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




On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, John Knight wrote:

> Dear Misty,
 
> On the other hand -- we have hundreds of pages of sexist, foul, insulting,
> vulgar, threatening language insults from American citizens who are
> attending what used to be fine educational institutions who should be
> showing some appreciation for having the opportunity to go there, and who
> should be demonstrating that they are learning something of value now. 

I remember hearing this rehtoric back in 1966, when students started 
protesting the vietnam war.  You don't create agreement by unequivicably 
stating that "these ungrateful students should shut up and show 
appreciation".  The students who protested VietNam were confronting the 
possibility of being forced to die in a war which they felt was a 
contradiction of our american values.

Misty, and many in the FEMISA list are merely reacting to the spectere of 
being forced to stay in the abusive relationships they observed in 
parents of the 1970's and 1980's who were prone to drug abuse, alcholism, 
violence, and abusive and selfish sex, as - Not only socially acceptable,
but even expected.  A man who DIDN'T exhibit these traits was considered 
a "faggot" or a "wimp".  Ironically, feminism did nothing to alter the 
definitions of "sexually attractive man", until the late 1980's when 
music television catapaulted Boy George, Prince, and Michael Jackson to 
the postion of "Gentle Male role models".  Unfortunately, Boy George had 
a heroine problem, Michael Jackson didn't want to grow up (just wanted to 
play with the other little boys in NeverLand, and Prince was eclipsed by 
Paula Abdul (originally his back-up act).


> People like you have added no positive contribution to either education or
> economic competitiveness. The debate and this response make it clear WHY
> you never will. 

Public education in the United States has been neglected for over 30 
years.  Almost every other country in the world has educational programs 
that are oriented toward urban cultures - 8 hours/day, 5 days/week, 12 
months/year.  There are also after-school programs led by volunteers in 
the business community.

In the United States, our educational system is still oriented toward the 
Rural/Extended Family of the midwestern farms of the 1900s when Teddy 
Roosevelt and the Progressives first created it.  The 3 month "summer 
break", originally established so that the kids could go out and weed the 
crops, has become "prime time" for every drug pusher in urban america.
The 9-11 hour day, which enabled the family with only one buggy to drop off 
the working members, the children, often watched by a grandmother or 
retired parent, would be taken after the men were delivered to their jobs.
In today's single parent, and 2 income families, children must be dropped 
off at school up to an hour before the first class, and must wait, often 
2-3 hours before the parents arrive home.  The wealthier families pay for 
day-care.  The less fortunate leave their children to the persuasions of 
drug dealers, pimps, gamblers, and prostitutes.

If we followed the patterns of other countries who provide full-service 
public education, the children could be trained to college level 
proficiency in less than 10 years.

> Sincerely, 
> John Knight 
> 
> On Fri, 1 Dec 1995 msmithbe@iway1.iw.net wrote:
> > 
> > 	I do not believe in the hateful, mysogonous rhetoric
> > that John Night and his 
> > goonies were aiming at Femisa.
Goonies is an interesting term, I generally would consider it
inflammatory and prejudicial.

> >  I am a fair and reasonable person. 
The language above indicates otherwise, but lets consider that you are.

> > This was a man who 
> > accused all women who were divorced of being harpies,
> > having ulterior motives, and being bitches.
Given the lanuage above, are those your words, his exact words, or
your paraphrase of his overall contribution?

> >  Yes, there are some women like that,
Let's just say that, just as there are selfish and abusive men, there are 
selfish and abusive women.  The methods of expressing this selfishness 
are different, but each can be extremely painful.

> > just as there are men like the one I used 
> > to be married to who tried to strangle me to death. 

Question:  Did you file assault charges?  Did you provide testimony and 
evidence that could be used by a prosecutor if he committed subsequent 
acts of violence against other women?

> > But I don't accuse all men of being vicious and abusive,

The point here is not what you personally believe.  The issue at stake is 
that the divorce laws as defined in the "Uniform Dissolution of Marriage"
are designed with the assumption that the only reason that a woman could 
or should want a divorce is to escape from as selfish and abusive husband.
The structure of "No Fault Divorce", mandatory child support, apportionment
of income and visitation, are all designed to enable a woman to be able 
to divorce the man, remove the children as much as possible, and to 
provide incentive for the minimum possible visitation (the less they 
"sleep over", the more he has to pay).  If your divorce/custody/support 
were exclusively dependent on a felony criminal conviction, you might still
be wondering when you might next wake up to your drunken husband trying 
to strangle you with your own pantyhose.

> > while he accused all women who
> > wanted divorces of wanting them for 
> > frivelous reasons.

Unfortunately, the very structures put in place to protect women from 
selfish and abusive men does not take into consideration that men might 
need protection from selfish and abusive women.  In the 1960's the adage 
was "Marry the first one for love, but marry the second for money".  Today,
the adage is "Marry the first one for money, and you won't need to marry
a second time, you can just 'keep' a boyfriend or two".

There are still men who drink/drug/rape/beat and express selfishness.  
These are not the people posting to this list.  The men posting to this list
have have lost the people they loved most (wives and children), have been
forced to pay the expenses and support, and often are forced to accept 
the fact that a "deadbeat" (man collecting disability, or selling drugs) 
is not only making love to his wife, raising (and sometimes beating) his 
children, and living in his house, but this "bum" is using his money to 
pay for it.

