Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 


leftylu@ix.netcom.com    Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

Mr. Dean,

The only statement I can totally agree with is that we need to look at
real solutions to gender inequality.

[First we have to define "inequality".  If it means equal pay for "equal"
jobs WITHOUT regard to relative productivity, then it is a worthless
discussion.]

It's interesting to me that
whenever women post/respond to feminism, they generally only ask for
equality.

[They generally want the same income as the top men without the skills,
experience, productivity, education, intelligence, wisdom, business
expertise, and without having to work their way up the ranks as the men
had to.  And without taking the less desirable, lower paying jobs.]

I have heard that there are "gender fems" that want more
than equality, but I can't even comprehend wanting more.  The minute
there is inequity, there is battle--and who needs that.

[Statistically it is men who suffer from "inequality" but there is no
battle from them, yet.]

I'm not sure I
agree with you about custody/child support issues, because, quite
frankly, I don't know enough about that subject.  I will say this; if
there is some inequity, there should be honest arguments about it so
that it may be resolved.

[92% of the children of divorce are in the custody of their mothers,
and this happened because men 3 decades ago agreed to try to
"share" parental authority.  This "sharing" obviously did not work.
"Father Custody - no exceptions" solves this.]


Some of the arguments I have seen, legally
speaking, have been like comparing apples/oranges.  Do I think men
should have equal access to their children---YES.  

[It is not just men you should be thinking about here - it is the
children.  The children need their fathers more than the fathers need their
children.]

Do I think women and
men should have to support their children viz their ability to
pay--YES.

[It is disingenuous to suggest that mothers should "pay" to support their
children.  First mothers do not make enough in the workforce on average 
to make any difference to a father's family, on average.  Second judges do
not make them pay very much of even these small incomes.  Third judges do
not even enforce "visitation" with fathers by throwing mothers in jail - and
they would not throw mothers in jail for failure to pay these small sums.
Fourth fathers have too much pride to accept such payments from mothers on
average anyway.]

Do I think the rights of one group are more important than
the rights of the other---NO.  If giving more rights to one group means
taking away a fundamental right of the other should we do that---NO.

[Unless we already tried giving custody to mothers, and it did not
work, creating social pathology of all kinds.  We don't need any more
experimentation in this area - mother custody is a vast failure, and we
can no longer entertain "equal access" if this means a continuation
of this pathology.]

It is also very interesting that even tho my opion differs from yours
on many issues, I do not label yours as "short-sighted", but rather,
only different.

Sincerely,

LeftyLu

[It is short-sighted to advocate a continuation of the
"equality" status quo in light of all of the problems 
created by it, both in the economy and in the family. 
"Equality" is a scam which is about as achievable as 
reducing entropy.]

regards,

fathers

From fathers@soho.ios.com Thu Jun  8 16:43:52 1995
Received: from soho.ios.com (soho.ios.com [198.4.75.47]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA19551 ; for ; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 16:43:40 -0400
Received: (from fathers@localhost) by soho.ios.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id QAA03695; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 16:18:55 GMT