Conference quark::mennotes

Well, that program would never have been broadcast in the US.  (Americans
don't seem to mind at all if people get brutally murdered in gory detail
on prime-time TV, but network executives were up in arms over a scene in
a popular show where a woman gave another woman a kiss.  Go figure.)

Though it's unlikely that you'd see a show featuring female genitalia, the
airwaves are certainly full of programs which show just about everything but
of women.  Still, you've identified an example of a bit of what's called
"backlash".

			Steve

    Of course double standards rule,,
    
    At this point in male de-evolution, is the question even necessary ?
    
    Ask yourself:
    
    had John Bobbit,  cut some part of his wifes genitalia
    off, where would he be right now???
    
    Ever see what happens to male strippers ??  They're mauled.
    If ever a man touched a f.m. stripper, he'd be dead..
    
    Double Standards ??  Tons of em...
    
    
    

    You've convinced me :-)
    
    It may interest US readers to know that the programme was shown on a
    commercial channel.
    
    I always thought that broadcasters in the US were nervous about showing
    anything controversial because advertisers would not want to be
    associated with it.
    
    However, the point about killings is well made. Advertisers in the US do 
    not seem to shy away from programmes whose only reason for existance seems
     to be to depict murder in one shape or another. 
    
    My impression, having seen both UK and US tv is that the UK is far more
    open about what is shown, whether on commercial or non commercial
    channels.
    
    For example, C4 (commercial) has shown uncut versions of Ghost of the
    Civil dead (about a prison in Australia) and the film "The Cook, the
    thief, his wife and her lover", which were both as explicit as could
    be, both sexually, in terms of bad language, violence and general
    unpleasantness
    
    
    
    andy
    
     

    Re: .3
    
    Yep, that's the way it is.
    
    			Steve

    	In France it seems that the only things advertisers are shy of is
    exhibiting pubic hair. There are a couple of current advertisements
    that I have noticed.
    
    1) There is a face of a rather pretty woman eating a particular brand
    of fruit yoghourt. The camera scans slowly down showing a near-perfect
    figure, and around navel level moves round to the side, showing her in
    profile and avoiding the pubic hair, before it carries on down to her
    toes.
    
    2) There is a man swimming, and an arm reaches in off the side of the
    picture and steals his clothes. The man gets out of the water, runs
    naked back to his car somehow managing not to display any pubic hair, and
    drives off. He is shortly stopped at a police road block and forced to
    get out of his car. It is apparent that one of the policemen is
    homosexual, and was also the person to steal the clothes. By some
    miracle the man is wearing jeans when he gets out of the car, and then
    the camera scans back to the car. The upholstery is all in denim blue,
    except for a man-shaped patch of white on the driver's seat. There is
    an obvious expression of disappointment on the face of the policeman
    and the man is allowed to continue his journey. (FWIW, the policemen
    are obviously American).
    
    	I am fairly sure the first one is advertising fruit yoghourt. I am
    not sure if the second one is advertising the jeans, the car, or that
    "theft doen't pay".

    Re: .5
    
    I'm curious - what features made the policeman in the ad "obviously
    American"?
    
    				Steve

    	The uniform, and the fact that the man was made to put his hands on
    the roof of the car. I have never seen that done in Europe, but it
    seems to be the fashion in the U.S.. (Mind you, I have never seen
    anyone have to put their hands on the roof of their car in the U.S.,
    either, but I am not there very often, so I have to rely on Hollywood
    for that ;-). I have seen real live U.S. police uniforms.

    
    In the U.S. about the "raciest" the commercials get is some bikini
    shots.  Although the amount of material in some of those bikinis
    wouldn't make a good hanky ;^}.

    There is a current Diet Coke commercial that has all the women
    breathing fast and shallow ;^).  Some construction-worker hunk
    takes off his shirt to relax and have a "Coke break", and all the
    women in the office building nearby run to the windows.

    fred()

    
    
    What made the guy obviously homosexual?
    
