Reply to Khaosx

I think you're right on the money. Right on the money.

Except for one point:

* you are a divorced father fighting for child custody or more time with your children

Those guys stay in the main building, they get the best resources that can be offered, and they also get a picture on the "Wall of Responsible Men, who did The Right Thing" (tm). In my opinion, that's about the best thing such an organization could provide.

Granted, many fathers - including their plaintiff - want nothing to do with their children. (These renegades need to be forced to wear a scarlet "D" around their necks so everyone will know they're deadbeats.) And we should certainly applaud those who love and want to be with their kids.

But a father who wants to take his kids away from their mother is, I think, worse than a mother who wants to take her kids away from their father. (All reasonable factors being equal, of course: barring abusive situations, etc.) Forget for the moment the entertainment-as-indoctrination "Mrs. Doubtfire", "Liar, Liar", etc. and ask yourself which parent has the greater natural ability to raise children? The mother, ja?

Leaving that question aside for the moment, I still have to disagree with you, Kha. We men have a propensity for wildness. You, Jav and I can testify to that tendency, and it's a general problem. We need taming. Women and children provide that. When we get married and have children, we tend to redirect our energies into useful, productive endeavors and restrain our tendencies to run amok. (You two have wives; tell me if I'm wrong.)

The home is what keeps men in line. If we can run wild without losing our wives and children, we just might. If we can commit adultery without consequence, what's to keep us from "getting a little on the side"? We shouldn't and we know it. But when our internal restraints fail us, we need external restraints. One of those external restraints should be the fear of losing our homes, our families.

I've argued that men are the more powerful sex. But that's not to say that women aren't (or shouldn't be) capable of exercising sanctions against us. (Fiddler on the Roof has some of the best illustrations of the balance of power between the sexes, and one of the best examples of manliness in many respects.) Those sanctions can of course be overridden by the man when it's right to do so. But to override them otherwise is to render the woman powerless, and thus to eliminate that restraint on the man's tendency to wildness. Not exactly the best idea, ja?

My wife went to court to have our marriage dissolved. When the court saw I was not interested in fighting for my home, it found no reason to rule against the divorce request. Had I felt otherwise, the court would have been morally (if not legally) obligated to allow me the chance to salvage the marriage, and to compel my wife to allow me that opportunity. She and I didn't have any children; but how much more so ought we as a society (and courts as our instruments) offer the husband and father the opportunity to get his act together and save his family, and compel the mother of his children to allow him that chance? If it is the home that restrains the man and makes him behave responsibly, we shouldn't let the irresponsible man run off and take his home with him. By no means! Rather, once he has been properly chastised by the loss of his home, let's allow him the opportunity to regain it.

I've already stated my view that he needs to reconcile himself to his wife. I don't know if we'll disagree about that, Kha-o. But if default custody for the mother prompts a father to "get on home to his family," I say let the mother have custody.