In-Reply-To: <199512300129.RAA17757@iway1.iw.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Fri, 29 Dec 1995 msmithbe@iway1.iw.net wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Dec 1995, Rex Ballard  
> wrote:
> >clergy and social services workes placed through their 
> church).
> 
> Ah, I see.  So are you saying then, that Jerry is a kind of 
> buffer between their abusive mother and them, or does he 
> keep her happy so that she doesn't take out her frustrations 
> on them?

Leslie is only abusive when she has spent more than 12 hours out of 24 
with the kids.  Jerry serves several functions.  He provides "day care" 
which gives Leslie time to get away from the kids.  He can redirect her 
anger toward him (like a matador :-).  If Jerry weren't around, I am not 
sure that the kids would be safe.  Since Jerry is around, the kids can 
get support from both parents.

Now that both kids are in school full time, it's less of an issue,
Jerry is using my "Day Care Money" to put himself through his 6th year of 
college.  He had a BS in Math when they met.  He now has a BSBA and a BSCS
and has changed his major again.  As long as he doesn't graduate, he gets
disability income.

Leslie is also in her 5th year of college (funded with my "child 
support").  When she gets her BSBA, she will be going into paralegal.

I worked my way through school, 40 hours/week at work, 18 hours/week in 
classes, and 22 hours/week doing homework.  I tried to get Leslie into 
college 4 times during the marriage.

> >Your husband has learned the secret to a long and happy 
> marriage.  What >magic do you do to keep him?
> 
> 1.  I listen to him.  He can talk to me about anything, 
> completely unsensored.  I respect his intense appreciation 
> of breasts and I don't hold that against him, I encourage 
> him to talk about it.  He has always been able to tell me 
> anything.  As a result, I know him very well. And I never 
> ever use anything against him that he has told me in 
> confidence.

Not exactly the "Feminist Ideal" is it?  On the other hand, which is more 
important, being "politically correct" or having a great marriage?

> 2.  I make an effort to be his friend instead of his wife, 
> but I am exclusively his wife.  I would never play flirting 
> games to make him jealous.   
> 3.  I recognize and respect his occasional need for--ahem, 
> how shall I say this--time to release his tension when he 
> gets home from work at 3 am.  If I wake up I cough, rattle 
> the  doorknob, etc before I come into the living room.  I 
> don't feel threatened by this very human need.  

Again, not your typical "Feminist Ideal", but powerful for 
relationships.  Which are you most likely to see on television?

> 4.  When he does something nice for me, I make a BIG fuss. 
> That's just simple classical conditioning.  If I reward him, 
> he'll do other nice things.  

Rather Pavlovian, but very effective?  Are you the last of your race?

> 5.  If he buys me something to wear I wear it, no matter 
> what.  If it's a trinket, whether or not it matches the 
> decor, I put in on display.

One time I bought my wife a skirt.  Not only did she refuse to wear it, 
she started wearing when she started dating Jerry.

> 6.  I brag about him to his family and friends in front of 
> him. I never put him down in public. 

If Peg did that on "Married With Children" the ratings would drop into 
the basement.  You certainly wouldn't be invited to any of those suburban 
"lunches" with the Girls.

> 8.  When he's sick, I'm his very own mommy.  

I can hear Gloria Steinham now; " your husband is too immature..."

How many other women do you know who feel this way?  (I'd love to meet 
one).

> >Unfortunately this is the very scenario used to set up the 
> justification >for economic slavery.  
> 
> It depends on the level of maturity of the parent, and their 
> willingness to make things better.  For instance, my 
> immediate need for college was because secretaries get paid 
> crap.  My secondary needs were to be able to be home with my 
> children on weekends, most evenings and afternoons, and 
> holidays.  But my tertiary needs included a desire to hold 
> education up as something important, something worth working 
> for, something that could change their life.  What better 
> way than for them to see me go to college and then have the 
> public school system put food on the table? Also, 
> "statistics" (there's that ugly word again) show that a 
> child who has at least one parent graduated from college is 
> more likely to go to college themselves. 

