In-Reply-To: <960105171654_107562017@emout04.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 



On Fri, 5 Jan 1996 JoinTMI@aol.com wrote:

> Rex Ballard  wrote:
> 
> >>I also tend to believe that "Ending fatherlessness" is a promising goal as
> to its meaning. But it is stated too negatively to become a constructive
> objective!
> 
> >You could flip it around to "Responsible Fatherhood".
> 
> That implies the problem has been men being "irresponsible." Would the NAACP
> have a rallying cry, "Non-Lazy Blackness"?

By "Responsible Fatherhood", this would imply that the true 
determination of would be based not on "who shot the sperm" but on who 
was willing to take on the responsiblity for the care and protection of 
the mother and children.

The man who "quirts and runs" isn't a father, or every man who squirts 
should contribute equally to the "support pool".  Which would be more 
practical to enforce?

> >Until men start carrying babies in their wombs this is one domain where 
> men will not be equal.
> 
> That's like saying until black men have white skin, they won't be equal.
> We're talking about equality before the LAW, not physiology. Anatomy does not
> entail legal stances.  

I am simply citing the basis upon which the legal precedents which 
deprive men of the choice of fatherhood exist.  Women want to have it 
both ways.  They want the exclusive right to choose whether or not to 
bear children, yet they also want the state to force men to be 
responsible for a choice they did not make.

A man can choose not to copulate.  A man can choose to have a vasectomy.  
These are the only two ways that a man can choose not to be a father.  
Condoms can be broken with a simple vaginal contraction.  Birth control 
pills can be rendered completely ineffective by antibiotics, cocaine, 
alcoholic detoxification, or abuse of the birth control pills.  A vaginal 
lubricant can be used to simulate a spermicide.

If one is to say that "any man who chooses to copulate is implicitly 
responsible for any child conceived by that woman", then that 
responsibility should not be limited to the "Window" (24 hours after 
ejaculation).

> >You can't force a woman to have a baby (that would constitute slavery) and
> it's her body. 
> First, it's not HER "baby." It's the man and woman's FETUS.

If she doesn't want to have the baby, just try to keep that FETUS alive.
If she wants to have the baby and you don't, just try to kill that FETUS
without her consent.  Once you "squirt", you no longer have a choice in 
the matter.  You don't even have to squirt inside.  She can take your 
condom to the bathroom and fertilize herself while she "freshens up".

Under the laws of the United States, you have NO reproductive rights as a 
man.

> Second, if you enter a business partnership, and the office moves into one
> partner's house, does that make the entity a sole proprietorship?

The father enters into a partnership.  When that partnership is disolved, 
the partner who "sells out" (gives up his right to the future proceeds of 
the business in exchange for exemption of debt or a cash settlment) has 
no right to expect future proceeds from the partnership.  An alternative 
to disolving the partnership is to move from a general partnership to a 
limited partnership.  In this scenario, the active partner can use the 
limited liability (investment) of the passive partner as long as he 
provides an incentive (dividend) or comparable equity value in the new 
corporation.

In the same way, a mother who wishes to disolve the partnership of 
marriage, could only expect child support by encouraging the father to 
continue to take an active role in the lives of his children.  Suddenly 
you would see women doing everything they could to make sure that daddy 
gets to see the kids as much as possible.

> Second, we now "force" men to pay for babies that exist solely because women
> unilaterally decide to birth babies from fetuses. THAT's enslavement of men.
> Why is that acceptable?

That is what is so right now!  The injustice is that men are forced to 
assume responsibility for a fundamental choice that they had no role in 
making.  Find any reasonable man who will willingly choose to sire a 
child, pay the mother for it's care and protection, with the prior 
understanding that he would not have the love/support/sex...benefits of 
the woman.  The initial terms under which a man sires a child are terms 
of the overall agreement (Marriage, 20 year commitment from the mother...).

This does give rise to the selfish man who would impregnate a woman, and 
throw her, and her child, onto the street when she was no longer 
attractive, desirable, or wanted.  One must consider that the woman
may have choices other than to rely on circumventing "Due Process" by 
having the "Social Services" (SS) agency enslave the man.

The current law allows a woman to throw a man out onto the street when 
she no longer finds him attractive, desirable, or wanted.  Then she has 
the full right, under protection of "Social Services" (SS) laws, to 
enslave the man by taking so much of his income that he only has enough 
to live in poverty conditions.

