In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 


On Thu, 4 Jan 1996, John Knight wrote:

> This message is forwarded to the Signatories to the FATHERS' MANIFESTOsm.
> From: Gary Clark 
> jeanfranc@accent.net wrote: 
> 
> >Subject: Re: Defining a "goal" (fwd)
> >
> >I also tend to belive that "Ending fatherlessness" is a promising goal 
> >as to its meaning. But it is stated too negativly to become a constructive 
> >objective!

You could flip it around to "Responsible Fatherhood".

> >We should, as far as I am concerned, rephrase it in a more positive manner.
> >Something like making sure that fathers are, one given date, fully treated
> >as equal human being in front of the laws and their children  could be more

Until men start carrying babies in their wombs this is one domain where 
men will not be equal.  You can't force a woman to have a baby (that 
would constitute slavery) and it's her body.  Men and women have to face 
the reality that this is a unique choice for which both the full liberty 
and the full responsiblity fall squarely and exclusively on the mother.

> >stimulating and give way to more motivating sub-goals leading to direct and
> >specific actions to be done by us all and individually....

Having stated that the liberty and responsibility fall exclusively on the 
mother creates the fundamental structure for several byproducts or 
sub-goals.

	1. A father assumes responsibility out of his love/attraction for the mother.
	2. A father MAY continue to assume responsibility out of love for 
	   the children.  This is not an axiom.
	3. The father MAY continue to assume responsibility upon dissolution 
	   of the marriage.  This is not an axiom.
	4. The mother who chooses to divorce her husband has 3 choices:
		A.  Assume full responsibility for the child alone.
		B.  Enroll the natural father into supporting the children.
		C.  Enroll another responsible adult (male) into supporting 
		    the children.

This creates incentive structures which:
	A. Promote responsible role models.
	B. Promote frequent visitation.
	C. Promote selection of responsible fathers as future 
	   mates/partners/husbands.

> I disagree with the above.
> 
> The CAUSE of fatherlessness is the female-headed single parent family. That 
> is what we need to attack.

The CAUSE of fatherlessness is an incentive system which penalizes a 
woman for making any of the three choices mentioned above.

The current incentive system is built upon the following premise:

	Sex is a sin, a crime of our lower nature for which women must bear 
	the pain of Labor, and for wich men must bear the pain of toil. (Genisis)

This results in several byproducts.
	1.  A father sins the moment he becomes sexually attracted to the mother.
	2.  The father MUST suffer the punishment for his evil sin.
	3.  Since children are the product of sin, children are the father's 
	    reminder of his punishment.  He must be punished - married or not.
	4.  The father who would allow/cause/consent to a divorce is 
	    attempting to evade the punishment for his sin.
	5.  Since children are God's punishment, men who do not sire children,
		men who cannot be positively identified as the father, are 
		exempt from the punishment for sin.

	6.  The mother who leaves her husband.
		A.  Deserves to be compensated for her labor pains.
		B.  Can be righteous by choosing a "Lucky" "Un-Father".
		C.  Deserves the children - in consideration of her Labor.
		D.  Should avoid all other "losers" (men who pay child 
		    support for their own children) lest they lose the right 
		    to the FULL benefit of his toil.

This creates incentive structures which:
	A.  Promote dependency of mothers (on father, husband, child-support,
		state/welfare -- Entitlements)
	B.  Promote exclusion of responsible men from family life.
	C.  Promote selection of irresponsible (unencumbered) men as future
		mates/partners/husbands)

> If doing so is perceived as negative by some, so be it.

There are many ways to express a goal or objective.  Expressing it as a 
possibility will make it easier to enroll others (who might otherwise 
oppose you).

> Gary Clark

	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard




From rballard@cnj.digex.net Fri Jan  5 02:53:07 1996