        GJD

    	He plays up to the homosexual stereotypes. You don't need to tell
    me the stereotypes aren't true - a colleague who said he was homosexual
    had half the women in the office swooning over him. I also know an
    extremely intelligent 75 year old woman who over the telephone can play
    the dumb blonde airhead to perfection. I have known henpecked husbands
    over 6 foot tall.   If you choose an actor and tell him to go out and
    play a role then he acts up to the stereotypes (no doubt thereby
    reinforcing them) but that is another topic.

    RE .0
    
    >what would have been the reaction of the tv bosses
    
    Well it would probably be the highest rated program of all 
    time considering the controversy it would cause. Just look
    at what Roseanne's "kiss" stirred up. A sure ratings winner.
    
    			-Jim-

    There is another double standard TV commercial. Its Brookstone
    Hospital. It always diplicts the drunkard rasputian father figure,
    drunk out of his mind. And mother is calling for help. There are other
    sexist commercials of the same vaine that makes me upset. Esp when I
    know that there is an equal number of mothers who are drunkards, who do
    the same as men. But only in America.
    
    

    First of all, the name of the Hospital is Brookside, not Brookstone
    (Brookstone is a retail store).
    
    Secondly, the statistics are as follows:  Approximately 1/3 of
    recovering alcoholics are female; not 1/2, as you attest.  I can
    only assume that the numbers for non-recovering alcoholics are similar.
    
    Finally, if you went to some open AA meetings (meetings where anyone
    interested in finding out more about AA can attend) you'll notice that
    usually there are more men than women at a meeting.
    
    George, there's a reason that stereotypes exist.  While not a perfect
    reflection, they do reflect reality.  There really are more male
    alcoholics than female alcoholics.   There really are many more cases of
    male alcoholics abusing their wives than cases of wives abusing
    husbands.  The stereotypes, much as you may dislike them, really do
    approach reality.
    					andrew

    The closest American TV will get to that UK show is animal shows on the
    PBS stations.  And even then, the carnal scenes are interspersed with
    predator/prey scenes. America loves its violence.
    
    -Bill

    
>    had John Bobbit,  cut some part of his wifes genitalia
>    off, where would he be right now???
    
    I don't know but a whole bunch of violent guys out there have been
    caught beating their wives. Do you watch the news? Every week you hear:
    "Man defies restraining order. Kills estranged wife, kids." Same old,
    same old.
    
    
    >Ever see what happens to male strippers ??  They're mauled.
    >If ever a man touched a f.m. stripper, he'd be dead..
    
    Do you read the newspaper? How often do you read," Serial Killer
    Confessed of murdering XX Prostitutes/Strippers?" I guess male
    strippers don't feel as threatened as females. Can you guess
    why?
    
    Kate
    
                                                 

    There is another interesting thing I have noticed, looking from over
    here (in the UK).
    
    It is that whereas American cinema has no qualms about depicting the
    unsavoury sides of life - slums, violence, racial tensions etc etc,
    this sort of thing rarely if ever gets onto tv.
    
    Everyone seems to live in middle to upper class areas, drives big cars
    (always spotlessly clean), on tv and the closest we seem to see to
    working class is Roseanne and one from the past with somebody Connor in
    it (the name escapes me). The idea came from a UK show about a bigot
    and his family.
    
    Why is it that the tv bosses decide that people do not want to see the
    real world on tv despite the fact that they pack the cinemas.
    
    One observation I would make is that bad language, which has really
    gone beyond the bounds in cinema is one thing I *would* object to having
    thrust down my throat at home.
    
    However, seeing a dirty car, or a slum, or a junkie laid out is, whilst
    not glamourous, part of everyday life (unfortunately perhaps) and if
    the depiction is not gratuitous but necessary to the story, then so be
    it.
    
    I get the feeling (perhaps wrongly, and it is not a criticism, just an
    obeservation) that tv in the US actually depicts a world which rarely
    exists and choosesd to ignore reality.
    
    andy
    down my throat.   

    Hey, its your money. If you dont like it. Dont watch it.

Re: .16

You are quite right - US TV does not depict reality.  But then, US TV watchers
don't want reality, they want escapism.

					Steve

re:       <<< Note 116.16 by CHEFS::IMMSA "adrift on the sea of heartbreak" >>>

>				one from the past with somebody Connor in
>    it (the name escapes me). The idea came from a UK show about a bigot
>    and his family.
    
