In-Reply-To: <960217003542_424716528@mail02.mail.aol.com>
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 Sat, 17 Feb 1996 JoinTMI@aol.com wrote:

> rballard@cnj.digex.net (Rex Ballard) wrote:
> 
> >Many men are divorced by a mutually negotiated settlement...and 
> jointly decide on a "Joint Custody with Mother as Primary Physical 
> Custodian".
> 
> Which, as I said, gives HER all the power.

Theoretically, it places some restrictions on her power.  I was able to 
intervene when her husband started using corporal punishment (whippings 
with a belt) against my children.  I told her that I would not tolerate 
the use of physical abuse.  She did stop the practice.

> >The perception of the courts is biased against the man. 
> Why? Aren't judges and lawyers male. And if things ARE biased, what are men
> doing to correct them? 

The courts must make their rulings based on a preponderance of the 
evidence.  Unfortunately, the preponderance of the evidence of biological 
parentage must always go to the woman.  The child could ONLY come out of 
her womb.  On the other hand, even the blood test will only prove whether 
or not the suspected father is NOT the father.  The only situation where 
both parents would have equal rights to claim parentage would be in cases 
of adoption.

The courts limit the evidence which is admissable in court under 
"no-fault" rules.  The only evidence which is relevent to the custody 
issue is whether the mother is a clear and present danger to the 
children, either through abuse or negligence.  If a woman is an 
alcoholic, drug addict, felon, or has been declared mentally incompetent 
by a court of law, then the father can then make a case for being the 
best "Second Choice" parent.

> >As a political "Base", the number of men who actually fought a full-fledged
> custody battle and still "Lost the Kids" is relatively small. Probably less
> than 1% of the general population.

> How many white people were slaves in this country? Many still fought against
> slavery in the Civil War. 

There were several issues in the Civil War.  The fundamental issue was 
not slavery but the right of the Federal Government to impose laws on the 
states.  Lincoln opposed slavery, there were many abolishionists before 
him, all the way back to John Adams and Benjemin Franklin.  They believed 
that slavery was morally wrong.

The southern plantation owners knew that their economy would collaps without
slavery.  Even today we import migrant farm workers, pay them "per unit"
wages far below standard, force them to sleep in aluminum quanset huts and
make them drink from wells that are often less than 20 feet from the
outhouse.  Bill Moyer's "Harvest of Shame" dramatically illustrates that 
although the abolishonists won the "War", economic slavery still exists 
among those who harvest "hand-picked" crops.

> How many whales are on the board of Greenpeace?

The feminists were able to turn us into slaves by bringing out their 
stories of women who were forced to take their children to Red Cross 
shelters because Daddy wanted a new "Trophy Wife".  It took almost 40 
years to push the pendulum this far.  The more women redefined their 
roles to become economically independent and take on a broader range of 
roles within the family and within society, the more men "Closed Ranks", 
becoming more and more militaristic in culture, dress, and values.

> >Unfortunately, most custody and support decisions are made based on 
> statistical assumptions rather than on evidence or investigation.
> 
> Again, why "unfortunately"? If men didn't feel the orders were fair, what did
> they do about them?  

They obeyed the law.  Newt Gingrich paid $100/month.  Fathers who pay 25% 
of their pre-tax income after paying 50% of their income in taxes is a 
relatively new phenomina.  Over a period of 40 years, only the last 5 
years have actually been forced to pay this type of "Extortion Money".

Personally, I wouln't even mind paying 20% of my after-tax income, or 
paying child support that was completely tax-deductable.  At least that 
would leave me with enough to pay for a nice apartment and marry a single 
mother.  I regret to say that "Responsible Men" will probably be extinct 
within 20 years.

> Due Process at the initial phase is very expensive - 
> How do women pay THEIR bills?

In Colorado, the legal expenses of the mother are apportioned between the 
mother and the father based on income.  This was instituted to prevent 
wealthy fathers from intimidating destitute women into forfeiting all 
parental, support, and marital rights.

> >...women plan their divorces well in advance. 
> They unite. One visit to NOW headquarters or a battered women's shelter gets
> them all the weaponry they need.  

Even before that, they network.  They share their experiences of going 
through the divorce.  The women who have been through it already share 
what worked for them, and the women who haven't been through it listen, 
subconciously setting the stage for the day when he "gets tired of her".  
Over time, she "gets tired of him" and has spent 3-7 years gaining every 
strategic legal advantage.  All she has to do is play the "happy 
home-maker" for 18-24 months and Dad gets the "Imperial Shaft".

> >Men on the other hand, do everything they can to deny the possibility.
> Clueless, wearing "kick-me!" signs, men are surprised they get abused?

Every time a man flirts with another woman, forgets to say "I love you", 
criticizes her for her appearance, or just avoids what he thinks might 
become an unpleasant conversation, he plants the seeds of doubt in her 
mind.  In the fertile networking environment of 5 to 10 women, at least 
one of which is going through a divorce, these doubts are confirmed.

