- On new approaches to chemotherapy for cancer. And the salary has supported both the care. The husband is finishing his residency at this point in internal medicine at the same hospital where the wife is employed. The wife had assumed that when her husband had finished his training, they would both stay in the town where they lived or moved to another university town where she might have an opportunity to continue her career. And perhaps to study for a doctorate in chemistry. The husband has just then informed the wife that he was tired of the big city rat race and wants to join his brother's practice in their old hometown in another state. There is no university with a good graduate program in chemistry close by nor is there a university-affiliated hospital where the wife might continue her research work. The husband has turned down a teaching job at the medical school and an offer to join a local group practice. He also has refused to consider offers from other universities or to move anywhere but to his old hometown. And he has indicated that it is up to the wife to move with him because she's morally obligated to do so. The question and point then would be what is the wife legally obligated to move to whatever place her husband chooses as their home? This depends on the state in which one lives and on the state where the husband was proposing to move. The courts in some states have interpreted a wife's refusal to accompany her husband to his chosen quote, place of residence, unquote as desertion. Desertion can be considered grounds for divorce. However, a husband's refusal to live in his wife's choice of residence may not be interpreted as a desertion. And this question comes under what is known as legal domicile. That is the husband's responsibility to provide for that. Is that correct?

- Yes. It seems to me that that's really part of a larger question, which is what marriage the effect of marriage on the loss of identity of women. That's just one aspect of it. Other aspects are reflected in laws having to do with age of marriage. Most states have this kind of distinction. Men are adult at 21. They are able to make their own decisions. They're able to get married without parental consent at 21. Women on the other hand are considered to be adults at age 18, they're able to get married at age 18 without parental consent. Again, domicile is another aspect of this. Where the woman's lost of identity is achieved through the marriage to the husband. Her domiciles becomes the husband's domicil her identity becomes the husband's identity through the change of name. She's thrust into marriage at an age and is 18 because, well I guess the underlying reason for that is that after all women don't need to work. Women are going to get married. The function of a woman is to raise children and make a happy home, cook good meals, and be a good business partner in social occasions.

- I hope you're very qualified that they can't see you smirking and laughing on the radio .

- Right? That's that's the thrust of that 18 year old, 21 year old discrepancy isn't in fact to push women toward marriage. Is to say it's the state really saying to women as Professor Leo Cantonments has suggested that marriage is their proper life choice and that education which is the difference between the 18 and 21 is to be reserved for men because after all men have the economic support and the domicile I think comes in the same kind of category, which neglects the fact that at least three-fifths, almost three-fifths of 31 and a half million women in the labor force as of 1971 were married women living with their husbands yet the law does not recognize this independency by attaching to it responsibility it implies. She continues to be treated as a legal dependent, similar in fact the way children and insane persons are treated. And this case is simply an example of it.

- That reminds me of a quote from the common law concerning contracts which has been aggregated in most states now by statute but under the common law contracts women were in fact classed as utterly incompetent along with idiots and children to make contracts. What can you say about that?

- Well we could say that in Kansas women can buy, barter, exchange, and sell on their own signature. That's a Kansas statute and she can also sue or be sued as an individual. So Kansas is a little bit more liberal than I think any state because it has a little better attitude within the law about women.

- One of the things which I found interesting in the hasty research of on this this afternoon was an item contained in a hornbook, which is a kind of summary of laws and domestic relations by a rather esteemed professor who was not at this university. And he's quoted various court opinions about women going back to time of Blackstone. He says but things are really different now. Women used to have a very bad time. Their rights were restricted in many ways and they were considered to be property, but today we've had a great many changes. As a consequence of those changes, there are still problems but they're not very large ones. I think most women would disagree with that. Yet here's a man who's supposedly an expert there he is an expert but simply hasn't recognized the ways in which the laws operate to deprive women not just of their economic rights, but with their human rights. It deprives them of their sense of identity as human being it seems to me, one of the most important ways in which discrimination operates with women in society.

- It kind of fits into the I'd like to talk a little bit about the idea that a woman must change her name upon marriage. Linda, I think you probably had an experience with that. We were talking earlier and I'd like to hear some of your experiences and ideas about that.