How would you feel, if after spending the time and energy to have your 
son go to college and make a great career and life for himself, he ended 
up marrying some woman who got pregnant left within a year after the 
birth, and was able to force your son to turn over so much of his income 
that he could not afford the "Slum Room" you had in the inner city, and 
couldn't move to the country either.  Your investment and effort to
send your son to college would only make him a target for "gold diggers".

Even after my divorce, I was frequently approached by women who would see 
me in my suit, flirt a bit, and then ask for help with the rent.

> >Very quickly though, they are looking for someone who can 
> be part of the >family.  This is because the financial 
> provider *must* find a nurturer.
> 
> Or to be as correct, they have a need in their life and feel 
> incomplete without a partner to fullfill that need.

Actually, the need is present because not only does the provider need 
support, but the children need a nurturing parent as well.  The provider 
cannot function without a nurturer.  The nurturer needs ONLY the 
provider's check.

> >The converse is rarely true.  The nurturing parent is 
> actually >discouraged from finding a nurturer.  
> 
> This is true.  When my husband first moved in with me I 
> reported it immediately to the sources of aid I was 
> receiving for school.  Everyone told me I was crazy for 
> doing that but I learned a lesson the hard way, once, never 
> ever try to screw the government.  
> But I was on welfare for six months, and if I learned one 
> things, it was that I was welcome to sit home on my butt and 
> pump out baby each year and the government would support me. 
>  As long as a child under six was in the household.  But 
> when I got my tubes tied, and went to college, it's like 
> they made every effort to hinder me.  I could give you 
> dozens of examples.

I had a friend who went through it.  She didn't even get back to school 
before the folks from DYFSS were "turning the thumbscrews".  Eventually, 
she had to move back in with her parents.

> >Living in the country, in a community which believed "folks 
> should be >
> 
> We lived together for nearly two years.  Lots of people are 
> living togther here.  It's considered an acceptable 
> alternative for older parents who have been divorced. 

Sounds like even the rural country people have changed radically.
My Great-Grandmother was run out of a few towns because she didn't live 
with her husband (He ran off with the organist).

> Within feminist groups women are encourage to try to find 
> fullfillment within themselves.   I was happy alone.  If we 
> had broken up, I would have been unhappy but not suicidal.  
> I had learned to live alone.  What is discouraged is the 
> woman who feels that she need marriage to make her feel 
> worthy.  These are the women who marry for the wrong reason. 

This is one of the fundamental questions about feminism.  The fact is 
that human beings are interdependent.  I'm someone's father, someone's 
boss, someone's subordinate, someone's ex-husband, someone's son...

A strong bond between the primary partners of the family is normal, part 
of the design of life.  I always find it amazing that therapists, 
alcholism councellors, and "experts" will do everything thay can to 
promote "celebacy" as a lifestyle.  Lonliness is the conflict between the 
human instinctive need for sex, love, companionship, and intimacy and the 
cultural barriers of responsibility, morality, and guilt or shame.

One of the fundamental flaws of the "1950's houswife" was that she was 
expectied to find her fulfillment ONLY within the Marriage/Family 
relationships.  Prior to this time, a woman was an integral part of an 
entire community.  In fact, while the men play "power games" (even war),
women maintained a cohesive network and organizational structure that held
together not only the nuclear family, but also the extended family, the 
tribe, and the community.  While men were the defenders, catalysts of WAR,
women were the organizers, catalysts of PEACE.

The impending threat of nuclear holocaust deprived men of their 
traditional role.  In the frantic search for a new Identity, they reduced 
the identity of women.  Men are still looking for their role in the 
"Post-hiroshima world".  Many cling to their traditional role, fighting 
over drugs in the streets of the cities and suburbs.

> >Notice the use of the turm "nurturing" vs. "commitment".  
> Often, in a >Which parent has demonstrated the most 
> commitment?
> 
> When I say nurturing, I don't mean the one who 
> stays home.  I mean the one who gets there first when the 
> kid cries.

> hard this is to prove.  It is very hard to prove.  I'm 
> there is usually one parent who is much more committed to 
> the welfare of the child, and has kept track of who their 
> teachers are, when the next shot is due, etc.  That's the 
> one who should have custody. 

