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


On Wed, 24 Jan 1996, fathers wrote:

> 
> 
> This message is forwarded to the Signatories to the FATHERS' MANIFESTOsm.
> 
> The FATHERS' MANIFESTOsm Home Page is:
> 
> http://idt.liberty.com/~fathers9/home.htm
> On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Rex Ballard wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, John Knight wrote:
> > > From: Frank Zepezauer 
> > > You wrote: 
> > >  >>Dear Ken, 
> > > >> >>I share your views below, and would like to add one item -- I would 
> > > >>attend any meeting at this point, but would far prefer that we utilize 
> > > >>this Internet media to formulate a GOAL first. 
> > 
> > > > >Dear John, 
> > > > > >I completly support your proposal! 
> > > >What our's and men groups in general seem to need most, these days are a 
> > > >common well-defined and generaly agreed upon mission, with goals and sub 
> > > >-objectives to allow us to work together in its realization. 
> > > > >Till, then we are bound to remain chat-groups where we can let go our 
> > > >frustrations at being so crushed by the system. This has a major utility, 
> > > >as it allows us to communicate and share our pains, which is difficult to do 
> > > >outside of the Net! >But, I belive now that its
> > > 
> > > Eliminating fatherlessness is indeed an important goal, perhaps the 
> > > primary goal for fathers' rights movement.  But even prior to that is 
> > > restoring father-presence as a norm.  It was the norm in most 
> > > civilizations until recently.  Now father-presence is no longer regarded 
> > > as requirement but as an option, and the option is left to the woman.
> > 
> > What is needed is the culture of responsibility.  A beer-drinking bubba who
> > has affairs every friday night then comes home to beat his wife and kids is
> > not a father.  I would oppose any movement that would try to force a woman
> > and children to stay with such a man.  I would oppose a movement that would
> > force a judge to give such a man uncontestable custody.  So would most 
> > other people.
> > 
> 
> There are a number of probems with the above scenario, Rex.  The first is 
> that the stereotype you describe does not exist in my small circle of 
> influence, nor does it exist in the circle of influence of those in my 
> circle of influence.  It does exist on TV, and you have mentioned it on 
> the Internet -- but nobody I know nor have talked to can find THAT guy, 
> who must be less than 1% of the fathers out there.

I have spent 15 years working with drug addicts and alcholics.  I have 
spent several years working and living in the inner cities.  Not only is 
this scenario extremely common, it is considered the norm for about 50% 
of the overall population.

The usenet community is predominantly middle-class and upper 
middle-class people who can read, write effectively in the english 
lanuage, can afford a computer, and can use a keyboard intensive 
interface effectively.  In fact, if anyone was able to submit to this 
newsgroup, they would not have a right to claim "disability" would they?
(they could at least work as data entry operators, writers, or typists).

Even with 68 million internet users out there, there is still about 200 
million potential users who can't even read this article in it's printed 
form.  There are about 20 million who wouldn't even be able to 
understand it if you read it to them.  They don't speak or comprehend 
enough English to understand this paragraph.

> The second is that you say he is not the father.  No matter how bad you
> might think his fatherly influence is, it is most likely far better than
> any other scenario -- it is better than welfare moms, it is better than

A man who has come to "hate" the mother, and act out on that hate by 
taking it out on the children, is NOT a father.  He is a selfish child in 
a 6' 200lb body.  Add alchohol and he becomes incredibly dangerous.  
Imagine meeting such a drunk, beligerant, tall, black, and heavy man, 
with lots of muscles and a major attitude, in the south bronx, and you 
are there with nothing but a tee shirt, boxer shorts, and two broken arms.
This is about the experience of several million women every single night.

Such men should be handled through due process.  Domestic violence calls 
are the most frequent and most dangerous calls the police officer gets.  
Usually involving a very heavy, strong, intoxicated, armed man.  
Unfortunately, unless he assaults an officer, it is impossible to 
prosecute him without a firm commitment from the wife/mother to testify.
The wife/mother who testifies must then confront his brothers and friends,
alone.  Often she will be raped before the man makes bail.

