![[Get /images/autoline.jpg]](/images/autoline.jpg)
Click here to view the larger jpeg.
I was listening this morning to your discussion over the abortion issue that came up due to Pres. Clinton's veto of a bill yesterday. Unfortunately, I don't know much about it, so I can't comment one way or another about it.I should say this as a qualifier before continuing. If you had asked me 5 years ago if I thought abortion was OK, I'd have said, not just "Yes," but "Heck, yes!" However, due to some experiences I have had since then, I now think that life begins at conception. Because of this I am now anti-abortion except in the case where the mothers life is in danger.
On the other hand, I also believe and support the right of women (and men) to have control over their own bodies. These two views are not contradictory, believe it or not. (I could go into the reasons why, but it would take too much time... just suffice it to say, in both cases there is a choice to be made.)
However, I think a comment made by [cut] was rather ironic. She supports the right of women to control their bodies. This, in her view, means the right to abort a child/baby/fetus/zygote (select the term you like). (I do realize she doesn't support the use of abortion as a method of birth control.) The ironic part is she also supports a woman's right to control the body of the father.
It seems to me you "can" (I really mean "should") only do one OR the other. OK, I'm not being totally clear. Let me give you an example or two to make my point.
Bottom line is, as long as the woman has the sole right to determine if they keep the child, then it SHOULD be the woman's sole responsibility for raising it. If the woman doesn't have the choice, then the father also bears equal responsibility and should be forced to assume it.
- If the mother has the right to control her own body, then she has TOTAL responsibility for what she does with it and if SHE chooses to have a baby (as opposed to aborting it) then she, alone, SHOULD bear the responsibility for raising it. It SHOULD be optional for the male parent to bear that responsibility. The problem is, there are cases in which the mother of the child doesn't want it, but the father does, but HIS wishes don't count. The mother can (and has) aborted a wanted child by the father.
- If the mother wants the father to be forced to share the responsibility then the decision about abortion SHOULD be a non-issue. It can't happen. Then this forces the potential father to share in the responsibility of conception.
However, no more of this "have your cake and eat it too" BS. I hate the idea of being nothing more than a walking wallet.
You see guys, it is not always one sided. Any comments are welcome. This is 1996, and not a time where ex mates are at WAR with each other. It should be a time when PARENT'S should care about the past and the future>>>>>>>>the children. Wake up!!!!!
Editor: Your point is well taken. But who said there aren't any jerks among fathers? There is, however, a vast difference between there being some men who, individually, are jerks (just as there are some women), and a legal system that generally discriminates on the basis of sex.We know of individual cases where a court here or there discriminates against mothers in custody cases, and in those cases we can frequently trace the problem back to the golden rule -- if the father has gold (or if he's backed by someone who has the gold) then the court sides with him because who has the gold makes the rules.
If the father is not a wealthy member of the system (or is not backed by someone who is), the same court that discriminated against the ex-wife of a powerful man last week will discriminate against every man who enters the courtroom this week, because, as I have long maintained (and as Robert Anton Wilson noted in a backlash article a while back), we live in an oligarchy.
Oligarchies are dominated by wealthy families. Traditionally, those families have been dominated by a relatively few men (where most people get the idea this is a patriarchy). These men are generally unaffected by femininsm, and frequently benefit from it -- the larger the supply of labor, the less you have to pay for it; the more "liberated" women are, the easier and more socially acceptable it is to sleep with many women without having to worry about any socially construed obligations to support them, and so on. Thus, these men generally support the feminist agenda where and when it benefits them.
When The Backlash became too much of a threat to the local oligarchy, they put me out of print. What most folks don't know (because it was minimalized or ignored by the press) is that they also put The Equalitarian out of print. The Equalitarian was a far greater threat to the oligarchy than The Backlash because, in a sense most don't appreciate, it is a far more aggressive project than The Backlash, in that, while The Backlash defends men and provides some counters to pop feminism, The Equalitarian challenges the status quo.
Once the backlash site is paying for itself, I will resume publication of The Equalitarian.
