In-Reply-To: <960111014750_87740663@emout05.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On Thu, 11 Jan 1996 JoinTMI@aol.com wrote:

> Rex Ballard  wrote:
> 
> >By "Responsible Fatherhood", this would imply that the true determination of
> would be based not on "who shot the sperm"... 
> 
> ...or who "copped the sperm": it takes two to create a fetus.

It's a bit like the ham and egg dinner.  The chicken is involved, the pig 
is committed.  The man can leave his spawn and walk away.  He chooses to 
remain with the mother before, during and after the gestation for a 
variety of reasons.  Some men just choose not to stay.

> >...but on who was willing to take on the responsiblity for the care and
> protection of the mother and children.
> 
> You're assuming the mother-child bond is immutable. Why not ask who will
> support the father and child? As long as women want equal footing in the home
> and office, men should have the same.

No, I am simply acknowledging a cultural value that considers the role of 
the mother.  When men can gestate offspring, the burdon of proof of 
"maternity" will be on the mother.  Aside from "switched babies", the 
mother has very little difficulty proving that the child is hers.

A blood test can prove that you are not the father.  It can prove, with a 
high degree of mathmatical probability that you are the father.  The 
results are based on a match of recessive genes based on matching mother, 
child, and father's blood.  If the child has a dominant gene (like dark 
hair)  and the father has two recessive genes (like blond hair) he isn't 
the father.  The actual test is based on 36 different proteins, many of 
which are similar to "blond hair".  If the child has mostly dominant 
genes, and the mother does too, then it becomes more inconclusive.

Also, for proving paternity, you do have to get a blood sample from the 
mother.  This may or may not constitute forcing her to testify against 
herself.

> >The man who "quirts and runs" isn't a father...
> Nor is the "egg slut" who has a kid for kicks. Both men AND women can be
> irresponsible.

Men and women both choose to have children for some very strange 
reasons.  Sometimes a woman thinks she can get her boyfriend to marry her 
if he already has the "child support obligation" hanging over his head.  
Some men (mostly American Military and their children/grandchildren) want 
to have children as proof of manhood.  They don't consider it proof of 
manhood to actually raise and support the children.

The biggest difference is that even the "egg slut" has to go through 
prenancy and either labor or ceasarian delivery, sometimes both.  She 
must do it with or without support from husband/boyfriend.

Finally, the man who has sex without benefit of protection (condom or 
vasectomy) can never be certain that he isn't a father.  He also can't be 
certain that he is.

Much of the "Punitive" child-support and default-custody is based on the 
fundamental premise that sex is a sin, that leaving the family for any 
reason, including failure to spoil the mother rotten is a sin.  If this 
is so, shouldn't all "potential fathers pay the price?

> > or every man who squirts should contribute equally to the "support pool".
> As should "leg-spreading hussies." 

I have, on other forums suggested that all people treated for Sexually 
transmitted diseases should pay the "child support" fund.  In effect, we 
pay into this pool.  Unfortunately, there is no exemption for men who get 
vasectomies, men who stay virgins until marriage, or men who are faithful 
in their marriage.

> >>>Until men start carrying babies in their wombs this is one domain where
> men will not be equal.
> 
> >>That's like saying until black men have white skin, they won't be equal.
> We're talking about equality before the LAW, not physiology. Anatomy does not
> entail legal stances.  
> 
> >I am simply citing the basis upon which the legal precedents which 
> deprive men of the choice of fatherhood exist. 
> 
> Slavery had its precedents, too.

Physiology is a fundamental issue here.  Can a man FORCE a woman to have 
his child?  (I think not - that would require rape, kidnapping, and 
kidnapping the child).  The man cannot have a child without the consent 
of a woman.

Can a woman force a man to have his child?  The answer is yes.  All she 
has to do is take the used condom and "put it where it will do some good".

The degree of coercion required for forced parenthood is a function of 
physiology.  Neither an Equal Rights Amendment, nor a "Fathers Manefesto" 
is going to alter that fundamental issue.

> > Women want to have it both ways. 
> THE key point. Why are men letting them get away with it? Kids like candy. Do
> parents let them eat all they want?