- Well, when I married four years ago I took my husband's name sort of automatically. And I began to think about it because I took his last name but I never intended to take his first name. And I discovered that I had lost my own first name as well. And then as soon as anyone found out what my husband's name was, I immediately became Mrs. Dan Moore. And so after a couple of years of this, I really felt very uncomfortable. And I decided that I wanted my own name back but I also decided that I didn't want to go to court to do this. I just felt that it would be silly to go to court and ask a judge in fact to give me what was my own name. And so I made what amounts to a common law name change simply by changing all of the records that existed back to my maiden name. And I did change all of those. And I had very little difficulty with most of them except for our car title which still remains in my married name because I was informed that that could not be changed without a court order. And so I just sort of stuck with it for the time being.

- So you didn't have that many problems in the legal aspects. What about say socially?

- Well, I shocked an awful lot of people and I got a lot of really weird reactions because when I tried to ask people, for example, what the legal difficulties would be I just spent most of the session trying to explain exactly what it was I wanted. And they'd say, "You don't want a divorce?" And I'd say, "No I don't want a divorce." And they'd say, "You really don't want a divorce?" And I said, "No, I didn't want a divorce." And so we were going through this for about 10 or 15 minutes and finally, you know, usually I would leave there so appalled at the whole idea that I would have to come back until they thought it over a little while and then we could have some conversation about what it would mean. And I ran into people who just were convinced that it couldn't be done. For example, I went to change the records at the place where I was working and they maintained a life insurance policy on me which was made out to the benefit of my husband. And when I asked him to put a different name on the policy for me, I was just assured that the insurance company wouldn't do it. They just wouldn't do it. And I said, "Well, try it and see," and they did it apparently with no difficulty. And so really the one legal problem I've had is in trying to change the car title and there are going to be others that will arise later. For example, if I was told by one lawyer that if I ever put my own name on something like a title to property that it would be immediately open to challenge and that's just going to be something I'll have to deal with when it comes up.

- I think we should make a point of it that there is no law which actually says that a woman has to change her name and that this is basically a custom that has been handed down. There's nothing that legally binds a woman to do that except that there's a provision in the divorce code which allows the women to refer to her maiden name.

- After she gets the divorce.

- After she gets the divorce. So in essence this-

- Which presumes that-

- Going backwards.

- That's right. In fact, there was some controversy there has been some controversy over that only Alabama. So far as I know, has held that a woman is required to change her name when she's married. A recent case, which has just been decided in Maryland found that the woman changed her name at the time of marriage as matter of social convention. And that as a consequence of that, that law was prohibiting her voting under her maiden name was not invalid since she after all was not required to change her name. It was a matter of choice on her part. However, ordinarily there's no requirement in the law that you change your name.

- How would that affect the recent decision of the attorney general, which would not allow women who've married since the last date of voter registration to vote in the national election?

- In fairness to the attorney general let me say that that he was giving an opinion on a statute in the state of Kansas and his opinions seem to be pretty much in accord with the statute, as it reads.

- It would be the statute that would have to be changed.

- To be statute, which has to be changed. And I don't know what the attorney General's personal views are at any rate. As some people know there is going to be filed in a few days a suit challenging the constitutionality under both the Kansas and the federal constitutions of that statute on several grounds. One of which is that it discriminates unfairly against women in violation of equal protection clauses. It will also be challenged on the basis that it isn't necessary to affect you like the legitimate state purpose, which is to prevent election fraud. After all that could be done in some other way. Woman who had registered to vote could simply show up at the polling place with her registration card and her marriage license, for example. And I suspect there would be real little problem of identity at that point. It does have an impact though on how the case is going to be raised, because it means that if the Maryland example were followed that it could mean that if a woman that a court could decide I suppose that as the Maryland case held it's simply a matter of social convention and not a requirement of law that a woman can simply not change her name and avoid the whole thing, which of course needs to be won. It seems to me, we should neither force women to change their name or to apply for the opportunity to do so. If that fits in with their own notions of social values.

- What about the women that that would affect for this election? Would they have any record? Could they cross check the records to find out? I mean, they could just go to the polls and vote with their maiden name.

- They could but then-

- Which seems only fair to me.

- Except we'd really be subjecting them unfairly to a violation of law for which they could be prosecuted. They would have to lie if they had, in fact changed their name at the time of marriage and doesn't seem to me that's a very good idea.