In the case at bar, the father (a lawyer) on behalf of himself and as next-friend for his current wife and his daughter filed a three-count motion for judgement against a licensed clinical social worker who provided family therapy under a court ordered referral. The suit asks for $11 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages.
The following is what I have been told about the case:
The therapist when setting up a video camera for an interview with the child accidentally turned on the camera. The camera recorded the therapist explaining to the ex-wife and the child how to make up and phrase false-allegations of abuse by the father.The therapist then thought she was turning the camera on and conducted the phony interview and sent a copy of the tape off to the father... complete with her instructions on how to make false allegations! BUSTED!
This is a major victory for us... and when the case is over, the tape will be invaluable in showing legislators what often really happens when the "child savers" go to work to "get a dad"
Keep fighting and keep the evidence coming to us. We are making a difference!
Editor: I've forwarded your request to Earl Silverman of the Family of Men Support Society in your area.
You want to trade links? I'm at Good Will Toward Men
After hearing so much negative bullshit over the last couple of decades, it's great to read something positive. I admire the guts it took to appear on a talk show knowing that everyone on the show (including the host) was against you. It sounds like you made a great argument for sanity.
I am part Native American (Chickasaw and Cherokee) and part European American (English, Scottish, etc.) and I think the current climate about race and gender in this country is apalling. I reside in the South where racism against whites by black taxi drivers, cashiers, salespersons, and so on, is common. And, of course, I've encountered racism through Affirmative Action when applying for jobs. I would argue with Professor Kimmel's presupposition that white men derive benefit from being white. If such benefits exist, what are they?
Anyway, thanks again for a superb article and a great webzine!
In response to a recent NY State Supreme Court case (she also alluded to similar action in CA and pending in ME) allowing custodial mothers to move out of state with essentially no recourse for the noncustodial father, Dr. Laura announced that she now recommends joint physical custody in divorce (in the probable event that the father cannot get sole custody). She also now urges engaged men to consider custody clauses in prenuptial agreements.
She stated that her objections to joint physical custody --"disruption" to children of not having one place to call home-- are overshadowed by the threat this court decision poses of children being cut off from ongoing contact with their fathers.
Editor: Sexism squared?
If you don't have any objections, I'll put a link to your site in my "related sites" section. Could you do the same for mine?
The Twelve Steps of Divorced Fathers
In the Winter Semester of 1994 while attending college here in Northern CA, I was with a friend of mine who was with his girlfriend. We were having lunch, and they were horsing around with each other as some lovers do. Another female came along and told him to cut that out or she would sue him for sexual harassment. They didn't stop their flirting with each other, and she sued on his girlfriend's behalf.
What amazes me is, that she won! Despite the objections of his girlfriend, he was found guilty of sexual harassment! He was fined fifty thousand dollars, spent six months in jail and had to attend a "Women's Sensitivity" class.
After he did this, he joined the Army and is now over in Europe.
I have had an experience of what I see as sexual prejudice. The nature of this prejudice can be characterized as believing anything a woman says regardless of lack of evidence and disbelieving anything a man says regardless of evidence.
In 1991, I became unemployed and had cancer. My wife left me and my two small boys. In 1994, within weeks of the indication that I would receive disability, my wife manipulated the boys into going with her, after which she claimed that I abused them, as well as many other things.
Finally in the fall of 1995, with her inability to support any claims, and with the opinion expressed that she had the boys lie the court's opinion did not mention abuse or the other claims. With what I have seen I am surprised that this much justice occurred. The psychologist initially accepted everything she said, even in the face of solid evidence to dispute such claims.
However, since the boys "said" that they wanted to be with their mother, the judge awarded custody to her. A clear message to the boys, "There is a reward associated with saying false things to people, including the court. And now, the boys must go to a psychologist. It was in the office of such a professional that I saw the belowmentioned booklet.
I have every confidence that if this situation were reversed and I made the claims, and they were true claims, that I would have been in jail for kidnapping.
