Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Beyond the wallet, father's are valued just below handy wipes.
    fred();

>         <<< Note 453.0 by CVG::THOMPSON "My friends call me Alfred" >>>
 
    
>    For example, in most households the male figure shovels all the snow,
>    cuts all the grass, does most of the driving, takes care of the cars,
>    as well as lots of other "man's job" type things. Those things often
>    don't appear to "count" as heling around the house. Father's also
>    spend time with their children. It doesn't appear that society regards
>    those activities as being as important as what the woman does around
>    the house.
 

	I guess it all depends on who's doing the asking and who's
	doing the answering.  In my family, both Mom and Dad were
	valued for their contributions. 

	I happen to think that whatever anyone does to help/contribute
	around the house counts...and not in monetary value. It counts
	in making the home complete and happy. I really get tired of
	all these remarks around who does the most, who is appreciated,
	who is not appreciated. Women screaming out that they should
	be compensated for doing housework. 

	Damn it !  If more people spent time with their families
	and appreciating their families, instead of trying to 
	figure out who is doing more..and who is getting the short
	end of the stick......there would be a lot more happy
	homes.



	kits	   

    
    I personally think the "parenthood for pay" notion is absurd.  
    Being a good parent to your children is a DUTY for which pay
    is not merited and should not be expected.   The beneficiaries
    of parental "work," those who should be "expected to pay" for
    parenting services, are the children being raised, and the only way
    they can "pay" for these services is by performing the same
    for their own children in turn (and perhaps caring for their 
    parents in their elder years).
                                                      
    Part of these duties to your children include maintaining a home
    and making the money needed to pay for it.  Division of these
    duties (who makes the money, who actually spends time with the
    children, who performs which household duties) is the business of the
    mother and the father, and is a private matter.  

	Interesting topic Alfred.

	There exists the issue of value. How can value be measured?
	Who measures it? Most people might assign a monetary value.
	I don't. Some things in society simply can't have a dollar
	value attached, lest they be cheapened. I consider parenting
	to be one these things. For me, and my wife Lynn, parenting
	is the culmination and further expression of our love,
	our commitment to each other and to our children, and of our
	desire to give the gift of life to another. For us, becoming
	parents was a totally selfless act. The value is in the love
	we give to our children. As such, perhaps the real value of
	fathers, and mothers, is not in how society measures them, but
	instead can only be found within the confines of the family
	itself. 

							Hank	

    the only way that payment ever seems to come about, for women, is
    in the form of alimony when the divorce takes place. Men don't get
    any, in the tradtional pattern of things.
    
    Great notes, .4 and .5, that show good values about parenting, to me.
    
    Too many people, both male and female, become parents through
    biological accident rather than a sincere desire and commitment
    to be parents. Others parents expect their children to fix them,
    or their relationship with their spouse, rather than feel a 
    responsiblity to be there for the kids. 
    
    -roger
    

    
    	There's no point in screaming about why some are suggesting that
    	Mothers be paid (and not Fathers.)  What's really being discussed
    	elswhere is the undervaluing of fulltime homemaking (which is 
    	something that could apply to anyone in this situation, Mothers or 
    	Fathers,) although it's true that women are fulltime homemakers
    	more often than men.
    

    Gee, can you say attempted misdirrection?  sure, I knew you could....
    
    

    
    Let's be careful to distinguish between two separate activities
    here - "parenting" and homemaking.   
    
    "Parenting" benefits the child, and is a duty and responsibility
    that comes with the decision to conceive and bear a child.  If I
    were to buy a puppy, I wouldn't expect anyone to pay me to raise
    it - why should anyone expect to be paid for raising their own
    children?  
    
    Homemaking benefits everyone who lives in the home, adults and
    children both.  Again, why should anyone expect to be paid for
    keeping their own house clean and well-maintained?  The idea of
    payment for performing homemaking duties brings the idea of
    payment-for-services-rendered, a "public business" concept, into
    the private home, where it just doesn't belong.   (Look at it
    this way:  Let's say husband pays wife $17,000,000 per year for
    various homemaking duties and for being a mother to his children.
    She's highly valued for her services now, but husband is now
    $17,000,000 in debt.  Now he charges wife for the homemaking
    duties that he performs, and for being a father to her children,
    $17,000,000 per year.  Now he's being valued for his services,
    and wife is now $17,000,000 in debt to him.  Both "payments"
    cancel out - magic!  And the GNP increases by $34,000,000!  See
    the absurdity of members of the same private household paying each
    other in publicly-spendable legal tender for services?)

    
    I think if a full-time stay-at-home father feels undervalued and wants
    to feel more valued, paying him may certainly be an option in his mind.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Re .10:
    
    "Undervalued" by whom?   And who would be doing the "paying"?
    
    There seems to be an attitude here (and in a similar string in
    WOMANNOTES) that because raising children and maintaining a
    household are hard work (and not a single note I've read says that
    they aren't), that some sort of spendable "pay" is deserved.
    It seems to be a sort of "wouldn't it be great if..." kind of
    wish.  But after all the analysis is done, the only conclusion
    that makes sense is that "society" simply doesn't benefit directly
    enough to pay anyone for raising their own children and keeping
    their own house in order, and if the "payment" is internal to the
    family, then it's all funny-money going back and forth between
    family members and all balancing out in the end.  The whole idea
    that "homemakers should be paid" is on the same level as "war
    is bad" and "politicians should be honest" and "people should
    respect each other."   I'm not holding my breath on this one.
    

    Crap!  This all goes back to why do kids get allowances.  If someone
    has a need for financial remuneration in order to establish self worth
    then, I suppose, it is necessary.  If one does things because they
    ought to be done then the concept is absurd.
    
    To me it is absurd.
    
    ed

>    Crap!  This all goes back to why do kids get allowances.  If someone
 

	      Well, when I was a stay_at_home housewife and Mother
	      my husband gave me an allowance. And if I was extra
	      thrifty with grocery shopping and such, I even had
	      some extra to spend on myself.    :-)




	     kits	

I don't view such discussions as a request for payment, but more as an attempt
to enlighten people as to the value added to a family by one of the partners
who perform many services for no direct compensation.  However, the issue
is clouded by the many forms of indirect compensation that someone who
you hired to do these tasks would have to pay for on their own.  It's not
clearcut.

I do honestly believe that fathers are severely undervalued in our society.
But as a father, I ask no pay other than the joy of being a parent.  I took
on this task willingly and with great forethought, and have never once 
regretted my choice.

Rather than argue about how fathers should be paid for being mechanics,
sports coaches, etc., I'd like to see us recognize that fathers can be
nurturers too - this is not a role that is restricted to mothers.

				Steve

    Didn't the differentiation of roles in the last western industrial
    revolution devalue women in the work-place AND men in the home? (gross
    generalizations for expediency) Isn't that the basis for our
    frustrations in both areas? 
       I think both areas have suffered from the reduced role of the gender
    somewhat excluded in that area. Not only have men suffered the loss of
    the psychic/emotional gift that children can give, but I think the
    children have suffered somewhat in the loss of the male role-model.
    Hasn't business suffered from the loss of women? In business the role
    "behind the scenes" isn't rewarded like the one in the spot-light. We
    seem to have trouble differentiating the economic and social like we
    have differentiating the economic and political. The renumeration for
    child-rearing and home-making isn't directly monetary. The benefit of
    the maternal polarity isn't properly utilized in the work-place, and
    the benefit of the paternal polarity isn't sufficiently utilized in 
    the home. Balance = Harmony             (...glasshopper) 
                                                             
                                                M...