All in the Family, produced by Norman Lear, starring Carroll O'Connor, Jeanne
Stapleton, Sally Struthers and Rob Reiner. I believe the UK basis was something
called Till Death Do Us Part, or similar.

-Jack

    
    re .16

    My even bigger problem with "Hollywood" and the TV gang is how so much
    of what we see in movies and on TV contain subtle (or not so subtle)
    "political messages" (weighted heavily on the liberal side). 
    Ferinstance, How many times in the past 10 years have you seen a 
    _married_ couple get naked and have a really good time in bed?
    I can count them without taking my shoes off--or even a glove.

    Especially the daytime garbage.  After a year or so of that *&^%,
    you start to feel like if you haven't been married twice, raped
    once, and tried for murder at least once, then, baby, you just ain't
    living.
    
    Just what the *&^%$ was wrong with June Cleaver, anyway.  

    fred();

    re .20, to see a married couple get naked and have a really good time
    in bed check out the movie "The Getaway" with Kim Basinger and Alec
    Baldwin.  Not only are they married on the screen, they're married in
    real life, too, and both look good naked.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    >My even bigger problem with "Hollywood" and the TV gang is how so much
    >of what we see in movies and on TV contain subtle (or not so subtle)
    >"political messages" (weighted heavily on the liberal side). 
    >Ferinstance, How many times in the past 10 years have you seen a 
    >_married_ couple get naked and have a really good time in bed?
    >I can count them without taking my shoes off--or even a glove.

    Excuse me, but what is the connection between "liberal political
    messages" and a couple in bed (happily or not)?
    
    I don't get it.

    re .22
    
    Me neither...
    
    Ana

    
    re last 2 or 3

    The liberal political message is tied to the idea that any and every kind
    of sex (except _mayby_ child molestation) is ok.  Unless it's sex 
    during marriage.  Then it's rape, don't'cha know.  The only thing 
    worth showing must be illicit in some form or another.  Shows/movies
    depiciting happily married couples are few and far between.

    fred();

    You mean... the DISTORTED 'liberal political message' is tied to
    the idea, blah blah blah.
    
    The media show non-ordinary sexual activities because they figure
    that people don't want to see their own ordinary lives on TV -
    they want to see something else.  So TV tries to give them this
    "something else" so they'll watch it.
    
    It's about RATINGS, not what they want people to do in their own
    lives (except for BUYING THE PRODUCTS OF THEIR SPONSORS, which
    is something they think they can GET people to do if they provide
    them "something else" to interest them.)

    I still don't get it -- yes, there's a lot of sex in the media;
    media execs have "discovered" that sex sells (See also Aristophenes, 
    ca. 500 BC).
    
    Sex has been used to entice audiences for at least 2500 years, through
    liberal and conservative regimes, through fire, pestilence, and war.
    
    If you think there's a connection between what's in the media, and 
    "liberal political messages," then that's your right.  I do believe
    that if you checked more carefully, you'd find that sex is used as a
    sales tool, regardless of who's in office.

    
    
    Sex was only one of the many.
    
    fred();

    The biggest double standard is that American males when they are 18
    years old are required to register for a lottery, that if enactacted
    and they win, stand a good chance of giving up their lives!!!

    I think it's at least worth mentioning that this double standard is one
    that was designed, implemented, and maintained by men.  Efforts to
    include women in the draft have been most forceably opposed by men. 
    It's hard for me to accept it as a typical double standard when it's 
    one we've chosen for ourselves.
    
    Steve

    When the ERA failed to be ratified, such items as the draft being
    single sex, were able to be maintained.  The solution would be to
    recognize that women have an equally important place in this country as
    far as protecting it should the need arise.  Admittedly some women have 
    been as instrumental in retaining a quasi-privileged state by keeping
    the rules unequal as the people who voted against ratification, but I
    feel that if men had pushed legislators for ratification as hard as I
    did, the ERA might have reduced such inequities.
    
    meg

    
    "Deadbeat" Dads have an "obligation" to support their children.  However
    if mom wants to sit on her *bleep* and collect "AFDC" and "child
    support", well, she's just a poor victim.
    
    fred();

    I actually don't consider the requirement to register for the draft a
    "double standard".  As I understand it, a double standard involves the
    application of two standards of judgment - one for person/group A,
    another for person/group B - in which application of the dual standard
    serves to give undue advantage to the group applying the standards.
    