Both men and women need to make one of the most difficult decisions they 
will ever make.  That is, who will be ultimately accountable for the 
children.  That is a decision which must be made before conception.  The 
existing system doesn't force anyone to make a decision until the judge 
makes a decision based on almost no solid evidence.

> >A man can choose not to copulate.
> As can a woman. So?
>
> >A man can choose to have a vasectomy.  
> 
> A woman can have her tubes tied, too.
> 
> >These are the only two ways that a man can choose not to be a father.  
> 
> As things are NOW...just like black lives were limited in the antebellum
> South.

The day men have the ultimate power to say "I will have sex and I will 
not become a father" is the day he will have choice in the matter of his 
fatherhood.

> There is nothing preventing us from making laws that say a man can choose to
> "paper abort" after he knows he might become a dad. That is, he can sign a
> paper, pre-or-post facto, saying he renounces all rights and responsibilities
> for the child.
> 
> And/or we can say unless women can get a man to willingly agree to become a
> father, she must abort.

What are you going to do, strap her to the table after handcuffing her to 
the bed so that you can force her to abort?  Not without some serious 
court proceedings.  The prisons can't even force a pregnant woman to 
abort her child after she has been convicted of a felony.  By the time 
the judicial proceedings and appeals are complete, the mother has already 
had her baby.  Roe vs. Wade was decided several years after the woman was 
strapped to the gurney, forced through labor, and her head was held to 
make sure she would never see her child.  She was then given a sedative 
against her will.  For several hours, the woman was a prisoner.

> We make laws, not Martians. What we want, we can make real.

We is a very large collective body that includes men and women of all 
races, creeds, and economic strata.  Do you honestly believe that you 
could get 2/3 of that "soup" to agree to forced childbearing so that you 
can take the baby after it is born?  Could you sue for custody the moment 
that conception is confirmed?  The decision must be made before the child 
is conceived.  The "default" decision is that the child is the mother's 
from the point of conception forward.  To alter that decision requires 
due process of law - hearings, advocates (lawyers), and appeals.  This is 
even true when social services takes a child away from a crack-addicted 
mother.  This is the primary justification for making drug abuse illegal.

> >If one is to say that "any man who chooses to copulate is implicitly
> responsible for any child conceived by that woman", then that responsibility
> should not be limited to the "Window" (24 hours after ejaculation).

The point here is that men often have unprotected sex with women, 
sometimes 10 or 20 times a month, and manage to come up negative on the 
blood test.  Sometimes the guy who "pokes her" 20 times/month walks off 
scott-free while some poor shmuck with a big wallet and blue balls ends 
up getting a "one night stand" that will cost him a half-million dollars 
payable in installments of $1700/month for 25 years.

At least of "Joe Stud" shows up in the "Free Clinic", he goes onto CDC 
records.  There are thousands of responsible men who have had procreative 
sex with only one woman, who often turns asexual once she is pregnant, 
and are expected to forfiet the half-million in after-tax child support.

> Or, he can have the same rights women have. As soon as she knows she's
> pregnant, she can abort. Or have the kid and make the man/state pay. Or give
> the kid away, and not owe support. Let men have 9 months, too, from the time
> they're told they could be a father to say whether they are "ready" for it.
> Then they can paper-abort, or have an equal chance at custody, or
> adoptioning.

Imagine a woman you cared about - mother, sister, daughter... discovering 
she is pregnant.  She wants an abortion but the father says "I don't want 
to marry you, but I expect you to have the child and give it to me when 
it's born".  If she tries to get the abortion, she will be arrested, 
confined to a place where she will be prevented from damaging the baby, 
and after a forced "natural child-birth" - she will be restrained from 
ever seeing her child again.

I believe the last man to engage in such practices was Dr. Mengala who 
would force-fertilize Jewish women and force them to carry the children 
to term before sending their mothers to the gas chambers.

> >If she doesn't want to have the baby, just try to keep that FETUS alive.
> 
> "Preemies" are surviving at younger and younger ages. Also, if the law said
> her body can be made to do certain things, like it does men's (the draft and
> support orders), she could be forced to bring the fetus to term.

Thank you Dr. Mengala!  Your support of the men's movement may be a bit 
of a liability when your views hit the general population.