    My wife (who is a full time mother and homemaker) and I (who am a full
    time wage earner) have an understanding in our marriage that we are
    both responsible for building a home (not just maintaining a house),
    creating, nurturing and providing for the family, and building a
    cohesive family unit.  The salary I bring home is not "my money", but
    our money, as is the marriage "our marriage."  The reward our family
    reaps because my wife is a full time mother, far outstrips any
    financial reward that she could bring in that might increase our
    "standard of living", but not necessarily the "quality of our family
    life". In this day and age I am well aware that some call a full time
    mother "a luxurious position".  
    
    Would discussions of payment for either fathers or mother for "doing their
    job" as parents (i.e. providing for the family's living needs, taking
    care of emotional, psychological and physical needs) hinder the
    building of a unified marriage and family?
    
    My pet peeve:  Is not whether society values fathers, but rather how the 
    current media portrays men in general- as simpletons, without reasoning
    powers, helpless nit-wits, morons, beasts. This portrayal is in everything
    from commercials to sit coms. I bet the media would not dare to portray
    women in such a negative light.  Anyone else out there, getting upset
    over this negative image of men?
                                                                   
    
    
    The value that mothers and fathers bring to the family include more
    than just the money to be earned. 

    
    That is part of the strategy: undermine any respect men have,
    associate them with all manner of perfidy, and use guilt as
    a goad to pass restrictive legislation and law enforcement 
    procedures designed to turn them into a new underclass...
    
    I'm amazed that men can have anthing to do with females considering
    this war which they are waging against us...
    

    
    	RE: .16  Mike Z.
    
    	> As I look back among the previous 7 notes, I find only one, count
    	> it, one word, "DUTY" in 453.4, capitalized.

	> No one was screaming.
    
    	I was using the more common (accepted) definition of the word.
    	

    Herb, good to see you back in Noter-Land again.
    
      Alan

    
    	RE: .22  Herb
    
    	Thanks (and it's good to see you, too!)
    

    Personally I feel that getting the federal government involved in
    our families is a major mistake. If women get paid for being mothers
    - for one example - that means that there is the potential for
    the government to decide who is a good mother, and to take children
    away from bad mothers..
    
    and to have the government decide who is a 'good' and a 'bad' mother
    
    heck, our kids had to use an out house one winter, and we made them
    take care of our live stock and haul wood..
    
    that's child labor..
    
    
    we could have been ruled 'bad' parents.. by some bureaucrat..
    
    I think it is more important that we try to turn our selves away
    from using money as a standard for worth...
    
    and to try to evolve towards a society where worth or value is a 
    factor of personal self esteem..
    
    
    there is, however, one issue that I think we can address and that
    is the question of 'time lost' to mother hood in re social security
    and pensions.
    
    If a woman stays home with her kids all her life she gets no personal
    SS. Further she only benefits from her husband's pension if it has
    survivor benefits. So, if a woman choses to spend most of her earning
    years raising kids with the understanding that the income her husband
    brings home is 'theirs' she still faces the possibility of having
    a very small income after her husband dies because he was the salaried
    employee.
    
    I'd far rather work towards providing better for the widows and the
    elderly and those without a source of income who want to raise their
    children while they are little, than to provide a salary at gov't
    expense for all mothers.
    
    I'd like to spend societies $$$$ resources on those who truely need
    $$$ and spend social efforts on upgrading opinions of women who 
    choose to work at home.
    
    Bonnie

    re .25  "Personally I feel that getting the federal government invol-
            ved in our families is a big mistake. If women get paid for
            being mothers .. that means that there is the potential for
            the government to decide who is ..."
    
            Why do activist feminist groups not realize this?  A few
            days back I pulled a large file on 'homemakers' and many
            articles computed the financial "worth" of housework, and
            strongly advocated the homemaker (invariably a woman) be
            paid a just wage for such work.  
    
            After copying dozens of these articles at a Women's Studies 
            library, I checked Ms and The Elaenor Smeal Report, and other
            sources likewise strongly advocating homemaker pay.
    
            No article *thought* about the *possibility* that men do
            numerous house-type things (like Alfred brought up), and
            the equation of "self worth" with financial reward was the
            main message I got from these readings.
    
            Let it be said that by *insisting* abortion be *federally
            funded* numerous feminists are insisting that government 
            have "an interest" in determining "who decides" so long
            as abortion rights activists insist "government provides."
    
            Why do feminists WANT federally funded abortion?  Don't
            they *know* (?!) that this means government intrusion into
            the abortion matter forever?  
    
            Back to homemaking, Smeal, Abzug, and others really left the
            impression that homemakers should be officially paid like
            everyone else.  This would definitely necessitate another
            government intrusion into individual/famility affairs - like
            determining how to divvy out the "comparable worth."
    
            One article said that were such pay measures to occur, then
            men could *insist* that their wives do an even *better job* 
            of cleaning (etc) than might currently be the case.  After all,
            they're paying for the "services rendered."
    
            Unless of course men would have *no say* about the matter - 
            and just halve their paycheck while some state inspector could
            handle "complaints" by the "non-homemaker."
    
            It seems to me that deep down, many feminists must want the 
            state to intrude into personal matters, as otherwise the leg-
            ions of articles and legislative attempts for "federally-funded
            abortion" and "paid homemaking" would simply not exist.
    
            The inability to trust (one's mate) leads to the next logical
            possibility: that of trusting a 3rd party - ie the state.
    
            Since the state has an "interest" in abortion, child-care,
            equal rights (ie EEOC, AA, [ACLU]) equal pay, birth control,
            and other issues commonly associated with feminist agenda, it
            seems to me that "Big Daddy" (the state) is *at least* as
            trusted with major issues as is Real Daddy. 
    
            Or to put it another way, Feminism is the state.
    
    
                                                    Russ

    Re: .26
    
    Gee, Russ, while I agree with you that the less government
    intervention in our private lives, the better, but I don't reach
    the sanme conclusions you do about a supposed feminist agenda.  But
    I know we have differences in this regard.
    
    Still, I'd like to keep the discussion in the area of fathers' (or
    husbands') "worth".
    
    				Steve

 I would have to say that fathers are less valued than mothers in our society.
Who do they get respect from? It is almost uniformly assumed that fathers
do nothing or nearly nothing in the raising of children. In the present age
of increasing numbers of two wage earner households, this could hardly be the
case. The man's part in this partnership is routinely ignored and belittled due
in large part to a reliance on generalizations. 

