From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action (Re: Reproductive Technologies)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:48:05 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1icftuINNopf@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>my, my.  Are 5 newsgroups *really* necessary?  Is what Don has to fling upon
>this net *that* important?  Sigh.
>
>In article <C0E32p.AG2@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1ia1h8INNs7p@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>><C0CBE3.InL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>><1i9pfhINNo7s@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>>Well, I'm all for applying equitable standards to child custody and support
>>>>>awards, so that makes the rest of your posting suspect, since I am a feminist.
>>>>Yes, but are you all for applying AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?
>>>Define it.
>>>Then I'll take a whack at answering.
>
>>Another smokescreen response, Adrienne?  You conveniently omitted
>>Karl Denninger's question re AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, in favor of evading
>>the issue through the term "equitable standards" -- and then,
>>claiming that you represent feminists, you accuse *his* article of
>>being "suspect"?
>
>Scuse, please, but Karl didn't bother defining it either.  Now, it seems
>a definition is reasonable request because 'affirmative action' takes many
>forms.  Are you looking for an answer, or just a brangle?
>
>I'll repeat: if you will define what you mean by the question, I will
>attempt to answer it.

I'll take a shot at this.

>BTW, while you are *conveniently* redefining the discussion, let me point
>out that I claim that I am a feminist.  I do not claim to REPRESENT
>feminists.  Get a life.
>
>>1.  Presumption in favor of the father, until such time as fathers
>>receive 49% of sole/primary custody awords.
>
>No.  I'd go for 50% of fathers receiving sole/primary custody starting
>now, but not a backwards presumption.  We aren't trying to even out a 
>social ill when we are talking about the private constructs of a given 
>family: rather we are trying to deal with the breakup of that family in
>an equitable manner.  

Why not Adrienne?  I think it is more fair to use the current inequity
ratios (85 / 15) until we reach equality.

We are certainly trying to even out a social ill; the good of a family
construct is a social issue, and should be addressed as same.  In fact, 
I'll go so far as to suggest that it is more important than the job market,
since it is from the family that the values of a child are imparted.
Therefore, without reasonable family structure the entire rest of the
question of society is moot and irrelavent.

>>AND/OR
>
>>2.  Fines against judges whose record continues to show bias against
>>fathers (eg. 40% or less).
>
>Sure.  I'd like to see the guidelines that judges are expected to use,
>though, and the methods they would be measured by.  Just for curiousities
>sake, doncha know.

Its simple Adrienne.  Just statistically evaluate the custody decisions by
judge by month.  Any not meeting the quotas is disbarred and/or fined.
Simple enough.

>>AND/OR
>
>>3.  Insert your definition here, Adrienne.  (Either you meant to claim 
>>you support AA or you evaded it, using "equitable standards" intentionally.)
>
>My definition of 'equitable standard' would be to presume, absent some 
>useful measure of 'unfitness', that a father is as likely as a mother to be
>a good parent, and to award custody equally, without regard to the genders
>of the parties.  That still leaves room to rule out custody granted to a
>'bad' parent (which I'm sure we would both agree would be undesireable -- 
>but of course doesn't address the issue of 'what if both parents are bad?')
>while  rendering most custody decisions impartial WRT sex of the parents.

Nope, not until we have equality.  For feminism's sake, which argues that we
have to redress past wrongs in other areas of life, I'll argue that we need
to redress them here as well.

>And your biased either/or shit don't cut it bub.  I've stated my position
>above, and I am a feminist.  You, however, are merely pugnacious.
>
>Adrienne Regard

Yes.  We ought to redefine the word given your self-given designation.  
I suggest the following for those who are with you on this:

	feminist:

	A person supporting the superiority of the feminine gender, without
	regard to the impact on the male gender.  This platform extends to
	all areas of life, including family, workplace, religion and social
	constructs.

If the others who claim to be feminists don't like your claim and its
implications, perhaps they will excommunicate you lest the above become the
common definition.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Pro-reproductive freedom for both sexes -- or for neither.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6284 alt.child-support:4085