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.
> http://idt.liberty.com/~fathers9/home.htm
> Gil  (LT Gilbert L. Smith) wrote:
> 
> >[PLAYBOY] is a private enterprise that rely on the support of women's groups
> to stay alive. I give them credit for that.

During the investigations of the Meese Commission in 1984, it was 
discovered that, not only was most pornography produced by women, it was 
also produced for women.

> Why "credit"? They rely mostly on men to BUY the product. 

Playboy is primarily sold to men.  The playboy ethic has shifted slightly 
from "Toys for yourself" to "Toys for your lady".  Instead of buying the 
Masarati for yourself, you are supposed to buy it for her.

> >On the other hand, they have money, perhaps a sensitive spot for our
> cause....
> 
> No "perhaps" about it. 
> 
> Also, by supporting women's political action committees, PLAYBOY is
> indirectly working against men. By supporting abortion rights for women, for
> example, they work against parental rights for men.

Abortion rights for women implies that the woman is exclusively 
accountable for the choice, the responsibilities, and the consequences of 
her choice to have a child.  This is the cornerstone from which the
"punitive child-support with denied visitation" can be attacked.

A man can choose to support the mother and the children, but his choice 
comes exclusive of the choice to bear them or not.  The only way a man 
can reliably choose NOT to bear children is to have a vasectomy.  
Condom's break and all other forms of contraception require the consent 
or participation of the woman.

> >Mancott.. no, it would have little if any impact.
> Wrong. "Impact" is more than economic. Companies often do things to protect
> their intangible "good names," too. Presenting PLAYBOY as anti-male can have
> a big impact, even if few men actually "mancott." It is the black ink of bad
> press, not the red ink of a negatively impacted bottom-line, that will get
> Christie's attention. And the media's.

Actually, if you are going to target - go after something like Leg Show.  
This magazine advocates sexuality based on "Milking" (masturbating men 
with gloved hands) and denying all reproductive rights.  If a woman wants 
to get pregnant, she can just milk the man and put it where it will do 
the most good.  When reduced to this level, one can see that the 
cornerstone of "punitive child-support" is completely invalid.

> The point of the "mancott," again, is to shine a light on men's issues, not
>  economically savage a magazine.

If the goal is to focus on men's issues, then those issues must be 
presented in a context that makes sense.  Attacking a men's magazine, 
paid for and intended for the entertainment of men, is like trying to 
have an Alcholics Anonymous Meeting at a Sports Bar.  The message gets 
lost.

> -Robert
> The Men's Internetwork Web site is at
>    http://www.webcom.com/tmi.com/

	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Fri Jan  5 03:32:45 1996