If by some chance you have not seen it, I invite you to read the "Psychology of Women," Newsletter of Division 35, American Psychological Association. Most of my reading has been technical so perhaps I am not well-qualified for this assessment: "I have never read anything that is so full of intolerance, so full of hate, and very possibly full of misrepresentation. In a number of the many psychological books that I read was the statement that the clinician must be unbiased to perform an effective evaluation. It has become clear to me that such required lack of prejudice is hard to find if it involves a dispute between a man and an woman. I must express that in the deposition, the psychologist, during the trial, did change his position significantly perhaps due to the fact that my attorney and I were prepared with my six-month study. However, the earlier report from him was a joke. It even described my job in the terms used by my ex-wife. If the psychologist could not even respect my description of my JOB, how could he believe anything else. Indeed, the report read more like a novel than a professional evaluation.
There is much evil afoot in that group of humans that my mother told me to respect and honor with thoughtfulness love and protection.
Please consider this note as an invitation to respond.
EQUAL RIGHTS = EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY
According to the opinion polls, there will be four major parties in Parliament after the election -- three of them are polling at about the same level of popular support. One of these parties, "New Zealand First", is actively discussing setting up a Ministry of Men's Affairs to balance the Ministry of Women's Affairs which already exists.
I suggest that you all take heart from this. New Zealand was the first country to give women the vote. It was also one of the first, and most extensive, welfare states. Recently, it was one of the first, and most successful, countries to dismantle much of its state sector and open up its economy.
I hope that we in New Zealand will set a trend which you will be able to point to in your struggles!
Please mail us:
Roland C Powell, Dr M J George - Mens Studies GroupSincerely, Roland C Powell, Parliamentary Officer - British Association of Social Workers, Researcher QMW College London University, Tel / Fax: 0151 924 6349.
Dept of Physiology,
Basic Medical Sciences,
St Bartholomew's and Royal London
Hospital, Medical School,
Queen Mary and Westfield College,
Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS
Great Britain
Tel. 0171-982-6375 / 0151 924 6349 (0044 Outside UK)
Fax. 0181-983-0467 / 0151 924 6349
Email: Roland C Powell
M.J. George
Mr. Fancher, Thank you for your "Inside the Times" column this Sunday (April 7th) and your request for specific examples of Times' bais. I have written numerous letters to the editor about gender bias in Times articles during the past 5 years. Some of them have been published.
However, the Times apparently does not "get it" yet in all its departments. Specifically, I refer you to the Times' ad for AUTOLINE that appeared again in the same Sunday paper.
The ad features a picture of a man and woman walking to a picnic, carrying a picnic basket. He is seen to be thinking "I hope Jane doesn't mind walking to the picnic." She is seen to be thinking "I'm so sick of walking everywhere! I wish this fool would call AUTOLINE!"
This is a blatant example of gender bias against the man and it makes the woman seem petty, a fake (she is smiling as she thinks of him as a fool), and dependant upon him.
Click here to view the larger jpeg.
Why can't she buy and drive her car if she is so sick of walking? What is she doing going out with this man she thinks of as a fool? Is this what relationships are made of, morally superior women who tolerate fools for men in order to have a date?
I would like to see you do more than just discontinue this ad. I would like you to publish an editorial pointing out its sexism and apologizing for the Times' anti-male bias in the ad.
I would also like you to devise and implement a review process for anti-male bias in all articles or ads produced by the Times. Remove all ads cantaining anti-male bais. Either correct anti-male bias in articles or generate equivalent articles focusing on the male perspective.
I appreciate the front-page coverage of the male students protesting their schools anti-male dress code by wearing dresses. It is clear that Washington's student-body president, Soyna Bell, doesn't get it when she says "I don't know what they are trying to prove." This is an excellent apportunity for the Times to investigate and report upon our society's unacknowledged dress code bias against males.
How many of our public and private schools have a anti-male dress code? If a school has a uniform, can girls only wear skirts and boys only wear pants? Or can either sex wear either as long at it fits the uniform requirements?
What about business? Can men wear dresses at SAFECO or Albertsons? Can women wear pants there? What about other businesses, state and local governments,. the federal government? How wide spread is this bias?
