From: KATHY MCCLOSKEY <KMCCLOSKEY@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: essays on child custody
Date: 31 Aug 1992 18:29:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In response to the question about why I referred to one essay as "ivory tower" 
and the other as "real world:"

Ivory tower referred to a chapter concerning the correlation between the 
incidence of male violence and absence of a father figure.  The author of this 
essay seemed to think that the magic potion consisted of making sure that 
families with young boys must have an adult male presence to reduce the 
incidence of future violent tendencies.  The problem with this theory (and it 
is only that) is there are too many confounds within the model, most notably 
the presence of poor prenatal care (and in many cases maternal drug abuse 
and/or malnutrition), extreme poverty, lack of educational opportunities (or 
educational opportunities of a dangerous stripe; i.e., sex-biased curriculum, 
sex-biased peer pressure, etc.), the effects of the _presence_ of violent 
fathers, genetics, you name it, it's there.  And this sort of thing will not 
necesarily be reduced by "educating" young fathers to the joys of fatherhood.  
If he may bring with him a way out of poverty, an advanced educational level, 
nuturance from his own hyper-masculine background, then the magic potion may 
in fact be a reality.  But so far, it is still an academic ivory tower 
theory.  Not to mention it has been inadvertently used to mother-bash, as 
well as "evidence" that non-traditional family arrangements are leading to 
the decline of our society.  Male presence/absence alone (as well as female 
presence/absence, as any single father will tell you) is neither sufficient 
or necessary to develop violent tendencies in young boys which will later 
be actualized in adulthood. 

Real world referred to a chapter concerning the "stats" on custody cases.  
The chapter reported on the outcomes of real court dockets, not a theory.  
To reiterate, the majority of custody goes to females because males do not 
contest.  In the majority of cases where the male does contest, he wins 
custody.  However, the point of this chapter was that father's rights groups 
point to the first statistic as evidence that there is bias against them, 
neglecting to state also that it's because the males in these cases did not 
contest custody.  These groups virtually ignore the latter statistic. In 
addition, concerning what father's rights groups lobby for, her survey was 
well documented and fairly indisputable of a _majority_ of these groups (it's 
hard to disavow your own publications). Again, the _majority_ of these groups, 
not _all_.  While I wouldn't have written this chapter in the same language 
as the author, I have to say I agree with some of her theorizing.  However, 
any of her theories were (and are) subject to the same criticisms as above.

Kathy
kmccloskey@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil 


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.