# Hey hauss, suck it up, chickenshit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 14, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802 "2004-12-14T16:35:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/401 "2004-12-16T12:09:31Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > What would you suggest? That we go back to the 50s, when women were branded for daring to have sex and enjoy it, and it was still legal in some states to beat your wife provided you use a stick no bigger than your thumb? Brief hijack but you’re mistaken. As Cecil himself explicitly states in this [entry](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000512.html) from 2000, spousal abuse has never been legal in the US. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/402 "2004-12-16T12:14:49Z")
> [@Aesiron](#): > > Brief hijack but you’re mistaken. As Cecil himself explicitly states in this [entry](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000512.html) from 2000, spousal abuse has never been legal in the US. Thanks **Aesiron** I didn’t realize the book I had “Strange Laws Still on the Books” was LYING… grrrrrrr Thanks again Not that the treatment then, and even as recent as the 70s was all that much better. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/403 "2004-12-16T12:19:19Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > What would you suggest? That we go back to the 50s, when women were branded for daring to have sex and enjoy it, and it was still legal in some states to beat your wife provided you use a stick no bigger than your thumb? While we’re on the subject… [This site](http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html) gives a history on the inaccuracy of the alleged origin of the phrase “rule of thumb”. And from the Oxford English Dictionary: > [@OED](#): > > 1. A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical method. Also, a particular stated rule that is based on practice or experience. > > 1692 SIR W. HOPE Fencing-Master 157 What he doth, he doth by rule of Thumb, and not by Art. 1721 KELLY Scot. Prov. 257 No Rule so good as Rule of Thumb, if it hit. 1785 GROSE Dict. Vulgar T., Thumb, by rule of thumb, to do a thing by dint of practice. 1802 Sporting Mag. XX. 17 Too often did she apportion the drugs by the rule of thumb. 1865 M. ARNOLD Ess. Crit. v. 159 The English…have in all their changes proceeded, to use a familiar expression, by the rule of thumb. 1887 BESANT World Went xxv, [He] knew nothing save by rule of thumb of navigation. 1906 [see drill book s.v. DRILL n.2 7b]. 1965 C. D. EBY Siege of Alcázar (1966) vii. 135 In doubtful cases a rule of thumb applied: if the prisoner employed one servant in his household or two workers in his business, then he was a Fascist. 1967 G. F. FIENNES I tried to run a Railway ii. 14 George Jackson who timed by rule of thumb faster and as accurately as any Grapher. 1976 Inorg. Chem. XV. 1032/2 The i.r. spectra…show no apparent deviation from the rule of thumb that vibrational spectra of mixed-valence compounds are approximate superpositions of the single-valence spectra. 1976 Southern Even. Echo (Southampton) 11 Nov. 3/7 The rule of thumb over the tenancy of a council home should be ‘follow the children’. 1977 National Observer (U.S.) 1 Jan. 7/2 The usual rule of thumb in the real-estate business is that a family can afford a house 2 to 2 times its income. 1980 Jrnl. R. Soc. Arts Feb. 166/2 By day that same boy’s master, and overlooker, and fellow-workmen, are all teaching him…that rule of thumb is the only safe guide. > > transf. 1773 GOLDSM. Stoops to Conq. III, Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no fibs. I procured them by the rule of thumb. > > ``` > 2. attrib. a. Of methods, etc.: Based merely upon practice or experience. Also in predicative use. > > ``` > > 1837 LOCKHART Scott (1839) VIII. 92 Beyond this rule of thumb calculation, no experience could bring him to penetrate his mystery. 1861 HUGHES Tom Brown at Oxf. xxi. (1889) 196 We never learnt anything…except a little rule-of-thumb mathematics. 1878 ABNEY Photogr. Pref., Though rapid advance has been made of late years in rule of thumb photography. 1935 E. WAUGH Edmund Campion ii. 55 Old-fashioned priests…came to him when they found their simple, rule-of-thumb dialectics insufficient to cope with their trained opponents. 1947 E. M. FORSTER in Harper’s Mag. July 15/2 Virginia Woolf…believed in reading a book twice. The first time she abandoned herself to the author unreservedly. The second time she treated him with severity and allowed him to get away with nothing he could not justify. After these two readings she felt qualified to discuss the book. Here is good rule of thumb advice. 1962 W. NOWOTTNY Lang. Poets Use iii. 53 This attitude…however rule-of-thumb it may be, is reasonable enough. 1977 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 24 Nov. 16/1 Ridiculing the ‘rule of thumb’ methods used in the household. > > ``` > b. Of persons: Working only by methods derived from practice. > > ``` > > 1841 B. HALL Patchwork III. 83 Unlooked-for results often occur to distract the mere rule-of-thumb navigator. 1878 ABNEY Photogr. (1890) 10 A great difficulty to the beginner or to the rule-of-thumb photographer. 1947 [see NOMOGRAPHER]. So which states still had this law on their books? Because I’m dying to find out. Robin ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/404 "2004-12-16T12:19:22Z")
Well, it was. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/405 "2004-12-16T12:22:37Z")
