Re: AUT: Re: child custody

[Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

Katha, you wrote:
        Harald, I don't mean to hound you, but I'd be interested
        in your response to my critique of male preference in child
        custody, which you'll remember you claimed would liberate
        women. best, Katha

No problem. Here it goes:

It was far from my intention to literally propose that men
should through law automatically be granted the custody of
the child(ren) after a divorce. I have no trouble agreeing
with you that this would be outrageous. Still the norm of
almost automatically granting the custody to the biological
mother, whatever the concrete circumstances, seems to me a
reflection of an ideology that sees child-caring as the
natural role of women. A change of this practice, giving
more men the custody of the child(ren) after an divorce,
would as I see it in effect be a step ahead for the overall
emancipation of women. On the other hand, you make a very
valid point in stating that such a change could constitute
a way of forcing women to stay in bad marriages. It very
much depends on how far such a change is taken, and the
criterias for the granting of child custody that are used.

You write:
        What you are arguing was in fact the law through
        much of human history.  women only won the right to
        sue for custody within the last hundred years! Before
        that, the father got custody, as the legal head of
        household and patriarch. He could even get custody
        sometimes when there was no marriage. In Islamic
        countries today, fathers get custody of boys over two
        and girls over seven.  This doesn't liberate women at
        all! It's just patriarchy, pure and simple.

I think you read my remark on this too literally, as some
kind of concrete proposal. But since I deliberately articulated
myself in a provocative manner, I can understand why. I was
really just trying to make a general point about how the current
state of affairs tends to reproduce certain general patterns,
even forcing women and men who do not conform to these back
into the "natural state of affairs". I have yet to meet a woman
to whom I've talked about these things, who on a general level
do not agree with me on this, and who do not personally know of
at least one concrete case where the interest of the child(ren)
to the best of their judgement would have best have been served
by granting the custody of the child(ren) to the father.

"Women only won the right to sue for custody within the last
hundred years," you write. But was divorce a real opportunity
for most women (or for most men for that) at all before that?
I doubt it, but I could be wrong. It would be interesting to
know more about how this complete reversal came about. I
certainly am not arguing for the state of affairs within
islamic countries today.

I would really like to see a situation where this question
becomes less and less a jurdical one. I am not vey accustomed
to argue within such a framework, though in this case it is hard
to see how it can completely be avoided. Your point about
a change of the jurdical practice regarding child custody could
constitute a way of forcing women to stay in bad marriages
certainly is something which has to be taken into consideration.
But I am not sure if this is as relevant as it used to be. One
of the problems is that in many relationships it very much still
is (especially those with a history of abuse), in others not.


Harald









  in solidarity,
  Harald Beyer-Arnesen
  haraldba@xxxxxxxxx



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---