True EqualityThe responses to the child custody ruling in...


August 04, 1994

True Equality

The responses to the child custody ruling in Michigan reveal the hypocrisy of the feminist view of equal rights.

If this situation had been reversed, surely the feminists would have also sided with the mother, regardless of the issue.

Research has shown that having a child in a more familiar environment is more beneficial than child care. This is not a knock against child care but takes into consideration what is best for the child.

If the father had been the custodial parent with the child in child care, the feminists would then agree with the judge's ruling. Because the situation is reversed does not change the principle of the issue. If everything else is equal, then the child belongs with the parent providing the most stable environment.

In this case, concerning the child support issue, it is obvious that the father is not concerned about the additional expense of caring for the child. As many non-custodial fathers know, there can be many issues involved with court-ordered child support, including what the father may be expending on the child directly, which is currently overlooked in the legal system.

It is about time a judge decided this issue on principle rather than gender. It is about time the legal system recognize the equal parental rights of fathers. It is now time for the feminists to seek equal rights based on principle and not what is best for women.

True equality can only occur when all the issues are addressed objectively, regardless of gender. This principle should be familiar to the feminists.

Charles J. Henneman


Moving the Poor

An article in The Sun July 31 told of a plan to relocate families from the inner city to eastern Baltimore County through Moving to Opportunity using section 8 federal housing funds for subsidies for about 285 families.

I am sure none of these families will be moved into the wealthier areas like Hampton or the Dulaney Valley or Worthington Valley, but rather into areas of mostly blue collar workers, who have worked hard and long to own a home and are still in debt and would be hard-pressed not to become angry by having a family move in with a 100-percent subsidized home.

There are hundreds of vacant homes in the city that could be renovated for these people to move into and still have pride of ownership.

With the millions of dollars that are being shipped overseas, there must be a way to help out our country's poor and homeless without such provocative action.

Pouring gasoline on glowing embers only makes a fire flare up again.

Philip C. Cvach


Flower Mart

Where has The Sun been for the past half-dozen years during the two weeks prior to the first Wednesday in May? You have given the Flower Mart more ink in recent weeks than the prior two weeks of all those marts combined.

Where have the people been on many a beautiful first Wednesday in May? No mart since the return to Mt. Vernon place has been too busy.

How often did we hear, "I'll get there next year"? Where were the businesses of Baltimore when approached by the Women's Civic League for help?

If the League continues to lose money over Flower Mart, who will fund the scholarship given out by the League? Who will pay the bills to maintain 9 N. Front Street, a historic site restored and maintained and open to the public?

It is so easy to wax nostalgic over a tradition when one doesn't have to deal with the reality of it.

For the past few years it has been sport to compare modern marts with those of the past. As the women have aged and their ranks are not replaced, like so many other organizations, who is to continue planning and executing the Flower Mart?

From the first mart in 1911, the event was held as a fund-raiser. Why is everyone so shocked that it needs to show a profit? It's as if they're learning there is no Santa Claus.

Neither the city's treasury nor the Women's Civic League's are what they once were. If the people and institutions of Baltimore want a Flower Mart, why don't they quit pouting and give their support?

June Goldfield


Baseball Greed

Greed is what the baseball strike hoopla is about.

The players want more money, and the owners want more profits, therefore the salary cap problem. What happened to the great American game of baseball?

Greed is what happened. The Redskins owner's attempt to build a stadium at Laurel is all about greed.

It seems to have escaped those National Football League owners that no franchise owners lost money when there were football teams in Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia. The owner of the Redskins was not satisfied with his riches. He wants it all.

I can see getting a decent wage for the work done, but I believe that the professional jocks are pricing themselves out of existence.

There is no player worth more money than the salary of the president of the United States, who has the responsibility of guiding the country through the storms of international politics and natural disasters.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.