This may seem silly at first, but it is just the "tip of the iceberg" in deeply engrained, unchallenged anti-male bias today.
I've been checking out StatsCan stuff, and believe that there were two categories in which the women earned more than men: never-married persons in two age groups, something like 29-38, 39-48. So you're over-generalizing, although it does imply that men who lose the career wars also lose mating possibilities, as you discuss elsewhere.Saying that women "earn less by choice" is simplistic and misleading. Most of the factors you rightly list as affecting women's wages have to do with the choice to have babies, and this means that our societies punish women for reproducing the species. This of course relates to your statements elsewhere that women reject low-earning males (or don't even see them in the first place), etc, so I'm not presenting this as a male plot: socialization is hard on all of us, men and women. Men feel like, and are treated like, weenies if they want to take care of kids; women marry men who make more than they do, so it's economically sensible for most women to stay home with the kids; and on and on.
But the solution is not to accuse women of aiming at a "lower" standard than men and to exhort them to aspire to "the same high standard to which many men aspire." This "high standard" requires the emotional abandonment of family, absurdly long work weeks (the 75-hour de facto requirement in the average law office, for e.g.), and mindless devotion to ever-increasing production and consumption in a society overflowing with consumer junk. The solution is to try to make it possible for women and men to balance life in the public spheres of business and politics with life in the private sphere of the family (and I don't want to decide for anyone else what form any given family should take). Needless to say, I don't know how to do this, but having it as a goal would be a good start.
Dr. Johnson is seeking anecdotes and true stories from men about relationships with predatory women. He is particularly interested in stories that involve men of some power and/or professional prestige that have been emotionally or financially damaged because of such relationships.
Please indicate in your note whether Dr. Johnson might publish the anecdote in a study he is researching. If you would like him to contact you for further details, include your e-mail address.
I am asking you all to support this project. Would you forward this request on to all of those in your networks who might contribute. Ask them to post it in all relevent bulletin boards and any other outlets.
Dr. Johnson asked my to include his phone number. It is: (818) 348-8948.
Sounds like you've had a rough time of it but I hope things turn around for the better. We are always looking for Maletalk articles if you have any issues you'd like to cover regarding male/female relationships. Hang in there!
The Microsoft Network (M'soft's answer to AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy) has had a "Men's Issues Forum" since its beta days. It was one of the most heavily-visited.
Microsoft's response was to have a Women's Forum with 4 women moderating, and a Men's Forum moderated part-time by a woman! Must preserve that "plitiical correctness!"
A friend, Jim Bracewell of the Orlando Men's Council, pointed this out to me. With a little bit of work, I've mamaged to turn this around. I'm now the Forum Manager for the MSN Men's Issues Forum. (For those of you who don't recognize the name, I'm the editor of M.E.N. MAGAZINE from Seattle M.E.N. and the WebMaster for MenWeb, - actually, more from the mythopoetic side than from Men's Rights, but my friend Dave A. tries to keep me on the straight-and-narrow.)
At any rate, I've created a new BBS on the Men's Issues Forum, called "Men's Rights, Feminism, ERA." It's a place for discussion. I also see that as a place to post messages like I see from "Fathers," from David Usher, and from the Men's HOTLINE.
There's a Chat Room there, available for use, of some of you on this list want to get together and chat real-time.
MSN has changed its policy, and is now different from AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy. You don't need to use MSN as your Internet provider (at their high per-hour fees) to use it. You can use your current provider (hopefully at a low monthly fee for unlimited use) and try out a free 30-day trial subscription, then pay only $4.95/month to keep on.
Here's a way to reach a whole new audience. I hope you'll pass the word along.
Right now, the Men's Forum is dominated by a clique of friends from the Women's Forum, who make sure the conversations don't stray too far from "political correctness." Help save Microsoft from "political correctness!" And feel free to use MSN as a vehicle for the causes for which you have real passion.
If you have any questions, or any ideas, feel free to e-mail me at Bert Hoff or at BertHoff_MSN@msn.com.