> >If she wants to have the baby and you don't, just try to kill that FETUS
> without her consent.
> Again, if that were the law, as in China, it could be done. A better way is
> to give the man equal CHOICE.
>
> >Once you "squirt"...
> Why this contempt for male sex functions? It's "ejaculate."

Biologically, for the purposes of conception, there is very little 
difference between the net result of an ejaculation and sucking the sperm 
out of a condom with a turkey baster and "squirting" it into the cervix.
The male ejaculation and orgasm, coupled with the entire function of 
making love, seduction... is more for the man's benefit than for the 
woman's.  For almost two centuries, women weren't even allowed to have 
orgasm's during conception.

A good blindfold, a condom, and a hand-held massager, and a few 
restraints for as little as 15 minutes is all it takes to make a man a father.

> >... you no longer have a choice in the matter.  
> As things stand now. Yes. Like once you were born black, you had limited
> choices, too.

Up until the moment you secreted the first live sperm into the woman 
during your pre-ejaculatory lubrication, you had a choice.  From that 
moment on, the only way you can force her to bear the child is 
to chain her to the bed.  The only way you can force her to terminate the 
pregnancy against her will is to chain her to the bed.

Without a preconception contract, you have very little legal ground to 
stand on.  Even then, you can only use incentives and penalties, and the 
agreement might still be unenforceable in court.

> >You don't even have to squirt inside.  She can take your condom to the
> bathroom and fertilize herself while she "freshens up".
> Yes. She can "mop-up" your "squirt sauce" and "basterize' herself...(to be
> both technically precise and respectful).

> >Under the laws of the United States, you have NO reproductive rights as a 
> man.
> I know. I'm urging men to change laws.

It sounds to me like you are trying to get the entire nation to sanction 
rape, kidnapping, torture (forced natural child-birth can be extremely 
painful even when it is by consent), and forced medical/surgical 
procedures just so YOU can have the CHOICE to be a father without the 
need for a mother.  Do you want to force her to nurse the child too, for 
those important antibodies?

> >The father enters into a partnership.  When that partnership is disolved, 
> the partner who "sells out" (gives up his right to the future proceeds of 
> the business in exchange for exemption of debt or a cash settlment) has 
> no right to expect future proceeds from the partnership. 
> What if he's forced out of the business (divorced)? Does that entitle the
> other partner to all the assets, AND the business?

What I was implying here is that the mother who chooses to exclude the 
father and yet keep the child, has no RIGHT to child support.  It doesn't 
matter whether she makes that decision 10 minutes after conception or 
just before the kids enter college.  If she wants child support, it is 
her responsiblity to create a basis for the father to GIVE her that 
support, voluntarily.  As a gift, that support would be tax-deductable as 
well.

> >An alternative to disolving the partnership is to move from a general
> partnership to a limited partnership.  In this scenario, the active partner
> can use the limited liability (investment) of the passive partner as long as
> he provides an incentive (dividend) or comparable equity value in the new 
> corporation.
> Yes. As long as the choices are free. But how many men freely choose to be
> only visitors to their children, not dads?

Most divorces filed in the U.S. today are "uncontested".  The father has 
been phyically, emotionally, and sexually abused to such an extent that 
he is willing to let her have the divorce.  Sometimes the father is just 
selfish or has found comfort elsewhere.  The main difference between the 
battered wife and the abused husband is that the scars don't show.  Blue 
Balls can be incredibly painful, and there are no physical marks.

> >In the same way, a mother who wishes to disolve the partnership of marriage,
> could only expect child support by encouraging the father to continue to take
> an active role in the lives of his children.
> 
> Or he could have her pay him, and he'd let her "visit."

That is a choice she could make.  A mother who genuinely wants what is 
best for her children might actually be willing to give her husband 
primary physical custody - voluntarily - if she new she wasn't going to 
automatically get child support or alimony like it was her "Right".  If 
she knew that she would be "on her own" with or without the children, she 
might seriously consider letting the father have custody.

In most cases of uncontested divorce where the mother gives custody to 
the father, it is generally because she does have a risk of losing either 
child-support or custody based on provable fraud, felonies, or addictions.