- Is it a very possible thing that the test that's going to take place in court will be decided upon before November seventh?

- I'd be surprised if it weren't.

- Oh, is that right?

- Yes.

- Well then, then you feel that this will all be settled before this election.

- I hope so. You know, I can't say how soon the courts will hear it, but it's a matter it's a question of some great importance and generally those questions are heard rather quickly. And I would guess that the law will be declared in the constitution.

- Will the Kansas Supreme Court have to make that decision?

- Eventually it might have to. Should we win in the lower court, then the state court and have the opportunity to appeal. And eventually, yeah, it could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Now, if we lose in the lower court we will definitely appeal Supreme Court and indeed if we lose we will go as far as necessary including that state Supreme Court.

- It would seem doubtful that the court would challenge the decision of the lower court. If it were to go in favor of women who just married.

- It depends upon how the superior court, the Supreme Court views with the law. If after all the lower story court says that the law is is unconstitutional. And if there's some feeling on the part of the well and if it's appealed, then it will have to be heard by the Supreme Court. And they could have a different view of Supreme Court of Kansas could have a different view of the constitutionality.

- Who would be the one to ask for the appeal?

- The losing party.

- Would that be the attorney general?

- Well, if the attorney general, if the state loses, then that would be.

- That's all I'm asking. But it would actually depend upon him as to whether they were an appeal or not.

- That's right.

- Well then a woman who had just married and wanted to vote legally in this election might do that by keeping her maiden name until after the election. Would that have the same effect?

- That's an interesting question. Because since it's not a matter of law if you change your name. I suppose either way that name change take place is it comes about as a consequence of someone's presented well I got to get a driver's license in your married name, opening a checking account in their married name, changing your credit cards around. That kind of thing.

- But she doesn't actually have to do that when they signed the license. She doesn't have to sign a married name?

- No. It's the maiden name that goes on to the marriage license.

- I see.

- On the certificate.

- Jane Doe would want to vote or something like that or joined in matrimony or whatever. I don't know what it's going to say. But that is interesting. If a woman simply does not do that. Simply didn't take the necessary steps to make her name change a legal matter by doing these other acts. I really do wonder what would happen. I don't have any idea. It's an interesting possibility.

- Do you have any idea how many women this affects? I think you said 200 in a newspaper and I've no idea where they got that figure. They just pulled out of their ear or what?

- I thought was gleaned somehow from the social pages.

- Maybe so or perhaps just looking back at the records.

- How many people get married.

- At this time of year?

- This time of the year?

- Do you know of any other states have this provision in the law?

- No, I don't.

- You don't recall?

- I don't know.

- What about the question if a woman has used her married name and wants to take her maiden name back, and then she goes to court to do it, is this a matter of the court's discretion? Do they have to give her the name she wants?

- As to whether it's not a court discretion? Generally, I cannot imagine that the court would not let the person take the name the person wanted. Anyone can go into court and get his name changed. If he's of age or she's of age. I wouldn't think it'd be a problem with the cost. Some amount of money. I don't know how expensive it is.

- Yeah, it's more the principle of the idea of having to go to court and having to pay to keep what yours.

- To keep what's already yours.

- Well, the more difficult question is Linda's situation but since she after all validated her change of name by acting for a period of, I think two years. Would you say that?

- Yes.

- Before she decided that she really wanted to use her maiden name, her own name. Then I think there may be some good reasons to say that perhaps to go off to have to go back into court because it makes it, you know, people don't know who they're dealing with or at least is very difficult for them to know who they're dealing with. This was your point about contracts that if you've ever bought a piece of land and you try to put it under your name that it might not be recognized. Rather than getting a law passed like that. I think I would simply go and go and buy someone to go ahead the pay the 15, 20, $30. On the other hand, one can always try it. Best course of action, of course, is if people do know when they get married how they want to relate to each other. And of course it seems to me this is part of how people relate to each other. It isn't just a simple matter of changing names. It isn't just even a matter of a loss of the woman's identity in the marriage, 'cause this loss of identity does affect the way people are going to relate to each other in the marriage. How they see each other. It's just part of what the law has done in so many areas is that it has impacted on women. It's also impacting the family relationship is often a very harsh way in a way which has led to the kinds of accelerating divorces that you see in this country now.