There is a fundamental assumption that the one who provides the  "care", 
fills a specific "role", is demonstrating the greatest commitment.  A man 
who works 60-80 hours/week to make sure his family is well fed and 
sheltered may be more committed that the woman who drops the kids off at 
school, goes shopping or partying all afternoon, and picks up the kids 
just in time to meet daddy at their favorite restaraunt.  Mom may be 
drunk from 7 P.M. til 3 A.M. but if she's awake to take care of the kids 
at the "right time", she's the best "parent".

If dad works from 8:00 A.M. until 2:00 A.M. to meet the needs of a 
demanding wife and spoil his kids rotten (send them to private schools, 
buy them a house in a safe neighborhood...), that can be used 
against him in a court of law as just cause for depriving him of custody.
It can also be used as just cause for extorting the maximum child support.
In some cases, it can even be used to justify limiting or refusing 
visitation.

> which makes them better qualified as >parents, even if they 
> do take turns checking into hospitals and psych >wards.
> 
> IT seems to me that if you had a good lawyer, the psych 
> wards thing should have worked against them long ago.

I had very good lawyers.  There is a good chance that a custody battle 
would have resulted in having my children in a foster home (because I 
couldn't afford the $40,000 bribe).  I got the same advice from 3 lawyers.
The only one that advocated a fight, lost interest when he realized I 
didn't have enough "Net Worth" to guarantee his fees.

Remember, in Colorado, I would also have had to pay for HER lawyer as 
well.

> Loving, caring women who may love 
> sex within the structure of a >resonsible monogomous 
> relationship are likely to wear blue-jeans and >sweat-shirts 
> in public.
> 
> Huh?  You lost me.  Could you explain that last statement?  
> Are you meaning jeans and sweatshirts as opposed to tight 
> clothes?

Men are conditioned to think that a woman who wears skirts, heels, 
stockings, and low-cut blouses are "sexy".  They often fall into 
believing that "sex=love", ergo, the woman who is "dressed for sexess" 
would want more sex.

The woman who is responsible and monogomous is less likely to make a 
"general audience production" out of her sexuality.  Unfortunately, men 
often equate that with "Boring", asexual, "rape victim", emasculating...
It's pretty stupid thinking  if you think about it.

> >Correction, the structures designed within the school 
> system are actually >designed to prevent healthy esteem.  A 
> room full of 30 8 year-olds is >much easier to control when 
> they feel they are puny and unimportant >compared to the 
> "Teacher/God".  
> 
> Most teachers are dedicated individuals who have been 
> castrated by a lawsuit-happy society.  They can't be 
> nurturing, or they're being sexually suggestive.  They have 
> 30 children when they should only have 20.

Exactly.  This is the basis for depriving them of self-esteem.  You are 
either building it or tearing it down.  The natural state of 
undersupervised children struggling with their own self-esteem is to 
ridicule others.  The minority of abused children attack the other 
students, starting with the weakest and most sensitive.  By the time they 
hit their teens, they are a ripe harvest for drug pushers and prostitutes.

> >Actually, try this...  Training adults to behave and become 
> healthy >adults.  Programs such as the Forum, Life-spring, 
> Focus on the Family, 
> 
> Not fond of Focus on the Family, or most of their agenda. 
> I'll take your word on the other stuff.

There are many ways to address the issues of training adults in 
relationships.  Unfortunately, the worst method seems to be "marriage 
councilling" where couples are encouraged to look at each other and 
"confront" each other.  They are encouraged to "stand up for themselves", 
and eventually become so "right" that divorce appears to be the only 
alternative.

Powerful relationships are based on unconditional love, forgiveness, 
generousity, and acknowledgement.  If tharapists took couples and had 
them look at what was great about their relationships, and what each 
person could "give up", in the interest of a more fulfilling marriage, 
the divorce rate would drop significantly.

> They would still go after >him for as much as they can get.
> 
> Yes, I know.  I asked about that at my divorce hearing, and 
> I was told that this was all determined "according to 
> guidelines" and that as the "advocate for the child" the 
> state determined it, and I could not legally refuse to 
> accept it or have it lowered.

This is the fundamental principle upon which the "Men's Movement" is 
based.  The state, as "Advocate for the Child", chooses to deprive the 
NCP of property and livelihood, as well as children without due process 
of law as defined by the Constitution and Ammendments.

