The thing is, this would kind of screw over quite a few guys just because of what amounts to a cultural stereotype. By the same logic, women should always be nurses, not doctors, because they're brought up to achieve less in math and science than in art and music and such.

__________________
01100001 01101000 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110101 01110011 00111111

That's about right. If they're raised to be better at art and music, they should not be in technical fields. However, exceptions exist, and those women should, if they desire, be doctors.

Some women are not raised to be nuturing and caring, but most are, and provided they meet all possible criteria (like not being a druggie or workaholic who's never home), that should get them preference for custody of younger children. Until this societal issue is addressed, we need to think of the needs of the child before making social or political statements.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

So you're saying that the current trend of more women in the sciences (in my department, there are four men and four women on the regular faculty, while 50 years ago it would have been all men) should be reversed because of cultural bias?

Maybe we should work on changing the culture on its own, and in the meanwhile, keep the ministrations of the law unbiased?

__________________
01100001 01101000 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110101 01110011 00111111

No, I would say the 50/50 balance in your office reflects a change in American culture that happened gradually. However, if a woman (or man) is conditioned to pursue arts more than sciences, naturally they should seek employment in that field. That's what I meant, sorry for the confusion.

The law should remain unbiased in most situations, but in the case of child custody the needs of the child must come first. If both parents are wholesome, tax-paying, flag-waving, good-guys, but mom is a workaholic who's never home, while dad works a 9-5 and is home on weekends, dad should probably get the kid, and for obvious reasons. What I am saying is that, given relative parity, and given a woman's conditioned behaviors of nurturing and caring, that conditioning makes her a better match for care of younger children than a man much like a person educated in the sciences makes a better doctor than a person educated in the arts despite equality in character and work-ethic.

I speak from experience concerning the science/arts dichotomy. I squeaked through Calculus and my sciences while an undergrad while the math science majors coasted through (or so it seemed). Thankfully, I was a Government (Poli Sci) major, and coasted through the arts like International Relations and Economics. When you're built for a task, you handle it better.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Alright, I see, you had me scared there for a minute!

I get what you're saying, and it makes a little bit of sense. This is sort of an area where a judge is more qualified to make the call.

Heh, Calculus was the easiest high school math class I ever took (from my entirely non-biased point of view).

__________________
01100001 01101000 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110101 01110011 00111111

Agreed. Let the judge handle it.

Wait. Did we seriously just reach a consensus? I don't think this has happened on this board in......ever.

__________________


"If the founding fathers had all been 'go with the flow' kind of guys we'd all be sitting around sipping tea and listening to Oasis right now." - A friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Read Viv's post on this thread (no.6), she puts it far more succinctly than I could. I completely agree, 100%, that not having a father is a terrible disadvantage however not having a mother I feel to be worse. It is also true that women have a closer bond at birth with their child and that women are built (breasts) to take care of children. I am not a sexist but I see realities where they exist.

__________________
Trust me, I'm a socialist!

There's power in a factory,power in the land, power in the hand of the worker. But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand, there is power in a union.
The union forever defending our rights, down with the blackleg, workers unite. To our brothers and our sisters in many far off lands, there is power in a union.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own. - Billy Bragg

1. This bond at birth does not guarantee that the mother will be a good parent and thus this is zero indication to the mothers importance. After 9 months of confinement, there is bound to be some sort of bond. Stockholm syndrome.

2) To say that breasts make women more important than man is crazy. We keep going back to this argument. Simply because a woman has breasts does not indicate her relevance. The same is true for the fact that a man has a penis. So?! Biology has little to do with the safety and care issues, it has everything to do with a continuation of the false understand that one gender is some how more important to the child. The MOST important gender to the child is the gender that takes care of, regardless of which gender that be.

__________________
Political Wrinkles
Kizzume Forum :: Index
Political Fever

It depends. If the mom is clearly unfit on being a mom or abusive the dad should get the kid but otherwise it depends. Although moms would be a better mother, I feel men would be able to easily care for the kid materially than a young single mom would.

Read Viv's post, this is the true reason why. I was merely pointing out how biologically women are chosen to be closer parents. If there is a clear difference in who is best parent then go with best parent, but in close situations, where both parents are capable and loving, go with the Mother.

__________________
Trust me, I'm a socialist!

There's power in a factory,power in the land, power in the hand of the worker. But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand, there is power in a union.
The union forever defending our rights, down with the blackleg, workers unite. To our brothers and our sisters in many far off lands, there is power in a union.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own. - Billy Bragg