(Yes, there is method to my madness :-).

> >Suddenly you would see women doing everything they could to make sure that
> daddy gets to see the kids as much as possible.
> But you're still giving her the upper-hand: she the real parent, he the NCP.
> Did women settle for being senatorial pages and corporate secretaries?

I am giving her the right to make an informed and responsible choice.  
She can give her husband custody, keep the kids and give generous 
visitation, or keep the kids and find a "father" instead of a "lover" as 
a subsequent husband.  Would men be so eager to be her "lover" if they 
knew that they would have to be financially responsible for her children?

> > The injustice is that men are forced to assume responsibility for a
> fundamental choice that they had no role in making.
> Exactly!



> >This does give rise to the selfish man who would impregnate a woman, and
> throw her, and her child, onto the street when she was no longer attractive,
> desirable, or wanted.
> 
> I disagree. There are many reasons why people do what they do. Look at young
> women who find older (MONIED) men attractive. Or use sex to get what THEY
> want.  

I do volunteer work with alcholics.  It is sad to see a woman who has 
made her way through life on her good looks lose the looks and end up 
destitute.  They can't even find a place in the red-cross shelters.  New 
York City is filled with women who are secretaries and students by day 
and strippers by night.   It's how they can afford the Manhatten Rent.

On the other hand, much of this "living on the looks" would be less 
popular if the woman new that she wan't going to automatically get what 
she wanted in terms of child support or alimony.

> >The current law allows a woman to throw a man out onto the street when she
> no longer finds him attractive, desirable, or wanted.  Then she has the full
> right, under protection of "Social Services" (SS) laws, to enslave the man by
> taking so much of his income that he only has enough to live in poverty
> conditions.
> 
> Yep. And men let this happen. Male legislators made the laws, and male judges
> enforce them, and Joe Sixpack didn't give a hoot. Until he's shown the door
> by his Better Half.

Since the passage of the Sufferage Amendment, male politicians have been 
made acutely aware of the issues of women.  In the 1900's through the 
1930's women focust intensely on protecting women from abusive 
drunkards.  Politians passed Prohabition, they created the alimony and 
child-support programs, they created public schools for boys and girls.  
During the 1940s these educated women were very effective in the 
munitions plants, making war machinary.  In the 1950's, they were asked 
to give up their "war plant jobs" in exchange for marriages which 
"guaranteed" them a life of comfort and security.

By the 1960's, women wanted control of their sexuality.  They wanted to 
be respected even when they weren't "virgins" anymore.  They rioted in 
the streets, next to the men, as police beat them to a bloody pulp.  They 
marched for civil rights, they marched to end the war in vietnam, they 
marched to end human suffering.

In the 1970's, women of the "baby boom" were going to college and 
establishing careers instead of getting married.  The lower class women 
were coming to high school pregnant, but they were finishing high school.

In the 1980's women could no longer make a case for alimony.  Many women 
were making almost as much as their husbands at various points during 
their marriages.  They were having children that could be spoiled rotten 
in licensed day-care by two-income families.  There was no longer 
justification for Alimony, but why should the kids suffer.  Even though 
the lobbyists were funded by middle-class women, they made their case by 
referencing the undereducated underpaid women of the "Blue Collar" 
culture.  

By carefully drafting the laws, they were able to not only 
raise a man's taxes by 120%, but they were also able to take 60-70% of 
his income in what appeared to be a "fair" settlement requesting a mere 
20-25% of his income.  The men, unaware of the impending dramatic tax 
increase and the cost of domestic services, would agree to uncontested 
divorces.  The alternative was to add legal expenses which would take all 
but 10% of his income.  A man making $85,000/year could be forced to 
live on an income of less than $9000/year.  At least the "uncontested 
divorce" left him with $18,000/year.

Ironically, this automatic doubling of taxes became an incentive to 
encouraging divorce.  Politicians and Beaurocrats of the 1990s have made 
careers out of "protecting" highly educated women from their negligent 
husbands under the pretense of protecting impoverished women from 
abusive drunkards.