 Men certainly ought not be paid to be fathers; that's as an absurd a notion
as I've heard since the Mass legislature uncovered plans to increase the
budget for 91 when they can't yet afford the budget for 90. Being a parent
is an option. It carries with it awesome responsibilities. One is not to be paid
for being a parent any more then they ought to be paid for washing their own
car, walking their dog, or taking a shower. If we are paid for assuming our
responsibilities during freely chosen activities, where will it lead? I have
chosen to drive a car. I have the responsibility to drive unimpaired. I didn't
drink tonight so now I am owed money?!!

 And of course those that are calling for $$$ for parents either don't have any
idea where the money ought to come from or think it ought to be the government's
job to pay. And it should surprise no one that the loudest of these advocates
think socialism is a good idea... "I think everyone should be guaranteed..."

 Nope. Money is not needed for parents. Respect is needed. 

 To those that say society needs to be changed- yeah, but not the way you want.
What ought to be changed about society is that people who fulfill their 
responsibilities should be the norm, not the exception, and they shouldn't
expect to be paid for it. 

 The Doctah

I think that a lot of what is behind the "mothers should be paid" notion is
that in our society, it is predominantly the women/mothers who leave the
work force to do the job of mother/homemaker for no explicit pay.  This in
itself is not necessarily bad, but the consequences later in life of not
having received "earned income" can be tragic.  If the woman becomes
divorced or widowed, she is likely to lose most of any pension or retirement
income she would otherwise have been entitled to, since she did not "earn"
the money, and our retirement system is based (loosely) on your getting
out in relation to what you put in.

Unfortunately, when people start to discuss this, they lose sight of the
long-term issues and focus on the obvious: "She does this and that and it's
worth this much."  And this gets into emotional arguments that are hard
to discuss rationally.  (Did any of you catch the Carol Burnett show of
a couple weeks ago where she portrayed a mother suing her children for the
money she said they owed her for her "expenses" in being a mother?)

In his base note, Alfred asks a natural companion question - Are fathers
valued and should they be paid?   I feel it is important to keep in mind that
in our society, men/fathers/husbands ARE traditionally the primary
wage earners, and are thus "rewarded" with long-term benefits that only
trickle down to the women who supported them at home.  There is an imbalance
here, but the solution is probably not to try to assign a worth to family
roles and tasks.

Of course, homemaker-men would have the same problems, but such are extremely
rare.

I don't have a solution to the problem.  Somehow we need to provide
reasonable long-term benefits to the partner who works for "indirect pay".
But how?

				Steve

    This idea of pay for homemaking/child rearing is in my opinion as a
    woman, so simplistic as to be absurd.  Am employer (the Government)
    employs an employee (mother)  to perform/produce a product (the Child),
    do they not then own the end-product?  To do with what they wish?  Does
    not any employer have the right to hire and fire?  Think it through to
    all the ramifications, and I think you will not particularly like the
    outcome.
    
    What women are seeking is economic independence and power.  The ability
    to simply live, without having to have a man to support them.  In a
    marriage, when a woman chooses to have a child, stay home and raise him
    or her, she by necessity gives up that economic independence.  Paying
    her (by gov't or otherwise) is an attempt to place value on her new
    role. Yes, it has some worth in dollar terms.  But the reality is a
    stay-at-home mother IS now economically dependent on husband. 
    Instituting some sort of pay scheme will not alter that, and will only
    allow the Government to intrude further where they do not belong.
    

          Mabey this is a little simplistic, but, in the case of a couple
    divorced after X years, 50% of social security paid during that time
    going into the homemaker's account for retirement seems easy to me.
    It's in line with the percentage of increase in salary that occured
    during that time. There has to be something done for this scenario, but
    any option with government intervention scares me. I think you would
    find that in the above scenario the amount of cash worth would be less
    than that of the usual divorce settlement these days. I would like to
    see such things handled between consenting adults with pre-nuptuals
    than to see the legislative/judicial solution.
       Anyway, you're talking about direct vs. indirect payment for
    homemaking, not lack of payment. Houses, furnishings, cars, food,
    discretionary income, etc. are no less "payment for services rendered"
    than cash. Just a little more indirect.
                                               M...    
                                                   

    
    Are fathers valued? Can you even ask? Fathers *run* our society, from
    the deity on down. Have done for some 5000 years or so. They're at the
    top of all our institutions - religions, governments, corporations, the 
    family itself. Plus, they make all the money. How much more valued could 
    they be?

    in somewhat of an adendum to .1,  ane in reply to -.1,  Fathers
    are the most disposable part of the household.   Can you say 
    "child support".  Can you can "alamony".  Can you say "A.F.D.C".
    Can you say "garnishment".  Can you say "no fault divorce". 
    Can you say "restraining orders".
    
    I knew you could.  Do fathers run the world?  Ha! Bah! When a 
    man becomes a father, then next 18 years of his financial live
    are at the mercy of the "mohter" and the Courts.
    
    fred()

    
    Re .32:
    
          Gosh, I never realized I had it so good!
    
          Explain to me, then, please, why I'm not having more fun with
    all this wonderful power?  Why does it feel to me like if I have
    enough cash left over after I pay my rent and the federal taxes
    and state taxes and Social Security taxes and my car payment so
    I can get to work and back (to make money to pay off my car payments)
    if I have enough left over at the end of the week to be able to
    feed myself, I feel like it's been a good week?   Why didn't all
    this terrific respect and value I get as a father keep my ex-wife
    from filing for divorce and for custody of my child, taking my
    daughter away from me and breaking up my family, and sticking me
    with the child-support bill?
    
    Am I having fun yet?
    
    

    re:.34 to .32
    
    Yep, you do.. and furthermore, the ole "for quadrillions of years white
    males have opressed blah blah blah......" will soon follow...
    
    now repent you beast you!

    
    Re .35,
    
       Yeah, O.K.  Fine.   All men are pigs.  All men are rapists and
    child-abusers and inherently violent and dangerous and insensitive
    and cruel.   And the entire history of the planet is a shameful
    story of victimization and exploitation and oppression by men who
    have conspired in secret to keep women and children subservient
    and dependent and under control, and if men didn't rule the earth,
    well, there would be no more wars and starvation and poverty and
    rudeness and everyone would live in one big happy harmonious
    family and yada yada yada.  Let me know if I left anything important
    out.
    
       Can I have my daughter back now?  And some more money to live
    on?  Please?
    

    
    Re: .36
    
    You forgot "white" before "men".
    Other than that, it seems right.
    
    			

 Guys- face it, this is the gravy train... :-)/2

 I wonder what hell is like...

    This is somewhat of a tangent, but Father's Day is only six
    weeks away (June 17).
    
    So, some people may want to volunteer to protect their local
    adult book shops, in case there's another attempted armed incursion 
    this year.
    
    America must be kept safe for "Playboy" and "Penthouse". 
    
      Alan

    re: .39
    
    sheesh - if that's all you plan to do for father's day, maybe that's an
    indicate of just how much some people here DO value fathers!
    
    ;)/2
    
    -Jody

    In Ottawa the city council chose June 17th to be Gay Pride Day.
    
    They didn't even realise that it was Father's Day.  

    Jody, my Dad died in September '88.
    
    Last year was the first time for me that he wasn't around
    on Father's Day. 
    