> stepfathers,

Is it really better than a responsible, committed, caring stepfather.  I 
insisted that if my wife wanted a divorce, she had to find a man who 
would be a good father to the kids before I would divorce her.  She spend 
2 years looking, found one, and had to wait 1 year before I was willing 
to trust this man with my children.  It actually turned out quite well.
The man is totally committed to my kids.  My kids are honor students, and 
they are accomplishing incredible things.  Most men are not willing to 
endure "blue-balls" for 3 years to insure that his wife finds a 
stepfather who will commit to the children as much as to the woman.

Child support alters a woman's criteria for a man in a negative way.  
Once there is a court ordered guaranteed income for 20 years, the woman's 
priorities shift to a desire for a man with more "free time".  If she 
wants to work and "find herself", she needs a man who can be a 
babysitter, not another white-collar workaholic.  She is easy prey for 
the "traveling salesman", the pusher, the dealer, the addict on 
disability...  This is especially true if she is home alone while the 
kids are off at school.  Who can she talk to at 3:00 PM in the afternoon.

If she decides to work, she cannot be available for the kids during one end
of the day or the other.  She will be expected to work 40 hours/week, and
would have to to be independent of welfare.  The problem is that school is
only open 30 hours/week.  For 2 to 4 hours/day, the children are left
completely unsupervised.  Notice the same holds true in two-income families
of the lower economic classes.  Who else is in the neighborhood between 3:00
PM and 6:00 PM? 

Gangs are often the "guardians" of their younger brothers and sisters.  The
children pay the price.  Some of the gangs take on paternal sounding names
(the priests, the bishops, the knights...).  Even when the family is intact,
parents working 10 to 12 hours/day to earn rent to pay the slum-lord leaves
their children unprotected.  The single mother often looks for someone she
thinks is a responsible "baby-sitter", not realizing that he may be a child
molester, dope pusher, or even a pimp.

> it is better than boyfriends coming and going, it is better
> than orphanages, it is better than being in the streets, it is better than
> massive housing projects, and it is better than giving the mother the
> slightest excuse for throwing out the marriage contract and thus gaining 

Consider what you are saying?  You are saying that it is better for a 
child to live with a man who is a pimp, drug addict and pusher, beats 
them black-and blue because they are looking at him (triggering his own 
guilt feelings), and even molests them, simply because he signed a 
marriage contract or just dribbled a little semen at the right time of 
the month?

I have advocated "due process".  Mom wants out, let her do so.  Let papa 
pay child support for a short period (3-5 years, long enough for her to 
go to college or trade-school).  The short fuse puts a fire under her to 
"get with the program" and either stand on her own two feet or find 
another man who is capable of being a good husband and father, by 
providing the same functions as the original father.

The decree/separation should be monitored as well.  Circumstances change 
over time.  Often, the father, confronted with the expense of two 
households moves into higher income brackets.  The mother becomes an 
addict or "falls in love" with one.  Custody shouldn't be a "done deal".

On the other hand, the child support should be based on the circumstances 
at the time of the marriage and REDUCED as the mother increases her 
productivity.  If the father ends up having to work a second job or has 
several raises to to more mobility, the mother doesn't have a right to 
benifit from his suffering.  The higher income came at the cost of losing 
that which he loves most, his wife and his children.

The husband should get an immediate 50% reduction on his child support if 
his wife remarries.  It shouldn't matter whether she marries the bowry 
bum or Donald Trump.  It might make her more cautious about some 
sweet-talking freeloader who makes a great room-mate but can't pay the 
rent.

The husband should get an immediate 50% reduction on his child support if 
he marries another woman who has one or more children.  If he is willing 
to take on the burdon and responsibility of providing for this new 
family, he should be encouraged to do so.  Hopefully, the cream will rise 
to the top, the responsible men will be desired because they have been 
great fathers, not because they have great moves on the dance floor and 
the bedroom.

Finally, make all payments over the "standard deduction" tax deductable.
If the standard deduction for the two kids is $2400/year, then let the 
NCP father who pays $600/month deduct the $4800 "extra" he pays.  Even in 
the "worst case scenario", it will result in a tax revenue loss of $2000
(50% of 4800).  Isn't that better than spending $45,000 to try and 
prosecute him as a "dead-beat-dad".  Over a 20 year period, the net 
benefit would be an additional $2000 against the net.

Men should also be given the incentive to have vasectomies.  A reduction 
in child support based on a demonstrated commitment to not have other 
children merits some form of consideration.  This should be considered 
when considering child support, when considering custody, and when 
considering taxation status.

