Society wrote:
> "Heidi Graw"  wrote in message
> news:_TWEd.52274$8l.133{at}pd7tw1no...
[...]
> > Joint physical custody also limits the range of territory
> > that a man may wander in order to gain a new paramour.
> > [...]
>
> Ahh, there's your real motive, Heidi, shining through
> loud and clear: vengeance against the man the woman
> dumped.  Sheesh.

Her mentality would also allow her membership in the Junior Anti-Sex
League.  By her illogic, joint physical custody would lessen the
likelihood of a divorced father having sex, and thereby enjoying
himself.  Feminists have a visceral desire to prevent all men from
enjoying themselves, and the idea of a divorce man having sex offends
them terribly.

> How about just turning over sole custody to the parent
> who isn't the one torpedoing the marriage?  That, btw,
> will be the father -- as you surely know, most marriages
> with children end in divorce at the hand of the mother.
> And father custody will go a long, long way toward
> more than simply discouraging family break ups by
> divorce, it will also improve parental access to the
> children 'cause fathers are much, much less likely to
> interfere with the other ex's visitation than mothers.

I believe this is how it was in the 50s, although I wasn't there.
Apparently, a woman was free to leave her husband, but she couldn't
take the kids with her, unless she could prove that there was some sort
of abuse.  So the government wasn't hemming her in, but it prevented
her from forcing her will onto others, which is one of the true
purposes of government.

This idea makes sense.  The partner who stood by the marriage vows is
obviously more honorable and trustworthy than the one who didn't.  He
didn't bail when the going got rough, or when the marriage lost his
luster.  He made a promise, and by God, he was going to stick to it.
As such, he is clearly a better candidate for a position that requires
patience and perseverance, such as the position of parent.  He won't
ignore his kids if they become uninteresting to him.  He said he'd
raise them, and that's what he'll do.

Contrast this with the omnipresent welfare queen, who gets bored being
a mother and lets her kids run the streets.  Funnel them all into one
place, and you turn it to a gang-ridden slum.

The mother is nice to have around, but the father is essential both for
boys and girls.  The boys seek a masculine identity, and for obvious
reasons, they don't think they'll get it from mom.  They also need real
discipline, rather than someone repeating the same order ten times and
then giving up.  Girls need paternal affection, or they may become
promiscuous later in life, and the father also teaches them how to form
healthy relationships with men.
[...]
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/12/05 3:19:21 PM