    That's why I objected so much to the morons who picked that day
    last year to march.
    
    And those few fools who, afterwards, applauded them and thought them
    heroines.
    
      Alan        

    
    	RE: .42  Alan
    
    	Well, I certainly do sympathize with the loss of your Father.
    	My own Dad is still alive, and I adore him (always have,) so
    	I can empathize with how you must have felt when the some of
    	the victims of violence/incest/rape chose Father's Day to try
    	to accomplish some of their healing last year.
    
    	Your lashing out viciously at these people (who had nothing
    	to do with your Father's death) is quite similar to the lashing
    	out that some of the demonstrators did when they tore up some
    	pornographic material after the scheduled events of the march.
    
    	It's a human reaction, Alan.

    
    re .29  The Globe article was interesting, still: When a man dies
            7 years before a woman, there is no long term benefit in
            that.  Widows average 10+ years longevity after such passing.
    
            Women still stand to gain considerably from wills, and women
            own some 60 percent of U.S. land.
    
            A wise way for "indirect pay" partners is to mutually save
            and invest carefully throughout their lives.
    
            I think too many people rely on Social Security as something
            that might help keep their "heads above water," in the later
            years, but as the article's numbers showed, such reliance
            looks foolhardy.
    
                                                       Russ

    re: Russ
    
    The problem is that many people just don't have the money to put
    away for retirement. Social Security was intended to be a bridge
    between pension and starvation when people reached retirement. 
    The politicians got involved and it was expanded to become a means
    of living for those without pension benefits. Then it was extended
    to assist in paying for elderly health care. All of which is
    commendable and necesary for many.
            
    People in this country have become to expect that SS will be available
    and they figure they've paid for and it damn well better be there.
    
    The real problem came with benefits to widowed children and women
    and men that got benefits prior to retirement. This benefit sapped
    the pool of funds. (Problem in finances not needy people) Reagan
    closed the gap by stopping payment at 18 years old rather than 22.
    
    My father died 18 years ago. I was 22 (not eligible) my brother
    was 17 and my sister 14. My mother had a stroke shortly after my
    father's death and they existed because of SS. I lived with them
    and then they with me and I help defray alot of the costs but it
    was tough for them. When my mom went back to work her benefits
    decreased and then stopped. My brother went to work at 19 and his
    benefits stopped. My sister went to school for 2 years then her
    stopped.
    
    What really needs to be done is to establish a partnership between
    employees and companies they work for and have a 2-5% deduction
    weekly for a retirement pool that is mandatory. Each year the person
    gets a statement for his/her payments and interest received. He/she
    would not be eligible until a certain age and it would be a retirement
    benefit/healthcare only. The monies would allow person to carry
    his/her health insurance after retirement and the cost would be
    covered by the program. 100% would not be required because of medicare
    and other programs. OR the pool could be used for healthcare to
    elderly, including rest home care only and the company/employee
    partnership could eliminate medicare and increase the cash benefit
    to recipients. (Saw this on a TV special on Public TV back awhile
    ago and got really interested.)
    
    Ken
    
    Sorry...just realized I took a turn off the road....

�    <<< Note 453.46 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "we prefer `the vertical smile'" >>>
�
�.36>       Yeah, O.K.  Fine.   All men are pigs.  All men are rapists and
�.36>    child-abusers and inherently violent and dangerous and insensitive
�.36>    and cruel.   And the entire history of the planet is a shameful
�
�	No, not all men, just the ones who aren't feminists.
    
    Sorry, pal - I've heard of feminists who were all those things.
    
    Ray

    
    Re .46:
    
          Depends.  Guilty by Reason of Incorrect Gender is a verdict
    that can't be appealed in lots of personal courts, however much
    a femsymp the accused tries to appear.
    
    
    
    

    But the real question is, can we teach them to sing, or are we just
    wasting their time?
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Getting back to the issue at hand (whether fathers are valued):
    
    We're all aware of the increase in the number of single-parent
    households (where the mother is generally the single parent),
    the fact that the two-parent household is in decline, and the
    problems caused by the collapse of the traditional family.  Some
    statistics from the most recent _Atlantic_ magazine (June 1990):
    
    -  More than 60% of all children born today will spend at least
       some time in a single-parent household before reaching the age
       of 18
    
    -  30% of 2-parent elementary school children ranked as high
       achievers, while only 17% of the 1-parent children did
    
    -  38% of 1-parent elementarey school children ranked as low
       achievers, while only 23% of 2-parent children did
    
    -  1-parent children were more than twice as likely to drop out
       of school
    
    -  70% of juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in
       single-parent families
    
       The author concludes:  "For the past quarter century American
    public policy has shied away from the idea that certain family
    forms are more desirable than others. There is no attempt to promote
    child-bearing within wedlock.  There is little penalty attached
    to child abandonment.  There is scant recognition of the social
    benefits of marriage, or of the social contributions of those who
    devote themselves to conscientious child-rearing.  There is no
    reward from our public programs for standing by kith and kin."
    
       Public assistance to single mothers has produced no evident
    improvement.  Again, quoting the author:
    
       "Two-thirds of all people in female-headed families with children
    under eighteen now get benefits from a welfare program (AFDC,
    General Assistance, Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid,
    food stamps, rent assistance), the Census bureau tells us.  Of all
    never-married mothers, more than 80% are receiving some kind of
    government check.  The federal government spends more than $100
    billion every year on means-tested assistance to families.  Yet
    this aid has not even come close to providing those households
    with the kind of existential security that most intact families
    enjoy."
    
        My possible solution?  A "fatherhood" subsidy in the form of
    either sizable tax deductions or outright payments to fathers who
    remain with their families.
    
        Comments?
    

    re: .53
    
>        My possible solution?  A "fatherhood" subsidy in the form of
>    either sizable tax deductions or outright payments to fathers who
>    remain with their families.
 
    Only if he spends at least as much time and energy parenting the
    children as the mother does.     
    
    -Jody
    

 Jody- come right out and say it: it's a dumb idea. No need to put conditions
on it.

 There is already a tax break for parents. There's no evidence to indicate this
has an effect on the number of people choosing to remain together. Besides,
do you really want people to stay together for a tax break?!!

 Paying people to be parents is utter nonsense. We have a population problem
as it is...

 The Doctah

    re .53
    
   >My possible solution?  A "fatherhood" subsidy in the form of
   > either sizable tax deductions or outright payments to fathers who
   > remain with their families.
    
    Naw. What you do is soak all the "child support" you can out of them
    and still leave them breathing (draw sarcastic face here).  In most,
    if not all states, a man can go home tonight and find his cloths
    on the front step, another man sleaping in his bead and drinking
    is beer, and himself being forced to *finance* the whole thing,
    and there ain't *diddly* he can do about it.  I love my kids,
    but if I had to do it over again, I'd be real temped to to down
    to the vet and get myself fixed.
    