> massive public spending to attempt to head off yet another criminal in 
> our prisons.  So of that small percent of fathers who fit your scenario, 
> an even smaller percent could or should be disposed of that easily.

The men who belong in prisons belong in prisons.  I think there is a 
desire among the politicians to use "dead-beat-dad" laws to circumvent 
the costs of trials, juries, public defenders, and prosecutors.  Putting 
a man in a forced-labor work-camp situation based on a contempt of court 
citation is not terribly difficult.  Prosecuting him for assault of his 
wife and children is nearly impossible under current law.

The problem is that the priority for enforcment agencies would tend to be 
those from whom they are most likely to get a return.  Bounty hunters 
would much rather go after the geek in the glasses with the $65,000 
income than the drug pusher/linebacker with the .44 Magnum who collects 
$3,000/year in disability income for that back injury he got lifting a 
bag of cement 5 years ago.

> The third is that you want responsibility, and then offer the mother the 
> EASY way out.  She should KNOW before she makes that commitment (and 
> gains that average 72% increase in living standard upon marriage) that 
> she MUST make this work, because if she makes a mistake, she will have to 
> live with it.

On this we agree.  What I don't think you can get alignment for is 
ripping the baby out of the arms of a nursing mother because she doesn't 
want to live with the husband who is now jealous and violent over her 
attention on the child and her inattention to him.  These feeling of 
jealousy and bitterness are a natural part of the child-birth and 
postpartum bonding.  Normal, healthy men acknowledge they feel this way 
but don't act out on it.  Men who turn to drugs, alcohol, and prostitutes 
to "take comfort", can be incredibly threatening at this most vulnerable 
time.

On the other hand.  Using this period to "drive the man out" in hopes of 
getting the paycheck without having to share the bed is too big a 
temptation under the current system.

>  Women gain in living standard when they get married, and 
> they gain even more when the get divorced.  Men don't gain either way -- 
> all they get is ALL of the responsibilities with none of the authority.

Men do get a benefit when they get married.  They get love, sex, 
emotional support, friendship, partnership, someone to share the 
responsibilities of common goals and an incentive to upgrade their 
capabilities.  Men can often gain maturity as well.

When the divorce occurrs, they lose all of the incentives described 
above.  What is the cash value of having someone who makes you feel loved 
and important?  What is the cash value of having a friend and confidant 
who supports you and loves you?  These factors are not included in the 
equation used to calculate child support.  For the man who has been 
"driven out" of the marriage by a woman who was once supportive and now 
witholds that support, the cost is much greater than what he pays in 
child support.

Men are supposed to be good soldiers who go to war, kill other human 
beings, and watch their closest friends be killed, without experiencing a 
human emotion.  They are supposed to be able to fall in love on queue, 
and suddenly not need love when everything beyond the paycheck is no 
longer needed.

We even call a man who acknowledges this need for love and partnership a
"codependent".  This term origionally meant something very specific (someone
who's need for love kept them in life-threatening relationships).  Today, any
man who wants a 3rd date is "co". 

Specifically, mothers gain in living standard over what they would be 
able to get if they continued to function as mothers.  It wouldn't be too 
difficult to get most married couples and most never-married men to align 
on the concept that men should not be forced to shoulder full 
responsibility for a woman who just wants to "have the baby and run".

> The fourth is that if you propose ANY solution which allows the legal 
> system a foothold in family affairs again, then it is worthless.  We have 
> an opportunity that is rare in human history -- the opportunity to get 
> back to a basic LEGAL document called a Constitution which will kick 
> the lawyers out of the bedroom.  If we MISS this opportunity, we will be 
> right back to where children are today -- 40% fatherless.

Under the Bill of Rights, we have a fundamental right to privacy.  The 
existing divorce laws try to solve the problem of not wanting to invade 
privacy by forcing the Judge to follow "mimumum guidelines" that presume 
that the father is an abusive, negligent criminal who should go to jail 
for crimes committed against is wife.  To give him the benefit of the 
doubt, he is only a 50% slave.  He gets to keep 50% of his income.

In no-fault states like Colorado, you aren't even allowed to disclose 
grievances about the marriage because it is considered an invasion of 
privacy.  If she "cut you off", or "turned tricks while you were at 
work", that is considered an invasion of her privacy.  If you try to 
bring it up in court, you can actually be cited for contempt, fined, or 
even sued for slander.

