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



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


On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, John Knight wrote:

> Dear Ken,
> 
> I share your views below, and would like to add one item -- I would 
> attend any meeting at this point, but would far prefer that we utilize 
> this Internet media to formulate a GOAL first.
> 
> It bothers me more than anything else that so many men with so much time
> in the trenches can't, won't, or refuse to articulate a goal.  Even

There have been several attempts to articulate goals which will have an 
impact on a wide spectrum of men.  There have been several attempts to 
define a stream of thinking that will empower men to make more powerful 
choices, and empower women to be responsible for their choices.

A fundamental agreement is that, under the current system, women make 
choices, often selfishly, and the expect men to be responsible for the 
consequences of choices the man had minimal role in taking.

Women often portray themselves as innocent victims of stereotypical men.  
This enables them to avoid being responsible for their own choices and 
actions.  The woman who goes to a biker-bar, finds a couple of drunk 
bikers, and goes home with the winner of the fight, suddenly becomes an 
innocent victim when he hits her.  All other men are guilty by 
association.

The woman who marries a man who has worked his way through college, built 
up a profession, and has learned to be responsible in both his 
lifestyles, and in his fiscal matters, is given the RIGHT to turn this 
man into a "White Collar Slave".  He has to work for many hours of his 
life, is expected to provide the bulk of the support for the wife and 
children, and is expected to expect nothing in return.  A man who comes 
home from a 16 hour day at work and expects love, sex, or even a few kind 
words is a CHAUVANIST PIG.

A woman who chooses to use sex to attract a man and get his lifetime 
commitment and then "cuts him off" the minute she knows she's pregnant is 
just being a "good mother".  The "Good Father" is supposed to work double 
shifts to support the family.  If the woman works, she's entitled to keep 
what she earns.  The man is entitled to keep only what is left after all 
of the other obligations are met, including the brand-new car for the 
wife and the 3 bedroom house "for the kids", and of course any urges his 
shopaholic wife might have.  He can bring the "doggy bags" to work with 
him.

> attempts to debate this issue to arrive at even the most milquetoast goal
> possible resulted in insults, flames, divisive language, character
> assassination, calls for meetings about the meetings, calls for men who
> aren't fathers in other countries which don't even he divorce to take
> charge, BUT NO GOAL. 

Welcome to the real world!  If you can't create a possibility in this, 
highly structured, highly organized communication structure, how to you 
expect to win the support of 100 million males, 1/2 of which have not 
become fathers, haven't been through a divorce, still want to get 
married, got "let off the hook" by one or more ex-es, and haven't paid a 
penny in child support (because they don't have to).

The Alimony/Child support is the tip of a very large iceberg.

> I proposed "Eliminate Fatherlessness" as a simple, non-confrontational 
> goal, and only ONE man stood up for this, and he is not the most visible 
> icon for the movement.

It is a goal that appeals to a relatively small segment of the 
population, and draws fire from substanial opposition.  It sounds like 
you want the courts to just "turn the kids over to papa", let mom prove 
she is worthy of getting to visit the children that have been her major 
focus for 5-10 years.

> Why have a meeting without a goal?  We could use the FATHERS' MANIFESTOsm 
> as a rallying point, but that is 12,000 angry men who agree to rather 
> vague language, but still without a goal.

The father's manefesto addresses the issues of injustice in the family 
court.  It addresses the issues of economic slavery in the guise of a 
community concern for the children.  It stirs the heart of any man who 
has been forced to pay tribute to a woman who has not only broken a 
solemn vow, but has also taken the people most important to the man (the 
woman he married, the children, and his own self-respect).

Does a man who "dumps the old hag" to marry his new barbie-doll 
trophy-wife care SQUAT about this issue (probably not).  Does the "stud" 
who lives with Mom and Kids, supplementing the family's welfare and 
child-support with drug-money or earnings from labor off the the books 
care about this issue (definately not - it theatens his gravy train).
Would the dead-beat-dad who knows he deserved to lose his kids because of 
his drinking, drugging, and abusiveness support the Manifesto?  Would you 
want him to?

> Let's agree to crosspost and triple post the FATHERS' MANIFESTO, with a 
> proviso that we meet to list every possible way the attendees can 
> "Eliminate Fatherlessness", and require that all attendees commit to 2 
> hours per week after the meeting to implement their version of 
> fatherlessness elimination?

You are choosing the goal.

> Maybe it can be timed to influence the Republican Convention in San 
> Diego? Maybe we can make this a plank in their platform?  Maybe we can 

The "Contract with America" claims that it's cornerstone is reponsibility,
accountability, and integrity.  These can be the building blocks for a
powerful position that empowers both men and women.  It gives the working
mother the ability to responsibly reap the consequences of her choices (more
money, less time with the kids), and limits the responsibility of a man 
to the duration of the commitment.

If responsible men were empowered to become fathers, to recommit to 
powerfully supporting a new family, they could, and would, do so.  If 
irresponsible women are forced to confront their own selfishness, they 
will have to either find a successful man who can pass on the values of 
integrety and honor that made him successful in the first place.  Today, 
the management of large corporations is willing to chase the "quick buck" 
and the "quick fix", even though it will ultimately bankrupt the 
corporation and force millions into personal bankruptcy.

> ...fatherlessness is bringing our society crashing down around our 
> knees, and the media is just barely able to mumble a little bit about it.

Not so much fatherlessness, but the values required to be a successful 
and responsible father.  The most responsible fathers are caught in a 
"squeeze play" where they must pay their first family so much that it 
prevents him from having a second.  It gives children the message that 
only "suckers" are responsible.

> 80% of the fathers who responded to the survey stated that the emotion 
> they feel when they think about their experience in court is "beyond 
> rage".  This is something to meet about.  Women who have seen the data 
> and the 'One Page Stories' are articulating some very incredible ideas -- 
> and just last night a woman who was not very sympathetic to the cause a 
> month ago stated outright that 'maybe it is time to reconsider suffrage'.

The problem isn't women's suffrage.  The problem is that politicians have 
been confronted by a force of women, mostly mothers, who spend a great 
deal of time in service to the community, have a large influential 
network of friends, and can influence elections at city, state, and 
federal levels.  The League of Women Voters is one of many organizations 
which put politicians in front of women in the interest of "political 
education".  No serious candidate would go in front of an audience 
consisting of a majority of women and propose the Manefesto.

> 

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Jan 23 23:20:05 1996