From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: inequity in child support (was Re: I HAD NO CHOICE
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:17:29 GMT

In article <g9FNVB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>> 
>> >Child support amounts are set based on the noncustodial
>> >parents income or ability to make a set amount. 
>> 
>> You clearly know a great deal about the inequities of the 
>> child support system. What is your interpretation of how
>> these inequities arose in our historically male-dominated
>> court system?  
>
>Your way of asking obscures the basis of the traditional outlook. In
>stating 'male dominance,' you misdirect from the fact that it was
>women who dominated the home in the long history of an agricultural
>society, and continued into the technological age. Today, women can
>do pretty much what they set their sights on --or should be able to,
>absent traditionalist thought. Our societal changes have removed the
>categorized nature of labors to a great degree, and the problems we
>men face in the courts is based in large part in the same pidgeon-
>hole kind of thinking that women face in other areas.
>
>--- 
>Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
>Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 

What he said.... plus (+) an example.

In the mid 70s the man who started the local fathers' rights
organization here in Columbus, Ohio sued the Franklin County Court
system for sexual discrimination against men, specifically naming the
judges and referees in the suit for their extremely biased interpretation
of the laws.  The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, who
refused to hear this case because they considered it a divorce case,
believe it or not.  The Supreme Court kicked it back to the Ohio Appeals
court.  The Appeals Court over a bit of time, informed the defendents,
the judges and referees, that their case didn't look very good and
recommended a settlement.  So, the two senior judges and the county
prosecuting attorney, who was acting as defense counsel for the judges,
met with the plaintiff and counsel.  During that meeting, which was
transcribed, one of the judges made comments to the effect:

     Why are you suing us?  It's not our fault, it's women's
     fault.  If women weren't so set on equal rights and would
     just stay home and raise the children, we wouldn't be here
     today.  Sure, we always give custody to the mother, because
     that IS HER JOB.  Children should be with their mothers and
     mothers should be with their children.

The eventual settlement in this case was that two judges and one referee
resigned--they were obviously discriminating despite the laws and were
sexist in their interpretations of the laws.  Yes, all men, guilty of
discriminating against men.

So, how did such sexism arise in the minds of these men?  A general
study of society in the past would reveal the answer.  People, both men
and women, were taught to believe and did believe that men and women
were different, had different rights and responsibilities.  Father's
role was to earn money and take care of the cars and the outside of the
house, mother's role was to raise children and take care of the inside
of the house.  But this should all be understood, and, in fact, is by
most of us.  Hey, wouldn't that, therefore, make your question
rhetorical?  Hmmmm.....

So, does that answer your query?

Just as women have been fighting this prejudice about their roles and
responsibilities in society, and have been fighting for equal treatment
and equal opportunity under the law, men are also now fighting the
prejudices that have oppressed men.  Simplexus est.

So, it took women a long, long time to obtain equality and many would
argue that they are not all the way there yet in many arenas (like me--no,
I'm not an arena, argue), and it will take men a while to correct the
injustices in the domestic relations court system.  But we will.

Our struggle has nothing to do with misogyny and everything to do with
equality, equal opportunity to be parents, and fair and equitable
treatment under the law.  Child support is but one issue we are
addressing.

Here are others: we want

	* Child custody awards that better serve children's best
	  interests, whereby shared physical custody is made a legal
	  presumption.

	* Court enforcement of visitation and joint custody orders with
	  sanctions equal to those applied in support enforcement.

	* To educate policymakers and the public about the
	  Constitutional right (ra) of a child to full access to both
	  parents and the extended families.

	* Laws for the resolution of marital and custody disputes
	  through mediation rather than litigation.

	* Equal treatment for both parents in Domestic Relations
          proceedings.

	* Legislation to assure equitable child support amounts and
	  accountability.

	* The enactment of legislation to tighten evidence standards
	  for obtaining restraining orders, civil protection orders,
	  protection of abuse orders, and emergency custody orders and
	  visitation termination orders made as a result of allegations
	  of abuse, whether physical or sexual, made during divorce
	  custody or visitation disputes.

	* Ra.

Is that so wrong?

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  The other day I was talking with the ex2b about the word, "ra."
Old, old word (we're talking over 10,000 years old, maybe hundreds of
thousands of years old).  It was picked up in many, many languages and
in many words.  One of our English words that evolved from ra is
"right."  Another is "ray" (Ra was the Egyption Sun God, the Sun was
GOOD).  Amazingly, we use the word a lot more than we even know and in
primitive situations.  A touchdown was just scored, "Ra!!!!!!!"   The
ex2b was not interested in the least.  For some reason that wasn't a
surprise.  Ra, good, great, the sun.  Neanderthal man stands in front of
his child pointing at that great beacon of warmth and light and says,
"Ra."  That's what I want to do (of course, you might imagine that I
might possibly be a little more verbose).  I really do.  I have things
to offer my children--more than just money.  Like "ra."
Xref: sparky soc.men:21118 alt.dads-rights:2934 alt.abortion.inequity:5878 alt.child-support:3945