In-Reply-To: <960105191229_32972974@mail06.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Fri, 5 Jan 1996 JoinTMI@aol.com wrote:

> Rex Ballard  wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Excellent point!
> 
> >> Yet, as odd as it seems, many men in this non-moving movement STILL want
> to be nice and polite and ineffective.
> 
> >I consistantly post content that is polite AND effective. 
> 
> EFFECTIVE? In what way? Did your posts stop the VAW act? Deadbeat dadism?
> What? Do you consider appearing on the Net, in itself, being "effective"? 

Actually, the day Clinton publicly declared that he was going to "Go 
after dead-beat-dads", I posted an article on usenet news in the 
net.child-support group.  Since this is a frequently used resource for 
both policy makers and reporters alike.  My posting became fadder for the 
press, and Clinton was encouraged to "back down" from his stance.  I am 
virtually anonymous, which makes the effectiveness of my arguments even 
more powerful.  I have had proposals championed by both Republicans and 
Democrats.

Since 1938, the government has relied on "think tanks" to help formulate 
public policy.  These think tanks often use usenet as a resource.  The 
rantings of extremists are quickly and easily dismissed.  The postings of 
someone who can articulate the major concerns of both sides of an issue 
and create a position that addresses and acknowledges both, cannot be 
ignored, lest either side adopt it as theirs exclusively.

> Okay. Then I'm the King of Siam because I wish it, too. 

Power is a function of sustaining a network of conversations.  I exist as 
a phantom, an e-mail address that spews contriversial propositions.  Only
my credit card confirms my identity.  Because there is no "Me", no ego to 
protect, no addiction to being "Right" (I can spend several hours 
reviewing dozens of different positions before I write my proposals).

> >I even consider myself a "Feminist".
> You have my condolences.   

I don't subsribe to the view that "all men are slime and should be put in 
holding pens between breeding sessions".  I do recognize that we have 
made male role models out of violence, aggression, gratuitous sex, and 
irresponsible behavior including alcoholism, drug addiction, and abuse of 
women and children.

If you consider the "Rambo/James Bond" male role model to be a desirable 
one, I'm not sure it would be a good idea for you to be around children, 
let alone a good idea to give you sole custody.

On the other hand, there are a substantial number of men who have adopted 
values of responsibility, integrity, sobriety, and compassion.  These are 
the guys who stayed up until late at night to complete their homework on 
a friday night, rather than go out drinking with the guys.  If they 
played sports, it was strictly recreational, with the real emphasis being 
on scientific, artistic, and cultural persuits.  These men often served 
is volunteers, helping the homeless, the destitute, or the 
underprivelidged.

There are men who worked their 40-50 hour/week job, came home, cooked 
dinner, gave the kids their baths, read them a story, and put them to bed 
while mom took a well deserved breather.  In some cases, mom worked and
dad worked shorter hours for lower pay so that he could pick the kids up 
from Day-Care.

> >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.
> 
> Agreed. Provided, of course, that the man has an equal opportunity to have
> sole custody.

Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are the only possible 
father.  Can you prove that you are the only man who could ever have 
committed the act of inseminating your wife?  Can you prove this without 
forcing her to testify against herself (her blood samples, the blood 
samples of a child she can easily prove his her "flesh and blood")?
You would have a hard time proving even by "A preponderance of the evidence"
that you have a more valid claim as parent based on biology.

Let's assume that you can prove that you are the biological parent.  Next 
you would have to prove that the natural mother (who delivered the child 
in front of a medical staff of witnesses and has birth-certificates, 
insurance claims, and medical bills to prove she is the mother) isn't fit 
to keep her own child.  Can you prove that she should be separated from 
her own child (Lincoln wrote a powerful paper against slavery based on 
the inhumanity of forcing a woman to give her child up on the auction block).

From the moment that child is delivered until it reaches the age where 
the court determines that the child can make it's own decision, the state 
must prove that the mother is unfit to be a mother before it can revoke 
her maternal rights.  The state is extremely reluctant to find in favor 
of the father unless they can prove that the mother is unfit.