    I would suggest a vary substancial *divorce* tax that could not
    be transferred to either party (pay your own) and changing the
    court biggotry to where the father has an equal chance of gaining
    custody.  I think that would give a little more motivation to
    work out problems instead of #$%t-caning the marriage on first
    problem.
    
    re Bobbit:  Ok, NOW talk to me about *equal rights*.
    
    fred();

    re. 54
    
    re: .53
    
*>        My possible solution?  A "fatherhood" subsidy in the form of
*>    either sizable tax deductions or outright payments to fathers who
*>    remain with their families.
* 
*    Only if he spends at least as much time and energy parenting the
*    children as the mother does.     
    
     What about *her* half of the expenses to support the family??
    
    fred();

Re .54:

      There's no practical way to ensure that the fathers receiving the
"fatherhood subsidy" are going to be good fathers, any more than it's
possible to ensure that single mothers on AFDC, welfare, etc. are good
mothers (which, in my own personal opinion, most probably are not).
Maybe the $100b is being given to the wrong people; maybe, instead of
paying single mothers to generate more children that will grow up in
broken homes, if the money were spend to give fathers the incentive to
stay, more families would get off the welfare rolls and onto the tax
rolls, and the program would pay for itself.

Re .55:

      Why is the idea any more dumb than "let's spend $100b a year to
pay single mothers to stay home and raise their dependent children?"
The tax break for (married) parents is pitifully small and doesn't come
anywhere close to the amount needed to raise a child.  And yes, if it
takes a tax break to keep families together where otherwise daddy would
be long gone, I'm all for it.  Besides, this program wouldn't be paying
people to be parents; it would be subsidizing men who are already
parents to stick around and be part of their own families.  Quoting
Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

      "From the wild Irish slums of the 19th-century eastern seaboard
       to the the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one
       unmistakable lesson in American history:  a community that
       allows a large number of young men and women to grow up in
       broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable
       relationship to male authority... that community asks for
       and gets chaos."

    re: .56
    
>    re Bobbit:  Ok, NOW talk to me about *equal rights*.
 
    You know, if I thought you'd listen, I might actually do that.  
    
    -Jody
    

    
    	RE: .58
    
    	Your whole reply talked about the father leaving. Well, from my
    	experience most of the fathers I've known didn't leave, their
    	ex's threw them out of the home. Why is it always thought that the
    	man packs up and moves and not that he was forced out of his home
    	and his childrens lives by the ex-wife. I can't count how many
    	times I had it thrown in my face that "I left my wife and children
    	and was the bad guy". Tis not true, as is with so many others I
    	know where mommie wanted to "find herself" and no longer wanted
    	to be tied down!! What choice do you have when out of the blue
    	you come home from work one day and there's your bag packed and
    	sitting in the rain on the steps. You have no recourse, the law
    	says you must leave your own home, besides, she had the locks
    	changed anyways. You can't talk to her, she needs her "space"
    	and your support payments!!
    
    	Are fathers valued, yeah only as something to use and then throw
    	away and still get your weekly check from!

<----------------George


	Not fair George.  Not all women have treated their
	ex_husbands like that.




	kits
    
 

    <--------------------Kits
    
    Yes, but there's NOTHING to stop them from doing it, and if she does,
    there's NOTHING he can do about it.
    
    fred();

    
    
    I'm a little confused.  What does one do when one arrives home
    to find one's bags on the porch and the locks changed on one's
    own home?  I know what I'd do...I'd call a locksmith.  How can
    anyone "force" another out of that person's home?
    
    Divorce and child custody procedings are rarely fun, easy or
    enjoyable. However, in my mind they are just are frightening 
    for the woman as they are for the man.  
    
    The implication is that women have all the control, all the power,
    and that is simply not true.  What IS true is that men put them-
    selves in a powerless position, and often wind up the loser.
    
    Deborah
    
    

RE:  .60

YOU TOLD MY STORY!!!

She got a restraining order to keep me away, had me evicted from my home,
changed the locks on the doors, took my son away from me, and she is so
independent... as long as I keep the check coming!  And I'm supposed to smile
when I write that check and enjoy the privilege of visitation rights....

Are fathers valued?  Their value is growing less every day.  My son is growing
up without his father.  This hurts me deeply.  He needs his dad.  I need my
son.  I'm reduced to being more of a "big brother" program for him... someone
to pick him up a few times each month and entertain him.  I hate my role.

-dwight

    	And women wonder why men beat the living s**t out of them when
    they (women, not the couple) decide that they need space or want
    out of the marriage. It must be damn frustrating to wake up in the
    morning, kiss the kids, kiss the wife and head off to work happy
    only to have a sherriff show up at work with restraining orders.
    Not only are you in shock, you're embarrassed, confused, and no
    one...no one can give you any answers. Flip out time!!!! Wife won't
    "tell" you anything, speak to her lawyer. You can't see the kids
    but you're their father and if you want to see them, have a $$$$$
    check on Saturday at two when you pick them up and you best have
    them home by 7.......
    
    Of course women's groups immediately side with the "oppressed" female
    and say that the oppressor has gotten his just due. 
    
    Slowly, courts throughout the country are seeing that not all women
    are deserving of custody. They're beginning to see that fathers
    are just as nurturing as mothers and in many cases are even better
    with children who are school age. State legislators are seeing the
    wisdom in allowing working fathers to take the children because
    fathers are much less likely to be on state aid because they continue
    to work and provide a healthy balance in the home. The biggest
    opposition to fathers getting custody are the social services workers
    who can't justify their jobs because they don't have clients. The
    states are also beginning to look closely at women who are supporting
    a live-in friend on state funds and child support. The instances
    of child abuse in those homes where the mother has a boyfriend or
    lover living in her home is increasing, the abuser usually being
    the live-in not the mother, but she is usually incapable of dealing
    with the problem.
    
    NORM and other men's groups now have lobbyists and lawyers petitioning
    congressmen and state legislators to look and revise statues dealing
    with men's rights. These groups are beginning to exert some pressure
    in the same manner as NOW has exerted in the past and the pendulum
    is about to swing back...
    
    

>What does one do when one arrives home
>    to find one's bags on the porch and the locks changed on one's
>    own home?  I know what I'd do...I'd call a locksmith.  How can
>    anyone "force" another out of that person's home?

 Do you know how easy it is to get a court order preventing a man from
returning to the very same home that the same court will force him to pay
for? All she has to do is concoct a story about abuse, and she can get a
temporary restraining order (because men are presumed to be violent). Women
have the easier task is using the court to their advantage; they merely
have to accuse, the man has to prove those charges false.

>    The implication is that women have all the control, all the power,
>    and that is simply not true.  What IS true is that men put them-
>    selves in a powerless position, and often wind up the loser.

 My initial reaction is to angrily deny that; instead, could you please explain
that? I don't see how you can say that; what are you basing that statement
on? 

 The Doctah

>    	And women wonder why men beat the living s**t out of them when
>    they (women, not the couple) decide that they need space or want
>    out of the marriage.

 Even such a despicable act does not justify violence. And besides, the vast
majority of women who have been beaten have gotten it long before they
decide to take such drastic measures. So your argument is extremely close
to a non sequitur in the vast majority of cases.