Women often experience themselves as victims.  The man may just forget to 
take out the trash - but to the woman, he doesn't love her any more, he 
doesn't care about the relationship, he is selfish and abusive, and he is 
exploiting her.  All this because he forgot to take out the garbage bags.

Because of our repression of female sexuality, and our perpetuation of 
ignorant males, the dynamics of the bedroom get even more insane.  The 
woman who isn't supposed to want sex but does but gets frustrated because 
she doesn't have orgasms as intense or as often as he does... Eventually 
feels like she's being ripped off, and even raped, by a selfish man.

Finally, because women aren't conditioned with a "do or die" relationship 
to earning income (men do not have a "safety net" that women do), they 
have a different relationship toward money, goals, accomplishments, and 
relationships than men do.  The man looses his sense of security the 
minute after he says "I do", the Judge/Minister/Priest/Rabbi pronounces 
them "Man and Wife" and he kisses the bride only to get one of those 
"socially acceptable mouth-closed kisses".  This is when the women 
actually feels "actualized", secure, like she's fulfilled a major 
accomplishment.  She put the ring around his finger in the ceremony, but 
she put it through is nose spritually.

The man goes into a "cold sweat" when he first learns that his wife or 
girl-friend might be pregnant.  To a man, this is the ultimate 
commitment, the ultimate loss of freedom.  He knows that he may have to 
support this child for 20-25 years, whether or not the mother stays 
around, whether or not he gets to see the children.  In that moment, he 
realizes that he is about to become a slave.

From that moment on, he makes every effort to "Make it work".  He convinces
himself that this is a "good thing".  By the time the pregnancy is 
confirmed, he can actually cheer along with his wife.  By the time he 
goes through Lamaze classes - he is actually looking forward to being a 
father.  When the baby is born, it is one of the most magical and 
wonderful moments of his entire life!  Nearly every father who has been 
present at the birth of his first child describes it as the most powerful 
moment in his life.

The woman, on the other hand has a very different relationship to all of 
this.  She looks forward to getting pregnant.  When the day comes that 
she can confirm the pregnancy, she is thrilled to death.  For her, this 
is not only the fulfillment of her destiny, it is also her guarantee of 
security.  At this point, she is no longer exclusively dependent on her 
ability to keep her man interested.  She might not get maintenence, but 
she WILL get whatever she needs as the child's mother.

How did all this get set up in the first place?  We decided that the 
children were better off with their mothers than in orphanages at a time 
when women were limited in their ability to earn income and men were the 
primary "breadwinners".   Under various "Welfare" programs, we did 
everything we could to make it so that mothers would not have to put 
their children in orphanages.

Remember too that this was started at a time before we had blood tests for
paternity.  At a time when a "girl in trouble" wasn't entitled to support for
her "illegitimate" child.  This was a time when men would seduce prostitutes
or young women hoping for love and leave within a few nights, when men of the
depression would be taken to work-camps for riding the rails or loitering in
southern towns.  This was done at a time when soldiers when to war and 
died living their unmarried sweethearts with children and no father to 
support them.

Unfortunately, this "safety net" became a "welfare trap".  It created the 
myth that a woman could "get married and live happily ever after" because 
she could get welfare if her man skipped town.

Feminism of the 1960's saw the nature of this trap.  By making women 
dependent on their husband and later dependent on the government, they 
would have less incentive to train and develop themselves in the public 
schools, they would be less inclined to join the work-force, and they 
would be less capable of becoming independent.  In 1945, when this system 
was first instituted, that is exactly what it was intended to do.  They 
wanted to get "Rosie the Riveter" off the factory floor so that "G.I. 
Joe" could have a job when he came home.

By the 1970's, the feminist Ideal as depicted by Helen Reddy was the 
woman who could "Bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan".  Women 
were becoming successful "SuperMoms".  They would do well in their careers
while picking the children up after work and feed, bath, and bed them.  
Of course the burning question was "Where's daddy in this family".

By the start of 1980, double digit inflation, interest, and unemployment 
had squeezed families to the point where both parents had to work, and 
dad often had to work a second job on the side.  The concept of "family" 
was more like some sort of memory of something that happened back in the 
dark-ages, before television.  Often, when families were together, 
everyone was so tense from their relative job or school roles that there 
was little nurturing communication.  Most families had become 
"disfunctional".

During the "Reagan Years", the country became almost schizophrenic.  On the
one hand, we wanted to become even more successful "Yuppies", in pursuit of
wealth and status.  On the other hand we wanted to "Focus on the Families". 
We somehow believed that if we could somehow get back to families like "Leave
it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best", that we would somehow solve our
problems.  The generation that wanted to go back to th 1950's was born in the
1970's and didn't realize that it was all make-believe.  As the Meese
Commission sought to make all pornography a federal crime, Madonna was
swinging her tassles and black corset on MTV. 

During this time, fathers were legislated out of the family.  Men were 
arrested and convicted of child molesting for changing diapers in a 
day-care center.  Men were prosecuted for giving their children baths 
while mom was at work.  Incest and molest laws literally made it illegal 
for men to raise children.  Meanwhile movies like "Mr Mom" dramatically 
illustrated that men were incompetent to be "Mothers".  Even in "Kramer 
vs. Kramer", the "Happy Ending" was that Dustin Hoffman got to "Visit" 
more often.

