Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Why do men sink to the bottom?
> >From: "Ben" ArGee45{at}hotmail.com
> >Date: 2/5/2005 7:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> (clean up)
>
>  Well, in such a case, the court will tend to look at who did most
of>the
> >unpaid
>  work in the home, as well as which parent did most of
the>interactions with
> the child.  Frequently the courts ask questions like"what is your
> child>learning
>  in math class at the moment?"
> >
> >I did most of his homework with him, because my wife worked
evenings.
>
> Well that that would likely be a point for you unless her work was
done in the
> evening to accomodate your primary job.

She worked evenings because she and I offset our shifts in order to
make sure he always had at least one parent at home--she preferred
evenings because she is NOT a morning person, and I am.

>
>  Or, what are the names of your child's two best> friends.
> >
> >Both of us would have known that.
>
> Cool.
>
> Or, which of you are most active in Cub Scouts. etc.
> >
> >Lemme see...I took him to soccer, to basketball camp, fishing,
camping. I was
> the one who tossed baseballs and footballs with him.
>
> And if that amounts to most of the primary care in that area, you
would >receive
> the point for that question.

It wouldn't matter.

> >>
> >>  But the easy answer is:  my wife would have gotten custody by
> >default, because> she was the mother.
>
> As the "mother" is her work is seen as being primarily in the home,
then the
> courts might interpret that as being the primary parent, especially
if she >only
> took evening work to 'supplement' family income.

No, she and I both had/have full time jobs.  Depending on overtime, I
might have made a bit more or less than her in a given year.

>
>  Well, if your wife did more of the above things, she might well have
had
> custody;  otoh, if you could show the court more interaction with
the>child,you
> could have, and courts LOVE finding fathers who do so.
> >
> >As you can see, I clearly did my share of pimary parenting.  But
my>wife would
> still have been awarded custody because...can you>guess?...she's the
mother.
> >
> So you say

Yep, so I say, and I'm familiar with family courts in this area.

> and yet fathers do get custody when they are considered the >primary
> caregivers.  Judges love to do that, but there has to be some there,
there.

Around here, mothers have to be determined inadequate.

>
> >>  "Primary parenting" really means
> >> >>little.
> >>
> >> It means a heck of a lot...to the children.
> >
> >Except we're talking about primary parenting as feminists want the
> >courts to see it.
>
> Well, kids know which parent spends more time doing the necessary
work of
> homemaking and childcare, so if more men want that job, they are free
to >pursue
> it.

Except they're not.  Women tend to take that role without discussing
it, and society in general still pushes men into the primary
breadwinner role.

>
>  With my neighbors, the father works second shift all week and spends
his
> weekends with his two children (during summer and school vacations,
he gets
> more time with them).  Been that way for
> >years.  If you tried to suggest that he wasn't as invaluable a
parent>to those
> kids as their mother, I'm certain his wife would be the first>one to
knock you
> on your ass.
>
> Being "invaluable" is great if you're a parent;  being primary may
not mean >the
> same thing.  For example, it is possible for a child to love the NCP
more >than
> the CP.
> What judges are looking for is the stability and continuation of what
the
> couple themselves put into place.

Not really.  Judges habitually favor the woman's desires.

>
> >"Primary parenting" is an artificial standard designed to favor
women.
> In legalese "primary parent" means "mother" and
nothing else.
>
> Well, since contested custody arrangements are often won by fathers
who , in
> fact, ARE primary caregivers, I guess you're wrong about that.

In most of those wins, the fathers were able to establish that the
mothers were bad parents, not that they were the better of two good
parents.

>
>  The>fancy phrasing is to give the illusion that there might
be>some>fairness
> >> involv>ed, but there never is.
> >>
> >> Let's try again, I think it was Ben who  once told me that his
wife
> >does more> of the unpaid work inside the home, where the child
resides.
> >
> >Yep, that was me.  It was in the context of how my wife and I
shared>ALL the
> household chores.  By the way, did I ever tell you that my son>played
outside
> as well?
>
> The judges consider which of the two parents sacrificed more to take
care of
> home and hearth and do the things in the house that children need to
have >done
> for them, ie. cooking, cleaning, laundry, scheduling,  etc.  I don't
know >that
> they consider things like building a boat cover. :-)

Boat covers?  Who the hell builds boat covers?

>
> >But regardless, you're actually demonstrating your own sexism here.
> There's all kinds of unpaid work to be done around a home that
benefitseveryone
> who lives there.  You only want to count one type.
>
> I only count the type of work that is NECESSARY to raise a child.

No, you don't.  You count the kind of work that women traditionally do
and deem it work necessary to raise a child--there's all kinds of work
around a home necessary to maintain it for *everyone* who lives there.
Also, you tend to think that this somehow proves that the man *can't*
do that work.  There is no traditional woman's work that a man cannot
do.

>  Boat
> building is not quite the same thing,

Who builds boats?

> as is learning golf so you can impress
> your rich friends who might someday make deals with you to give your
son a
> higher education.  :-)

My son and I took golf lessons together, and I bought him a high-end
set of irons so he could impress his "rich" friends.  lol

>
> >But today, after I get done typing this, I'm going to take the
garbage and
> recyclables to the landfill.  In all the years we've been married, my
wife has
> *never* done this.
>
> Well, if you and your wife ever divorce, it is likely she'll live in
a place
> that has trash pickup that doesn't require doing that.  :-)
> No, the courts don't consider a man's wish to live in the country and
pick up
> his own garbage as being something in the child's best interests.
:-)

So you say.  And yet this is an example of work that *needs* to be
done, but you somehow find a way to get around considering it that way.
 As I've said, you're very selective about what you deem "necessary"
work, and it always coincidentally seems to fall in the woman's favor.
Interesting.