    In the case of the draft, there are indeed two standards, but since the
    "disadvantage" is applied to the group who make and apply the
    standards, it's not really a double standard.
    
    re: Fred
    
    I agree that there are great legal inequities in the areas of divorce
    and child support.  However, once again, these inequities have been
    created and maintained by (overwhelmingly) men.  I would again say that
    this isn't a case of double standards - at least not in the way I
    outlined above.  Incidentally, it appears that some things are
    changing.  Massachusetts, like several states, started publishing a
    "Top 10 Deadbeat Parents" list.  On the original list, on of the top
    ten money-owers was a woman.  A few months ago she was arrested and
    hauled into court with the same media attention given to the men.
    
    Steve

        re .32

    The divorce, custody, "child support" imbalance has been created 
    because NOW etc has a lot more political clout than "men" groups.
    The whole problem seems that there _are_ no "men" groups.  In fact
    it seems, that as soon as anyone dares to mention the subject they
    are immediately attacked as some sort of weirdo or monster.

    Yes the tide is slowly turning about women paying child support
    as well as men.  But the "deadbeat" situation, IMHO, extends far
    beyond "child support".

    Last night my ex called to talk to the kids (I can still count the
    number of letters and/or calls that they have gotten from her in
    the last year on one hand.  Let alone child support.  (Court said
    she couldn't be held in contempt because I couldn't prove she was
    employed and able to pay).  She said she'd just filed for divorce
    and filed a restraining order on her current husband and my oldest
    son because she is "tired of supporting them".

    fred();

Re: .33

Don't blame NOW for this - NOW in fact supports equal rights and
responsibilities for men and women in child care and support.  I realize it's
popular to point fingers at NOW for all ailments considered "anti-male" but
they're really quite progressive on this and similar issues.

					Steve

re .29:

>    It's hard for me to accept it as a typical double standard when it's 
>    one we've chosen for ourselves.

Speak for yourself.  The government never asked me if I approve of the
Selective Service System (or whatever it's called these days).

    
    re .33
    
    As far as I can tell, the various state legislatures and judicial
    systems are by and large men's groups.  And most of the laws
    concerning support have been around far longer than NOW.  I think
    you should be looking at the social conservatives who for so long
    resisted equal rights as the root of this problem.
    
    I also agree that NOW has consistantly supported equality in
    support issues.
    
    Ron

    
    re .36


>    As far as I can tell, the various state legislatures and judicial
>    systems are by and large men's groups.  

    Most of these groups have followed the "take care of the little woman"
    attitude.  Also most (nearly all?) of the political pressure brought
    against these groups has been in support of higher awards, and tracking
    down dead-beats.  While the mother who chooses to sit on her *bleep*
    and collect welfare is coddled.

    >And most of the laws
>    concerning support have been around far longer than NOW. 

    However, those laws weren't as draconian until Now & co came along.

    > I think
>    you should be looking at the social conservatives who for so long
>    resisted equal rights as the root of this problem.

There's still a lot of resistance against _equal_ rights, but now it's
    against men and fathers.    

>    I also agree that NOW has consistently supported equality in
>    support issues.

    So long as it benefits _them_.  In situations where "traditional
    values" (mother keeps child and collects child support) they've not
    been so vocal.  Even Gloria (a_womand_needs_a_man_like_a_fish_needs_a_
    bicycle) Steinem(sp) ran and found the biggest sugar daddy she could 
    find to take care of her when things got tough.  As soon as she got 
    back on her feet, she gave him the boot.

    fred();

    Fred,
    
    It's clear that you really know very little about NOW and its
    activities and positions.  It's the "straw feminist" for you.
    
    The Draconian child support regulations have nothing to do
    with NOW nor with any other women's organization; they're
    largely due to the "welfare state" we've created and the
    government's misguided attempt to shift the cost to fathers
    rather than address the actual issues.  All they care about
    is money, not on keeping families together.
    
