Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Why do men sink to the bottom?
> >From: "Ben" ArGee45{at}hotmail.com
> >Date: 2/3/2005 4:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
>
> >> Sure;  I think women don't always want men around them, sometimes
> >even the men
> >> they married.   I had a friend who's husband raped two of their
three
> >kids.
> >> The way she found out was another child reported a rape.  They
were
> >divorced.
> >> He was kicked out of the police force and incarcerated.  She left
the
> >state and
> >> never tried to collect child support because she didn't want to
see
> >him near
> >> her family.
> >> However, not all cases are like that, and it is my personal
feeling
> >that> children cannot have too many people who love them.  So if a
woman
> >does try to distance a good father from her children, she would not
be acting
> in
> >the best> interests of her children and should be challenged in
court.
> >
> >Sometimes they are, but usually not very successfully.  In
general,>women are
> given wide latitude to behave as poorly as they like with>regards to
> interfering with contact between the father and his children.
>
> I think I addressed this before but the fact is that the custodial
parent does
> have a degree of latitude based on children's needs.  If a child has
a school
> performance, if a child is sick, if a child has a field trip or
sleepover,  it
> is likely visitation will have to be altered.

I do believe I said "behave poorly".  None of your examples fall into
that category (which you're well aware of).  Examples that *do*,
however, would be those instances where the mother "forgets" that the
father has visitation and shows up several hours late, or, deliberately
schedules an optional appointment for the child that conflicts with
visitation, or, always has lots of family members around berating
father in front of the child when he arrives to pick his child up,
etc...

> >
> > Why so many men choose roles that are less >than>> that of
primary>parenting
> >> is also a mystery.
> >> >
> >> >It's not really a mystery, given what you use for a
definition>of>"primary>
> parenting"  Both parents can't be home doing the majority of>child
> >care;> someone has to be bringing in the money.
> >> >
>  Well,then if that role is important to him he should marry a
woman>who
> supports
> >> that.> I can't speak for you, but when I formed a partnership with
the other
> >parent of> my three children, we decided from the get-go who would
stay home
> and
> >when.
> >
> >We didn't have that option--both of us had to work.  Fortunately,
we>decided
> to work shifts opposite one another so that our son always had>at
least one
> parent at home most of the time.  Which would have made
> >for an interesting time if a divorce occured--try
distinguishing>primary
> parent between two people sharing child care and breadwinning>roles.
But the
> easy answer is:  my wife would have gotten custody by
> >default, because she was the mother.  "Primary parenting" really
means
> >little.
> >>
> >> I think a real world definition of primary parenting
would>acknowledge>the>
> efforts of the person bringing in the money that allows the>household
> >to>> function, get health care, etc...
> >> >
> >> No.  What you want is a decision based on finances.

Nope, just a definition of primary parenting that isn't designed to
heavily favor women and penalize men.  You'd be the first to rant and
rave if the fact that a woman worked outside the home was used against
her in a custody hearing.    Your examples of "primary parenting"
really don't do anything to determine who would be the better parent
*after* the divorce.  In some instances, perhaps the only reason mom
was able to be what you would call the primary parent is *because* she
was so heavily supported by her husband.

>  The courts don't judge
> the best interests of children based on who makes the paycheck.

Of course not. Right now, too many courts judge it based on genitalia.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/9/05 2:42:12 PM ---