He is compelled to testify against himself (he must pay for his wife's 
lawyer).  He is not allowed to call witnesses in his own defence.  He is 
not entitled to a lawyer.  He is not allowed the option of a Jury of his 
peers.  He is not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him.  He 
is not allowed to enter mitigating circumstances on his own behalf.  He 
is not allowed to enter extenuating circumstances against his spouse.  He 
isn't even allowed to appeal an "Uncontested" divorce.  He must cooperate 
with "Social Services" (The SS of the 1990's) and can be imprisoned for 
contempt if he fails to cooperate during any phase of the proceedings.

> >Many of the most radical feminists base their positions on 
> personal >experiences.  
> 
> Most radicals of any sort base their positions on personal 
> experiences or personal beliefs.  This is true of men who 
> claim they hate feminists, of weirdos who throw paint on 
> people wearing fur coats, or people who shoot abortion 
> doctors.

I disagree with those in the Men's movement who advocate "burning the 
witch" without a trial as much as I disagree with the feminists who want 
to "hang him by his balls until he pays".

My hope is that the "Goal" of the men's movement will be to stand for 
"Due Process".  To stand for men being responsible for their actions, and 
choices, and for women being responsible for their actions and choices.  
Depriving a man of liberty and property simply because he was the "lucky 
one" who just happened to fertilize the egg is unjust.  It does not 
consider the other men who have committed the same "crime" but didn't 
have the same consequences (how many women are virgins at marriage).

If a man forces his wife to have a baby, that is called rape.  It may 
even constitute aggrevated assault.  Prove that in a court of law and you
have the right to demand child-support.  It would be more just that he 
pay restitution than languish in a prison cell at the expense of 
tax-payers who are sexually responsible.

> >Sounds like very reliable communication :-),  do you even 
> have the >option of calling off CSS if he lets your husband 
> adopt them?>You will probably never get back child support. 
> 
> Now his father is lying to me and telling me he doesn't know 
> how to get ahold of him, and I know he does.   

If your ex, who now owes back child-support to CSS, ever attempts to 
contact the children, he will be arrested, jailed, tried for contempt of 
court, put into forced labor or sentenced to a penetentiary.  If your 
father-in-law told you he knew how to contact his son, he could be jailed 
for contempt - as an accessory.

> won't let you file for divorce on grounds of behavior that 
> you've demonstrated that you forgave.
> 
> >I was faithful to my wife.  Even if that meant as much as 3 
> years of >consecutive celebacy and chastity.  Jesuit Priests 
> get more than I did >from 1982 to 1990.
> 
> >> Sex is handball.  It's a pasttime. If you're lucky, you 
> find >> someone you can live with and play handball with for 
> the >> rest of your life, but sex isn't love and love isn't 
> sex.  
> >
> >Sex isn't love.  But deliberately arousing your mate, 
> encouraging him to >initiate, and abusively saying "I hope 
> you don't think I'm going to have >sex with you...I have no 
> interest whatsoever, just to get the real pain >
> >
> >> You can be wildly attracted to people but that doesn't 
> mean >> you have to nail them;
> >
> confirmed she was pregnant, she>refused to have sex for the 
> next 3 years (but kept teasing me as described>above). 
> >
> >When my daughter was conceived, she spent 2 days getting me 
> "ready" taking me>shopping, stopping to look at high-heeled 
> shoes, lingerie, and short Juniors>
> 
> 
> >> If you're raised with a Judeo-Christian 
> >> attitude, everything that isn't missionary style 
> male-female >>
> 
> I grew up agnostic.  I became "born again" during my early 
> twenties when I was married to Mr. Wonderful.  It was my way 
> of dealing with the pain--some people drink, and others do 
> drugs; I got really, really religious.  Eventually, though, 
> we reached am impasse: My marriage was intollerable, and 
> they kept asking me if I had "really" prayed for my husband, 
> and did I want to be reponsible if he wasn't saved by my 
> "Christlike" attitude?  It worked for a couple years.
> 
> >I grew up United Presbyterian.  We're a bit more flexible. 
> 
> They and the Episcopal church.  And you know, there's not 
> either one of those churches within 75 miles of her.  It's 
> about 70% Catholic, 20% Lutherin, and 10% Other.
> 
> If I can't indulge your kink, >and/or you can't indulge 
> mine, then at least one of us is a "pervert".
> 
> True.
> 
> >Women actually discover their sexuality much younger, 
> 
> Perhaps.  I didn't discover mine until I was in Jr. High.
> 
> Yes, my husband has tastes.  He didn't tell me about them 
> right away.  It caused a bit of a rift until I found out, 
> and he had hung his head in shame, can you believe it, and I 
> just said, "That's it?  That's the big secret?  Sweetie.  
> You have no idea how common that is."  And I told him I 
> still love him.
> 
> >Men are discouraged from masturbating 
> 
> You'll be happy to know that I had an honest talk with my 
> 11-year-old about the subject last year.  He heard the word 
> and asked what it meant, and I told him.  I said, 3 
> important things to remember: It's very private, even more 
> private than peeing.  Two, everybody acts like it's sick but 
> everybody does it.  Three, if you ever want to learn to wash 
> your own sheets aske me and I'll teach you.  He had this 
> look on his face like I had lost my mind.