    				Steve

    
    re .38
    
>    It's clear that you really know very little about NOW and its
>    activities and positions.  
    
    Or perhaps you do not know as much as you think you do.
    
    >It's the "straw feminist" for you.
    
    There was a (female) newspater columnist (Sorry, can't remember her
    name. Didn't know there'd be a quiz later) that had a good response 
    for that, "Only in the sense that they could all join in a corous of 
    'If I Only Had a Brain'".
    
    fred();

 >     There was a (female) newspater columnist ...
    
    ... who clearly works for a publication that caters to the patriarchy...
    

    >...who clearly works for a publication that caters to the patriarchy
    
    
    and to the majority of american women who don't consider themselves
    feminists because they don't want to be identified with organizations
    like now.
    
    bill

    >>if men had pushed legislators for ratification as hard as I
    
    You might get your wish, and you might not like the out come.;)

       > The Draconian child support regulations have nothing to do
       > with NOW nor with any other women's organization; they're
       > largely due to the "welfare state" we've created and the
    
    Phoo! Who sponcers the witch hunts of the deadbeat dads? Who is on
    these commities who are in the division of DisHuman Services? Freddie
    Kurgher? Hint: Steve....:) They are members of your tribal group that
    would like to have men fixed if they cannot pay their child support.:)
    

Re: .43

Who sponsors the witchunts?  The state legistlatures who want to stop paying
out AFDC money and get the dads to pay instead.  They're overwhelmingly male.
Indeed, I've seen items in NOW newsletters objecting to these "Deadbeat Dads"
posters.

				Steve

    Welp... Sorry Steve, I do not get a newsletter. But, the people I have
    met, seen sitting on these boards, some are as ruthless as Jeffery
    Dahmer, taking the reigns of this game. Perhaps, you should have
    attended the meeting held this past April at the Manchester Superior
    court house. You could have met some of them first hand.
    
    Such is life in Salem witch hunts.:)
    
    

    >Such is life in Salem witch hunts.:)
    
    George -- in the Salem witch hunts, the judges were all men, and
    all but one of the victims were women.  What's your point?
    
    					andrew

    re: .35 (Gerald)
    
    > The government never asked me if I approve of the Selective Service 
    > System. . .
    
    Nor was I.  That doesn't, however, change the fact that the Selective
    Service Act was created by men.  The overwhelmingly male congress has
    chosen, despite efforts by groups like the NOW, to perpetuate this
    system.  To suggest that males are the victims of a double standard
    imposed upon them by themselves is, imo, outside the usual meaning of
    the phrase "double standard".
    
    Steve

    > all but one of the victims were women.  What's your point?
    
    Point is that the sex is revered on the victims and the victimizers.:)
    Guess you had to have been there.:)
    
    

	  George, I wish you would quit using "NOW" to mean "women who
     want to oppress men."  NOW is _not_ women who want to oppress men.
     As someone who was until recently keeper of the NH NOW membership
     list, I happen to know your .43 is quite simply wrong.  Okay?

	  NOW is a particular organization with a particular set of
     members.  It does not consist of whatever people you want to yell
     about today.  If you want to yell about "morally defective persons who
     hate men and want to parasitize them," fine, do so.  But say "morally
     defective persons who hate men and want to parasitize them," not
     "NOW."

	  Or perhaps I should yell about "morally defective persons who
     want to steal children away from caring parents and abuse them" --
     but I'll abbreviate that as "Fathers United."  Suits?

				     Brian

Did these people identify themselves as NOW members and say that they were
following NOW's positions?  I doubt it.  As Brian says, stop using "NOW"
when you mean something else.

				Steve (a NOW member)

    
    reply .44

>Who sponsors the witchunts?  The state legistlatures who want to stop paying
>out AFDC money and get the dads to pay instead.  They're overwhelmingly male.
>Indeed, I've seen items in NOW newsletters objecting to these "Deadbeat Dads"
>posters.