Only in the last 24 months has the concept of a responsible productive 
man, who has spent most of his life training and working, obeying the 
laws, and paying his taxes, and living in near poverty, caused 
politicians to rethink the entire issue of divorce.  As one force calls 
for the imprisonment of "Dead Beat Dads", the voice of men who would be 
targets - along with the threat of loss of the tax revenue (if I'm in 
jail, I can't pay my $40,000 in taxes and $15,000 in child support, can 
I?) as stirred the politicians into rethinking the whole strategy of
creating these economic disincentives.

> >If a man spends 16-18 years working overtime, training himself, schooling
> himself, disciplining himself, enduring the lonliness and solitude required
> to train himself in a lucrative career.  A woman, with little more than a
> leaky condom, can force that man to submit the majority of his after-tax
> earnings to her with less than 10 months of "work".
> Yes. The best career move for a woman is to date a male 3rd year Harvard Law
> School student. Then not get married, just pregnant. When the child is born,
> she'll live a rich lawyer's  wife's life...without the lawyer.

Actually, a lawyer is a bad target.  He won't be intimidated by the legal 
fees (professional courtesy).  Better targets are engineers, accountants,
middle-managers, bankers, stockbrokers, or men working in the insurance 
industry.  They make good money, they can't fight back, and their 
corporate culture requires that they "pay their bills".

> >The only thing that can distinguish the two is "Due Process".  A hearing  in
> which all parties are able to state the relevant facts, call witnesses, and
> cross-examine the witnesses called by the opponant.
> To whit: making marriage harder to get into...and out of.
> >By circumventing the "Due Process" through "No Fault Divorce"..
> No-fault has come to mean HIS FAULT.

It's not her fault that she fell in love with another man.  It's not her 
fault that he wasn't willing to sleep on the couch so his wife could boff 
her boyfriend, it's not the boyfriend's fault that he fell in love with 
her and want's to marry her.  And we CERTAINLY don't want the kids to 
suffer, so we should take at least 20% of the father's income (50% of his 
after-witholding pay).  Of course, he should pay for health insurance, 
life insurance, and other expenses (day-care, car-pool, college...) in 
addition to the support.

> >I am not speculating on what "Could Be".  I am stating "What's so".  
> We KNOW what is so. Unless you change that, you will be aware of your pain,
> but unable to stop it.

If you want to block and counterpunch, you have to see how your opponant 
strikes.  Knowing the rationale behind the current law gives one the 
ability to use that rationale to lead to a different solution.

The "Declaration of Independence" built on the principles of the Magna 
Carta.  Revolutions in countries who did not have the principles of the 
Magna Carta as a cultural cornerstone ultimately resulted in overthrowing 
the imperial governer and replacing him with a dictator-general.

> >Under current law....
> We all KNOW that. Some of us think it's not enough to know your ass is being
> kicked. You've got to stop the kicker.

> >The natural father can be enjoine from visitation with a simple statement -
> provided by a licensed social worker - that visitation with the natural
> father is not in the best interests of the child.  No formal evidence is
> required.

Would the social worker be so eager to sanction these restrictions if 
they knew that the father would reduce his child support?

> Just like with restraining orders.

Maybe we could get the judge to think twice if he the petitioner had to 
prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a later hearing that the restraining 
order was justified.  If the father could not be compelled to pay child 
support, mom might consider letting him see the kids in a more public 
situation.

> >As a result, "In the best interests of the child", the mother is not held 
> accountable for her own choices, decisions, and actions.
> Because men have not shown they are good for children like women have shown
> they're good for business.

The question of accountability is one of making choices and being 
responsible for the consequences.  If mom chooses to drop out of school, 
chooses to stay home to be with the kids, and then chooses to divorce her 
husband and chooses to prevent as much visitation as possible, she should 
be responsible for the consequenses.  If her children suffer, that is HER 
responsibility.  If she really wants to make sure that the kids are given 
the best possible life, she will either give the kids back to daddy or 
marry a man who is MORE responsible, productive, and willing to support 
her children.

> >Under the laws of Matrimony, a marriage contract can be unilaterally broken
> by the natural mother with no consideration of that abrigation given to the
> father.
> Because men put up with it.

Because we have almost 100 years of mother as "victim of the drunkard 
husband" ingrained into the culture.

