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


On Thu, 4 Jan 1996, John Knight wrote:

> http://idt.liberty.com/~fathers9/home.htm
> 
> Gary Clark  wrote:
> 
> >>Why does it seem that 150k feminists outspend millions of NRA members?  
> 
> >The reason it seems that 150k feminists are so big is because of the level 
> of public NOISE they constantly generate. That's why I keep harping that 
> what we need to do is generate even more public NOISE and we need to do so 
> taking the same sort of "stance of moral outrage" that they have been 
> taking for so long. 

Actually it's simpler than that.  The two most politically dangerous 
groups are the elderly and the unemployed woman.  Each has a significant 
amount of spare time to spend fund-raising, conciousness-raising or just 
heck-razing.  For centuries women "bartered" while men toiled for 
currency.

Intersting isn't it.  When the equation of who should pay what portion of 
the child-support, the mother's share only includes "on-the-books" 
payments.  There is no attempt to include the value of doing the laundry, 
taxi-service, organizational skills... Unless of course she wants Alimony.

> Amen, brother. 
> Yet, as odd as it seems, many men in this non-moving movement STILL want to
> be nice and polite and ineffective. They think the media peripheral to
> change. They don't want to be called "misogynists" by feminists who consider
> ANYTHING anti-female they disagree with.

I consistantly post content that is polite AND effective.  I even 
consider myself a "Feminist".  I also recognize that their is a 
fundamental violation of the law of "Cause and Effect" in the domain of 
the fundamental relationships within the family.

If a woman wants to be totally responsible for the consequences of her 
actions, can provide a reasonable body of evidence to justify excluding 
the father, and can be responsible for all aspects of supporting the 
child physically, spiritually, and emotionally - she should do so.

If a woman wants to force the father of her child into economic slavery, 
exclude him from the family he is supporting, and commit herself to
an irresponsible man who will drink her AFDC check or turn her WIC cheese 
into hors'dovres for the poker party, she should be encouraged to take 
responsibility for her choices and seek responsible partners.

Notice, making a target of irresponsible men and women makes the issue 
one of responsibility rather than one of gender.

> >We need to issue press releases on a regular basis...
> 
> That presumes (1) an interest in the media and (2) a task force to regularly
> monitor same.

Actually, upgrading this conversation to a news-group would put it into 
public archives which could easily be searched.  In addition, digests can 
be put onto web servers.

> > and we need to find ways to get more masculist-oriented books written, 
> published and in the book stores.

> Men don't read. They should, but they don't. Ergo, there is no pressure for
> publishers to publish our views. Women, on the other hand, DO read. So
> publishers, like media and politicians, respond to pressure.

Actually, men read quite a bit.  They also write.  They post articles on 
mailing lists, they post to usenet news-groups.  Politicians respond to 
fresh ideas and concepts very powerfully.  Pressure tends to move them 
against whatever forces apply the pressure.

> The day men decide to ACT, to exert pressure (in all the ways latter-day men
> found COULD be exerted by PR, propaganda, public speaking, persuasion,
> marketing and advertising), that will be the day things will start changing.

Things are changing now.  As you read this, many others read it too.  
Many eyes are silent.  Many advise Presidents and Congressmen.

> Until then, cyberspace will be filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing
> more than quasi-articulate impotence.

Ciberspace, especially public news-groups, is a powerful vehicle for 
influencing thought.  Where do you thing the "Father's Manefesto" came 
from?  The original discussion started on alt.child-support, in response 
to Bill Clinton's first "Let's go after the dead-beat-dad" speech.  A 
posting, pointing out that the "Dead-beat-dad" was actually the one who 
was being most responsible (admitting paternity, contributing during the 
marriage, committing what was available after the marriage...) and that 
the real "Dead-Beats" might be the men who had unprotected sex with 
multiple women, or the men who shared accomodations "off the books" with 
divorced mothers while collecting disability for drug addiction or 
alcholism.

Of course, the down-side of such forums is that the conversation is open 
to a much broader spectrum of potential critics.  Learn to handle there 
cross-examination and you can alter the world.

> -Robert
> Gary Clark

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




From rballard@cnj.digex.net Fri Jan  5 12:56:58 1996