>
>  The garbage and recyclables are outside
> >the home.  What do you think would happen if no one took care of
this?
>
> If she were raising the family, how likel is it she would have chosen
to live
> so far out of civilization?

lol  Outside civilization?  Do you have any concept of what the
demographics of New England are?

>
> > Chances are, >had> he divorced, she would have had custody since
the child
> doesn't much>care if> the primary parent increases the worth of the
house by
> adding on, or>building furniture.
> >
> >No, she'd get custody because she's the woman.  After all, we were
both
> >primary parents, and there's no doubt that I can do housework.  So
> >what's left?  Gender.
> >
> Well, you are free to see it as you will,

I see it as it is, as it occurs in this area.

 but clearly men who do the primary
> care as defined already do get custody.
>
>  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.
> >> >>
> Of course you'd disagree--a real world
definition>wouldn't>automatically give
> >> women a default advantage.
> >> >>
>  A definition that doesn't take into account what the parties
did>directly for
> the child is clearly not in the child's best interests.  Let's
look>at it
> >this> way.  If you were five years old, and your mom took you to
school>every
> day, packed your lunch, walked you home, with a stop in the park and
made>you
> a> snack, helped you with your coloring, made kool aid for your
friends>while
> you> were playing, and read you bedtime stories before you went to
night>night,
> how would YOU feel if Suze Striptease, daddy's new gf,  did those
things all of
> the> sudden?
> >
> >Even in your examples you can't help but be sexist (are you starting
to>see
> what I mean, Heidi?).  I was the one who did most of those
things>while he was
> in elementary school, including lifeguard duty while all>the
neighborhood kids
> were splashing around in the pool...and yet, I
> >still would have lost custody.
>
> You are the one here assuming you would not get custody.

That's because I wouldn't.

>  I'm clearly
> explaining to you that men can and do get custody but not when the
other >parent
> has sacrificed more in doing things for his or her child.

Except you're basing your comments on a distant understanding of family
courts, and I work in them on a regular basis.  Who would understand
them in this area of the country better, you or me?

>
>   Why?  Well, because I wouldn't have
> >been able to prove my wife was an unfit mother (and I wouldn't
> have>tried--she's a superior mother).
> >
> >In real life, even if it was mom who suddenly wanted to stretch
her>wings with
> >a new boyfriend, she'd still get custody.
> >
> > The courts want the parenting to continue on as it has,
> >> >>
> Then the courts would have to force the parents to live together
if>that was
> >> really the goal.  hehe
> >>
> Well, you and I both know that the courts don't insist on dead
or>maimed>
> mothers just because dad wants control. hehe
> >
> >I'd be more worried about dead or maimed kids in single mother
> >households, but whatever...
>
> Are you kidding me?  More men than women kill children even tho women
care >for
> children almost 90% of the time.

There's other ways to harm children besides killing them.

>  If children do get killed in single mom
> households it's usually by the hand of another man.

Sounds like an argument for giving custody to the fathers.

>
>  That really may not be so humorous or even far off the
mark.>There>has been
>  some talk lately of getting rid of the liberal no-fault>divorce
laws>and
> going> back to the old days of having to prove fault.
> >>
>  There's been sexist "talk" ever since grandpappy was a pup.  Every
> >single >state> in the union has some version of
no-fault.>> I think
NY is
> closest state to having a need to show fault when one>party>> doesn't
want the
> divorce.  And even at that, you can still claim>irreconcilable>>
differences,
> which provides fault.  So, dream on.
> >>
> One reason behind this is that it would force parents who did
not>have>serious
> marital problems (alcohol abuse, drug abuse, domestic>violence)
to>stick it
> out> together for the sake of their children.
> >>
> >> But there is no such remedy at hand; it's only in your mind.  If
you>want to
> > lock yourself into some archaic marriage trap look to those
states>who have>
> "covenant" marriage.  Then, you can play your games there, or move
to>another
> > state to file. :-)
> >>
> >> It can't get any clearer that children as a group are
being>handicapped>by>
> being raised by a single mother, especially boys.
> >>
> >> I think boys do fare worse, but mostly when they feel abandoned
by>their>
> fathers.
> >
> >No, it's pretty much not having a male role model living in the
house.
>
> Well, if you've been abandoned by your father, you may not have a
male role
> model in the house or any other house.
> It's certainly not necessary to live in the same house to BE a good
role >model.

Once a week and every other weekend is a pale imitation of being there
full time--but, I'll acknowledge that it's better than not being there
at all.

>
>  Girls actually find a bit more confidence learning from a single
mother, and,
> in doing so, may actually become sexually active sooner.
> >
> >Girls, like boys, do *best* when there's a positive male role model
in>the
> house.
>
> Children can't have too many people to love and teach them, so it
makes perfect
> sense that two or even more adults in the house will benefit
children.  That
> doesn't proove that one of those people must have a penis tho, nor
does it
> prove that fathers are any more or less important than step parents.

Your attempt to dismiss the importance of biological fathers is noted,
but doesn't change the fact that having the biological father in the
home is *best* for the child.

>
>  Boys can learn much about how to deal with women through>their

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100