> And regardless of how bad you think some beer-guzzling, wife-beating
> fathers are -- the VERY FEW children who are really injured in such
> environments is extremely rare compared to the 21 million who ARE
> fatherless. BUT --

> 3,000 children are murdered per year by their parents
> 1,650 are murdered by their mothers
Who are with the children 80% more than their fathers.

> more than 1,400 are murdered by boyfriends or stepfathers
Who are often chosen for traits other than their suitability as fathers 
(great lovers, daytime availability, popularity...)

> less than 200 are murdered by their biological fathers
Most paternal violence is of the "black rage" variety.  The fathers swing 
once and then immediately "calm down", often going into deep remourse.  
The initial swing is often more of the kind of blow that a man will use 
to cause another man to "back off", the warning blow.  That same warning 
blow delivered to a 4 year old kid is enough to cause severe bruises, 
broken bones, and other injuries.  Because they "pull the punches" they 
are less likely to kill, but more likely to repeat the violence.

Women on the other hand, are discouraged from fighting at all.  Their use 
of physical violence is designed to protect them in life-or-death 
situations.  A woman may never show violence and will suddenly kill a man 
with a 14" kitchen knife as her husband swings for what will be the final 
time.  Many women end up in prison for killing their husbands, 
boyfriends, fathers, step-fathers, and other abusive men.  It's usually 
manslaughter, occaisionally 2nd degree murder, rarely a premeditated act.
Unfortunately, when a woman has had no more than 3 hours sleep/day for 3 
months, the "thermostat" that keeps her limbic system from fireing 
suddenly goes berzerk.  Suddenly that baby screaming represents a 
life-threatening situation and the mother stops the screaming by 
smothering the child or drowning it.

The brain-washing techniques of the korean war were developed out of the 
discovery in the concentration camps that a woman, locked in a room with 
her screaming baby would eventually kill it herself.  By using sleep 
deprivation, bright lights, and simulating the "screaming baby", the 
koreans were able to force a man to go against every instinct and 
training, for just a few hours sleep, even though giving out that 
information would mean certain death for hundreds of his closest friends.

In almost every one of these deaths, I think you will find that the 
"brain-washing" factor was in effect.  If the step-father was the 
babysitter for a working mother, he just got to be the one "brainwashed" 
into killing the child.  Even the 200 natural fathers were probably "stay 
at home dads" who were taking care of the kids.

Less than 5% of all natural fathers function as "full-time-mothers".  
Given that statistic, men have a relatively higher incidence of 
death/1000 full-time-mothers.

> These numbers are from the Department of Justice if you would like to see 
> them.

There are several other numbers that are interesting to see.  Number of 
single fathers vs number of incidents of violence.  Number of 
"step-fathers" as primary-care provicers vs number of natural fathers as 
primary-care providers (traditional families are more traditional).

Number of "family disturbance calls" involving male perpetrators vs 
number of calls involving female perpetrators (both types are received, 
but in different perportion).

It's like the classic argument that abortion is unneccessary because so 
many parents are willing to adopt children.  Unfortunately their are 
60,000 white couples waiting to adopt children and 60,000 black and 
hispanic "coke babies" waiting to be adopted.

There are probably 20 million sober, responsible men who want desparately 
to be able to be fully responsible fathers again, but can't afford it.  
Their are 30 million black and hispanic women who would desparately like 
to have a fully responsible man in their family.  Would you like me to 
introduce you?

> 1960s - right on brothers!

The baby-boomers hadn't had babies yet.  We were too busy dodging the 
draft and protesting the war.

> 1990s - fight on fathers!

The baby-boomers had become so selfish in the "me decade" of the 
seventies and the "Yuppie 80's" that they couldn't be bothered with the 
children who would be the "boomers" of the 21st century.  How will they 
treat us when we are 70 and have drained the economy with our early 
retirement.

My fathers child support for 3 children in 1977:
	 ($185/month on $2500/month income)

My child support for 2 children in 1990:
	($1000/month on $3000/month income)

Newt Gingrich's child support
	($85/month on $5000/month income)


> Sincerely,
> 
> John Knight
> 

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Feb  7 01:26:57 1996