    Which is the point I made originally.  What is, pray tell, the
    difference in a father who will not "support his children" and 
    a mother who makes not effort to get off "AFDC" and support her
    children.  Before somebody starts bashing me for bashing women,
    I believe that the _majority_ of women, especially single women,
    do work and support their children.  Just as the majority of
    men _do_ support their children.  It's the "deadbeats" on both
    sides that make it tough on the rest of us.  Problem is, only
    one side of the problem is being addressed.

    If they were really interested in reducing AFDC payments,
    they'd go after the "deadbeat moms" too.  And I don't give a flip
    which gender _they_ are.  The politicians are political wind-socks,
    supporting who has the most "campaign" money and voting clout.

    fred();

    fred,
    
    In case you don't keep up with Colorado law, the law is for deadbeat
    parents.  The state has an ERA, doncha know.  However the enforcement
    is left to local DA's and the DA in this vicinity has been less than
    anxious to prosecute non-child support paying parents unless the
    custodial parent is on AFDC.  If you and yours are struggling by
    without AFDC you are on a very low priority, and I do know of a case of
    a deadbeat parent who has a Contempt of Court and bench warrant out,
    who gets stopped for traffic violations and is never pulled in on the
    warrant.  the only way I can see to correct this problem is pressuring
    the DA's office on this.  

    Steve, one of your former members identified them to us. Someone strike
    up the marshal music.:)

        re .53
    Meg,

    I am not talking about men who are supposed to be paying support
    vs women who are supposed to be paying support.  My ex is supposed
    to be paying support, but the court says that they won't hold her
    in contempt because I cannot prove she is working.  Every time
    I get close to nailing her, she quits her job and lets her husband
    support her for a while (let a man try that and see what happens).

    What I *am* talking about is the custodial parent (genderless)
    who will not work to support their children.  Note I say _will not_
    vs _can not_.  I believe _both_ parents have an obligation to 
    work to support their children.  

    fred();

    Fred,
    
    we are in agreement about the need to support children.  And oh by the
    way, I do know a man who does the same things your ex does, the same
    one  who was listed earlier.  You probably need to work further with
    them.  They based his income on at least a minimum wage job, and that
    is what he is supposed to be paying.  however the DA seems to be
    interested only in flashy cases (JMO) around here, rather than the day
    to day work of enforcing the laws on the books.  Fear not you are not
    the only custodial parent getting screwed by both an ex spouse and the
    system.  
    
    Unfortunately one of the things you are running into with your ex, is
    the double standard perpetrated on this country that women whould stay
    home with their families.  this bias is responsible for AFDC costs
    going up, it is responsible for the problems you go through on support,
    and also for lower wages for 51% of the population here.  I would like
    it if more men would/could take the opportunity to be the nuturing half
    of a relationship, it might make the homemaking profession more valued. 
    
    meg

    Why is it there are men who nurture, do the house work, do the kids
    home work and dont get custody? If you wish, I can send you a listing
    of some of the cases that I have found to be sexist like this.
    

    
    re 56
    
    I know about collecting child support.  When I was the one who
    was supposed to pay, I paid every cent.  I was getting shafted
    twice.  I was paying support, plus paying for "deadbeats" of 
    both sexes.  Actually getting shafted three times because those
    who don't pay are use to bludgen all fathers.  I checked with
    Social Services to see if they could help collect.  They told
    me it would take at least a year and they wanted my hole life
    history in financial statements.  They even wanted my _wifes_
    income (whatever that has to do with it).
    
    
>    Unfortunately one of the things you are running into with your ex, is
>    the double standard perpetrated on this country that women whould stay
>    home with their families.  
    
    Now you're starting to catch on.
    
    >this bias is responsible for AFDC costs
>    going up, it is responsible for the problems you go through on support,
>    and also for lower wages for 51% of the population here.  
    
    Problem is another bias that only 1/2 of the problem is being
    addressed.  As I've said before.  I've always been in favor of
    _equal_ rights.  However, the situation I see now is anything but
    equal.  In some ways very unequal for both men _and_ women.
    
>I would like
>    it if more men would/could take the opportunity to be the nuturing half
>    of a relationship, it might make the homemaking profession more valued. 
    
    Tell you a secret.  Men already know.  That's why they all went to
    work ;^) ;^).
    
    fred();

    >Why is it there are men who nurture, do the house work, do the kids
    >home work and dont get custody? 
 
    Because life isn't fair, and because the "justice" system deals
    with law, and only rarely justice.  But you already know this.
    
    					andrew

      
         re: Why is it there are men who nurture, do the house work, do the
             kids home work and dont get custody?
    
         Because percentage wise, men of that quality are few and far
    between. And since they look just like the other "men" the judges are 
    using the very small percentage fact to base their decision.
    
                                                    *B*

>     re: Why is it there are men who nurture, do the house work, do the
>         kids home work and dont get custody?


That's life as men know it...one bad apple in the bunch spoils it for the 
rest of us. It is interesting how women are treated on a case by case basis 
in the grand system we have, while men on the other hand get lumped together 
along with all other deadbeat dads.

I can relate to your question, In my previous life, I did the house work, 
home work , cooked, shared the nuturing as well as all the stuff considered 
men's work. The other party did nothing around the house and spent far too 
much time being the social butterfly. Hence my son spent majority of his 
first 5 years with his dad. When the system kicks in at divorce time, it's 
the poor deprived woman who wins it all in our grand system.

Is this fair? No...but that is the way it seems to work....

John

    
    I'm absolutely livid this morning over a court case in Colorado.
    Newspaper reports a decision by the Colorado Appeals Court that
    a man whose wife had herself artificially inseminated without his
    knowledge or permission is legally liable for child support because
    it happened while they were married.  How's that for "Reproductive 
    Rights"?  How's that for the "feminist" argument that if you
    don't want to be at the mercy of a woman's "reproductive rights"
    the _you_ should take care of the birth control or just keep it
    in you pants?

    fred();

It swings both ways.  I know of a case of a woman who wanted to give up
her child for adoption.  She was married (separated, I think) but everybody
agreed that her husband wasn't the father.  At three months the child was
placed with a family that wanted to adopt him.  At two years the courts
gave custody to the birth mother's husband despite his questionable ability
to raise a child properly.

    
    Does either justify the other?
    fred();

    Re .62: If any of the people who make that argument agree with the
    court's decision, you'd have a point; personally, unless the case isn't
    as straightforward as it sounds, I'd have ruled that he's not legally
    liable.
    
    But the waters do get muddy... If he says he didn't know or give
    permission and she says he did, how does the court decide? For that
    matter, if a man marries a woman who has a child, and doesn't adopt the
    child himself or make any explicit agreement to support it, is he held
    liable for child support by any courts? And do the same defaults
    and/or rules apply if a woman marries a man with a child? Does it
    depend on whether the couple stays married or not? [Hard to imagine
    them staying married if one won't support the other's child and the
    other wants him/her to, but people have stayed together under even
    weirder circumstances.]
    
    'course, all the people out there who do take care of their children,
    however conceived and whomever they're being raised by, probably get
    tired of hearing about the ones who either won't care for their own or
    keep trying to get somebody else to ante up...
    
    -b

    
    The issue of hesaid/shesaid is moot.  What the court has ruled is
    that the wife doesn't need the husband's _written_ consent to 
    exercise her "reproductive rights", and if it comes to hesaid/shesaid,
    then shesaid is going to win out. 
    
    fred();

The insemination issue is irrelevant.  The law generally holds that any
child born while a couple is married is, legally, the husband's.  It doesn't
matter if she was artificially inseminated or had an affair.

					Steve

Steve, shouldn't that be "any child conceived..."?

It might be "either conceived or born".  I know that "born" is there to
allow for children conceived before the marriage to become "legitimate" when
born after the parents were married.  

				Steve

    I dunno about that, Steve; as I understand it, it's the default
    condition (to assume any child born/conceived to a married couple is
    that couple's child) but it's not necessarily a binding condition.
    [Probably varies across state and national lines, too, I would think.]
    I could be wrong, of course; it wouldn't be the first time I assumed
    there was some reasonable logic behind a set of laws and found out that
    wasn't the case...
    
    -b

    The husbands responsibility for support reguardless of whose sperm did
    up some eggs. Sounds like a one sided game all right. Her call
    reguardless of what, where, or how. Men are responsible for the money,
    and thats it..... 

Fred,

Sounds like a double standard to me, either way, the case makes it clear when 
it comes to male side of the house, it is a loose loose situation.


John

    At least in Colorado, this law was written about husbands by men in the
    legislature.  Petition your legilature if you don't like this.  In
    Texas at least 18 years ago, a divorce wouldn't be finalized if a
    pregnancy was involved until after the child was born, EVEN if both the
    husband and wife agree that the baby isnt made up from his genetic
    material and the reason for the divorce is to marry tyhe birth father.  
    
    All these loaws were written when women had no power, and still are on
    the books.  So write your legisators and change those laws.

        re .74

    And when we do try to get some of the B.S. changed, the "women's" 
    groups come out of the woodwork screaming about trying to 
    subjugate women yet again.  The politicians care more about 
    re-election and campaign contributions than they do about
    what is really right.  If/when it gets bad enough maybe men
    will finally get organized into a political force that can 
    get something done.
    
    fred()

    Re: .75
    
    Sounds like a handy excuse for sitting back and continuing to
    whine.  The "women's group" I am familiar with supports removing
    such laws.
    
    				Steve

.74> All these loaws were written when women had no power, and still are on
.74> the books.  

sounds like any reasonable person would be against laws which would condemn
someone to become a parent totally without his/her doing.

on the subject of laws which were made when women had no power, as i mentioned
elsewhere, there was this law in one state here, still in effect from last
century, which prohibits hanging men and womens underwear on the same washing-
line... guess them forefathers really wanted to make sure parents got off to a 
right and proper start. :-)


andreas.

    
    reply .76
    > Sounds like a handy excuse for sitting back and continuing to
    >whine.  

    One thing I am getting really sick of is the b.s. that someone
    (male) is complaining about injustice is just "whining".  While
    women who complain about injustice are "outraged".  To get _anyting_ 
    changed takes more than one person.  I _have_ written, I have called,
    I have called in on the radio talk shows and called these legislators
    to task whenever I could, and as one man, I continue to get the
    bum's rush.

    >The "women's group" I am familiar with supports removing
    >such laws.

    Then where have _their_ voices been.  Where are they _now_.
    It is these "women's groups" that you are so proud of that I
    find are in _opposition_ to any change when the change may
    not benefit _them_.  If you go to the meetings in the legislature, 
    you cannot speak unless invited.  Last one I went to had a veritable 
    parade of "women's" groups in opposition.  NOT ONE MAN was "invited" 
    to speak in support.

    fred();

    	Maybe you should just accept that you are in a minority and leave.
    I wouldn't stay in a country in which I felt particularly
    uncomfortable.

uh, that can't be the answer... what with what the US women are doing is 
affecting the rest of the world (like parts of europe). wasn't the 'pc'
business one of those american imports?

oh, whilst we're on the subject, do you know one of the main arguments in 
norway against joining the european union? norwegian women are afraid they're 
going to have to take a step back since, allegedly, norwegian legislation is 
a lot further on equal rights than the european union as a whole.


andreas.

.75> maybe men will finally get organized into a political force that can 
.75> get something done.

aren't there already organised men groups? it seems a worthwhile activity
for organised mens groups, would be to get into a dialogue with organised
womens groups. i mean from feminists which i've met, these women have done 
alot of thinking about the world around them, and it can be beneficial to 
listen to other perspectives to enrich ones own.


andreas.    

    re: .80
    	The actual country probably doesn't matter too much. I have
    mentioned it before in this notes conference, but a woman I know was
    separated from her husband and with 2 kids. About every 6 months he
    sent her a largish amount of money, but the only way she could tell
    which country he had been in was where the money arrived from.
    
    	Eventually, after about 15 years, she divorced him (it was against
    his religion to divorce) and the money stopped arriving. He obviously
    considered that while they were still married he was meeting *his*
    obligations, and when they were divorced by *her* choice he didn't have
    any obligations any more.

    
    Thought some of you might be interested.. Turning Point, which is on 
    at 10:00 pm EST is running a segment on Deadbeat Mom's tonight (or so 
    they advertised). Not sure what network this on might be ABC, I was
    channel cruising when I saw the ad.
    
    
    Joan