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



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


> From: Gary Clark 
> 
> Mat wrote: 
> >> 
> >>Gary, it is not a question of whether you intend to offend anyone.  The
> >comparison is objectively offensive.  But more important you concede that
> >feminism has not killed 30 milllion people.

YET!  Remember, in 1936 (when Hitler was first elected), the Nazis hadn't 
killed anybody.  In Mein Kampf, Hitler only indicated the inferiority of 
Jews...  Modern feminism merely points out the inferiority of men.  The
"Final Solution" would never be advocated publicly in a voting population 
consisting of 47% potential extermination targets.

Modern Feminism, third wave feminism (as opposed to first wave 1960's 
"Equal Rights Amendment" feminism) attempts to make a case for the 
inferiority of men based on their propensity toward violence, sexual 
agression (rape, incest, marital rape, sex which is not mutually 
satisfying...), and "immaturity" (not willing to turn his entire paycheck 
over to his wife and accept the allowance she gives him).  Dvorkin and
others make a case for the enslavement or extermination of men without 
actually saying "every male who won't be a slave to his wife should be 
exterminated or forced to work in concentration camps".

This branch of feminism is advocated only by extremists, and only in 
cloistered discussions.  Femisa and subthreads of alt.feminism often show 
this thread.  Electing Bill/Hillary Clinton was the closest they could 
come to electing a woman president in 1992.  It took an act of Congress 
AND the Supreme Court to keep Hillary out of cabinet meetings.  This may 
be one of the reasons Bill Clinton hasn't been as effective as President 
as he was as Governer.  He doesn't find out his real position until after 
the White House staff has finished briefing Hillary. :-).

> >  That makes it very different
> >than nazism.  The problem today is that everyone labels everything a
> >holocaust and everyone a nazi.  The feminists use this rhetoric about us
> >and I would hope that we do not stoop to their level.  Mat  

The first step in the Nazi/Facist establishment was to unify the general 
population against a cultural scape-goat.  Hitler had his Jews, Bill 
Clinton has divorced fathers.  Nearly any woman who has been through a 
divorce considers her ex a "dead-beat-dad" or she wouldn't have divorced 
him.  Nearly every man who has a wife, daugher, mother, or close friend 
who has burned by a "dead-beat" can be enrolled into persecuting 
"dead-beat-dads".

Even though 50% of all NCP fathers are paid up on the child support
established by settlement, less than 5% of all settlements meet the
"Wisconsin Guidlines".  Most men have not automatically increased their child
support when transitions or promotions result in more income (based on
Wisconsin's 25% rule, he would automatically go into default), because they
negotiated a settlement that didn't require the increase.  I paid extra "up
front" so that I wouldn't have to keep hiking up the payments every time I
changed jobs or got promoted.  Of that 5%, less than 5% of those who are 
ordered (usually as a result of a default judgement) actually pay the 
full 20% as ordered.

The second strategy of the Nazi/Facist establishment is to eliminate due 
process of law under the justification of managing the target group.  
Hitler got the general population to forfeit rights to privacy, free 
speech, property, and trial based on his need to efficiently resettle the 
"Jews, Poles, and Slavs".  Eventually, Hitler used his new powers to 
execute even the Generals on his own staff.

Under proposed DHHS rules, negotiated settlements would be unilaterally and
retroactively voided.  The voided document would now be used as grounds to
find fathers in contempt of court.  This would be used to force men to
forfeit liberty and property without due process.  It would target a 
specific group of the population and force them to pay an extraordinary 
tax simply as a result of their Gender and previous marital status.

Because the laws would now impact "fathers" both within and outside of 
marriage, women could target virtually any sexual partner.  Even being 
alone in your apartment with a woman would become a slavery offence.

The net effect would be that sex, virtually every form, would become a 
deFacto crime, punishable by 20 years of virtual slavery.  Women would be 
encouraged to prosecute the minute they got "bored" with their "toy boys".
Eventually, the only men at liberty would be priests and homosexuals.  
The fundamentalists have plans to manage the latter group.

> I do not accept as valid the concept that anything can ever be OBJECTIVELY 
> OFFENSIVE. It is a matter of my personal philosophy that everyone is always 
> under the obligation to assertain whether or not offense was INTENDED before 
> taking offense.

Human beings have certain fundemental designs in their personalties, 
amongh them a desire for self-esteem, fulfilment of ambitions, security, 
friendship, and love/sex/intimacy relationships.  We fear that these will 
be denied, we become resentful when they are denied, and we become more 
intent on attaining those which are most denied.  When one threatens all 
5 areas at the same time and shares the experience of losing all 5 areas 
at the same time as a result of a court order - be it through contested 
divorce or negotiated settlement, it is objectively threatning.