Suppose that you can create enough evidence to warrent the state revoking 
the parental rights of the mother.  Now you must prove that you are the 
most qualified candidate for guardianship.  Is there anything that the 
mother can use against you to indicate that you might be less than the 
"ideal dad" (that time you hit her in a fit of anger a month before she 
filed papers).  She might accuse you of neglect (you spend all those 
hours at work...), or abandonment (so why didn't he stop me from taking 
the kids), or kidnapping (he kidnapped the kids and refused to turn them 
over to their natural mother).  You have just convinced the court that 
she is unfit to be a mother.  Do you expect her endorsement now?

> >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.
> 
> Why "encouraged"? Are men who owe child support "encouraged"? Or forced?

Last I heard, no state was forcing men who were behind in child support to 
marry unwed mothers (how would you like to pick your next wife from a 
"lottery").  There may be a shortage of responsible men out there (my 
interest is protecting the reponsible men from exploitation, not granting 
drunkards and "party boys" carte blanche to "breed and run").

The woman's child support should be structured to encourage her to find a 
responsible father or support structure.  This might include tuition at 
the local community college or even the state university (as a 
tax-deductable gift).  Even if the father only provides room, board, and 
day-care for a limited time (2-4 years), this is enough time for the 
mother to either become self-sufficient, marry a responsible father, or
create an effective partnership which includes the natural father as a
full partner in the children's lives.  Compulsery child-support and tax 
exclusions which cause a man to forfiet 70% (or more) of his income for 
20 years is tantamount to putting him in prison for 14 years.  To 
compound that, you can put him in prison if he misses payments - for the 
full 20 years.  If the man killed his wife, he would get a sentence of 20 
years, be eligible for parole in 7 years, and could get time-off for good 
behavior.

> >Notice, making a target of irresponsible men and women makes the issue 
> one of responsibility rather than one of gender.
> Note further: even David Blankenhorn thinks men irresponsible.
> (Did feminists ever demand an Equal RESPONSIBILITIES Amendment?)

The ERA lost support when, during the Vietnam war, it was pointed out 
that women might be eligible for the draft.  Women wanted an equal chance 
at promotion in the military - until they were confronted with the 
expectation that they volunteer for combat assignments.  Pat Shroeder was 
ridiculed by feminist when she advocated "paternity leave" (I had to take 
2 days of vacation when my son was born.  I was taken off a project when I 
requested the week after my daughter's birth, a woman on the group was 
put in my position after being away for 6 weeks).

The legitimacy of feminism is contingent on the stand that women are 
responsible for the freedoms they exercise.  A woman can choose to have a 
career, she is responsible for that choice.  A woman can choose to bear 
children, she is responsible for that choice.  A woman can choose to 
divorce the father of her children.  She is responsible for that choice.

The feminist would counter.  Isn't the father who chooses to divorce the 
mother of his children also responsible for his choice?  The answer is 
yes.  To what degree is each responsible?  This would require a hearing, 
mediation, or a similar series of disclosures.  The man, and the woman, 
have the right to "due process".  The notion of no-fault divorce has left 
hard-working responsible men homeless and has left dedicated wives and 
mothers living on welfare.  A man who has lots of money can pay 
psychiatrists to testify that his wife is crazy.  The man who is 
extremely poor and can work "off the books" can collect unemployment or 
disability income while earning slightly more than he would if he had to 
pay taxes and child-support.

> >...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.
> 
> Still takes a passive pose: "Sit here, Jakes. I'm sure consumers will seek us
> out and by our products. No need to advertise."

Where do you think those "Tabloid Talk Shows" get their material?  Where 
do you think 60 minutes looks for the source of an interesting and 
contriversial story?  If you want to know what's going to be on Oprah 
next week, read soc.women tonight.

An exlusive mailing list doesn't get much readership.

> >Actually, men read quite a bit. 
> 
> Not as much as women. Even on the Net, women have more sites, and more sites
> with mega-"hits."

Men tend to read more non-fiction, hard facts, statistics, and career 
oriented materials.  Women tend to read more humanities oriented 
liturature, novels, romance stories, explanitory articles, features...

> >They also write.  They post articles on mailing lists, they post to usenet
> news-groups. 
> If sports or beer are involved, yes.

That is the kind of thinking that gives feminazis a good name :-).

> > Politicians respond to fresh ideas and concepts very powerfully. 
> Dream on. If what you say were true, feminism would be unknown.