 The Doctah

I read something interesting in the paper yesterday, which brought to light
a situation about which I was not aware.  There was a recent ruling change 
which now allowed "intact families" to qualify for some form of Welfare.
Apparently before, if the father was still around, even if he was disabled
or otherwise could not work, the family could not qualify.  Thus it seemed
our laws actually encouraged men to leave their families in order to get them
the support they needed.  

I am still shaking my head....

					Steve

*  There was a recent ruling change 
*which now allowed "intact families" to qualify for some form of Welfare.
*Apparently before, if the father was still around, even if he was disabled
*or otherwise could not work, the family could not qualify.  Thus it seemed
*our laws actually encouraged men to leave their families in order to get them
*the support they needed.  
    
    Sad but sickeningly true.  Another one is that if you *receive* 
    child support it must be reported as part of your income when 
    applying for food stamps.  If you *pay* child support the amount
    you pay is not decucted from you resources if you apply for 
    food stamps.  You must "get your lazy **s out and get a job".
    
    fred();

   re .70-
    
   >.66>for? All she has to do is concoct a story about abuse, and she can get a
   >
   >	Please, Doc, women don't lie.
    
    Michael, Mark's statement describes the facts.  Nobody here is denying
    that crummy people exist, that some women do indeed become manipulative
    and despicable and that some men are thereby victimized, except you,
    and from you it looks like sarcasm.
    
    Or do you honestly think that women don't lie?
    
    DougO

    re .71
    
    >and from you it looks like sarcasm.
     
    I think it *was* sarcasm.
    
    fred();
    

    
    	Also, to get that restraining order there doesn't have to be
    	violence, just that SHE FEELS IT COULD HAPPEN. There doesn't
    	have to be any past history of violence or threats, just the
    	words "he's pissed and he MAY come after me" will do it.
    
    	G_B

Doctah- No, I don't know how easy it is to get a restraining order because
I've never needed to.  However, the paragraph to which I replied did not
state that there was a restraining order involved.  


"   	................. What choice do you have when out of the blue
    	you come home from work one day and there's your bag packed and
    	sitting in the rain on the steps. You have no recourse, the law
    	says you must leave your own home, besides, she had the locks
    	changed anyways. ............................................."

There is no law in Colorado stating that a man must leave his own home
at the request of his wife.  I would be very surprised to hear that there
is such a law in your home state.  However, that is the implication of
the above statement.

A restraining order is a different matter all together.

However, the above-referenced paragraph illustrates what I meant by "men
give their wives power over them"...men often work under the assumption
that women have more rights to the home and the children. That women are
the ultimate authority when it comes to decisions regarding the home and
the kids.

During many conversations with men who are going thru separation and
divorce, I have heard over and over again: "She won't let me see my kids."
"She kicked me out of the house."  "She will only let me see them on week-
ends."  "She won't let them spend the night at my house."    I keep wonder-
ing why "she" has the final authority to make decisions.  Typically, it is
NOT because the court has mandated that "she" has the authority.  It is be-
cause the fathers have given her that power by following her demands. 

In the state of Colorado, until there is a legally accepted separation 
agreement or final orders from the court, both parents have equal rights
to the children.  Yet many men will move out of the family home, and accept
seeing their kids a couple of times a week.  These men do not seem to realize
that they have equal access to their children.

I guess what I am trying to say is, too many men that I have talked to have
let the word of their wife be the law, rather than seeking legal counsel.

Back to the original comment:  he stated that she changed the locks and he
was "forced" out of his own home.  How did she "force" him?  Granted, it's
manipulation at it's finest, but he doesn't have to give in to that manipu-
lation.  As I said, I'd simply call a locksmith to allow me access to my
own home.  Don't forget, a man could just as easily pull this stunt on
his wife.  

I don't mean to imply that it's easy or simple.   Too often, it gets down
to who has the best attorney, who has the most money to spend on legalities,
who puts on the best act in front of the judge or referee.  Society is still
operating under the old fashioned notion that mothers are the better parent,
that children are better off living with mom and 'visiting' dad.  Frankly,
I think it sucks.  But men are often just as guilty as the court system of 
operating under the above (usually false) premise.

Too often, others have power over us because we give them that power.

Deb

    re .47 deb
    
    What you do in Colorado, and probably most other states, is go
    behind his back and get an attorney.  Have the attorney draw up
    the papers and a request for restraining order.  Have the papers
    served on him at work, and have the locks changed.  Bam--no more
    home, and if he goes anywhere near the kids he's in deep *&*^ too.
    
    fred();

    
    
    If it's as simple as that, there is something radically wrong
    (which wouldn't surprise me).  However, my point was, and still
    is, no restraining order was mentioned.  It was simply stated
    that 'she' changed the locks and 'forced' him out of his home.
    I stand behind my original statement that people (not just men,
    not just women) tend to allow others to have power.
    
    Now I'm curious, however.  Does a restraining order include the
    children (that is, does a restraining order typically include
    the children)?   And if a restraining order is requested, does
    the other party have any recourse?  Is there an expiration date?
    I do understand that restraining orders aren't worth a heck of
    a lot.  They are, after all, just a piece of paper.  If there is
    no enforcement behind that order, well, it's been shown time and
    again that a piece of paper, albeit one labeled "restraining order",
    will not stop a bullet.
    
    Since we're discussing Colorado, most men 'assume' that the mother
    has the ultimate say.  Not so.  Until there is a legal document as-
    signing custodial rights, both parents have equal rights to the
    child(ren).  While one parent may bar the other from his/her home,
    there is nothing to stop a parent from picking up the kids at day
    care, school, etc.    Maybe I should say some men, or many men.  I
    guess I don't know that it's "most"...at any rate, law enforcement
    will not become involved unless there is a legal instrument spelling
    out custody, and it's determined that the parent is violating that
    custody agreement.
    
    
    
    

	I have been talking with a young man who is going through
	a terrible time in his marriage. His wife stays at home
	with the two babies, while he works. The house is never
	clean or picked up, the babies always seem to be dirty.
	He does not come home every evening to a hot home
	cooked meal. 

	Her excuse is that taking care of the two babies is
	VERY tiring. And..........she is threatening to leave
	him because when he comes home he doesn't do the
	dishes or wash the floor. She also gets upset because
	he sits on the sofa, plays with babies, and watches
	TV...and sometimes goes to bed early because he's		
	worked hard all day.

	To me this is sheer laziness. I was a stay_at_home
	housewife and mother. My house was spotless and
	my child was always clean, and my husband had a
	home cooked meal every evening waiting for him.
	Plus, I took care of the lawn and the flowers, and
	had time to refinish old furniture, write and paint.

	I'm finding that a lot of the young women of today are
	selfish and demanding. What saddens me, is that if this
	young woman decides to leave, it's the young man who
	will pay the high price.

	kits
	

    I am willing to share my experience on some of the more recent
    replies in this topic regarding parental rights.  This sequence 
    of events started in the fall of 1988 and concluded in January, 1990.  
    I am a male with two children, a girl (aged nine years) and a boy 
    (aged seven years).

