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:

> 
> 
> 	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
> 	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, John Knight 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.
> > 
> > It bothers me more than anything else that so many men with so much time
> > in the trenches can't, won't, or refuse to articulate a goal.  Even
> 
> There have been several attempts to articulate goals which will have an 
> impact on a wide spectrum of men.  There have been several attempts to 
> define a stream of thinking that will empower men to make more powerful 
> choices, and empower women to be responsible for their choices.
> 
> A fundamental agreement is that, under the current system, women make 
> choices, often selfishly, and the expect men to be responsible for the 
> consequences of choices the man had minimal role in taking.
> 
> Women often portray themselves as innocent victims of stereotypical men.  
> This enables them to avoid being responsible for their own choices and 
> actions.  The woman who goes to a biker-bar, finds a couple of drunk 
> bikers, and goes home with the winner of the fight, suddenly becomes an 
> innocent victim when he hits her.  All other men are guilty by 
> association.
> 
> The woman who marries a man who has worked his way through college, built 
> up a profession, and has learned to be responsible in both his 
> lifestyles, and in his fiscal matters, is given the RIGHT to turn this 
> man into a "White Collar Slave".  He has to work for many hours of his 
> life, is expected to provide the bulk of the support for the wife and 
> children, and is expected to expect nothing in return.  A man who comes 
> home from a 16 hour day at work and expects love, sex, or even a few kind 
> words is a CHAUVANIST PIG.
> 
> A woman who chooses to use sex to attract a man and get his lifetime 
> commitment and then "cuts him off" the minute she knows she's pregnant is 
> just being a "good mother".  The "Good Father" is supposed to work double 
> shifts to support the family.  If the woman works, she's entitled to keep 
> what she earns.  The man is entitled to keep only what is left after all 
> of the other obligations are met, including the brand-new car for the 
> wife and the 3 bedroom house "for the kids", and of course any urges his 
> shopaholic wife might have.  He can bring the "doggy bags" to work with 
> him.
> 
> > attempts to debate this issue to arrive at even the most milquetoast goal
> > possible resulted in insults, flames, divisive language, character
> > assassination, calls for meetings about the meetings, calls for men who
> > aren't fathers in other countries which don't even he divorce to take
> > charge, BUT NO GOAL. 
> 
> Welcome to the real world!  If you can't create a possibility in this, 
> highly structured, highly organized communication structure, how to you 
> expect to win the support of 100 million males, 1/2 of which have not 
> become fathers, haven't been through a divorce, still want to get 
> married, got "let off the hook" by one or more ex-es, and haven't paid a 
> penny in child support (because they don't have to).
> 
> The Alimony/Child support is the tip of a very large iceberg.
> 
> > I proposed "Eliminate Fatherlessness" as a simple, non-confrontational 
> > goal, and only ONE man stood up for this, and he is not the most visible 
> > icon for the movement.
> 
> It is a goal that appeals to a relatively small segment of the 
> population, and draws fire from substanial opposition.  It sounds like 
> you want the courts to just "turn the kids over to papa", let mom prove 
> she is worthy of getting to visit the children that have been her major 
> focus for 5-10 years.
> 
> > Why have a meeting without a goal?  We could use the FATHERS' MANIFESTOsm 
> > as a rallying point, but that is 12,000 angry men who agree to rather 
> > vague language, but still without a goal.
> 
> The father's manefesto addresses the issues of injustice in the family 
> court.  It addresses the issues of economic slavery in the guise of a 
> community concern for the children.  It stirs the heart of any man who 
> has been forced to pay tribute to a woman who has not only broken a 
> solemn vow, but has also taken the people most important to the man (the 
> woman he married, the children, and his own self-respect).
> 
> Does a man who "dumps the old hag" to marry his new barbie-doll 
> trophy-wife care SQUAT about this issue (probably not).  Does the "stud" 
> who lives with Mom and Kids, supplementing the family's welfare and 
> child-support with drug-money or earnings from labor off the the books 
> care about this issue (definately not - it theatens his gravy train).
> Would the dead-beat-dad who knows he deserved to lose his kids because of 
> his drinking, drugging, and abusiveness support the Manifesto?  Would you 
> want him to?
> 
> > Let's agree to crosspost and triple post the FATHERS' MANIFESTO, with a 
> > proviso that we meet to list every possible way the attendees can 
> > "Eliminate Fatherlessness", and require that all attendees commit to 2 
> > hours per week after the meeting to implement their version of 
> > fatherlessness elimination?
> 
> You are choosing the goal.
> 
> > Maybe it can be timed to influence the Republican Convention in San 
> > Diego? Maybe we can make this a plank in their platform?  Maybe we can 
> 
> The "Contract with America" claims that it's cornerstone is reponsibility,
> accountability, and integrity.  These can be the building blocks for a
> powerful position that empowers both men and women.  It gives the working
> mother the ability to responsibly reap the consequences of her choices (more
> money, less time with the kids), and limits the responsibility of a man 
> to the duration of the commitment.
> 
> If responsible men were empowered to become fathers, to recommit to 
> powerfully supporting a new family, they could, and would, do so.  If 
> irresponsible women are forced to confront their own selfishness, they 
> will have to either find a successful man who can pass on the values of 
> integrety and honor that made him successful in the first place.  Today, 
> the management of large corporations is willing to chase the "quick buck" 
> and the "quick fix", even though it will ultimately bankrupt the 
> corporation and force millions into personal bankruptcy.
> 
> > ...fatherlessness is bringing our society crashing down around our 
> > knees, and the media is just barely able to mumble a little bit about it.
> 
> Not so much fatherlessness, but the values required to be a successful 
> and responsible father.  The most responsible fathers are caught in a 
> "squeeze play" where they must pay their first family so much that it 
> prevents him from having a second.  It gives children the message that 
> only "suckers" are responsible.
> 
> > 80% of the fathers who responded to the survey stated that the emotion 
> > they feel when they think about their experience in court is "beyond 
> > rage".  This is something to meet about.  Women who have seen the data 
> > and the 'One Page Stories' are articulating some very incredible ideas -- 
> > and just last night a woman who was not very sympathetic to the cause a 
> > month ago stated outright that 'maybe it is time to reconsider suffrage'.
> 
> The problem isn't women's suffrage.  The problem is that politicians have 
> been confronted by a force of women, mostly mothers, who spend a great 
> deal of time in service to the community, have a large influential 
> network of friends, and can influence elections at city, state, and 
> federal levels.  The League of Women Voters is one of many organizations 
> which put politicians in front of women in the interest of "political 
> education".  No serious candidate would go in front of an audience 
> consisting of a majority of women and propose the Manefesto.
> 
> > 
> 





Then let's find the candidate who will specifically support the FATHERS' 
MANIFESTOsm, put him in front of a typical audience, and see what happens.

Don't forget -- the only objections to the language of this document came 
from the far, far left.  They were very noisy objections, but they were 
FEW, a small minority.




From rballard@cnj.digex.net Thu Feb  8 02:39:51 1996