HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:54:11 GMT

In article <C1IpA6.H47@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan26.085757.6320@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>>Ted, one question....
>>>
>>>Given that women are awarded either sole custody or primary custody
>>>(usually something like a 75/25 split) in roughly 85% of all divorces
>>>in this country in which the divorcing couple are parents of children
>>>under age eighteen, despite laws in virtually every state that
>>>emphatically set forth that judges should NOT be biased by gender in
>>>awarding said custody of children, are the judges and referees of the
>>>domestic relations courts of the United States of America guilty of
>>>sexual discrimination?
>>
>>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.
>
>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? 
 
[,,,___,,,]
 
>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:01:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <93026.133156RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>-From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
>-
>- noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) posts:

>-  You would have a good case if you can show that, for your
>-  sample, the same percentage of men and women demanded custody
>-  and they were equally suited to have custody awarded (by
>-  whatever reasonable metric for this you care to use).
>-
>-  Personally I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the courts
>-  have an unfair bias toward awarding custody to the mother, based
>-  on anecdotal evidence.  But on the face of it the data you've
>-  presented here doesn't really add up to anything.
>-
>    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


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:23:02 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division


In article <1993Jan26.085757.6320@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
 
> Ted, one question....
> 
> Given that women are awarded either sole custody or primary custody
> (usually something like a 75/25 split) in roughly 85% of all divorces
> in this country in which the divorcing couple are parents of children
> under age eighteen, despite laws in virtually every state that
> emphatically set forth that judges should NOT be biased by gender in
> awarding said custody of children, are the judges and referees of the
> domestic relations courts of the United States of America guilty of
> sexual discrimination?
> 
> Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
> TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

I think this material would be excellent amunition for a sexual
discrimination suit.

Karl, are you taking this down?
-- 

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3548 soc.men:23400 soc.women:23153 misc.legal:23450
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:27:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <qy4ZXB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Jan26.035102.3766@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.e
>> >In article <1993Jan26.011724.27341@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.
>>
>Deletions...
>
>> Ted, one question....
>> 
>> Given that women are awarded either sole custody or primary custody
>> (usually something like a 75/25 split) in roughly 85% of all divorces
>> in this country in which the divorcing couple are parents of children
>> under age eighteen, despite laws in virtually every state that
>> emphatically set forth that judges should NOT be biased by gender in
>> awarding said custody of children, are the judges and referees of the
>> domestic relations courts of the United States of America guilty of
>> sexual discrimination?
>> 
>> Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
>
>Just one question;  Does anyone have real stats on how often men ask for
>sole or primary custody, in comparison to how often they are actually
>awarded it?
>
>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.


Men are dissuaded from pursuing custody, even joint custody, both by
court officials and their own attorneys.  Attorneys are not willing to
fight for something they cannot deliver.  Most men do NOT have the
money to pay for an expensive court battle to merely achieve what they
should be awarded by default.  For a comprehensive analysis of the
reality of the custody situation, based on one of the most thorough
studies ever conducted on this topic (which discusses this phenomenon),
see

"Dividing the Child:  Social & Legal Dilemmas of Custody"
by Mnookin and Maccoby
 
ISBN:  0-674-21294-0
Harvard Press

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Followup-To: send
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:24:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.102416.8212@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> 
> 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

The laws for federal law suits are slightly different from state laws.
The biggest difference is that the loser gets to pay for the attorney
fees of the winning party.  States have bottomless pockets when it
comes to defending legal action.  Any father`s group would have to
probably post bond and would also probably run out of money to keep
up the case as the state finds one method after another to delay things
and run up costs.
     If I was the state defending such an action I would take
depositions from virtually every judge, lawmaker in the state.  The
attorney representing the fathers would have to be present to ask
questions in rebuttal and cost of hours alone could run to megabucks.

"The judgment often goes to him with the deepest pocket."
Someone, somewhere must have said that!

David Garrod



Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:17:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.190910.22854@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <C1D4KB.7Jw@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>Very well-stated.
>>
>>But I've gotten the impression that the Supreme Court refuses to
>>hear cases having to do with "domestic relations."  Is this so?
>
>No.  Of course, they'll never hear frivolous cases about anything,
>so this quixotic crusade probably won't reach the Court, but they
         ^^^^^^^^

Methinks he doth protest too much.  Windmills, windmills--I take it
theodoric of frank believes we ARE churning our wheels, and that men
are not being discriminated against esp. in domestic relations courts.
Rhetorician or logician?  You be the judge.

>have struck down domestic laws that did, in fact, discriminate.

Hummmmmm.......  Half-empty.  No, half-full--half-empty--half-full.  Did
not.  Did too.  Did not.  Did too.  diidddd notttt......

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3555 soc.men:23428 soc.women:23175 misc.legal:23485 alt.feminism:7721
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:07:16 GMT

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?

Maybe it's the [,,,___,,,] symbol?  What does it mean?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3484 soc.men:23202 soc.women:23016 misc.legal:23236
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:01:59 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> >
> >Are the domestic relations courts of the US practicing sexual
> >discrimination?  If no, then everything is hunky-dory and we are all
> >wasting our time, churning our wheels, whining and crying over
> >nothing.  If yes, then we have a moral imperative to ourselves, our
> >children, their progeny, to society and to intellect itself to see that
> >these wrongs are corrected.
> 
> Very well-stated.
> 
> But I've gotten the impression that the Supreme Court refuses to
> hear cases having to do with "domestic relations."  Is this so?
> Can we hope that Clinton appointees will be more willing to hear
> such a case?