If a man spends 16-18 years working overtime, training himself, schooling 
himself, disciplining himself, enduring the lonliness and solitude 
required to train himself in a lucrative career.  A woman, with little 
more than a leaky condom, can force that man to submit the majority of 
his after-tax earnings to her with less than 10 months of "work".

She is now free to couple with a man who is more of a "Party Animal", 
meeting her definition of desirable and attractive.

The only thing that can distinguish the two is "Due Process".  A hearing 
in which all parties are able to state the relevant facts, call 
witnesses, and cross-examine the witnesses called by the opponant.

By circumventing the "Due Process" through "No Fault Divorce", forcing 
state mandated minimum support guidelines, and by giving a "Social Services" 
agency administrative powers which enable them to enforce a criminal 
penalty based on a judgement which was "settled" without a hearing, 
without a Jury, and without consideration of Mitigating and Aggrevating 
circumstances.  We have created the spectere of entering the 21st century 
in a culture which enslaves it's "middle-class".

> >Men and women have to face  the reality that this is a unique choice for
> which both the full liberty  and the full responsibility fall squarely and
> exclusively on the mother.

> That "reality" was one of many established by Roe v. Wade. Martians don't
> make laws, humans do. If we decide men alone can determine if babies are
> born, we could make that the law (aborting all fetuses where paternal consent
> isn't granted). I'm not saying we SHOULD, only that we could.

I am not speculating on what "Could Be".  I am stating "What's so".  
Under current law.  A man cannot "put the child up for adoption".  It is 
questionable whether he can even prevent the adoption.  Once a woman 
chooses to bear the child.  The only way he can abdicate "his 
responsibility" to allow another man (who is willing to do so) to adopt 
his child.  It is questionable whether another woman can adopt this 
responsibility.

Of course, the support/custody/visitation laws provide virtually no 
incentive for a sane man to assume this responsibility.  The natural 
father can be enjoine from visitation with a simple statement - provided 
by a licensed social worker - that visitation with the natural father is 
not in the best interests of the child.  No formal evidence is required.
There are also techniques such as mandating "supervised visitation", 
supervised by someone with a vested interest such as the mother's new 
lover, her mother, or anyone who can irritate the natural father into 
making a statement that can be construed as a threat against the mother 
and child.

The current dissolution of marriage, child custody, and child support 
laws assign a disproportionate amount of responsibility to the father, 
and a disproportionate amount of liberty and choice to the mother.  As a 
result, "In the best interests of the child", the mother is not held 
accountable for her own choices, decisions, and actions.

The true beneficiaries are the "Social Services Agencies" who can use 
regulations and precedents established by the IRS to circumvent the 
constitution and establish what amounts to "Taxation without 
representation".  Not only are estranged middle-class fathers subjected 
to the highest possible tax rates for individuals, they and also be force 
to pay (back) child support, volunteered under a comprehensive agreement, 
to be paid under compulsery terms, directly to that agency, who will then 
forward only the "AFDC Entitlement" to the natural mother and her children.
The remainder his "held in trust" (forwarded into the general fund to 
cover "costs of enforcement").  This is nothing more than taxation 
without representation.  It also constitutes a disproportionate taxation 
of a target group.  Finally, this revenue is collected under 
administrative authority, not by act of congress.  A good lawyer could 
have a field day with this.

In any other contract, abrigating any single clause of a contract can be 
cause for termination or renegotiation of the contract.  Under the laws 
of Matrimony, a marriage contract can be unilaterally broken by the 
natural mother with no consideration of that abrigation given to the father.

> To think past decisions are immutable is to ignore the fact that slavery is
> no longer allowed in America.

Under the current paradigm.  The mother has the exclusive right to bear 
children and the father (NCP) has the exclusive responsibility to provide 
for their economic needs.  Father has neither right nor responsibility 
for any other physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual need.  He is 
responsible for paying the CASH.

By asserting that a NEW Model must assign responsibility proportional to 
the liberty (choice), we can now define a new, more Just, paradigm which 
takes into account the unempeachable law of Cause and Effect.

> >Having stated that the liberty and responsibility fall exclusively on the 
> mother creates the fundamental structure for several byproducts or 
> sub-goals.
> 
> > 4. The mother who chooses to divorce her husband has 3 choices:
>   A.  Assume full responsibility for the child alone.
>   B.  Enroll the natural father into supporting the children.
>   C.  Enroll another responsible adult (male) into supporting 
>       the children.
> 
> There is a fourth choice: she gives care of her children over to the
> state...and pays child support.