- Well, I think just in the case that I read where the wife in the family had a master's degree in chemistry which isn't anything to laugh at supported the couple as he went through medical school and after it's all over, you know, she was approached by the husband, like the idea that she has no right in this decision and that she should do what he wants.

- I'm sorry.

- I was gonna say I think that it's very often true that women and men both going into marriage don't realize the impact some of these things are going to have not only in the personal aspect of it but I think people don't realize how their legal rights are affected. A man gets married and suddenly finds that he has a wife to support. And if the wife has children the couple has children that he will be responsible for supporting them. And I think it is true that a lot of people don't realize that in a way that I didn't realize when I was married how I was going to feel about being called by my husband's name. And maybe that's something to say for the idea of writing a marriage contract so the people have a better idea of what to expect.

- May I ask what's your husband thought when you said, "I want my name back"? What was his-

- Well he was very shocked and surprised in the same way that everybody was that I mentioned it to for quite a while. And it took him a long time to get used to the idea. But I think now he's perfectly satisfied with it. And sometimes I think he gets a little bang out of it. When people ask him, "Well, what's your wife's name?" And he says, "First or last?"

- How do you introduce yourself? I meant to ask you earlier.

- Well.

- You say, "I'm Linda"?

- I say I'm Linda and then-

- This is my husband.

- Yeah, this my husband.

- Interesting.

- There's another alternative here which some friends of mine have used which is rather than each person holding onto his or her own last name they combined the last names or select a new last name which they both agree upon. Which is this these people John, did you want to take a station break now? Okay go ahead.

- This perspective from the public radio service of the university of Kansas. KANU Lawrence. Here again is Casey Iyke.

- Thank you. We'd like to invite anyone to call in with any questions. The number is 864-4530. Kelly, you were talking a little bit right before we broke about new concepts and names after marriage. Why don't you give us that story?

- Okay I had friends, John Williams and Kathy Folk who were married last spring. They spent some time deciding what their last name ought to be. One of their considerations was that if John kept his last name and if Kathy kept her last name, what would they call? What would their child's last name be? Which is a real consideration. After all the child is going to identify with someone and they were very concerned about how to work that out. So then they decided to hyphenate their last name. So it's now John and Kathy or Kathy and John Folk-Williams. Some names on the other hand might be rather to hyphenate. And some people resolve that by simply choosing a name which they both agreed upon as a symbol among other things to starting to find a new life together.

- I think all of our discussion so far really indicates that both men and women are taking a new look at some of the traditional paths or whatever ruts maybe in some cases that they've fallen into. Maybe that's a little . I think that's kind of interesting that it comes out in this way. I'd like to go back also to some other civil rights that perhaps a woman does lose upon marriage. What about property rights? The control of property within a family?

- I would like to mention that in Kansas laws in governing marriage, family, and divorce are included in the domestic relations code of the laws of Kansas. And under that, there is such a thing known as a married woman's act in Kansas. And this provides for separate property of the woman before marriage remains hers after marriage. This means that if the husband has accrued debts before marriage her property cannot be confiscated to pay for his debts. So that seems to be encouraging anyone in the state of Kansas. However there are other problems involved concerning property and I think this one is one that's quite common. And possibly many people know of instances such as this. This is an actual case. Again, I would want to spend a couple of minutes relaying this to you. A couple has been married for seven years and have three children. Never has the husband told the wife how much money he makes, how much he keeps in a checking account, or what savings or other property he has. They are obviously not poor. They live on a ranch in a Western state. There seems to be plenty of money to buy or to bid on prize cattle and to buy farm machinery and pay for the husband's expensive hobbies. However, the wife has no checking account of her own and no access to a savings account. The husband provides her with household allowance for food and cleaning supplies. The wife has no charge accounts. Anytime she wants to buy shoes or clothes for herself or the children she has to ask for the money from the husband. Now the wife works 12 hours a day, seven days a week on the ranch. And she decided to consult an attorney to find out if she did not have some rights to the income that she and her husband were apparently earning jointly. It turned out that the wife did have some rights, but only if she chose to file for divorce or legal separation. It's the only way that she could find out what their holdings were. The law in that state maintains that the husband must support his wife quote in an adequate manner unquote. The word adequate is not defined. And the courts have usually found that if the family is properly fed, housed, and clothed support is adequate. If you wish to end the marriage, you can probably force the husband to disclose his income and give an accounting of what property he owns. However, if you want to keep the marriage intact, the law can do nothing for you. Now this seems to be a pretty discriminating matter concerning property. And it seems as though in almost all states that this holds true. That the husband has control over the property and owes the wife no explanation as to how much or where this money is.