That would be in reply to CanvasShoes’ post about her book, obviously. I’ll trust Cecil and the OED over a Wacky Laws book anyday. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/406 "2004-12-16T12:34:48Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > So which states still had this law on their books? Because I’m dying to find out. > > Robin The ones you’d expect, if my memory serves:D Georgia, Missippi, Alabama and there was actually a weird one, like Colorado, or Connecticut, that wasn’t “bible belt” type. Funny, when I had remembered the rule of thumb, I could have sworn it had to do with measurements like hands for horses, not beatings, but that was even longer ago than the “Strange Laws” book. So that has likely sunk into the swamps of old age as well. Anyway, thanks again…and GRRRRR again, that’s what I get for believing something called “Strange Laws” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/407 "2004-12-16T12:43:08Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > **sugaree** , I believe it was, provided cites which showed that, except for Georgia, the safe haven sites were available for PARENTS, not just the mothers, who wished to drop off babies. To clarify: If I’ve read that link correctly, 42 states have safe haven laws. Georgia and Indiana specify the mother. Maryland and Minnesota specify the mother or anyone the mother designates. DE, MA, NM, and NY say that any person can drop off a baby. Idaho specifies the custodial parent. And the remaining 33 states (including Pennsylvania) specify parent. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/408 "2004-12-16T13:24:21Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > That was the whole original point. We were saying that if some of you got what you wanted, men would have _no_ incentive to be responsible—even going so far as to lie about being sterile in order to not have to use birth control (why should he worry? He’s going to be off the hook either way). To which you replied that women could lie about being sterile too, just to collect a check. (To which I replied, “Sure. What a great deal. The happy-go-lucky life of a single mom.”) And then someone else (I’ve forgotten who) said that women could drop their baby off at safe harbor or give it up for adoption (or abort it) if they wanted. So you put these all together, (lie about being sterile and still avoiding responsibility) and it just doesn’t add up on the women’s side. What motivation would she have in lying about being sterile if she doesn’t want the kid? Why risk pregnancy? > > A man would have _zero_ incentive to not lie about his fertility, whereas a woman still would, since she’d still be the one facing pregnancy or abortion. The way Diogenes phrased it, it seemed that he was asserting someone had suggested a mother doing both - milking for child support, and simultaneously dropping off the baby at a Safe Haven - which _is_ a ridiculous hypothetical, with both conditions. The two conditions by themselves, however, are not. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/409 "2004-12-16T14:03:35Z")
I never said anything about “milking for child support.” I was ridiculing hypotheticals suggesting any woman would secretly get pregnant, move across the country and use a safe haven without ever telling the guy he was a father. I was asking what the motive would be because both **catsix** and **Treis** seem to think that’s some sort of real possibility. Treis even wants to browbeat women in labor and throw them in jail if they won’t talk. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/410 "2004-12-16T14:15:34Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I never said anything about “milking for child support.” I was ridiculing hypotheticals suggesting any woman would secretly get pregnant, move across the country and use a safe haven without ever telling the guy he was a father. I was asking what the motive would be because both **catsix** and **Treis** seem to think that’s some sort of real possibility. Treis even wants to browbeat women in labor and throw them in jail if they won’t talk. Yeah, I had to read a while to catch up on all that… I think that Treis’s plan goes to far. The mother, as the child’s bearer, has the right to not inform the father of the child. But the law should be structured in such a way that if she doesn’t, any legal obligation he has to provide support is negated. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/411 "2004-12-16T14:19:18Z")
I agree. I said in this thread that if the father isn’t informed in a reasonable amount of time (I suggested a year after birth) then he should be off the hook. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/412 "2004-12-16T14:20:53Z")
According to an article in yesterday’s Record newspaper: New Jersey’s Safe Haven Law allows a baby, 30 days old or younger and with no signs of abuse, to be left at any police station or emergency room, no questions asked. The person dropping off the baby doesn’t even have to identify himself _(sic)_. I also recall hearing that churches, synagogs and mosques fall under this law. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/413 "2004-12-16T14:26:45Z")
I’ve thought about my idea some more, and I think I should restructure it a bit. It’s sort of like an extension of the adoption system, rather than a male equivalent of abortion. It could be arranged to allow either parent, within a certain window of the gestation period, to “forfeit” rights and responsibilities for the child. If both do that, the child, when born, goes up for adoption. If the mother wants the child, but the father doesn’t, she can modify her decision based on her circumstances. (Can I raise the child myself? Should I place it for adoption?) If the father wants the child, but the mother doesn’t - well, same situation, provided the mother doesn’t choose an abortion. While such a structure would cause some men to be more promiscuous, I think it’d also encourage some women to be more careful, and sort of even itself out. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/414 "2004-12-16T14:30:25Z")