Actually, this would fall under the function of catagory C.  The mother 
can "Give the baby up", "enroll 20 adults", or just "pan-handle while the 
kids are in school".  The fundamental choice of HOW the children are 
provided for becomes that of the mother.  She could even choose to grant 
custody to the father.

This still allows the state to intervene, but this would now require full 
"Due Process" as defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

> >>The CAUSE of fatherlessness is the female-headed single parent family. That
> is what we need to attack.
> 
> >The CAUSE of fatherlessness is an incentive system which penalizes a woman
> for making any of the three choices mentioned above.
> 
> Another cause: men doing nothing as feminists succeeded where Hitler
> failed...making children wards for the state (via custody awards to women on
> AFDC/WIC/etc. and child-support enforcement agencies).

Actually, this is very prophetic.  Hitler had his "SS", we have our "SS" 
they usually have initials in front of them, like "DYFSS", "CSS", or
some other branch of "Social Services".  These agencies have been given 
powers unprecedented since the Gestapo and the KGB.  The amazing thing is 
that the targets are MIDDLE CLASS MEN.  This group cannot afford the 
excessive legal expenses required to contest unjust "settlements" imposed 
under "uncontested" no-fault divorce.  They are also not entitled to a 
public defender in the "Contempt" hearing.

I am one of the 1% of 1% of all NCPs who not only has his child support 
"paid in full to date", but also pays the full mandated amount in 
addition to some extras.

My first child was conceived while I was tied spread eagle to the bed 
(THEN she told me she wasn't going to use a condom).  She used a 
thermometer and litmus paper determine the best time/day to assure an 
effective insemination.  Once the pregnancy was confirmed, she refused 
sex for 3 years, was verbally, emotionally, physically, and sexually 
abusive, and gave me an "allowance" of $10/day which went for bus fare, 
lunch, snacks and cigarrettes.  I also had to put gas in HER brand-new 
car out of that money.

On several occaisions, when I was getting frustrated with the abuse, we 
would go in for "Marriage Counciling", where an MSW would remind me that 
if I didn't like the situation I could give her 2/3 of my pretax income 
(leaving me with about enough for a flop-house room).

> >The current incentive system is built upon the following premise: Sex is a
> sin, a crime of our lower nature for which women must bear the pain of Labor,
> and for which men must bear the pain of toil. 
> 
> Yes. And all those heterosexual one-night stands...who did the men sleep
> with?
> 
> >1.  A father sins...
> 
> There is much truth to this. Roy Schenk has written for years how men, raised
> in a matriarchy (almost all people with "power" in young boys' lives are
> female: mothers, nuns, nurses, teachers, traffic-crossing guards, etc.), are
> SHAMED. Boys are told their bodies are funny (leading later to grown men
> sending limericks to Mike Royko when John Bobbitt was nearly castrated: name
> one woman who laughs when another women is raped!); their instincts evil;
> their inner-most soul devilish. And many men buy into this "demonization."

Only about 200 years ago, women were put to death for being midwives.  A 
woman who didn't please her husband would find herself in the 
inquisitioner's "chair of nails", until she "willingly confessed to 
consorting with the devil" and was "mercifully" burned at the stake.
There weren't many women asking for divorce in those days.

The constitution of the United States, along with the Bill of Rights,
created a formal structure which was designed to assure that no one, man 
or woman, would be forced to testify against themselves, would be 
convicted by the anonymous hooded figure pointin a finger or nodding a 
head.  That people could not lose their homes, land, livelihood, 
businesses, liberty, or lives simply on the "Say So" of some corrupt 
official.

Today, devorce courts, child custody, and "Social Services Agencies" find 
that it is not "expedient" to endure the expense of such simple functions 
as formal investigation, due process, and appeal.  Even the simple right 
to privacy, in the most private of all matters is not subject to even the 
"inconvenience" of a warrent.

In Arkansas, under Governer Bill Clinton, the Department of Social 
Services put out "Bounties" for the delivery of "Dead Beat Dads" to 
social services authorities.  These Bounty Hunters, not regulated by the 
constitution, often resorted to aggrivated assault, kidnapping, 
entrapment, and torture in hopes of collecting the 20% of someone's "back 
child support".

