From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action (Re: Reproductive Technologies)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 09:38:40 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C0noG6.KnB@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

I have trimmed the newsgroups line. I hope not appropriately.
>>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.
>I'll take a shot at this.

Please do.  While I did make some deletions, I don't *think* I deleted your
definition of Affirmative Action.  Would you care to provide one?

>>>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.

Because the point of assigning custody hasn't anything to do with wider
social ills like being unable to make a living, in part.

See, in the workplace, employers need to take into account the skillset of
prospective employees, before hiring.  If one does *not* find an AA-type
candidate with the appropriate skills, one need not hire an AA-type candidate.
These types of standards would make a real muddle of the court.  Rather, it
would be more efficient, less costly, and certainly FASTER not to put all
parents through an 'interview' as it were, but to take the opposite default:
that both parents in any particular case are presumed to be competent as 
parents until proven otherwise.

We'd get there a WHOLE lot faster that way.

Otherwise, you have to set up a whole committee to define what is or is not
the valid  'skill set' for 'hiring' a parent, and deal with the eventuality
that neither parent met the bill.

So, since we *can* fix it tomorrow by picking male custodial parents 50% of
the time, right off the bat, and we aren't going to have to deal with future
inequity (because we are solving it in one fell swoop), we don't need to invite
corresponding aggravation.  

After all, the problem with a number of AA-type programs (not all, but certainly
some) is the complaint of 'reverse discrimination'.  And in some cases, it's
a very valid complaint.  Yet, a complaint many are willing to live with 
because of the CONTINUED inequity in education, child rearing, and hiring
that persists.  

In the custody arena, if we do *not* persist in the discrimination, we don't
need counteractions, nor do we need reverse discrimination.  It's done, 
starting now.

>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. 

But we aren't speaking of addressing the 'good of the family'.  We aren't
applying ANY standard (so far as I can see) about where the child would
be better off.  We are instead, making the presumption that one parent is
as good as the other in a general sense.

If we were to go sticking our fingers into the 'good of the family' there's
a whole lot *more* work to be done (and work I wouldn't suggest we do.)

>>>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.

I don't think that's quite enough, myself.  Nor does it illuminate the
guidelines judges would be expected to use.  I imagine that there *are*
circumstances in which one parent or the other might be presumed to be
'bad' enough to be disqualified from custodial status, right?  What 
circumstances would be used, how illuminated, and how handled?

I'm suggesting we not subject each and every custody situation to a contest
between the parents.  But I am acknowledging that there are probably some
cases where none of us figure a blind 50-50 coin flip is a good idea.

>>>AND/OR
>>>3.  Insert your definition here, Adrienne.  (Either you meant to claim 
>>>you support AA or you evaded it, using "equitable standards" intentionally.)

>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.

The notion behind AA in the implementations I'm familiar with normally in-
cludes some idea that the discrimination still occurs.  And it's an attempt
to correct for ONGOING discrimination.  Once parity of whatever sort is
reached, AA is supposed to disappear.  I'm suggesting that we could reach
parity as of tomorrow, by virtue of making a decision on this issue to
award custody without regard to the gender of the parents.  Which, I guess,
is leapfrogging AA to equity.

So, hey, maybe I don't 'support' AA, after all.  I support equity.  I'd
appreciate it if you wouldn't disconnet this paragraph with the preceeding
one if you choose to quote it.  It explains the statement.

>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.

I don't believe this is either a useful or a representative definition of
feminism, Karl.

I consider this flame-bait and, as such, not conducive to further discussion
on the topic.

>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.

Well, "they" might.  But I don't think "they" use your definition, either.
I think *you* use your definition, in a self-serving manner.

Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:6357 alt.child-support:4286 alt.dads-rights:3258