That justs lets men off the hook. Bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/415 "2004-12-16T14:33:48Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Not to mention these violent psychotic fathers are vanishingly rare. WHAT?!? I was right, you ARE insane. With over 10,000 child/spousal abuse arrests in the city of Los Angeles alone this year to date, “vanishingly rare” is dead wrong. [http://www.lapdonline.org/general\_information/crime\_statistics/2004\_crime\_summary.htm](http://www.lapdonline.org/general_information/crime_statistics/2004_crime_summary.htm) Justice’s site is down so I don’t have the state and federal stats yet. I swear you guys, if we keep feeding it, it will weigh 1000 pounds. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/416 "2004-12-16T14:39:08Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > That justs lets men off the hook. Bad idea. Well, not to be overly flip, but “Says you.” I’m Libertarian-leaning - I think the government has no place forcing compliance with any system of morality; their business in making laws is to make society function. So, murder is illegal so people don’t live in fear of being killed. I’m not convinced that mandating that the father be “on the hook” is in society’s interests. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/417 "2004-12-16T14:44:18Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I’m Libertarian-leaning - I think the government has no place forcing compliance with any system of morality; their business in making laws is to make society function. So, murder is illegal so people don’t live in fear of being killed. > > I’m not convinced that mandating that the father be “on the hook” is in society’s interests. Then if the father’s off the hook, then society’s on it. Either way someone’s going to pay. If I have pony up extra taxes, I rather pony it up, mandating that the actual persons involved in creating that burden; are the one actually paying for it’s upkeep. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/418 "2004-12-16T14:46:42Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I’m Libertarian-leaning Hard to reconcile with your notion of massive state-run orphanges. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/419 "2004-12-16T15:10:45Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > Hard to reconcile with your notion of massive state-run orphanges. One, I never suggested a system of massive state-run orphanages. That is an obvious way to deal with the problem of a vast number of unwanted children - a problem which we may not even have under this suggestion, since both potential parents will be forced to exercise judgment instead of just the father, under the current system. Two, I’m Libertarian-leaning, not a Libertarian. I believe that the government should provide for **some** social services. ---
**Author:** ![stretch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@stretch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stretch)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/420 "2004-12-16T15:22:29Z")
Okay, I made it through the whole thread! Now I feel I can comment. In Washington State, hospitals do try to establish paternity when the child is born. They explain the benefits of establishing paternity both parents if they are both there, to the mother if the father isn’t around. They even have a video they show. It’s been found that establishing paternity right away, while the father is still all excited about what a man he is for fathering a child, works out pretty well. My daughter and her SO went through the paternity establishment routine at the hospital just a couple of months ago and she said it was just like her (step-)dad told her it would be (mr.strech is a support enforcement officer). Establishing paternity has benefits beyond the ability to assign child support obligations. For instance, your children are entitled to social security benefits in the event of your death–even if you haven’t been paying child support. **Treis** , if a law requiring a mother to divulge the father is put into place, the mother will do just exactly what she does now if she doesn’t want to tell who the father is–she’ll lie or cover up for the dad. She’ll say she doesn’t remember because she was drunk. She’ll say she’s afraid for her life (and sometimes she is). She’ll say she slept with x, y, z; now the state requires paternity tests for x, y, and z so this dodge isn’t as effective as it used to be. When mr.strech does outreach at the local schools explaining child support, he oftens explains to the guys who are thinking about skipping out the benefits they will be missing by not being involved in the kid’s life. He explains to them that as a non-custodial parent paying child support, he had paid about $80K in support over the last 10 years. And he’d pay it all again for the opportunity to have a relationship with his son. Mr.stretch is a fabulous father and it bothers him no end having to deal with deadbeat parents of either gender. People who call up and say that their $25/month support is too much (the minimum monthly support amount in WA). And yes, deadbeat mothers are pursued just as aggressively as deadbeat fathers. CandidGamera, I’ve read your posts and while I like your ideas, they still do too much to let prospective fathers off the hook and then the mother’s decision has to take into account what the dad wants to do. Mr.strech and I have had many, many conversations about child support law and the various inequities. Even dealing with it every day we haven’t come up with any great solutions. There is no way to make it completely fair–just like everything in life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802.md?page=22)