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 Sat, 16 Dec 1995, John Knight wrote:

> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 08:42:55 -0800
> From: Frank Zepezauer 
> You 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. 


> > >Dear John, 
> > > >I completly support your proposal! 
> >What our's and men groups in general seem to need most, these days are a 
> >common well-defined and generaly agreed upon mission, with goals and sub 
> >-objectives to allow us to work together in its realization. 
> > >Till, then we are bound to remain chat-groups where we can let go our 
> >frustrations at being so crushed by the system. This has a major utility, 
> >as it allows us to communicate and share our pains, which is difficult to do 
> >outside of the Net! >But, I belive now that its
> 
> Eliminating fatherlessness is indeed an important goal, perhaps the 
> primary goal for fathers' rights movement.  But even prior to that is 
> restoring father-presence as a norm.  It was the norm in most 
> civilizations until recently.  Now father-presence is no longer regarded 
> as requirement but as an option, and the option is left to the woman.

What is needed is the culture of responsibility.  A beer-drinking bubba who
has affairs every friday night then comes home to beat his wife and kids is
not a father.  I would oppose any movement that would try to force a woman
and children to stay with such a man.  I would oppose a movement that would
force a judge to give such a man uncontestable custody.  So would most 
other people.

> So we need to re-establish the father-required family based on the 
> legitimacy principle as both the moral and legal norm in this society. 
> That means we should vigorously oppose any policies or actions which 
> undermine the legitimacy principle.  Among those are the actions of 
> single women to establish fatherless families and the actions of 
> homosexuals to establish fatherless (and motherless) families by 
> adoption or by arrangements with child donors.

This sounds like you would force women into marriage if they got 
pregnant, force them to stay married to the man no matter how abusive he 
got, and force her into the street when he decided he wanted "fresh meat".

It might play in a room full of red-necked Klansmen, but I don't think it 
would play in Los Angeles, New York, or San Francisco.

Women spent 100 years trying to escape from marital slavery (ultimately 
putting men into marital slavery).  It would take at least another 100 
years to push the pendulum that far back.

> Those actions indicate two actions which a united fatherhood should 
> oppose: access to sperm banks by single women and homosexual adoption, 
> marriage, and parenting.

If two people are willing to commit their lives to being responsible for 
the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being of the 
children, they should do so.  They should not have the right to force the 
natural father to pay "Child Support".  They should not have the right to 
force the collective fatherhood to pay support in the form of "Welfare" 
(disability, AFDC, VESID, CAPRA, food-stamps, subsidized housing...).

> Incidentally, the idea of opposing the use of sperm banks by single 
> women was proposed by David Blankenhorn at the Governor's Summit on 
> Fatherhood last June.

I would rather see a mother be required to prove that she is capable of 
providing a responsible and supportive environment, without outside 
resources and get her sperm from a sperm-bank, than have her get her 
"collection" from some drunk she humped before she thought it out enough 
to even consider that she couldn't raise a child in a studio apartment in 
a "singles town" on $100/week.  There isn't a major shortage of sperm, 
almost any red-blooded GI could be led to hapiliy oblige.

> William F. Buckley solicited his readers for suggestions on how to 
> combat illegitimacy.  All fathers in this network who have good, 

Anyone who is serious about this would have to completely rethink the entire
domain of sex, marriage, family, and commitment.  Very few politicians are
willing to advocate arranged marriages during early teen years, living with,
or under the direction of parents as a couple, being guided and supported by
their parents as a family...  It is, however, consistant with the design of
the human reproductive system.  It is the postponement of marriage - until
25, 30 or later that is unnatural. 

Perhaps, in another 10,000 years, we will evolve into a being that enters 
puperty (reproductive readiness) at age 30.  Of course, we would have to 
survive the side-effects of thwarting the reproductive instinct 
(drug-addiction, alcholism, fanatic violence (from the riots of 1966 to 
 the skin-heads of 1996).

No politician, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, would be 
willing to admit that the "bold experiment" that has been going on for 
over 100 years, has failed miserably.  We would rather blame the 
feminists, the facists, or the liberals, than be responsible for the 
consequences of our contempt for the laws of nature.

> practical ideas should send him a letter.  At the National Review, 150 
> E. 35 th Street, New York, NY 10016.
> 
> Frank S. Zepezauer
> Sect. Men's Defense Assn.
> 
> 

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Jan 23 23:51:18 1996