NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/dadsrig/3520

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3520 soc.men:23312 soc.women:23092 misc.legal:23363
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!torn!newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca!bouche2
From: [e-mail] (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:31:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] sez:

[stuff about how women get child custody in an overwhelming majority
of cases, deleted]

>I know it's futile trying to discuss actual case law with you, Aaron,
>but other readers may be interested in knowing the answer to your
>question, which I take to be "Does this statistic prove that men are
>denied equal protection as guaranteed under the 14th amendment?"

>The answer is no, the numbers by themselves are not dispositive.  As I
>wrote in a related context last month:

I took his question to be "Is this statistic EVIDENCE that men are
denied equal protection?"  The answer to that question is undeniably YES.

[Begin repost from misc.legal]

>>For example, if a government passes a law which treats people differently
>>based on race, the law will be struck down as violative of the Equal
>>Protection clause of the 14th Amendment unless the government can show that
>>it (the government) had a compelling governmental interest, and that the
>>regulation was necessary to acheiving that interest.

>Point of clarification: this is trivially true if the law on its face
>distinguishes on a racial basis.  If, however, a facially neutral law
                                                                   ^^^
>"treats people differently" in that it affects one racial group more
>adversely than another, strict scrutiny may or may not apply.  See
>Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976).

But it is not the LAW that "treats people differently", it is the manner
in which the law is ENFORCED.  If there is a law against loitering, but
only blacks are arrested for violating that law while whites are set free
with a nod and a wink, then surely the law enforcement officers would be
guilty of discrimination.  At the very least, the burden of proof would
be on the law officers to show that their peculiar pattern of enforcement
was justified.  You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that the burden
of proof lies with Aaron to show that the apparent bias against men in
family court is unjustified.  I submit that the burden of proof lies with
the other side.

>Example: Assume that members of a racial group are disproportionately
>likely to use public transit.  A significant fare hike has the effect
>of "treat[ing] people differently based on race", but is probably not
>EP-violative.

Do you consider this analogy to be comparable to the inequities in
child custody and support?  Please explain the correlation.

>Under _Washington v. Davis_, mere "disparate impact" isn't enough.  If
>you actually want to discuss this intelligently, you'll need to read
>and understand that decision first.

So only lawyers are qualified to "discuss intelligently" what is fair and
what is not?  What a laugh.  I'm sure Aaron could come up with a reading
list to enable you to "discuss this intelligently" as well... ;)

- db