    I live in the State of Maine (USA).  My ex-wife (we were married
    at the time) and I were having problems and she desired a separation.  
    I said 'fine' hoping that we would be able to work things out.  She
    wanted to know when I was moving out.  I told her that I had no 
    intentions of doing so, that if she desired a separation she should
    be the one to move out.  We both went to see lawyers.  Fortunately
    Maine has 'shared parental rights and responsibilities' which means
    that both parents are responsible for the children's welfare.  I
    decided that I wanted the children 50% of the time and I would be 
    responsible for their medical bills and life insurance.  I stuck
    with this position and eventually prevailed.  I enjoy my time with
    my children and and my time away from them.  I was not put out of
    the house and I was not made to feel like I was a criminal.  Divorce
    itself is painful enough.  I have had my share of verbal battles 
    with the ex-wife, but I have my self esteem and a sense that I am
    a better person now than I was before this mess.  

    What really made the difference for me was that I had rights, I had
    friends that I could really talk with (and listen), and decent
    legal advice.  

    Steve D.

>What saddens me, is that if this
>	young woman decides to leave, it's the young man who
>	will pay the high price.

 And the children; they'll pay too.

 The Doctah

> And the children; they'll pay too.



	Yes Mark.......I should have noted that. They will pay
	the highest price ever.



	kits

    In my previous reply I was not advocating abuse, rather that the
    circumstances often cause severe mental trauma and the end result
    is violence. I'm not saying it's justified, but I cannot imagine
    having the lockout scenario happen to me without going into an absolute
    white rage.
    
    Most men cannot get the same treatment by the courts. If a man hires
    an attorney, behind his spouse's back, and requests a restraining
    order, it will most often be denied. The majority of the restraining
    orders awarded to women are based on the statement that the man
    is/will be abusive to her and the kids. No proof is required, just
    a statement from her. If the man requests the order and states that
    the wife is abusive, he must provide proof or witness. 
    
    I personally know of an instance where a woman walked out of a marriage
    because she had to "find herself". (whatever that really means)
    She left three children and her spouse. He was devastated and so
    were the kids. They all adored her and the kids were crushed that
    their mother didn't 'want' them anymore. She ran around for two
    years, showing up sporadically in the beginning and then began taking
    the children on a regular visitation basis. She started living with
    a guy, quit her job, bought a corvette, a big house and her hisband
    finally started the divorce process. In court, she decided she wanted
    to change her mind at the last minute (in the courtroom) and take
    the kids. The judge gave them 10 minutes to rewrite/arbitrate the
    custody. She changed her mind and gave them up. Her new boyfriend
    stole the 'vette, and was arrested by the NH State Police. Not because
    of the 'vette but because his was indicted for fraud. He's a con
    man and is in jail awaiting trial on $2.5M bail. She almost lost
    the 'vette, but that was sold to pay it off. The house and furnishings
    are being held for auction to repay the victims. Now here's the
    good part.....She's repetitioning the court for the kids, the old
    house, and child support and alimony because "she made a mistake"
    and feels she would be a better parent than her ex. The court is
    reviewing the matter........
    
    Men have got to start taking back what they've lost...one way or
    the other. I'm all for equal rights. But my view is that equal is
    50/50.......
    
    Ken

    .82 brother, what an example of iresponsibility!  If a man did that
    many would judge the behavior as typical of men.

    After reading all 83 responses to this file, I would like to take
    a moment and share with you what happened to me.
    
    Well guys, I hate to disappoint you, however, you are not cornering
    the market on being 'booted out the door'.  Back in '80 after having
    a terrible argument with my drunken ex (drunk more often than sober)
    I walked out the door completely broken.  You see we had 9 terrible
    years of his alcoholic behavior and he really had me convinced that
    he only drank because of me.  I was NEVER good enough at ANYTHING.
    My house was spotless, my children very neat and very well cared
    for.  Now I know that alcoholics do blame one person for everything
    but I did not know that then.
    
    Well went back, and surpirse!  All locks had been changed, he
    had a lawyer, my bags were packed and ready for me and a restraining
    order prohibiting me from seeing my 3 children (my ex SCREAMED that
    he *thought* I might take the children out of state).  I guess women
    are not the only ones who can dream up sh_t!  Re .74, you are VERY
    right when you said 'it gets down to who has the best attorney, the
    most money and puts on the best act in front of the judge.  My ex's
    dad was loaded and promised his attorney that the budget was bottomless
    as long as my ex got the children, house, furniture, car and the
    family business.  After all they had to save face!  Otherwise I could 
    expose them for what *they* were two alcoholics, whom everyone thought
    were pillars of the community.
    
    To make a long boring (actually would be a good article for People
    Magazine) story short, my ex WON.  I was given my car with the payment
    book and did not see the children for seven weeks.  They (my ex
    and his attorney) could not find a jduge to sign the restraining
    order, however, it took SEVEN weeks to overturn *their* attempt
    at keeping me away from the children.
    
    I began a campaign to get the children back immediately.  This lasted
    6-1/2 years.  I talked to anyone and everyone who had any kind of
    contact with the children and the abuse in that house was incredible.
    Well the children finally decided to help me in the fight, which
    was the best evidence yet, and I won them back.  That was 3-1/2
    years ago now.
    
    My advice to the men out there is to love your children!  See them
    as often as you can, and when you darling ex gives you ultimate insult
    of "No you can't, it's not in the papers", well remind the dear
    that divorce was NOT IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT EITHER!
    
    If you come home to locked doors, break a god damn window and climb
    back in, police CANNOT throw you out for coming home!  (Make sure
    there are no restraining orders, however.)  Don't take
    all the nonsense lying down.  Get a great attorney and FIGHT for
    your rights.  I've helped many people (men and women) in the past to
    get the courage and strength to do what they have to for their
    families.  
    
    I could go on and on I get so stirred up when I start on this subject. 
    Ther must be a solution to all this divorce nonsense. I don't believe
    in staying in a relationship that is painful because the children
    suffer just as much as the parents.
    
    Oh well enough of my nonsense.
    
    Good luck to you all!
    
    Hurt and still recovering.
    
    
    
      

    Re whether men are valued as fathers:
    
    I think the question is usefully posed as "how does a husband and
    wife value the effort the husband makes to be a father?" The
    answer is indicated by the incidence of men as home-makers: NEXT
    TO NONE. I'm in my late thirties, and am acquanted with perhaps
    300 couples who faced the "who stays home?" question during the
    last fifteen years or so. Exactly ZERO of the men stayed home. 
    
    The reasons GIVEN are usually pathetic, the big two being "He
    makes more money" and "Only she can nurse the baby." Thanks to
    the feminist movement (SINCERE thanks), the pay differential is
    largely gone, and there are MANY women who make more money than
    their husbands. The nursing issue went away with the invention of
    formula. The REAL reason that so few men stay home, in my
    opinion, is that EVERYONE AGREES THAT WOMEN ARE BETTER PARENTS. 
    
    I don't blame either gender: it's a general conspiracy. In these
    300 couples, 600 people discussed it and concluded that she
    should quit her job. 
    