The last one was "High risk" (you could be considered a pedophile), but 
I'm sure he knows how to wash his own sheets.  My father told me to use a 
condom for masturbating.  I didn't really appreciate it until I realized 
that I actually liked intercourse better with a condom.  That man get's 
smarter every year :-)

> >Women often don't learn to masturbate themselves to orgasm 
> until after >they've already had sex.  
> 
> I started when I was twelve, and didn't have sex until I was 
> 16.  Then after my second divorce I made it kind of a 
> "progect" (I know, it sounds weird) to be able to pleasure 
> myself, completely, in every way so that I would never feel 
> that I had to have a partner to be happy.  Now, of course, 
> it just helps relieve tension.

You learned to "touch yourself", your legs, your arms, your face, and 
learned how to "cross your legs like a lady".  You learned how to wear 
flannel and silk, cotton and chiffon, blue jeans and skirts.  It wasn't 
"Masturbation", but you were sensitizing your body, learning to play with 
the sensations in innocent ways, almost from the time you first wore 
diapers.  You werent' eve cnoncious of it.

Boys are "covered up", wear the same cotton jockeys made of the same 
material as the training pants they wore as 2-year-olds.  My son just 
started wearing "Boxers" at age 12.  They wear course weave cotton or 
wool and cover everything but their face and their hands.  If they are 
caught touching themselves, they are made to feel guilt and shame, which 
gets wired into even the remote similarity of those feelings.

> Tell me about it.  Today, I'm wearing a flannel shirt and 
> jeans (ooh, sexy) and men's topsiders.  Nobody will accuse 
> me of being a deviant, though.

I remember the day when, after 5 years of pushing my shame button over my 
preferences, my wife took a pair of my boxer shorts (I had 4 pair), sewed 
up the crotch, and wore them (with no underwear underneath) out shopping.
She frequently raided my flannel shirts.


> >message".  Ever notice the food at a church social?  Sex is 
> a mortal sin,
> 
> Funny you should mention this.  I noticed it this year, 
> because my kids insist that we go to church.  Anyway, We had 
> a social and I was SHOCKED at the amount of food.  It's a 
> realy problem for me.  I don't drink anymore or smoke 
> anymore, and overeating is the last frontier that I'm trying 
> to overcome.   

I remember when my Boss went on the "Optifast Diet", I went on a low-fat 
lo-cholestorol diet (We both weighed 275).  I went out as Debbie, danced 
4 hours/week, and ate sea shreds.  He drank milk-shakes that tasted like 
cake-mix.  Six months later, we were both at 185.  I left the company 
(something about a guy who knew Debbie reporting my outings to his 
brother, who relayed it to a peer who was bucking for a promotion and 
fed it to the V.P. of the Division).

> I have to go make taco salads now.  A vote was taken, and 
> that's what the kids want.  See ya.

I have to get back to work.  I have to make sure that the kids get their 
foot money.
 > 
> Regards,
> 
> Misty S-B
> 
> 
> 

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




From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Jan  9 22:21:42 1996