From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Date: 23 Dec 1992 08:23:54 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec23.053750.21468@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes ...

>Well golly gee.  So you only respond to points you want to respond to?
>So do I.

Which you promptly practice below.

I notice that you have excluded the question asked.  I'll provide it again.

>>>Three examples, right off the top of my head, and ones you've probably
>>>read about yourself.

>>Examples don't cut it.
>>I can just as easily post 6 counter-examples.

>Quite possibly.  But between newspapers and stories posted by readers
>of these newsgroups, I've seen 10 or so examples of men getting their
>rights trampled, and none of women getting similar treatment.

Hm.  talk.abortion, soc.men and alt.dads-rights.  Yeah, those are great
groups for seeing postings from readers about women's problems with 
child support.  Uh huh.

It's sure the list of groups *I'd* post such examples to, you betcha.

Of course, it should be noted that in talk.abortion at least, two such
postings have occured within the last 3 weeks.  Since they may not have
been posted to the group you are writing from (I read them in talk.abortion)
you may not have seen them.  But the point remains:

Does 6 postings of counter examples prove that the 'woman's problem' is
twice as bad as the 'man's problem'?

I'd say 'no' right off the bat.  What would you say?  I'd say that anec-
dotal evidence doesn't really give us any grounds upon which to determine
how pervasive a problem is.  It certainly isn't almost common, or whatever
phrase it is you used to describe it.

>Granted, women get their share of hardships.  But is the issue merely
>a matter of getting even?  Is child support primarily punishment?

The basis of child support law is to insure that children are supported,
so that society as a whole does not have the burden of supporting children
willy nilly.  This basis has been revealed, discussed, and basically stands
right now as is.  You can claim it is 'punishment' if you like, you can
claim that 'women' somehow have it in for 'men' if you like, but I'd
suggest that your claims would have little basis in either the legal
grounding of the current family services act or in the social constructs
that lead to it and support it.

The laws themselves are based upon certain assumptions about how our 
society should and does function (not MERELY should, and not merely does,
but both).  

Now, you and I may observe instances in which the assumptions of the
family services acts are violated, or don't apply, but that doesn't yet
undermine the basic constructs within it.  The fact that some percentage
of the population consists of 1 parent homes doesn't yet invalidate the
notion that a family has a mom and a dad.  The fact that wealth in our
country is not evenly distributed doesn't yet make it a 'should' that
children become the responsibility of only one parent.  Nor does the
existance of orphans mean that the state wants to undertake the raising of
all children, wholesale.

Law is like this.  It generally follows the realities of life, rather 
than leading it.  It generally takes some form of consensus, either in
narrow lobbying efforts, or broad-based support which is revealed to the
legislators, for change to occur.  And, generally, you can learn from
your setbacks.  You want 'choice' for men?  Figure out how to talk about
it without violating the principles of logic, for one.  And how to
measure it without violating the rules of evidence for another.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity