supreme Court considered this a domestic relations case and refused to
take it, sending it back down for review at the Ohio Appellate Court
level with some direction.  The Ohio Appellate Court, in the end,
recommended that the defendents settle--otherwise they may lose and the
case would have far-reaching consequences, establishing a precedent
which could sweep the nation and cause widespread legal reform.  And NO
ONE wanted that.

Yet, here we see a state, Indiana, much like every other state in the
US, discriminating against men with total disregard for gender
fairness.  If women could illustrate that they were being discriminated
against with such disregard, and so unjustly, they would surely be
filing sexual discrimination charges against all parties involved.
And, they would win these cases.

So, what I am asking, or suggesting is this:  Why don't we look at this
avenue of approach for correcting the injustices in the system?  Any
precedent establishing case could inspire reform throughout the
country, and, at the very least, it could garner much needed attention
on the plight of oppressed, divorcing or divorced fathers.

Is it unreasonable to incorporate such a goal into the mission of
divorced fathers' rights groups?  If 52 class-action lawsuits  were
filed simultaneously in the states and territories, the courts and the
media would have to sit up and take notice.  And maybe, at last, the
charade would be exposed for what it is:  sexual discrimination.

Comments, anyone?

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer 
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: L629159@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 05:57:31 PST

From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)

(Discussion Deleted)

Don, you have a compelling argument here.  What do you propose to
safeguard the father's right to stop an adoption, yet safeguard the
mother and the child in the cases where the mother feels that the
father is potentially abusive?
--

                                                --  Michal

  At this point, I feel compelled to jump in.Any and every living
person is potentially abusive.  There are laws (and courts, and
police, and...) to protect against actual abuse.  In the US, at
least, we do not formally act against anyone because someone "feels"
that they are "potentially" a criminal.  Nor should we.

  Al Moore  (twice accused by my ex- of child abuse)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Interstate Precedents?
From: murphy1@husc10.harvard.edu (Gerard J. Murphy)
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:14:05 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

   I have a question about some of the cases and rulings that have been
mentioned on this group.  To what extent, if any, can precedents in one
state affect cases in another state?  I.e. if a court in state 'X' rules
in a certain way that establishes a precedent does that carry any weight
as an argument in a similar case in state 'Y'?  I'd be interested to hear
what any of the lawyers out there have to say.

                                       Gerry Murphy
From: boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: judges who become victims themselves
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:15:12 GMT
Reply-To: boe@slac.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Followup-To: -
Organization: SLAC

Does anyone know of any judges who have had some experience meting out the
usual bad deals to NCP's (usually men) in divorce/custody cases who then
later become the victims themselves of the same treatment in connection
with their own divorce cases?  If so, I would be interested in hearing
about them, how they reacted to their own bad treatment, whether they might
have had a change of heart on these matters, whether they changed their
attitude afterward in later divorce cases they may have presided over, etc.

Thanks, Bob Boeninger
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3538 soc.men:23372 soc.women:23133
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 27 Jan 1993 07:48:26 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-
-For example, if men ask for some kind of custody in only 30% of all divorce
-cases, how many of *that* 30% are awarded sole or primary custody?
-
-I don't doubt that in many, or even perhaps most cases, there is a judicial
-sexual bias against men in custody battles.  I'd just like to see the stats
-(comparisons) for this.  If anyone has them, please cite these stats and your
-reference sources.

-Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
-
   Lisa has a good point.  I too would like to see some stats if someone knows
them.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:19:16 GMT

In article <2527@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>In article <C1HtrE.C9w@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>I know it's futile trying to discuss actual case law with you, Aaron,
>>but other readers may be interested in knowing the answer to your
>>question, which I take to be "Does this statistic prove that men are
>>denied equal protection as guaranteed under the 14th amendment?"
>
>>The answer is no, the numbers by themselves are not dispositive.  As I
>>wrote in a related context last month:
>
>I took his question to be "Is this statistic EVIDENCE that men are 
>denied equal protection?"  The answer to that question is undeniably YES.

The answer is not necessarily, for reasons already described.  As Michal
posted, men win 78% of all contested custody cases.

>>Under _Washington v. Davis_, mere "disparate impact" isn't enough.  If
>>you actually want to discuss this intelligently, you'll need to read
>>and understand that decision first.
>
>So only lawyers are qualified to "discuss intelligently" what is fair and
>what is not?  What a laugh.  

Not at all.  Furthermore, we were discussing what was legal, rather than
what was fair.  This goes back to the judicial law-making thread we had
earlier.

At any rate, current laws are both legal and fair, so much of this
discussion is moot.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Help!  Wife left state with the kids
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:11:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.222131.11719@leland.Stanford.EDU>, shedevil@leland.Stanford.EDU (Anne P. Mitchell, JD) writes:
> In a recent missive jimbo@csusb tells us:
> 
> >600 miles away.  She did not tell me of the move until she and
> >her new hubby bought a house in Reno.  She has given me her new
> >address and phone number so I can stay in written and verbal
> >communication with the kids(now between 10 and 17).  I have never

I endorse Anne`s recommendations and would further suggest that if
you have to return to court you might also consider the age of your
elder child (17) and ask that the judge anticipate emancipation in
his order.  (Assuming you feel that is appropriate.)  It might save
a trip back to court to emancipate in a few months time.