> >> There is a fourth choice: she gives care of her children over to the
> state...and pays child support.
> >Actually, this would fall under the function of catagory C.... The
> fundamental choice of HOW the children are provided for becomes that of the
> mother.
> Yes.
> 
> >She could even choose to grant custody to the father.
> 
> Again, why does she have the upper hand to begin with? Why can she "grant"
> anything?

Again, it is unrealistic to try and convice legislative, executive, and 
judicial branches that the woman isn't ultimately responsible.  The 
moment you argue for an automatic paternal custody, you have the 
opposition showing the scenario of the doctor pulling the baby out of the 
mother's womb, handing it to the father, and having the father serve his 
wife while she is being stitched back together after the apesiotomy.

> >> Another cause (of Fatherlessness): men doing nothing as feminists
> succeeded where Hitler failed...making children wards for the state (via
> custody awards to women on AFDC/WIC/etc. and child-support enforcement
> agencies).
> 
> >Actually, this is very prophetic.  Hitler had his "SS", we have our "SS"
> ..."Social Services". These agencies have been given powers unprecedented
> since the Gestapo and the KGB. The amazing thing is that the targets are
> MIDDLE CLASS MEN. 
> 
> The more amazing thing is the guys take it! 

There seem to be those in this group who would advocate committing 
felonies and putting themselves in contempt of court.  Roe didn't get the 
abortion ruling in Roe vs. Wade by getting the coat-hanger abortion in a 
back-alley and then fighting the felony charge all the way to the supreme 
courte.  She had to bear the child, let it be whisked away, never to be 
seen again, and THEN she could sue the state for her invasion of privacy 
and slavery.

You don't alter the thinking of Judges, Legislators, Governers and 
Presidents by committing felonies, arresting judges and sherrifs, and 
refusing to pay child support in open contempt of court.  You alter the 
thinking of these people by enduring - responsibly, the injustice.  As 
the legal system watches you, they are willing to listen.

> >I am one of the 1% of 1% of all NCPs who not only has his child support 
> "paid in full to date", but also pays the full mandated amount in addition to
> some extras.
> Actually, most NCP's are paid in full, and most overpay. 

In on almanac, based on 1990 census figures, about 90% of all fathers 
were in arrears on child support.

> >Once the pregnancy was confirmed, she refused sex for 3 years...
> Why didn't you dump her?

She pointed out to me, in front of a licensed social worker, that she 
could and would go after 2/3 of my after tax income.  The therapist 
confirmed that she would probably get it too.

> > [She]...was verbally, emotionally, physically, and sexually abusive....
> Why didn't you call the cops?

Let's just say that her tactics also included blackmail and extortion.  I 
did seek support on several occaisions.  It was only when she was having 
an affair in the presence of an entire ward full of social workers, and 
they saw her publicly humiliate me, that they advised me to get out of 
the marriage, even if it cost the child support.

> >On several occaisions, when I was getting frustrated with the abuse, we 
> would go in for "Marriage Counciling", where an MSW would remind me that 
> if I didn't like the situation I could give her 2/3 of my pretax income 
> (leaving me with about enough for a flop-house room).
> And where was the "men's movement"?

I had attended lectures by Warren Farrell as early as 1974.  In those 
days, he pointed out that women wanted "wallets".  It was inconcievable 
to me that I would actually become some woman's "wallet".

When I got married, I actually expected to spend the rest of my life with 
the woman.  My grandparents had been married almost 75 years.  My parents 
were married almost 30 (now 40).  Her parents had been married for many 
years.  The prospect of actually paying her a major portion of my salary 
while she lived with another man didn't seem possible until after Jerry 
(her new husband) proposed marriage.

> >Only about 200 years ago, women were put to death for being midwives. 
> You mean "midpersons." 
Actually, it was O.K. for a man (doctor or priest) to assist a woman 
through labor.  For a woman to be a midwife, it was a capital crime.

> >A woman who didn't please her husband would find herself in the
> inquisitioner's "chair of nails", until she "willingly confessed to
> consorting with the devil" and was "mercifully" burned at the stake.There
> weren't many women asking for divorce in those days.
> 
> Bring back the GOOD OLD DAYS!