Feminism among polititians has been fed by soc.women for about 15 years 
now, back when it was net.women.  Cheryl@cornel and a lady who liked 
"lime jello" provided many interesting discussions which led to planks on 
both the Democrat and Republican platforms.

> > Pressure tends to move them against whatever forces apply the pressure.
> Is that why there are no lobbyists?

A good lobbyist knows better than to "push" with threats and strong-arm 
tactics.  Many lobbists source the net for arguments that will have 
politicians wanting to take their side.  The whole "dead-beat-dad" thing 
started on the net.

> >Things are changing now. 
> Things are ALWAYS changing. And not always for the better.
> >As you read this, many others read it too.  Many eyes are silent.  Many
> advise Presidents and Congressmen.
> 
> Yes. And if we think good thoughts, and clap our hands, why things are BOUND
> to be better!
> (Why the endlessly passive pose?)
O.K. do it your way, send letter bombs (how about unabombs) to the 
white-house, congress, newspapers, and media types demanding that they 
stop spreading feminazi propaganda and start covering the plight of "poor 
innocent men".

The fact is that 5 talk shows have responded to posting on this list on 
national television.  One had a show about men who empregnated more than 
2 sisters.  Another had a show about men who got the women pregnant, 
while living/married.. to another woman.

The New Years "ultimatum" show had 5 women giving their husbands 
ultimatums to "get a job or you're out".  The one man who gave his wife 
an ultimatum to "loose weight or else" was boo'd for 5 minutes.  His wife
gave him an ultimatum to "shut your mouth - or else", to which the crowd 
stood cheering.  How would you like to argue your custody battle to that 
jury?

> >Ciberspace, especially public news-groups, is a powerful vehicle for 
> influencing thought.  Where do you thing the "Father's Manefesto" came 
> from?  
> What impact do you think the Manifesto is having on public policy? Zilch!

Actually, the Manefesto has resulted in a substantial counterattack.  The 
media has doubled his coverage of "squirt and run low-lifes" (mostly 
black, hispanic, or lower-class white - the kind who only wear suits to 
funerals).

The supporting articles, based on the father's web page stories will 
probably be dramatized, turned into made for TV movies, and integrated 
into soap-operas.  Already an estranged father has "nobly rescued" his 
ex-wife who was about to be sent to prison (by volunteering to serve as 
her custodian).  It was shown during "The blizzard of '96" and had a 
nice, larger than usual audience.

> >The original discussion started on alt.child-support, in response 
> to Bill Clinton's first "Let's go after the dead-beat-dad" speech.

> And note how quickly deadbeat dadism ended. Why Gov. Wilson not only stopped
> running for prez, he gave monies to women's groups, and took licenses away
> from dads. Wow! Cyber-jabber IS powerful. 

You change public policy slowly, through identifying weaknesses in 
traditional arguments and identifying potiential injustices.  The SDS and 
the weathermen tried to end war by blowing up powerstations and 
organizing riots.  When 4 students were shot by national guardsmen at 
Kent State, those "punks" suddenly became people.  The deaths of 4 people 
made people realize that young people - just like the ones that died at 
Kent State, were being asked to stand in front of armed soldiers, to 
defend a country that would have been an enemy of democracy under 
different circumstances.

> >....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.
> The result? A collective cultural yawn.

Not exactly.  More like a slow, gradual shift in the coverage of 
estrangement from focus exclusively on the "squirt & run drunken bum" and 
the "daddy warbucks trading in his old hag for a new 'trophy wife'" to more
stories of responsible men trying to see their kids, trying to make the 
support payments under extreme hardship, or just being supportive of the 
ex-wife.

The soaps and the media are starting to create new characters - 
responsible men who take care of their wives and children even when the 
divorce has taken it's toll.

> >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.
> yeah, yeah. Sure. Anything you say. Manifestos uber alles!

Which would make more sense.  A "hate campaign, boycott (girlcott) of 
playboy, and a bunch of frustrated nerds trading sob stories at the 
"electronic bar", or engaging in a full-fledged two-sided discussion 
under the curious eye of hundreds of influencial spectators?

We can agree with each other and let the rest of the world see us as 
another bunch of "men's encounter group junkies" or we can generate 
agreement with a much larger audience, integrating their feedback into a 
consensus.

> -Robert

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



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Jan 10 01:08:05 1996