Aaaaaghh!
One of my classes this semester is on public policy. The only real assignment I have in that class is an 8-10 page policy analysis. Being a divorced dad and having seen many of my other divorced friends screwed over by their ex-wives (and because it was likely to be a topic few others in the class chose) I decided to do a policy analysis on child custody laws.
I have learned two things in the reading I've done so far. One, child custody has little to do with children and is mostly about gender politics. Two, based on the garbage produced by fathers' rights advocates, it's no wonder no one takes them seriously. Hoping for a more complete picture, I sought books authored by both sexes. The two books I have written by men—namely,Betrayal of the Child: A Father's Guide to Family Courts by Stewart Rein and Where Have All The Good Fathers Gone? by Douglas O'Brien—have left me frustrated and angry, but probably not for the reasons you might suppose.
Neither book is well documented. Both give statistics and make claims about child development with only vague citation of sources, if any. Entire quotations are often given with no obvious reference to the source. Scanning back a page or two you might find reference to one professional or another. The best you can do is assume that is the original author of the quotation, but it's even odds as to whether or not the specific source is identified or not. How the hell do they get away with this? Who edited these things? Oh, and is there some new age school of grammar I'm not aware of where punctuation always goes outside of a quotation mark?
This would be frustrating enough, but it doesn't stop there. Mr. Rein's egregious misuse of bold face, italics, full caps and scare quotes is baffling. Am I the only one who sees irony in a man having discovered a way to make writing look hysterical and emotional? Mr. O'Brien lost my respect as soon as he used the term feminazi. Oh, he dressed it up with dictionary definitions to try and give it a rational context, but I wonder if he's heard the phrase "polishing a turd." He also has a penchant for going to great lengths to come up with derisive acronyms such as FUNIFARM (Feminazi UNIfied Feelings Are Really Manipulation theory) or JUST BS (JUnk Science Theory Bashing Syndrome) (pp.15-16).
Both men raise valid points, but how can they possibly expect to be taken seriously? This kind of writing might work to incite the masses, but do these guys really think they're going to influence policy makers with this crap? Oh, and Mr. O'Brien, labeling social scientists as SS isn't going to win you any friends in that arena either. Both men characterize the writings of women on child custody as radical, hate filled attempts to disenfranchise men and set up a matriarchy. In contrast fathers' rights groups are logical and rational (O'Brien 1997, p.20).
Huh?
The one book by a female author I have read so far—The Custody Wars by Mary Ann Mason, Ph.D., J.D.—by contrast, is well reasoned, and well documented. In fact she agrees that the system is broken and has nothing to do with the best interests of the children, such language existing in most statutes notwithstanding. She does, however, make the assertion that fathers' rights advocates aren't as interested in their children as they are in maintaining their own rights and power. Gee, I can't imagine why.
O'Brian, D. (1997). Where Have All the Good Fathers Gone? Child Support and Custody. Fairbanks, AK: Skid 18 Press.
Rein, S (2001). Betrayal of the Child: A Father's Guide to Family Courts. Tobyhanna, PA: Lotus Press.
Biology: Friend or Foe?
We recently touched on gay and lesbian issues in my diversity class. I was shocked by how little interaction with gay and lesbian people this group of people who are studying for their masters in social work have had. "Hello, McFly! You're in Utah!" I guess. But if you had sat in on as many conversations as I have about the resentment of "my tax dollars" going to support the stronghold of liberal boogeymen that is the University of Utah...well, I had higher expectations. I found most of the conversations superficial and unsatisfying, however, in talking to some of my class mates, much of what was said was a revelation to them. We are always taught to start where the client is, so I guess the discussions were appropriate to the major audience.
One comment that was made has kept me thinking. One woman offered the opinion that it would only be a matter of time before religion caught up on sexuality the way it has caught up (or is catching up) on race. I used to think that once, but now I'm not so sure. I tend to believe that sexuality is going to be a longer, more uphill battle than race, and I still have my doubts that it will happen at all.
Science, you see, is not on the side of the homosexual. I'm sure that sounds like a non-sequitur to many, so let me explain. Science eventually was able to prove that there is no meaningful biological difference between "the races." That's a long way from the days when if you were not white, you were not even considered human. On the other hand, you are never going to get away from the fact that otherwise healthy gay and lesbian men and women cannot produce children. Infertile heterosexual couples have a doctors note excusing them from their duty to "multiply and replenish." Not so gays and lesbians. You're never going to get away from the fact that tab A fits into slot B, and the only thing preventing gay and lesbian men and women from having children, and fulfilling their biological destiny, is their "choice" to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex.
While science has yet to find a "gay gene," it has produced a fair quantity of research that, if falling short of definitively proving, at least strongly suggests there are biological factors involved in homosexuality that are not within the control of the organism in question. Even so, all that has been accomplished is to shift the conversation from homosexuality being an addiction to being a handicap.