If you cannot reach an agreement with your ex regarding visitation
and know you have to go back to court, post again and I will give
details of literature and comments re: fighting moves out of state.

David Garrod
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Family Courts
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:41:41 GMT
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.


 Violence Spreads in Family Courts 

NY Times, Sunday Jan. 24th 1993 page 4 E


 Domest violence turned another courthouse into a high crime zone
in Dallas last week when a man shot his wife, himself and a bystander-
rather than face a judge. That brought the body count to at least eight
dead and seven wounded in incidents of court-house violence involving
family disputes since Jan. 7, 1992, when a man killed his wife and 
brother-in-law in Cleveland.

 The stat judges in Dallas were so angry at local officials for not
providing adequate security measures that, as a protest, they stopped 
holding hearings. The family court judges were the first to go out, and
the rest followed.

 "The problem with family courts is you don't know when the problems
will pop up," said Judge Pat McDowell of Dallas. "They are the most 
volatile of all courts because the cases are so emotional.

 In criminal courts, guidelines define the kind fo cases that require
extra security arrange-ments, like a homicide trial involving ethnic 
conflict. But no such protocols exist in family law cases. While
improving security is important, some experts argue that recent develop-
ments in family law make the cases even more volatile than before. 
Husbands now battle wives for custody of the children - which used to
be considered mother's prerogative. And wives have become more aggressive
in demanding that ex-spouses pay their child support.

 "The fights go on longer, and they are more bitter because there are
more things to fight over," said Kevin Burke, chief judge in Minnesota's 
Hennepin County. "You ask for trouble by taking people at a moment of
extreme psychological vulnerability and subjecting them to intense
frustration over a long period of time."

                             Roberto Suro
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:49:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <2527@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:

>>question, which I take to be "Does this statistic prove that men are
>>denied equal protection as guaranteed under the 14th amendment?"
>
>>The answer is no, the numbers by themselves are not dispositive.  As I
>>wrote in a related context last month:
>
>I took his question to be "Is this statistic EVIDENCE that men are 
>denied equal protection?"  The answer to that question is undeniably YES.

  I deny it, so it's not undeniable.  It's not evidence, or at least
  good evidence of *anything* without having more information.   As I
  said before, U.S. EE's are overwhelmingly white males.   Is this 
  "evidence" or "EVIDENCE" of discrimination by companies that employ
  them?   No.  It doesn't rule out discrimination but it's hardly evidence
  of it.  There could be any number of cultural or other factors.


>But it is not the LAW that "treats people differently", it is the manner
>in which the law is ENFORCED.  If there is a law against loitering, but
>only blacks are arrested for violating that law while whites are set free
>with a nod and a wink, then surely the law enforcement officers would be 
>guilty of discrimination.                             

  But your analogy isn't exact since it has two independent variables
  -- who gets arrested and who gets set free.   The custody data that
  prompted this post only had one : the percentage of men awarded
  custody.  

  So a better analogy would be what if we noted that 75% of 
  loitering arrests were of blacks?   Does this show evidence
  of discrimination?   

  And the answer is no.  What if we were looking at statistics
  for loitering arrests in a place that was predominantly black?
  or What if blacks, due to higher unemployment, really DO loiter
  more often?   (etc).   

  So in the analogy as in the real data WE NEED MORE INFORMATION
  to even know if it SUGGESTS discrimination.   The call has been 
  put out for more data, like what % of fathers request custody, 
  or who gets awarded custody when it IS contested.   Do doubt
  this data will be cited soon and then we'll have something we
  can sink our teeth into.
         

  It is very disturbing that in a modern democracy where voters
  are expected to help set policy in often complex, highly
  technical subject areas like health-care, economic policy,
  defense matters, and so on, there is such a dearth of 
  understanding of basic statistics and how to interpret 
  numerical data.   Hell, just to be a good CONSUMER you have 
  to have a better handle on these things than the above poster.
  When you hear phrases like "9 out of 10 doctors agree" or
  when you're reading ingredients, unit prices, or advertising
  claims you need these basic skills.


---peter

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: boe@cadsun2.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Subject: re: Bruce Kaskubar's Draft proposal
Followup-To: Bruce Kaskubar's Draft proposal
Reply-To: boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Organization: SLAC
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:36:38 GMT


A comment about Bruce Kaskubar's draft proposal:

In the proposal, the emphasis for justifying changing the current statutes
seems to be that there are various negative consequences for the kids and
for society as a result of sole custody by one parent.   I would suggest that 
there are other reasons for shared custody which could also be at least 
mentioned.  To me, they are the most important considerations.  
	Put simply, it is a crime, a sin essentially, against the NCP, 
against Nature, to deprive him/her of his/her child, except for infrequent 
visitations.  If this moral crime must be committed, then the NCP should be 
compensated in some suitable way, such as being allowed to live with the same 
standard of living as the CP/family instead of the state of destitution that 
seems so prevalent.  If physical custody is maintained primarily by one parent,
the statutes should obligate the CP to assume an increasing share of financial 
responsibility over time, the NCP a decreasing share.
	Various points from the recent posting of a 1984 article by the
journalist Bernard Goldberg could be summarized and included in the draft
as well.