Watch it!  You could lose you vote real quickly.

> >In Arkansas, under Governer Bill Clinton, the Department of Social 
> Services put out "Bounties" for the delivery of "Dead Beat Dads"...
> But not Visitation Viragos?

No profit in it.

> >These Bounty Hunters, not regulated by the constitution, often resorted to
> aggrivated assault, kidnapping, entrapment, and torture in hopes of
> collecting the 20% of someone's "back child support".
> Men let themselves be abused. Is it a wonder they then are, even by people
> claiming to be "nurturing"?

Life is full of difficult choices.  Do I pay the child support or become 
a pan-handler on the subways of New York?  Do I pay the child support or 
pay twice the amount in legal fees to get it reduced?  How do I raise 
$250,000 in legal fees to fight for custody?  What assurance to I have 
that I might actually win?  Who would I find to handle the 
responsibilities that Leslie originally had?  If I have to reduce my 
hours and overtime, will I lose my job?  Those are the question every man 
confronted by divorce must answer.  If he doesn't ask himself, his lawyer 
will.  If his lawyer doesn't, the judge will.

> >...many deliquent fathers will be quietly "escorted" from the polling places
> within seconds of signing their names on the polling line.  They may be
> picked up before they even cast their vote.
> Probably.
> 
> >The new Republican president, campaining on a platform of "Family Values"
> will round up the remaining "deadbeat dads", using credit cards, W4 forms,
> and DMV records to locate them.  They will be sent to the "work 
> camps" to spend the rest of their lives as "middle class slaves".
> 
> And the non-moving men's movement will, once again, sink to the occasion, and
> slink from their aid.

You will have to enroll more that just a few responsible, divorced, NCP 
fathers to alter the situation.  You will have to come up with a 
conversation that inspires married men, single men, estranged (but still 
single) mothers who would like to have a responsible husband, and single 
women who are willing to be responsible for their actions, to join and 
support the cause.

> >The men's movement has less than 3 months to organize.  
> 
> It will take them 30 years just to decide on a GOAL!

I don't think "Ending Fatherlessness" by forcing women to give up their 
newborn babies because daddy wants the baby is going to be an empowering 
goal.  Piggybacking on the principles of "responsibility and 
accountability" contained in the "Contract with America" might be more
widely accepted.

> >By the time the 1996 presidential primaries are started, most of the
> convention delegates will be chosen for their "Family Values" (a generally
> negative attitude toward "dead-beat-dads and welfare-moms").  The platforms
> of both parties will include euphemisms for concentration camps.  The
> Democrats will use feminist rhetoric.  The Republicans will use "Family
> Values" rhetoric.
> 
> I agree. I've been saying this for years. But I couldn't interest men's
> groups 4 years ago, and can't now. Men are idiots. They only rise up to pull
> each other down.

Especially when you call them Idiots. :-).

> >> Being afraid to be attacked by the enemy guarantees you'll never act.
> 
> >We are in the middle of a two-front war.  On the religeous right {they] can
> hold a constitutional convention as early as 1999 to draft a new constitution
> to become effective before the year 2000.
> 
> What's the other front - Feminizm?

Yes.  The feminist left that would like to see marriage reduced to a 
"coupon" complete with "expiration date".  That would like to have all 
males blood-tested and compared against all potenial children (using CDC 
records) and forcing those nice men to pay their back child support.

> What's the solution? Men talk. They won't act. They tie themselves to train
> tracks. When you tell them the train is 100-50-10-5 miles away, they won't
> budge. When the train is a mile away, they sleep. Even when it's hurtling at
> them within eyesight, they not only won't budge, they waste their last
> breaths berating YOU for trying to wake them. 

Men, especially a segment of the male population that only reflects 5% or 
less, of the general population, are not likely to stop that train.  
Talking to the signalman will make a difference.  Convincing him that it 
is in his best interest to make sure that the train doesn't hit that man 
makes a difference.  Convincing the man that if he gets off the tracks 
and gets on the train he will get some benefit.  All of these things will 
make a difference.

> Idiots!

That doesn't make a difference.

You do know how to make friends don't you. :-)

> -Robert
> 

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



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Jan 23 22:39:44 1996