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: Lou Ann Bassan 
> 
> Yes, squeak up, for the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
> 
> Actually, Gov. Wilson is being stupid.  If he puts the man in jail, the
> state can't collect child support.  Instead, the state should force them
> to get married. 
> 
> Lou Ann

Lou Ann - you're a genious.  Let each state set up a "dating service".  
It would be similar to the "Job Service Center".  Like any dating service 
there would be a variety of personnals.  But every woman in this dating 
service is a single mother receiving either child-support or federal aid.
Every man in this dating service is an NCP who has paid one continuous 
year of child-support or has no prior arrests and a history of community 
service.

If they get married, whatever was being paid to the wife originally, would be
paid to the NCP's family up to his original obligation.  He would receive 
a reduction in child support obligation.

Men would be lining up to be able to have a shot at a full family again.

Women would be choosing from the most responsible men, instead of from 
single men who don't even have jobs.

If a woman married a non-father, she would immediately forfeit all of her 
child-support.  This might make her think twice before choosing the "hunk 
stud" over the "Yuppie Nerd".

>  On Fri, 16 Feb 1996 JoinTMI@aol.com wrote:
> > Gentlefolks:
> > Predictably, while we chatter, anti-male laws get...badder.

> > Today, both quasi-feminist WA-TIMES columnist Suzanne Fields, and the NYT

> > And of course, both (per reproductive rights) think only women should have
> > "choice" in how and when marriages dissolve. 
You mean they don't?  Is there any sane father who would voluntarily walk 
into the "meat grinder"?  Even when men DO file for divorce, it is mainly 
because his wife has already chosen to get divorced and the lawyer can 
only represent one of them (first big mistake).  If we must have lawyers, 
why not let them provide legal advice and councel while generating a 
mutually agreeable solution?  The courts should also honor a mutually 
negotiated contract - even if it doesn't appear to meet "minimum" 
guidelines.

> > Neither noted that women start most divorces. 
With no-fault laws being being proposed, it will be interesting to see if 
"cause" is no "philandering men" or "philandering women".

> > And both noted "fault" divorces can go ahead unilaterally if one spouse
> > proves the other is "abusive" physically, economically, emotionally, etc.
> > Guess which gender will be "accused" and what "proof" will be needed.
If "proof" meant police reports of multiple family disturbance 
incedences, then I would even support such an idea.  If "proof" consisted 
of nothing more than "his word vx. hers", the entire prodeeding would be 
suspect.  Real motives and causes would not be revealed until after the 
final decree is signed.

> > Also on the current back-to-Victorianism bandwagon is "Jail Bait"
> > legislation. As proposed by good ol' anti-male Gov. Pete Wilson, "adult" men
> > who "violate" (!) sacred young "thangs" must now pay the piper....by going to
> > jail. 
> > 
> > Interesting, no? Sixteen year old girls, today more sexually savvy than 30
> > year olds of yesteryear, can screw 16 year old boys...but not 18-21 year old
> > ones. 

Isn't it ironic.  Only 40 years ago, a single 16 year-old girl in the 
Blue Ridge mountains was an "Old Maid", obviously unfit for marriage.  
Most of the boys would marry when they were 18.

> > The point is, this is another state-mandated money grab. They want to cut
> > down on welfare by making MEN pay (by jail and child-support) for mutual
> > "vices." No pol suggests that girls be Norplanted until they are married; or
> > that single moms be jailed when Daughter Dearest beds the football team; or
> > that young boys bodies are sacred, too; or that males don't "make" women
> > pregnant any more than trees "make" fire; of that "bait" should wear a
> > scarlet "S" (Seductress) or "NV" (Non-Virgin) if they Lolitasize" before the
> > age of majority.

That comes later.  Once they squeeze the fathers into paying directly to 
the state, they can use the immorality of the mothers to disqualify them 
for payments - pocketing the difference.

This whole sequence was outlined back in 1986.  It seemed absurd at the 
time.  Raise child-support to compulsery minimums so high that no one 
could pay?  Raise taxes through increasing the rate paid by single (NCP) 
tax payers to the point where all NCPs would live in abject poverty?  Jail
NCPs and force them to work for mega-organizations from their cells?
Put recipients of child-support payments into guarded compound where men 
can be shot on site?  Put teen-age boys into "boot-camp" from age 16 to 
age 21 where only the fittest survive?  Put children into "schools" for 
12 hours/day?

The whole thing seemed like the fantasies of some demented White Racist 
Madman!  A scheme cooked up by an unholy alliance between the Moral 
Majority and the Klu Klux Klan!

The general population wouldn't stand for it.  You would have to keep men 
away from the voting booth.  You would have to keep feminists away as 
well.

> > Nope.
> > 
> > When the last man is machined gun, he will STILL be arguing arcana with the
> > dead guy next to him. 
> > 
> > Then feminist WILL have unmanned America.

Just as Hitler used the played the facists against the communists, so 
will the real guiding force use "Feminism" to eliminate men before using 
their rebalanced power to create concentration camps for single mother 
families.

> > Are we men or mice? Squeak up!
> > -Robert

Robert, you're such an optimist :-).

Actually I forward between 10 and 20 of these postings to President 
Clinton.  I'd like to get emails for the other Republican campaigners as 
well.

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Feb 20 19:44:39 1996