	Bob Boeninger, e-mail boe@slac.stanford.edu
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:23:26 GMT
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article 074324RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET, <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> () writes:
>-
>-I just noticed that you're comparing apples and oranges.  Not all
>-divorces are litigated before judges and referees.  It could very
>-well be the case that in 75% of divorces, the parents agree to grant
>-the mother custody, in 5% of divorces, the parents agree to grant the
>-father custody, and the other 20% goes before a judge for a 50/50
>-split.  It's certainly the case that custody battles are the exception,
>-and not the rule.
>-
>-Aaron's solution, apparentally, would be to require parents to go to
>-court and have a judge flip a coin to get his desired 50% quota.
>---
>-ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
>-standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>-the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>
>  I am afraid that we have in ted frank's case an example of the `gallant,
>male-bashing' male.  I do not know about other states, but in Massachusetts,
>women got custody in 90% of CONTESTED cases.  I am sure that there are
>others who know the statistics better, and the same pattern  probably
>holds in other states too.
>
>Rohit Parikh



  gallant... Hmmmmm


  I looked the word up. See, we don't use these high falutin' words 
'round here. 

  gallant (gal'ant), adj. 3. polite and attentive to women


 Mrs Frank, "Teddy! TEDDY! Get your ass in here right now and
             wipe the dishes or you won't get layed this year either!!"

  Around these parts, Ted types are referred to as pusses or mommas boy, 
never gallant. But then again, maybe he thinks it is noble to submit like
a dog whose just strewn the garbage all over the garage. You know the
look they have..... that incredibly stupid look. Nose down, eyes up. 
 Some people just don't know any better.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:52:24 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
><C1J9G5.8Js@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>><C1IpA6.H47@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>>That's like saying that women had no desire to be company president
>>>>in the 1950's because they didn't apply.  Perhaps there were a few
>>>>exceptions:  those cases where an exceptionally talented woman pushed
>>>>her way through.  Only the truly exceptional women would even pursue 
>>>>it; the others wouldn't waste the time, effort, and money, because
>>>>the sexism was a pure and clear obstacle.
>>>>
>    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
>>>>If 70% of women who applied for company president were accepted
>>>>under such circumstances, I, for one, would not conclude that women
>>>>were treated equally or better than men.
>    ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^
>    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
>
>>>Why is it that if "70% of women who applied for company president were 
>>>accepted" you would not expect sexist hiring pactices? 
>>> 
>>>[,,,___,,,]
>>
>>I don't understand your question -- where did I say anything like that?
>
>See above. It was not an obscure, hidden comment. I am a bit confused by
>your response. 

I see the problem: you apparently misunderstood my statement, as 
your partial quote indicates.  Look at your question:  you omitted 
the crucial words, "under such circumstances."

Without those words, there is an entirely different meaning.


>I was merely pointing out the mismeasure of sexism. Seventy
>percent male is considered an obvious, unambiguous sign of sexist hiring
>practices. But for some unfathomable reason (to me anyway) seventy percent
>female is not. I am just wondering if anyone can tell me why this is so.

I agree.  I disagree with that kind of reasoning -- that 70% male
should be an obvious, unambigous sign of sexist hiring practices under 
all circumstances.  Such "prima facie" evidence seems to be applied 
strictly in favor of women and against men.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:51:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.011724.27341@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>Hummmmmm.......  Half-empty.  No, half-full--half-empty--half-full.  Did
>not.  Did too.  Did not.  Did too.  diidddd notttt......

I see that Aaron has honed his debating skills to the finest nuggets of
monosyllabic words.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3545 soc.men:23395 soc.women:23148 misc.legal:23446
From: RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:16:19 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

>>    I think you are overstating your case to say that the data do not
>>(data is plural of datum) add up to anything.  You really should say that
>>the data are not decisive.  But then decisive data are almost never avaiable.
>>The data presented are a prima facie case that discrimination exists
>
>  No it ISN'T!   Any more than the fact that blacks and women are
>  way underrepresented among workimg EE's relative to their % of
>  the population is "prima facie" evidence for discrimination
>  in this field.   There *might* be discrimination; it doesn't
>  rule it out; but it doesn't support it, either.
>
>
>---peter
>
>
    Yes it is.  Prima facie means `at first glance', not `at last glance'.
When there is a very substantial difference, then it is, at first glance,
evidence that discrimnation exists.  If you are holding a gun over
a dead body, it is, at first glance, evidence that you are the killer.
Of course, the discrimination might not be there, and you might not be
the killer, YES, BUT, at first glance it does count for something.  I
would suggest you read up on non-monotonic reasosning which the logic
operating here.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.feminism