- That's so and it seems to me the one very important point is highlighted there. There's one of the criticisms of the feminist movement offered by some people is that it is causing disruptions in the family structure that the feminist movement is anti-family, anti-marriage, and whatnot. And you have one things about the laws is that they don't make it possible in many respects for a husband and a wife who've lived together for a marriage unit living together in some kind of harmonious relationship. So, and without... And so that they can avoid the necessity of getting divorced in order to have some kind of equality and freedom.

- Yeah, I think that the term equal partnership kind of fits well into here but is it really possible to have an equal partnership under the law at this time. And this of course is what a large part of the women's movement is saying is that this is what's going to be best for not only the family as an ideal or as a unit, but also for each individual be it male and female together.

- There's no doubt that it's very difficult to have an equal relationship when one is likened to a slave and one is likened to a master.

- I think, as I understand it, there are 42 states and which includes Kansas, which come under the common law well there are common law states. And I believe that this increase that income and property acquired by each spouse during marriage remains separately owned. And I think that one of the problems with these 42 common law states is that this system does not recognize the contribution to the family made by the wife who works only in the home and without the opportunity to acquire her earnings and property and her own rights. The other remaining states are community property states and which is a bit more enlightened. And I think Texas also has probably the most enlightened or the most enlightened community property state and then the other several there, the wealth is shared but the husband still has, as we said before, the exclusive rights to control and manage the estate. Judy, so you have any facts on that Texas statute?

- Well I would like to explain that community property. The whole idea here is that anything property or earnings acquired during the marriage is jointly owned. And that seems to be fair enough, but there's another catch. And that's based on the idea that men are more competent than women in seven of the eight community property states. Although the wealth is shared the husbands has the exclusive rights to control and manage the estate. So in Texas this is the one state, which seems to be a little different. Only Texas has eliminated this inequity by saying that each spouse shall have sole management control in this position of that community property which he or she would have owned if a single person. If I were married and it earned such and such and paid for this, then that would have been mine originally. So I would have control over that. It also states that if community property subject to the management of one spouse is combined with that of the other, then it is subject to joint management unless the partners agree otherwise. So that seems to equalize the control of the property. All of the community property states do say that this property is jointly owned. However, only Texas provides for both partners to control that. Do you have a question?

- Yes, I do a phone call here. Yes, hello.

- Right. I'd like to see if I can get your group particularly with the person talking about family law to address the issue. I think that concerns many men who are concerned about their own liberation and that has to do with the kind of implicit assumption that goes on in legal systems that when there is a divorce or separation or whatever in a family that the offspring of that family are assumed to be best cared for by the mother. This is so frequently a criticism I think of the courts from a variety of perspectives. So I wonder if you could address that notion that the courts almost out of habit seem to give custody of children to the woman in the marriage.

- Right, I think that's a very good point to bring up. Calvin, do you care to respond to that? I got a couple of things.

- Yeah, this is one of the few areas in which I have some knowledge in family law. The statement is true that there is a preference for women, the mother, to take care of the child especially if it's a young child. However, so far as I can determine from research and conversations with the psychiatrists of various persuasions, that the child is better off even the young child with the mother, is not necessarily the case. So that if the basic assumption is the basic assumption upon which this rule operates is simply not correct. That is the basic assumption that the child is better off. If that's not the case, then there must be some other reason to justify that. And the only other reason that I can think of to justify that it would be some kind of mechanical rule going to the difficulty of deciding whether the male or the female partner is better suited to care for the child. It seems to me, that's a very difficult question to get at even if wasn't brings in a psychiatrist to deal with the situation it still isn't an easy question to answer because anyone who's been doing any reading pretty much reading about, you know, psychiatrist and women knows very often psychiatrists themselves are sexually biased on numerous certain psychological theories reflect sex-based discrimination. So that makes the problem difficult at the next level. If you don't use some kind of mechanistic exclusion. I don't have an answer to that. This the whole area of family law and especially this area is one which requires lots of research and very little has been done on it. And it seems to be wrong if my opinion is called for, but I don't really know. I don't really have an answer for it.