    This is my major complaint about the menist movement -- we men
    haven't DEMANDED a revision in the roles available to men.
    Men-as-home-makers have enough currency to appear in the comic
    strips, but only as objects of ridicule. We've won the right (and
    obligation) to help with the housework. Perhaps we can hope that
    our wives value our time "fathering" the kids. There remains a
    terribly strong presumption, though, that SHE should be the one
    at home all day. This strongly implies that we (collectively)
    believe she'll do a better job than him. 
    
    
    Re fathers being screwed by the divorce process: 
    
    I had believed, apparently mistakenly, that the laws and the
    courts had changed so that men had equal presumption of
    suitability as parents. I thought that shared custody was the
    default. It absolutely should be. 
    
    What especially offends me, though, is the practice of long-term
    financial liability. There's no justice in a principle that says
    "Having borne your children entitles me to perpetual support."
    Fathers should provide for their children's financial needs; so
    should mothers. If a wife has diminished earning power, because
    she's been out of the work force for several years providing
    child care, then she should receive a subsidy from the husband
    UNTIL SHE GETS HER JOB SKILLS UPDATED. It should be for a limited
    time, on the order of five years MAX, at the end of which she's
    responsible for her HALF of the children's expenses. Obviously,
    the time period depends a great deal on the circumstances, esp.
    the education of the divorced parties. The objective, however,
    should be making all parties financially self-sufficient and
    mutually responsible for the children. 
    
    Requiring each party to pay HALF is equitable and sets up the
    right incentives. "Here is your monthly child support obligation,
    regardless of your income. If you make more money next month,
    then you get to keep ALL the increase." Making obligations
    proportional introduces all manner of pathologies; my brother's
    response was to simply make no money! Divorce makes people crazy.
    
    Fortunately for me, my wife has BEEN a home-maker, during her
    first marriage, and we agreed in advance of OUR marriage that I'd
    be the one to stay home if we have a child (I hope, I hope). For
    people in the more conventional situation, though, I'd strongly
    advocate that the husband and wife take turns, each making that
    career/family trade-off in equal amounts, with neither becoming
    professional obsolete. And I'd suggest that the HUSBAND start out
    as the FIRST at-home parent, else it will never happen (300 out
    of 300 couples!). 
    
    
    When men have equal access to the home-maker role (which will be
    signified by men FILLING that role on the order of half the
    time), then both genders will be more free. Husbands and wives
    will be able to make jointly optimal decisions about who works
    and who stays home. If we can remove the presumption that "he
    works, she nurtures" then we'll be able to assume those roles on
    the basis of our wants and skills, instead of because of
    convention, societal pressures, etc. 
    
    Women will benefit from this, as well. College-age feminists do
    not allow their educational choices to be shunted by an
    assumption that hubby will provide. For many women, though, that
    belief persists. The computer science curriculum is still
    predominantly male, the history of art courses are still filled
    by women. When men have equal claim on the home-maker role, then
    women will undertake equal responsibility for the bread-winner
    role. A great formula for becoming poor, presently, is to be a
    female and get divorced. If women believe that their adult life
    will be spent working instead of taking care of the children,
    then they'll make more (financially) rewarding career choices. 

    - Hoyt

>    The nursing issue went away with the invention of
>    formula. The REAL reason that so few men stay home, in my
>    opinion, is that EVERYONE AGREES THAT WOMEN ARE BETTER PARENTS. 
    
I think that women, more often than men, are willing to put their
career (even their marriage) secondary to the raising of children. 
Not all women, all the time, but certainly the vast majority. 
Check out "Kramer vs Kramer."  Haufman's initial attitude was 
indicative of a lot of men's: it's important, but secondary (it was 
_certainly_ better than the mother's attitude, but the kid still came 
secondary to his career--in the beginning).  

Until more men are willing to lift parenting onto a higher priority
slot than their jobs, then I can understand why women are, by default,
judged to be "better parents."  That's the way the scene plays out
most often in life.  Until men make that scenario change by more
active parenting _before_ the divorce, then I don't see the judgements
changing in the court settlements.  Men have to be more willing to do
the prework, put their priorities where their mouths are.


							--Gerry

All too often we tend to forget that fathers DO matter to those who
matter.  The following "customer letter" from the secretary of the 
private school that my daughter attends brought that back to me loud 
and clear.  

I have been somewhat hesitant to enter this since I didn't want to 
appear that I was "bragging" (well-just a little).  I have decided
to enter it for those fathers who may have, like I did, overlooked 
the fact that you ARE valued by the ones who matter most.

fred();


    
Park Hill Christian Academy

Dear Mr. Haddock:

I just wanted to share a special blessing with you that happened last 
week in school.  I know things like this really give me a "lift".

I was helping out in one of the classes of 9th and 10th grade girls
and asked the question "What is the one special blessing that God
has given you?"  When Terri's turn came and I asked her that
question, her immediate reply was "I am thankful for my daddy".

This really touched my heart.  I know this means a lot to a 
parent , and I just wanted to share this with you.

Sincerely,
Sarafaye
School Secretary
    

    This topic really got to me... It makes having children look scary.
    
    I don't think that we can solve all the problems, but to me there
    were a couple of very worthy sugestions here. Worth going for right
    away, you got to start somewhere.
    
    1)  Have the earning mate (usually the husband) deduct Social Security
    	for the wife separatly. This way in case of divorce, husband's dead
        etc. The Wife would have a uninterrupted separate SS deduction
    	history, and thus elible for benefits. 
    
    2)  Under the idea that parental responsibilities are 50/50, although
    	knowing what exactly goes in the husband's 50 and what goes in the
    	wife's 50 is almost impossible.
    
        Make it so that after a catch up period of 4 to 5 years, monetary
    	expenses of child rearing be devided 50/50 for a divorced couple.
    	This not to be any flat amount, but half of jointly agreed expenses.
    
    	Ex: That is mother and father together agree what are the rearing
    	expenses (with a lawer if they must). Then each pays half, this
    	way things like sickness and college would be covered. But not a
    	pet poney.
    
    3)  Society benefits, in terms of less violence, less poverty, less 
    	welfare, less housing needed, etc, if people are married and raise 
    	children in marriage. So it makes sense to offer significant tax 
    	deductions for married people, and even more deductions for their 
    	first two children. (only two, because more = overpopulation)
    
    	And never mind if its imoral or not to support people doing things 
    	that are good for them anyway. What matters is that it is good for
    	society, and society as well as the people involved end up paying
    	for it anyway if something goes wrong. one way or the other.
    
    Gil	
    

>          <<< Note 453.88 by MAYDAY::ANDRADE "The sentinel (.)(.)" >>>
>                              -< Start Somewhere >-
>    
>    1)  Have the earning mate (usually the husband) deduct Social Security
>    	for the wife separatly. This way in case of divorce, husband's dead
>        etc. The Wife would have a uninterrupted separate SS deduction
>    	history, and thus elible for benefits. 
    
    
    I believe this is in error.  When I got my divorce, I talked to S.S.
    and was told that my ex-wife was entitled to S.S. benefits ANYWAY.  
    
    I believe the only consideration was that the marriage must have been
    longer than ten years.
    
    In other words, I might be married to three women (separately, of
    course) for ten years each, and each one of them is elegible to draw
    social security benefits based entirely on my earnings.
    
    tony