The difficulty in confronting this conversation is that most men do not
want to confront the reality that they too, could become victims.  Crime
victims often experience a period of denial, and then a period of shock. 
Estranged fathers can be in "shell shock" for as much as 5-10 years before
they realize that they have lost all 5 areas. 

First, a man's self-esteem is taken when he is "insufficient" to please 
his wife.  Today's society expects men to feel guilty for wanting sex, 
expects them to not feel jealous when the baby arrives, and expect them 
to let their wife win every argument.  This same culture teaches women 
that the needs of her husband are invalid, that he should be agressive, 
and that if he is too nice, he is a wimp - or worse.  The value systems 
used to forge the marriage in the first place are flawed, then they are 
perpetuated into the marriage.  The macho/agressive man becomes abusive 
and the woman becomes the righteous victim.  The gentle/passive man 
become too "wimpy" and the women must be rid of this spineless worm.

Most states now accept the concept of "no fault divorce".  The couple 
must simply state that they have "irreconsilable differences".  In many 
states they are allowed to say nothing more.  The "irreconsilable 
differences" may be that he isn't willing to sleep on the couch while his 
wife spends the night making love to his brother.  It might be that he 
isn't keen on putting the house in her name and the mortgage in his 
name.  In today's culture he's expected to be "romantic" and make such a 
foolish unilateral commitment - often under pressure by the Bank and the 
Realtor.

Under the "No-Fault" law, the underlying presumption is that it is the 
man's fault.  The man was either too selfish, too abusive, unfaithful, 
flirted too much, or just generally too disgusting to live with.  The 
court isn't allowed to ask and the two parties are not allowed to tell.
The man can actually make his situation worse if he tries to raise any of 
these issues during the determination of child-support.

Most states have "guidelines" for child-support.  In practice, 
these are the mandatory minimums.  Most states start with that as a 
base-line.  Settlements which don't start with at least that amount will 
be rejected by the court.  Additional support can be ordered for things 
like Health insurance for the kids, Life Insurance for the father, 
Day-Care for the children (even if mom doesn't work or go to school), 
private schools, college tuition, replacement vehicles, legal fees and 
expenses for the "Custodial Parent", college tuition for the "Custodial 
Parent", and even recreational expenses for the custodial parent (if the 
Kids go to Disneyland - SOMEONE has to watch them).

Most courts are willing to accept "joint custody settlements" but require 
a "primary physical custodian".  The PPC doesn't have to get the consent 
or agreement of the "secondary physical custodian" (SPC) but can use his 
agreement as a basis for jacking up the support.  The SPC can request 
things like religeous education (at his expense) but often cannot 
stipulate the actual religeon.  In effect, being the secondary custodian 
is legally the equivalent of being the NCP.

The negotiated settlement can be unilaterally "renegotiated" by the 
Custodial parent by motions to the courts.  If the NCP gets a raise, if 
Mom decides to pay her boyfriend more for babysitting, or if she decides 
she wants to become a paralegal, she can petition for an increase.  A 
common practice is to find out when the NCP will be unavailable, and 
to request a hearing for that date.  The default judgement is much easier 
to get.

The support is nearly impossible to reduce.  The net effect of the CP 
making more than the amount earned by the NCP would be less than 1% 
reduction in support.  If mom gets married - it only drops the 
maintenance (which most women don't get anyway), it doesn't reduce the 
amount at all.  She could marry "Megan Kanka's Babysitter" but the CP 
could do nothing to stop it.  He must prove that the CP is the clear and 
present danger.

> No offense can exist unless offense is TAKEN. IMO, offense comes into 
> existance at the moment it is taken, not when it is given, even when offense 
> is specifically intended.

You actually offended, based on my discription above.  Better to be 
offended now than enslaved or exterminated later.  Maybe we'll all be 
invited to fight another little "police action", dressed in our skivvies 
and weilding squirt guns against an enemy with Nukes - there's a nice 
little spot in the Nevada Desert...

(To Andrea Dvorkin : the Zyclon B is getting warm, better put it back 
in the  freezer until you're ready to use it).

> Gary
> ===================== GARY CLARK - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA USA ==================
> Feminizm and Nazism were both  created by a  small band of  malcontents who 
> told lie-after-lie to  create the  myth that  one group of people was being 
> victimized by another. "Gentiles are the victims of Jews" was the Nazi lie.     |
>          "Women are the victims of men" is the lie of the feminizt.
> ==================== E-MAIL ADDRESS: wtwpubs@ix.netcom.com ================


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Thu Feb 15 03:18:20 1996