Here are some points that I made that you can use if you want (but don't use them all, it would be too obvious).
Notes follow:
The U.S. Department of Education looked at the transcripts boys and girls and found that girls are doing better than boys in every single subject, including math and science and of course doing MUCH better in EnglishCould be nature not nurture why girls are not interested in science.
- Boys much more likely to drop out of school
- Boys are more likely to be punished
- Boys are much more likely to commit suicide
- More women entering college than are boys (much different 30 years ago)
- Far more women entering graduate studies
- Far Far more women entering doctoral studies
- Nearly every other study on self esteem refutes what AAUW reports.
- AAUW study is highly questionable. The sources of their studies are extremely difficult to obtain.
- They show that black males have the greatest self-esteem - and we know how well black males are doing, at least academically, followed by white males, then black females and lowest is white females - exactly the reverse of their academic performance.
I agree with your views, and especially the dignified and clear way that you state them. You don't fall into the habit of villify those you disagree with (as easy as that might be) but none the less firmly challenge what you (and I see as a form of bigotry against men.)
I wish you luck in finding a new job (If I had a lead I'd send it your way). Take care.
I rest my case.
Editor: So you're the one to blame for that gawdawful term? ;-)Insofar as the "men's movement" is concerned, I refer you to George Gilder (sixties), Roy Schenk and Fredric Hayward (seventies), and Asa Baber (eighties) for writers who predate all 1990s writers. (Not to mention Herb Goldberg (Myth of the Monstrous Male) and Mark Hunter's 1988 book, "The Passions of Men.").
And don't forget that Warren's "Why Men Are The Way They Are" was first published in 1986.
Additionally, I began my first "men's issues" book in 1988. For what it's worth. :-)
I was able to make a call the next morning and a friend hired an attorney. I was to be allowed out on $10,000. bail. When my friend arrived with the $1,000. (10% of stated bail), the bail was instantly raised to $100,000.00. I had not been to see a judge at this point.
I was moved from one jail to another twice a day. Body searched each time. I was chained to a guy who had committed an armed robbery. I bunked next to a guy who was a heroin addict. Guards parolled the area with shotguns.
My friend told me that another friend had seen me taken away by the police and picked my son up and had him with him at his place. I was relieved. Later in the day I discovered that the police found my son and threatened to keep my in jail indefinitely unless my friend gave my son to the police. My friend felt he had little choice so he gave up my son who spent the next three days in a foster home.
I appeared before a judge on the third day, dressed in blue overalls, having not shaved for three days and without glasses ( I could not see the judge) attempting to convince his honor that I was a responsible parent. I offered a copy of my British Columbia divorce and child custody. I was told that my ex-spouse had gone to a sheriff and told him that I stole her son. No evidence was requested and no inquiry made. Just a warrant for my arrest.
I was released at 9:00pm the evening of the third day. My son was now in the custody of my ex-spouse.
Six months and $6,000 later I got my son back. Until he was 18, I spent every year being hassled about one thing or another by my ex-spouse.
The point of this diatrab is this. Years later when I had applied in the state of Washington for a permit, I was told that there was a warrant out for my arrest! I hired an attorney who traced the act back to a cop in the sherrif's department who was dating my ex-spouse. The cop apparently entered the information in the computer falsely and tore up the paper work. The district attorney exponged the files and gave me a letter to that fact.
All of this on a lie. Something to think about.
In the Winter Semester of 1994 while attending college here in Norther CA, I was with a friend of mine who was with his girlfriend. We were having lunch, and they were horsing around with each other as some lovers do. Another female came along and told him to cut that out or she would sue him for sexual harassment. They didn't stop their flirting with each other, and she sued on his girlfriend's behalf.
What amazes me is, that she won! Despite the objections of his girlfriend, he was found guilty of sexual harassment! He was fined fifty thousand dollars, spent six months in jail and had to attend a "Women's Sensitivity" class.
After he did this, he joined the Army and is now over in Europe.
It seriously happened, unfortunately, my friend does not wish to be in a feature article. It was also not reported on. Personally, that does confuse me as to why it was not.