- I'd like to say that there are many women's groups almost all of those in which I belong and that I've read about always have a provision there or make a statement to the effect that custody of children in divorce should always be made in accordance with a child's best interest without automatic preference to either spouse. And I think that's a concern not only of men but of women also.

- May I ask a question about that?

- Yes.

- Given that out of the best motivation a couple writes into their marital contracts that kind of statement that you have just described and given what your guests on family law has just said about the complexity of making that kind of decision given the kind of paucity of social science or other kinds of knowledge that would support that kind of decision. Then how in the marital contract arrangement then do is that resolution on behalf of the child made? You know, if we're in fact as I would agree in such a terrible state with regards to resolving what it means, what the concept of in the behalf of the, or best behalf of the child means, then, you know, like what handled to you as someone who, for example, may have written that kind of contract have on resolving that should it come up? What would you use or what would you suggest as a criteria short the fact that psychiatrist, social scientists, whatever theologians also would pair appear not to have the kind of criteria that would establish that as a kind of a clear-cut decision?

- Wow.

- I have a suggestion that just popped into my head. I think that if the couple that is separating has had a somewhat honest relationship then they would know which of them could best provide for all of the needs of the child, not just financial, but social and psychological as well. And that would be a hard thing to do.

- Yeah the problem with that is that that implied, you know, that very, very seldom does a divorce arise or does an antagonistic marital situation arise out of a situation in which there has been an honest, forthright relationship. I mean, you know, as a general rule, divorce arises out of intense persona conflicts that are usually terribly obscure and terribly lacking in truthfulness and in openness. And again, I'm obviously pressing you to be somewhat contentious on the issue, but I guess in part to illustrate its complexity. That there are no simple clear cut answers to the thing. And that obviously a pattern or rigid view on either perspective is probably deadly.

- No, I don't think that any do right now is very, is it all suitable. I don't think however, the marriage contracts could do it unless a lot of laws were changed because as most other reasons, the first is the laws. The laws don't recognize various well there was before the marriage contract notion it was just the notion of an anti-nuptial agreement which is that one of female and male were getting married. They could provide in advance of the marriage for the disposal of any property, which they each held before the marriage and how it would be handled in the event of a divorce or separation. But one thing which was never permitted to be put into those agreements. And we're still not be allowing in the marriage contract. And I think for very good reason is the disposition of children among other things. It seems to me that when people first get married I take it that ordinarily there aren't children although it's certainly possible in most cases it probably isn't the case. It is not possible to know I think it's not very likely people know which is going to be the better parent in with which parent the child will be better off. So it's really a shot in the dark. It's a roll of the dice in the beginning. And I'm not sure that it's any better to do it that way or even as good perhaps as another kind of mechanistic solution.

- I wonder if I might pose just one more thing and I'll get off the line. Do you, in terms of the family law practice, do you have any sense of the extent to which courts of law might be becoming more responsive to the rational decision-making or rational may be too strong word but the decision-making with regard to children making these choices? Now, obviously there has to be, that's becomes a very tricky one in terms of age and that sort of thing, but our courts of law do you think are becoming more sensitive to children making those decisions and essentially resolving this as a matter of their own choice? Or are we are our courts of law still in general hung up in the assumption of the woman's general suitability?

- Personally, I'm not an expert in family law. Bob when he here is. So I can't say what courts generally do except as a matter of my impressions. My impression is that courts purport to making decisions as and on basis of the law that on the basis of what's best for the child. Generally what's best for the child according to this assumption we were talking about earlier is to be with the mother. If we ask the child to make the decision, it may really depend upon what age the child is. A child of 14 or over are often followed although not entirely a certain recent cases in Minnesota and elsewhere indicated where the child preferred one for going with a parent and the grandparents got the child because, and this is a file case, because somehow well the parents were kind of hippies as you see and if they went to the grandparents, they were going to be able to have a good Christian solid upbringing.

- I do have a figure and that is in 95% of children are awarded to the mother.