Only if new Associate Justice positions are added to the court, or if
a current member dies or resigns during Clinton's administration.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3552 soc.men:23419 soc.women:23166 misc.legal:23469
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:50:26 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:

>Just one question;  Does anyone have real stats on how often men ask for
>sole or primary custody, in comparison to how often they are actually
>awarded it?

According to The Economist (Christmas issue, 1992), men are awarded 
sole custody in 78% of the cases in which custody is contested.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:53:31 GMT

In article <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 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.
 
>Maybe it's the [,,,___,,,] symbol?  What does it mean?

Deleted text. I started out with the standard [...], decided that was a bit
boring, so I chenged it to [...---...] (SOS in morose code). That got a bit
boring after a time, so I was working on varaitions on the theme. Sorry for
any confusion, but I thought that in context it wouldnot be terribly
unclear.
 
>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:50:24 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division


In article <30446@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> |> Don, I've thought about it alot this weekend.  I've concluded that 
> |> the *good* of protecting the father's right to stop an adoption is not
> |> worth the *bad* of subjecting the mother and child to the risk of 
> |> injury from an abusive father.  Thus I cannot condone a legal 
> |> requirement for paternal notification. 


Let's look at the situation from a different angle.  Is there an
incentive for a woman that doesn't want the child, to notify the father?
No.  Plain and simply, none.  This is why I think that in most cases
allegations of potential abuse is a self-serving excuse rather than a
bona-fide concern for the child.  

If the reasons for carrying the pregnancy to term have disappeared, the
mother would be foolish, if not expressly mandated by law, to surrender
control and risk a financial liability down the line.  Consider the
hassle of negotiating the decision with another person who may
disagree.  Also, if custody is awarded to the father, the mother may be
required to pay child support, perhaps even without visitation
privileges.  Why not follow the reasoning, my body, my child, my
decision, to its ultimate conclusion?  Clean, powerful, no loose ends!

Is it possible that behind this pre-emptive action lies a more sordid 
truth?

-- 

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3487 soc.men:23211 soc.women:23022 misc.legal:23244
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <C1D4KB.7Jw@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>Very well-stated.
>
>But I've gotten the impression that the Supreme Court refuses to
>hear cases having to do with "domestic relations."  Is this so?

No.  Of course, they'll never hear frivolous cases about anything,
so this quixotic crusade probably won't reach the Court, but they
have struck down domestic laws that did, in fact, discriminate.
-- 
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: boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Subject: re: Aaron Hofmeyer's proposal for court case
Followup-To: Aaron Hofmeyer
Reply-To: boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Organization: SLAC
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:17:24 GMT


Having just read Aaron Hoffmeyer's recent posting concerning the idea of
undertaking one or more court battles in which we charge the judicial system
with sex discrimination against men, I can only say that I wholeheartedly
endorse this idea.  No matter what the cost, it must be done, because the
case is so clear.  Hopefully it could be done in such a way, that a broad
range of related discrimination issues could be addressed, so that NC-fathers
from many varied situations and problems could be helped.
	I would like to help in this effort however I can.

	Bob Boeninger, e-mail boe@slac.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: HELP!
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 13:55:37 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

I am turning over my keyboard to my friend Joanne, who is seeking counsel
and/or suggestions for a male friend (Doug) whose ex had their children adopted
by her new husband.

This couple had a marriage breakdown.  The wife had a new man and wished to
end the marriage.  Doug remained rational and because the children would be
living with their mother, had planned to leave home, contents, etc. to his
estranged wife.  There were no lawyers involved in property settlement as
there was an agreement.  Doug went to discuss finalities and the new boyfriend
was present.  A confrontation occurred and Doug was charged with assault and
sentenced to 3 months in jail.

During the first month in jail Doug had been served with final divorce papers
and found this difficult to deal with.  within a period of a couple of weeks,
Doug was served with a notification of intent to adopt.  His ex-wife notified
him that she intended to have their two children adopted by her new husband.
Understandably, Doug was devastated.  Unfortunately, he threw the papers aside
for 12 days. When he picked them up and read them fully, they stated that he
had ten days to reply.  He did reply at that time with a negative and was told
that by a technicality, he has  lost his children.  This was in Ontario about
three years ago.

He had consulted with a lawyer shortly after that and was told
that he had no recourse and has lost his children by a technicality.  He
feels that his life has been taken away from him and is finding it difficult
to become motivated even though he has professional credentials to build a
career.  Since he has no money to pursue this matter, we were wondering if
anyone has anything to offer that may give him some hope.  He has no rights
to visit and has been threatened with police action when he has attempted.

Doug was naturally under great duress when served with both the Divorce Order
and the notice of Intent to Adopt, as he was (a) in jail, and
(b) still distraught over the marriage break-up, ensuing Divorce, etcetera.
He had been paying regular CS until the Adoption came into full effect and had
been exercising regular access.  He had no previous record before the assault
charge, and has not been in any further trouble.  He does not wish to upset the
children's life as it is now by trying to contest the adoption at this time. He
*does* want very much to see his children and enjoy access, which he is
presently being denied, legally.

If anyone out there can help, it would be very much apprecited.  Thanks...

Joanne (courtesy of lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca

Founder, P.E.R.C.S. (Parents for Enforcing Regular Child Support)
Vancouver Island, B.C., Canada // Courtesy of the old coot hisse'f!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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