There are the women who let their husbands put them through college, and 
never pay him back (if she puts him through college, he pays maintenence 
- according to UDM of Colorado).  There are the women who marry someone 
other than the true father of her children - because this "marriage 
father" is obligated to pay child support - even if He's sterile (NY UDM).
Any reasonably attractive woman can make a substantial sum of money 
through a few months of fraudulent masquerade, and net an income 
supplement of up to $1000/month for 20 years - tax free, and it won't 
reduce AFDC, SSDI, or VESID eligibility.

The kicker of course is that there are those who feel that divorced 
fathers should be deprived of the right to vote, should be forced to live 
in "No Tell Motels" and should forfiet 80% of their income directly to 
the Federal, State, and Local governments - will forward 10% - up to 
$400/month, on to the mother.

Then there are states like Arkansas, where then Governer Clinton, 
realised that he could circumvent the constitution by paying bounty 
hunters 10% of the back child support for every "dead-beat dad", the
could bring in.  Since bounty hunters are not officers of the government, 
they are able to invade privacy, use prostitutes to trap their victims, 
use deadly force, and can search and seize at gunpoint.  Since the "dead 
beat dad" is already a fugitive of justice (usually contempt of court), 
he can't prosecute the bounty hunter, he can be jailed, and can be held 
without bond.  All of this without due process of law in the primary issue
of disolving the marital contract (note: a civil issue).

Even though 75% of all marriages end up in divorce, over half within 4 
years, public schools don't teach "Marriage Law", "Marital 
Relationships", or "Child Rearing".  In fact, many school systems still 
excluded men from home economics programs.

The Democrat solution is to provide AFDC, medicare, SSDI, and medicaide 
to every single parent family.  This is funded by turning DYFSS into a
collection agency which will pocket 60% of the "Child support" it 
collects, defining all income paid to the mother as taxable "Child 
support", and putting mothers who are no longer eligible for AFDC on
"Disability", VESID, CAPRA,...  Of course they also ignore the men's 
clothes hanging in the closet, or the Adam's apple on "aunt martha".
Then, through section 8 housing, they create entire cities like Newark,
and put those nasty men in jail, so that the teen-age boys can rampage 
the neighborhood.

The Republican solution is to further restrict discussions of matrimonial 
issues (especially sex), promote "privitization" of the schools, and use 
driver's licence, w4 witholding, and voter registration information to 
identify and apprehend "dead-beat dads", "welfare cheat moms", and 
"live-in boyfriends" and put them all in jail (work/release camps, 
protected communities, converted military bases, quarentine encampments, 
and of course, "supervised homes" - - euphemisms for concentration camps).

There are appropriate solutions, which include encouraging fathers to
be responsible in the marriage in the first place, encouraging mothers to 
continue keeping the relationship with their husbands alive, encouraging
extended families, implmenting a full-time educational program, making
workable life-long (or even 20 year) marriage techniques (by studying 
successful marriages) an educational priority.  We need to make 
step-fathers part of the equation, and create incentives for second 
marriages to responsible, productive members of society.  We should 
encourage responsible fathers to remarry and to take responsibility
for a new family.  The current mode of "You can either be 100% financially
responsible for the child who doesn't get your values, or you can let the
step-father adopt and loose all visitation rights" promotes irresponsible
divorce.

Pointing at feminists and calling them the cause of all the misery is
not only not going to solve the problem, it will also divert attention
from the real goals of:
	1  creating families and marriages that work.
	2  creating a supportive environment for children.
	3  requiring due process for loss of liberty or property.
	4  providing a secure environment for wives and children.
	5  protecting fathers from fraudulent marriages.
	6  providing workable step-father/natural-father structures.
	7  encouraging remarriage (or long term partnerships for homosexuals)
	8  relying only on due process to exclude abusive/selfish men and women
		from full partnership and participation in the family.
	9  providing incentives for vasectomy, condom use, and active 
		participation in birth control.
	10 providing incentives for "conjugal agreements" such as "live in"
		dates with "consentual sex" which protect men from 
		rape/abuse charges, and provide women with a record of all
		sexual partners (who would share joint responsibility for 
		children conceived without birth control).
	11 Acknowledgment that in the "perfect world" people marry when they
		are old enough to reproduce (shortly after puberty), stay 
		married at least until the children are ready to marry
		- or until they die.  (God's original design).  In this 
		design, they create their partner as their Ideal mate, with
		hormones and proximity causing the bonding.
	12 Acknowledgement that in this culture - there is a period of 
		10-20 years from the onset of puberty to the birth of the 
		first planned children within the structure of a marriage.
		During this period, individuals will develop preferences 
		of an "ideal mate" which are unusual, and probably 
		unrealistic.
	13 Acknowledgement that - until structures can be designed to 
		support viable implmentation of the "ideal", structures 
		must exist (education, media, cultural values, legal 
		structures, supervision and counceling) to minimize the
		number of conceptions during the "transitional period"
	14 That celebacy/virginity enforced through the "transitional period"
		is not effective beyond age 14-16.  The techniques such 
		as "spritual terrorism", scare tactics, or threats will 
		not stop a healthy mind from seeking marital/sexual bonding.
		Such techniques, to be effective to age 25 or 30 actually
		cause severe emotional defects and trauma.
	15 Support structures that help couples cope with the disappointing
		reality that not only is their first spouse not going to
		match the "ideal mate" they've been creating for 20 years,
		but probably no other partner will either 
		- that human beings shouldn't be expected to
		compete with fantasies (whether sourced by Playboy, 
		pornography, or a romantic novel or movie)


	Rex Ballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Sun Dec 17 05:43:15 1995
Status: O
X-Status: