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



On Mon, 1 Jan 1996, John Knight wrote:

> Dear Rex,
> 
> Thank you for the clarification regarding the felonies which might have 
> been advocated.  I don't believe I saw this, and would appreciate your 
> forwarding it to me if you do, as the Femisans made many claims but never 
> produced the transcripts, making me believe their claims were false.

There are several posts on this list that have indicated that abducting 
the children, relocating without notifying your ex until after the 
relocation and serving her with the papers before she has a chance to 
"move in".   In effect, practices which constitute kidnapping, whether 
done by the man or the woman, but are generally ignored by the police 
when the perpetrator is a woman.  Kidnapping is a felony and to advocate 
a felony on the internet is a crime (FCC violation).

There are other maneuvers such as arresting the police chief, or a judge
which do not take into account that the fundamental purpose of the court 
and police department are to enforce the laws passed by the legislatures 
and executive branches.  Until a law is overturned through the appellate 
process, attempting to arrest a Judge for "violating constitutional 
rights" would be tantamount to kidnapping and false arrest.

If you are a good, creative lawyer with lots of spare time (And not 
living in New York City :-).  You know how to motion someone to into 
submission.  There are plenty of fathers who could use Pro-Bono legal 
support.

If you are a "do it yourself laywer", and try some of these cute 
maneuvers, you could quickly find yourself dealing with contempt of court 
citations, and possibly becoming the target of intense investigation.

> I agree with about 99% of your posts.

I look for areas of consensus.  This is where it is possible to have an 
immediate impact.

> But the part I disagree with might be a misunderstandin, and I would 
> appreciate clarification here, also.  It is not a big deal, but maybe we 
> shld have such details nailed down now in the event we get into another 
> round with the feminazis.

There is little to be gained, and much to be lost by attempting to 
polarize those who might be interested in this conversation.  When 
considering questions of "Men's Rights" versus "Women's Rights" it may be 
possible to create an consensus which supports "Rights and 
Responsibilities" for both Men and Women.  For every "Money Grubbin' 
She-cat" there's a "Lazy Battering Bum".  For every "Sainted Mother", 
there's a "Selfless Father".  At least in terms of debate.

Advocating "Due Process" in an environment which does not impose 
hardships on one or both parents would help "sort out" the blatantly
abusive from the responsible but incompatible.  Giving women the 
exclusive "right to bear children" along with the exclusive "responsible 
to provide or enroll a provider" or providing structures where intent to 
conceive (or intent not to conceive) can be established prior to sexual
contact.

> You seem to have accepted the media and feminist images of "abusive 
> fathers", and I would like to point out that all of the STATISTICS I have 
> run across on this issue show that men are more abused by women than the 
> other way around.

There abusive mothers, there are abusive fathers.  The current legal 
machinery is weighted toward the mothers and against the fathers.  The 
reality of estrangement (divorce) is that two adults neglect or abuse 
each other and use the children as pawns.

The design of the current matrimonal/estrangement system is to enable 
dependent women to leave abusive and irresponsible husbands who may be 
drug addicts, alcholics, violent, and dangerous.  The system is designed 
to protect women and children from men who are a clear and immediate 
danger to others - especially the wife and children.

The question becomes - what if the father is a responsible, productive 
member of society, working overtime to meet the responsibilities of a 
wife and children?  What if it is the mother who is suffering from mental 
illness, addiction, or alcoholism?  What if it is the mother is just 
selfish?

We have created a culture where it is socially acceptable for wives to 
refuse love, affection, intimacy, and sex to their husbands.  We have 
created a culture which allows women to become income earners, but 
expects men to bear the primary burdon and responsibility for financial 
support of the family.  Women who pay child support pay much less as a 
percentage of their after-tax income, then men do.

There is an implicit "Right to Choice", the Right to Bear children, the 
right to have the exclusive say in the matter of birth, which is 
exclusive to women.  Ironically, it is the only choice for which the man, 
(who has no choice in the matter - post conception) is expected to be
responsible for the consequences.  There is an implicit assumption that 
any form of sexual intimacy capable of leading to conception implies a 
choice to conceive a child.  This structure is extended to the entire 
structure of marriage - leading to the implicit conclusion that all 
children are conceived with the knowledge, consent, and intent of the 
father.

Notice that this ignores the reality that there is only one reliable form 
of birth-control for men (vasectomy).  It ignores the reality that, while 
a woman is constantly aware of her reproductive state (ovulation, 
menses...), men are actually stigmatized for failure to be reproductively 
capable (maintain erection, ejaculate at the appropriate time...).

The mother often (95%) of the time becomes the "innocent victim" and the
father is expected to be "responsible" and pay a disproportionate share of
not only the children's expenses, but also the expenses of the mother (under
the umbrella of "child support").

This issue is not "Feminism" verses "Men's Movement".  The issue is 
responsibility, commitment, and due-process.

Why is the father responsible for a wife who is seduced by another man?  
Why should the cuckhold pay the penalty for adultry?

Why is the father responsible for the comfort of the mother of his 
children?  What regard and responsibility does the mother have for the 
welfare of the father of her children?  First, consider these questions 
within the context of the marriage, then consider them as they are 
practiced in the context of a divorce.

To what degree is a woman, who punishes her husband for working too much 
by refusing emotional and sexual support, entitled to the rights as 
beneficiery of a partnership.

What are the responsiblities of future men who enter into "Relationships" 
with the mother.  This euphemism for "Marriage without the Contract" or
"Adultry nullified by divorce decree".  It would be unconciounable if the man
came home wearing his mistress' lipstick on his shirt, forced his wife to
satisfy him sexually, then forced her sleep on the couch, then forced her 
to visit her children only while seated on his new wife's lap (supervised 
visitation) and only if she would have sex with him.

Money is to Men what sex is to women.  Each is the fruit of years of 
training, self-discipline, self-denial, and effort.  A middle-class male 
or a sexually attractive female is the product of many years of effort.

The financially successful woman is a product of feminism.  The sexually
attractive male is still largely tied to economic and "dominance" factors.
The "cute but irresponsible" man is attractive to some women, but is still
culturally undesirable.  A man who looks like a "chippendale's dancer" but
drives a "Junk-mobile", lives in a "rooming house" and can't afford clean
clothes is not going to "win the heart" of a female "wall street tycoon".  He
might be a cute "Pet" for a few hours - not much more. 

Now, given that Money is to Men what sex is to women, consider the 
injustice of expecting a man to give that which is valued most, to a 
woman who is permitted to deny forever that which is valued most, and 
give it to another man if she wishes.

If in the interest of "expediency"  we circumvented "due process" in the
function of criminal cases to the extent we circumvent "due process" in
"family court", we would have to "dive for the bushes" every time a police
car drove by because we'd never know if he was drunk enough to open up with
his AK-47.  Of course, his favorite haunts would be "Middle Class Suburbs"
where "the corpses leave behind nicer houses and newer cars". 

The current structure leave the doors wide open for "marital 
prostitution".  This is a term for a women who seduces a man into 
marrying him and bearing his children PRIMARILY based on the probability 
of a generous child-support and property settlement.  This is the woman 
who is consistantly seductive, has him buy the house, car, furs, 
diamonds, and even the bonds and retirement plans - in HER name.  The 
marital prostitute will then concieve the baby and come down with 
monumental "morning sickness" that lasts for months, until the back-aches 
come (both of which make sex "unthinkable").

Once the child is born, the "marital prostitute" now goes about the work of
driving the man out - preferably into the hands of another "understanding"
woman, to the bar, or to the mental health center.  Simple tactics like
verbal abuse, sexual teasing (the slang term is "giving him blue balls"),
public humiliation, and of course, causing jealousy by taking another lover
(whatever type he hates most).  If possible, provoking violence and providing
evidence that you are violent and abusive will help minimize the risk of
visitation, let alone custody.  If she can get the line on some sexual
"Kinks", especially anything involving fantasies with minors (high school
cheer-leaders...) she can make sure that her "sugar daddy" "Never sees those
children again". 

If, after all her best efforts, the Sugar Daddy is still determined to 
see the kids, there are ways to make that painful too.  Lets start with 
the basic structure of only seeing the kids for one "overnight" every two 
weeks.  The father can "fall completely in love" with his kids over the 
weekend.  When the week-end is over, mom is there to meet him, in her 
sexiest dress, prettiest hair, and sweetest manner, to provoke a fight, 
an excuse to justify having the kids be unavailable for their next visit.
The simplest strategy is to just "ask for more money".  There's twenty 
minutes of "Madly in love" accompanied by 13 days and 22 hours of being 
"dumped" - "Surviving the Loss of a Love".

Of course, marital prostitutes give rise to "marital pimps".  Marital 
pimps are the nice young men who "Partied" their way through school, 
dropped out to join the army, drank their way through safe "grunt job
duty", drank up their V.A. Benefits, got certified as alcoholic/addict, 
got CAPRA, VESID, Section 8 housing, and food stamps.  Suddenly, one of 
these guys meets "Miss Perfect".  She gets $600/month in child support, 
qualifies for WIC, and can quickly drink/drug or injure herself into 
being qualified for WIC, AFDC, Section 8, day-care reembursement, 
Workman's Comp, and/or Disability.  They can even go to college together 
for 10 or 15 years (just change majors or change schools every year).
Of course, with all that free time, you can spend free hours making love 
together.

The biggest difference between the street pimp and the marital pimp is 
that the Marital Pimp gets laid while you pay for getting screwed. :-).

Consider the value system perpetuated by a "child support" structure 
which encourages divorced mothers to stay single, have lovers (who take 
no substantial responsibility) and even marry a "disabled" man (because he 
is available - as a baby-sitter, as a lover, as a friend...) rather than 
a "responsible man" (who has to work, doesn't make as much as a "Crack 
Dealer", and actually budgets his money).

Certain organizations actually help perpetuate this reality.  The 
legislators love it because they can overtax an estranged father who must 
pay 25% or more of his pre-tax income to his children which is taxed at 
the single rate.  The mother, who usually makes less money is made "head 
of household" and give the lower tax rate on what little money she might 
make in earned income or alimony.  The IRS is now eyeballing generous 
alimony payments as "tax evasion".

Let the Stepfather legally adopt the children, pay your share of the 
child support (1/2 the court ordered amount) to the mother, and call it a 
tax-deductable gift.  The net effect is that they get more money and you
end up saving as much as 50% of the tax rate.  Don't be surpised if you 
are audited frequently :-).

Lawyers should be very threatened by any form of mediation which falls 
short of the incredible expense of "a full blown custody battle".  The 
lawyers lose the opportunity to drive a father into bankruptcy with legal 
fees (which can't be defaulted in some states).  Ever tried fighting for 
custody when there is no house, car, stock, bonds, IRA, and other 
collateral to "Back it up"?

Therapists stand to loose big.  Some therapists can make as much as 
$10,000 for testifying and/or "investigating" in a divorce decree.  
Marriage councellors can actually make more on the divorce than they can 
from causing a reconciliation.  The "common knowledge" or common accepted 
practice of therapists is to encourage each side to "be right", to express
their feelings of frustration and dissappointement.  The "cure" for a 
difficult marriage is to focus on everything that is wrong with it, agree 
with both parties (setting the opposing positions in granite) and then 
advise them to finish it off in court.

Charities, churches, treatment centers, and half-way houses also stand to 
benefit.  There is the wonderful PR that encourages people who have never 
been divorced to support these "helpless women".  There is the "tithe" 
that can be collected from a grateful mother.  There is the labor and 
"barter income" that can be used "tax free".  And of course, there is the 
ability to direct business such as real-estate transactions, 
transportation, medical fees, even the grocery money - to generous 
"Tithing" members of the church.

For over a century, the churches have "collected their due" from senior 
citizens in nursing homes, from students in schools and colleges, and 
from the infirm in hospitals.  Many Enterprising Evangelists have 
discovered that "rescuing abused or neglected mothers" (and keeping them 
single) is BIG business.  It's a great scam really, not only do they get
to avoid taxes, they can feed from the public coffers as well.  They can 
even hire "volunteer lobbyists" and staff the social services agencies 
(always getting their 10% of course).  I have often refeered female 
friends of mine to these agencies. 

One actually lost a husband with a job paying $200/week and ended up getting
$800/month in "benefits" from 5 different agencies, but also got free legal
aid in extracting $300/month from her former husband.  The church collected
10% off the top, helped her get an apartment (at a place owned by a
parishoner), and a car (a parishoner who was in the car business), and of
course federally funded day-care (at the church) while she was trained
(working as a volunteer at the churches "outreach center").  She was
eventually placed with a government agency as a case worker. 

Not only did these people help take away your children, they used your 
tax-money (I pay 14% FICA, 38% Fed, 8% State, 5% city) to do it.  Now 
they have gained the ear of both parties who want to take the 25% you still 
have left with "dead-beat dad" laws and repeal the right to vote.

> This message is forwarded to the Signatories to the 
FATHERS' MANIFESTOsm. > 
> > On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, John Knight wrote:
> > > Dear Rex,
> > > 
> > There have been 2 postings (I deleted them weeks ago) that suggested methods
> > of gaining custody that would lead to kidnapping charges.  This might be
> > within one's constitutional rights, but one should be prepared to face 
> > the consequences (arrest, conviction, imprisonment) and be willing and 
> > able to appeal to the the Supreme Court - and be willing to loose.

Remember, many of the "precedents" which are used as a basis for "support 
evasion" are similar to those used for "tax evasion".  A good lawyer, 
willing to work for little or nothing, can create so many petitions and 
motions that appropriate agency will "Settle" rather than continue to 
spend valuable time jumping through the legal hoops.  The same tactics, 
employed by a "do-it-yourself-lawyer" can often be the basis for closing 
the loophole.

> > > > Starting a fight (at whatever level) does not advance our goals, or theirs.
> > > 
> > > We do not want to advance their goals.  Their goals must be countermanded 
> > > with as much effort as we can garner.

Actually, we do want to acknowledge their goals.  Their greivances are 
used as the basis for "expedient" systems.

> > FEMISA is focused on dealing with women who find themselves enmeshed in 
> > relationships with abusive men (alcoholics, drug addicts, violent,...),
> > men who have brought the "rules of the street" into the bedroom.

In the Emergency room of every hospital, there is a process called 
TRIAGE, where medical personnel identify crisis patients who must receive 
immediate care and will die before they can find out if their "credit 
card will clear".  The doctors "cut first, bill later".  There are times 
when children need to be rescued from abusive fathers or mothers, and you 
can't wait for the appropriate hearings.

In that same hospital, there are people who come to the Emergency Room, 
because they want to see a doctor (at 3:00 A.M.) or they have no money.  
The TRIAGE staff can identify these people and get them the appropriate 
treatment on an "as available" basis.  Those people can spend 10-20 hours 
in the "emergency room" waiting area, and will.

> > FATHERS is focused on dealing with men who find themselves enmeshed in 
> > relationships with abusive women (...) who manipulate the system selfishly
> > in hopes of extorting substantial child-support and maintenence.

There is a different level of urgency in this statement.  If the mother 
is using electric wires on the kids, or physically abusing them, there is 
a case for treating abusive mothers with the same urgency and expedience 
that would be used in intervening with an abusive father.

There are/were men who manipulate the system selfishly in hopes of 
conveniently disposing of a wife who has "gotten fat" or "doesn't turn me 
on any more".

If you are advocating that the courts should issue summary judgements 
against the woman just because she might be a "Gold-Digger", without 
giving that woman due process, you circumvent "due process".  Your 
"expedient" solution would enslave women and turn marriage into a form of 
cheap slavery (the "I got a new car for my wife", "get I wonder what 
they'd trade me for my wife" joke would be acutely real).

> > Recognition that intervention must often be swift, but that ejudication
> > or settlements should be managed responsibly and carefully is the common
> > ground.

> > > > Identifying areas where there is a common ground (redefinition of male 
> > > > role models, differentiating between abusive drunken husbands and 
> > > > responsible, productive husbands - encouraging the responsible men and
> > > > taking appropriate action against the abusive ones....
> > > > 
> > > > Such "common ground" discussions will yield results, including revisions
> > > > to existing marital law.  Finger pointing and trying to shut down each 
> > > > others's lists will only result in censorship of the entire internet.
> > > > 

	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard




From rballard@cnj.digex.net Fri Jan  5 02:30:10 1996