llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) (09/13/90)
In article <8195@helios.TAMU.EDU> sharring@cssun.tamu.EDU (Steven L Harrington) writes:
->While I realize that the Dartmouth poster meant nothing derogatory by her
->"No nude Texans" joke, I must point out that there is nothing wrong with
->either Texans, nudists, or Texans who are nudists.
Actually, that's HIS "No Nude Texans" joke.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstandingturpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (09/15/90)
I am usually unimpressed by the claims of many men's groups about the various places they find a sex bias against men. For the most part the things they complain about are tradition unbacked by legal or institutional apparatus and the extra burdens about which they complain are picayune, associated with extra substantial privilege, or easily avoided. But there are one or two areas where I think that men have a legitimate gripe. Ms. Seebacher's posting reminds me of one of these. In article <1990Sep5.015044.18599@midway.uchicago.edu>, elle@midway.uchicago.EDU (Ellen Keyne Seebacher) writes: > In Divorce Court, a couple battles over young son's last name > --by Eric Zorn > > By the time their baby was born, the marriage of Tom and Mary Goeppner > of Blue Island was buzzard meat. They had been separated for three > months and were barely communicating. Tom Goeppner said he was not > even aware that Mary had gone into labor until an hour after the > delivery. > > Mary Goeppner, a schoolteacher, was using her maiden name of Garetto > at the time of the birth and decided to give her son that name too. > And why not? She'd carried him. She'd given birth to him. She would > care for him day to day. > > So when the staff...brought around the forms...she wrote her son's > name as Anthony Goeppner Garetto. > > Tom Goeppner, a telemarketing supervisor, learned of this only when he > saw the name tag on the hospital bassinet. "It was a real blow," he > said. ... Without commenting on this particular case, in which like any particular case there will be a variety of details that affect the results, it is worth pointing out that the institutions surrounding birth are a source of sex discrimination against men. If a separated father and mother disagree, by default: o the mother gets to name the child, o the mother gets to take the child home and become the first custodial parent for the child, which then sets a precedent for all later decisions, and o in most other ways, the mother is considered the primary parent unless and until the father successfully goes through a legal process seeking more equitable status. As a man who desires children, this bias irks me. One plans and hopes that the above concerns never arise, but as is amply demonstrated, many people's planning comes to naught. If a separated couple have a child, why does the man by default have a lesser parental status, with equality being the most he can hope for, unless his ex-mate is willing or circumstances are unusual? The difference is especially glaring regarding immediate custody of the newborn and deciding where she or he will live. If a separated or divorced father tries to take the newborn out of the hospital to his home, he will probably be stopped or charged with kidnapping if he succeeds. (Here, I am assuming that the identity of the father is known.) When the mother does the same, it is considered right and normal. If both parents are equally responsible for their children, there is no reason behind these defaults. Russell