In some states, men are put into "work-camps" or "community corrections 
centers" where they are put 4 to a room in Motel rooms that previously 
rented for $60/week.  The "dead-beat-dads" are charged $45/day for their 
"room" and "board" (army chow - boot-camp-style).  The men are given 
rides to blue or white collar jobs for the state that pay 1/2 the 
competitive rate, and whatever "profit" the man makes is sent to DYFSS.
The mother receives the minimum support, consistent with the guidelines 
for AFDC payments.  The remainder is kept to recover "collection costs".

Under President Bill Clinton, military bases, no longer needed for 
national defence, are being converted to "work camps".  These will be 
places where men will be "encouraged" to work at jobs for which they are 
"most qualified".  Computer programmers will do IRS audits.  Machinists 
will fulfill manufacturing jobs for military contracts, and unskilled 
laborers will work as "landscapers".

Of course, the Liberal Mr. Clinton couldn't sanction such draconian 
measures himself.  He will loose an election in which "Dead-beat-dads" 
are kept from voting by threat of immediate arrest.  In fact, many 
deliquent fathers will be quietly "escorted" from the polling places 
within seconds of signing their names on the polling line.  They may be 
picked up before they even cast their vote.

The new Republican president, campaining on a platform of "Family Values" 
will round up the remaining "deadbeat dads", using credit cards, W4 
forms, and DMV records to locate them.  They will be sent to the "work 
camps" to spend the rest of their lives as "middle class slaves".

The "welfare mom's" (who can't collect directly from dad because they 
"turned him in") will be invited to take advantage of "low cost housing" 
in "secured neighborhoods", in the countryside (more converted military 
bases).  Armed guards will protect them from "dope pushers and 
undesirable elements".  It won't be until they arrive that they realize 
that the same guards who keep the bad guys out - can keep them in.

The children, as they reach those "rebellious teen years" will either be 
shot as intruders (accidentally of course), or will be sent to 
"correction centers" to take up where their fathers had "come up short".
Remember, when the employer is the landlord, the rent can never be paid 
in full.

The men's movement has less than 3 months to organize.  By the time the 
1996 presidential primaries are started, most of the convention delegates 
will be chosen for their "Family Values" (a generally negative attitude 
toward "dead-beat-dads and welfare-moms").  The platforms of both parties 
will include euphemisms for concentration camps.  The Democrats will use 
feminist rhetoric.  The Republicans will use "Family Values" rhetoric.

The contract on America :-), is very clear about it's position on the 
forces which contribute to "The break-up of the family".

> >> If doing so is perceived as negative by some, so be it.
> 
> >There are many ways to express a goal or objective.  Expressing it as a 
> possibility will make it easier to enroll others (who might otherwise 
> oppose you).
> 
> Being afraid to be attacked by the enemy guarantees you'll never act. No
> matter how "nice" we try to be, feminists will paint us as "misogynists." So
> what? McClelland would never fight, no matter what the opportunity. He CAUSED
> the Civil War to last for 4 years. Grant would never stop, no matter the
> casualties. He ENDED the war.

We are in the middle of a two-front war.  On the religeous right, we have 
the heirs to the KKK and the Nazis - screaming for "Family Values" 
(compare speeches by Gingrich, Dole, and Quail to those of the KKK in 
1921, or those of the Nazis and the Fascists in 1932).  Within 6 years, 
black men were being burned on the crosses and jews were being lined up 
for the machine guns of Babi Yar.

Today, there are new targets.  Our modern culture will not allow men to 
persecute others for their biological differences.  On the other hand, 
persecuting people for making choices which made their children dependent 
on the U.S. "Social Services Agencies" has become just cause for 
administrative acts just short of revoking the constitution (many right 
wing Republicans and Left Wing Feminists are advocating a constitutional 
convention to alter or abolish the "ineffeciencies" of the constitution.  
Pat Robertson has advocated it since 1984.

Once the "opposition is eliminated" in a drain of resources against each 
other, the Religeous Right can hold a constitutional convention as early 
as 1999 to draft a new constitution to become effective before the year 2000.
We might even bring back the "Inquisitioner's chair" (Electricity is so 
much "neater").  Anybody been to a "Campus Crusade in the last 20 years?".

> Robert

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



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Jan 10 00:40:41 1996