- Oh, yeah, it is the case, but of courts report to be doing it on the basis of what's best for the child. Now I'll offer a tentative idea. I thought about it for all of about a day and a half since I returned from conference on women's law in New York over the weekend. That is this. I think it would require to really get the best kind of disposition and interest of the child. Some participation in the decision making by qualified psychiatrists. I'm not quite sure which one off to do it however. To interview the child, interview the parents, probably over some extensive time period. So you could already see that we're now we're talking about rather large cost at 40 to $50 an hour after which the psychiatrist or psychiatrists friends whatnot would go into court and would confer their opinion their findings on the judge. And if there was a jury on the jury. There are real disadvantages in that but I'm not sure what else could be done. For example, if the husband's selected psychiatrist was one view on human relations and the wife's psychiatrist with another view on relations they're often very unlikely to agree. I pause again. I'm not sure because I haven't talked to a psychiatrist.

- One more comment. In terms of my own consideration of this problem which I agree is extremely complex and the most difficult and yet very relevant to the discussion tonight I think is something which is I think occurred to me over and over again with respect to that. And that is that it strikes me that one of the really positive potential resources in terms of this particular problem would be the liberation movement itself. Now, I get a little hung up on women's liberation because I think men's liberation is almost important but the real issue here is human liberation.

- Agreed.

- But I keep thinking in the back of my mind, for example, that some of the very active women's liberation groups were to tackle this as a serious problem that relates to their liberation via its relationship to man's liberation. If in fact that might not be one of the really powerful forces, potentially powerful forces in altering this particular very special perspective which occurs in a relationship of men and women particularly as it relates to law. I'd like your comments on that. And I thank you very much.

- It seems to me there's this point in the mind and I don't know whether this responds to you or not. But one problem there, again, is this huge problem of time. There are a women's groups which were involved in this. There are a couple of radical therapy groups so-called in San Francisco, which are attempting to deal with a problem. Unfortunately, a time period involved in doing some of this kind of thing occupies not just weeks but months. And it requires the consent of both people to engage in it. That's one very, very real problem. And I'm not quite sure how the movement of either side is going to affect it except over a period of long, long years.

- I think that his concern is extremely valid and that there is implicit in the woman's movement that kind of concerns that men receive an equal shake about some of these things and that their concerns about their children are just as real if not more so than those of a mother. And on the other side of the coin, I think that it's sort of questionable in society's eyes when a woman doesn't want to keep the children, you know? The woman who says, you know, "I'd be happy to let you have 'em." Is sort of really looked down upon as some kind of monster. How could she not care for her children?

- Unnatural.

- Unnatural, yes. And that this was, you know, there's a matter there. And again freeing the woman to be allowed to say, you know, "I don't want to have to hassle with all of this. "I don't want him to be stuck at home. "You know, part of the reason I left you "was to gain a little freedom "and now I've got to take care of three kids, take them." But this was a very hard thing to deal with.

- Another example is the fact of the way we ordinarily think that this law is biased against men and in a lot of respects it certainly is. But we tend to forget what the kind of psychological impact it has on women. It's a reinforcement of the societal view that woman's place is such and such. And if she doesn't want to feel like that, not only is she not a good mother, she's not a woman.

- That's a good point to bring up.

- We're running out of time and haven't hit very much as far as divorce is concerned.

- I think with the last call we could spend another hour discussing that. I was just looking at the clock and thinking how am I going to say all the things that are in my mind in three minutes or whatever? I don't know where to start.

- I think in the concern with children. That there's another concern dealing with that is that children have very, very few rights under the law as children, as people. And then this would be included in family law discussion, but they have almost no rights concerning what happens to them.

- It seems that this might all be easier if divorce didn't have to be an adversary proceeding. It didn't have to be made a fight between the husband and the wife, then the problem of determining who's the best parent is still going to be very difficult one to deal with. But at least I think it would be easier to come to grips with the problem.

- Yeah.

- Well, I wish that we had a little bit longer to pursue some of these things. I think there are many things left unsaid but I think we have managed to raise some questions and have some answers. I thank those who called in for questions. Once again, I'd like to mention that the women's library and invite everyone that's listening to come in and take advantage of some of the information and things that we have up there. It's in 220 Strong Hall in the Dean of women's office at the University of Kansas. Next week well, Michelle will be centered around a family in transition. So it's possible that we may discuss some similar things next week. Thank you very much for tuning in.

- Listen again next Monday at seven for a feminist perspective presented in cooperation with the office of the Dean of Women at the University of Kansas.