By 1990, the "SuperMoms" were breaking down.  Mr Mom was an incompetant 
boob and the "Moral Majority" wanted to get women "back in the kitchen 
where they belonged".  Housing prices crashed, layoffs and cutbacks left 
many families without pension and retirement funds, and the divorce rate 
was going through the roof.  The government had it's problems as well. 
They could barely pay the interest on the Federal Debt, they were 
draining Social Security, and the "entitlements" roles had swelled to 
over 53% of the population.  The portion of the population that was 
paying taxes was already paying a minimum of 40% and tax revolts in 
California, Colorado, and New Jersey each demonstrating support from no 
less than 49% of the population (the tax-paying half) were sending clear 
signals that they weren't willing to pay more.

Looking for pockets of the population they could target for budget cuts 
and tax increases, the wise men in Washington pointed to divorced fathers 
and single parent families.  At first they were just going to make it 
easier to enforce the existing orders so that the mothers could get 
lawyers and bounty hunters to go after them.  It was easy to get the 
"Moral Majority" to go along with that, and to get the "Liberal 
Feminists" to align.  This would get mothers off of welfare, force 
fathers to pay the expenses that the state had traditionally picked up, 
and make it possible to balance the Budget.

Suddenly the Department of Health and Human Services "Had an Idea".  They 
could just collect the money directly from the fathers and pay it 
directly to the mothers.  This would eliminate the backlogs in the 
courts, and put child-support enforcement under federal jurisdiction.
Of course, they would need to pocket some of the proceeds to cover their 
administrative expenses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we lost track of, back in 1945, was the concept that women could and 
should be capable of supporting themselves - before marriage or after a 
divorce.  Women should be motivated to excel in school, to complete 
school, and to get into college if they can.  A woman who can return to a 
rewarding career that pays enough to pay the rent, heat, transportation, 
and the other needs of a family won't need 60% of the families after-tax 
income.

We also assume that a woman suddenly becomes disabled and incapable of 
attracting another man once she has become a mother.  We assume that this 
"innocent victim of a selfish and unreasonable man" will be incapable of 
providing any type of support for her children.  We assume that even 
though we make him a stranger to his family - that a father will accept 
the obligation he has to HIS children - that he almost never sees, that
call another man "Daddy", and that don't get his value system.

Under the current laws, a man who commits the crime of spawning a child 
is forced to spend the next 20 years supporting children who will be 
strangers to him within 4-5 years (due to the "Relocation Expectation" of
a 20 year career).  A woman, on the other hand is not expected to reduce 
that burden over time.  If she works, gets remarried, or starts "hustling 
on the side", she is still entitled to "state mandated minimums" 
(originally called "guidlines") based on the assumption that she is 
incapable of earning anything more than minimum wage.

These expectations not only enslave the father, they also enslave the 
mother.  By allowing her to indefinately abdicate responsibility for her 
children, she is encouraged to remain ignorant, unmotivated, and 
unproductive.  What will happen when this woman - dependent on 
child-support as her primary income - is left with two children who have 
grown up and no longer need child support?  What will happen to the 
father who has been unable to save for his old-age because he was paying 
child-support?

Are we prepared for a "Grey Revolution"?  Are we prepared for the day when
old people blow themselves up in densely populated buildings, because they
can no longer afford to live?  The men and women who grow up without love,
without happy memories of their children, and without the compassion that
being a parent provides will likely become sociopathic, as will their
children.  The men who survived the VietNam war may fight the final battle
against their own grand-children in the streets of New York, Detroit, and Los
Angeles.  Their grand-children will be armed with automatic weapons, 
sophisticated explosives, and the ability to kill "for pleasure". 

We are building a future today.  We are always building a future.  By 
creating a structure that encourages women to divorce their husbands 
for unspecified "irreconsilable differences" and prevents responsible men 
from remarrying into other families where they might be appreciated, we 
are creating a future generation where responsibility is a sign of 
weakness, where it is better to kill your wife and go to prison than to 
be made a slave for unspecified charges, without a trial, without a 
lawyer, and without "due process of law".

Even today, we have 10 year old kids killing 7 year old kids, "just for 
the fun of it".  We have 12 year old rapists, and 16 year-old serial 
killers.  Every June, when school lets out and there's no adult 
supervision, gangs of young teens and pre-teens, male and female, rob, 
rape, and kill for drug-money.  Most come from homes where the father is 
gone - but their financial needs are being met.

Who will be responsible when our sons impregnate young women as teens, 
because he learned about sex in the locker room?  Who will be responsible 
when our daughters are pregnant by a man who has been sentenced to 
double-life for killing a guy who wouldn't cough up the drug-money?
Who will tell them that they need to work for a living?  Who will tell 
them that they must be responsible for the consequences of their actions?
Why should they believe us?

> -Robert

Rex


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Mon Feb 19 17:52:49 1996