Begin forwarded message:

warren.gra-@... wrote:
>  The gratuitous labels continue to fly.  What Ray wrote regarding
> "homophobic" is also true about the way "feminist" and chivalrous"
are being
> used.  All of these terms have valid meanings, but the way they are
being
> used in these discussions is to stigmatize the person to whom they are
> addressed.  They serve no constructive purpose.

I think stigmatizing is a constructive purpose, especially when it
comes to feminism.  We are at war with the feminists and will not
compromise with them or tolerate any of the constructs they have used
which are lies and untruths used to bury men.  Though you and Troy have
some enlightened areas of thought, you are using too often "femninist
constructs" and need to be called on it.  Homophobe is a political
construct and use it at your own risk.  Fawn over poor girls (sluts)
and guys (fools) having casual and unprotected sex, then  expect to be
associated with feminism.

I anticipated the argument that feminist and homophobic could be
related and then said "naw" and went ahead with my post.  They are two
very different concepts with different functions.  One is ideological
(feminism) and one is used as a way to demean heterosexual men as
having a social disease(homophobia).  When you or Troy imply that any
of us here have "homophobia", you are resorting to a thirty year old
Marxist device picked up by the gay rights people to shame and confuse
men to promote and homosexual and feminist agenda.  The feminists used
this with great effect also for thirty years.  The gig is up boys and
if you want to use the worse and most insulting tactics of the
femninists and gay rights movement, than how do you expect us to take
seriously that you have any idea of or sympathy towards the men's
movement?  I could maybe excuse it from someone young and new to the
movement, but it appears that both of you actually teach men's studies.
  If this is true than there really is something amiss.  Is men's
studies an area of feminism or women's studies?  Are you kind of like a
sub department?  Who hires men's studies people and do they have to
pass a feminist ideological litmus test?  I'm a taxpayer and am enraged
that my money is being spent deceptively to promote a cause that a
men's studies department should be a seriously challenging.  Feminism
is built on a false premise, that of women and men being equal, which
results in a totally unjust ideology.  After thirty years of government
acceptance and use of this ideological lie, we are now confronted with
structural oppression of men.  The only way to change that is to deny
and fight the lie and build a new ideological replacement ie "modern
patrairchy" or "masculism".  Look at it as an opportunity rather than
as a burden.  At this late stage of the game, that is what
intellectuals should be doing.

> That's what paper abortion is, and you stated that you agreed with
> it.

I got  the concept wrong and I withdraw anything supportive I said
about it.  It's probably best that we just keep things simple and
abolish abortion.  I had two children killed by abortion, both without
my permission and one even when I was married.  It is horrible.

As to your question about the military, I said MEN.  The military has
always been a very respectable job program for men.  My concept of a
"modern patriarchy" aims to get many of those jobs back that have been
taken away the past thirty years.  The Masculist Manifesto is really
the foundation for a vast liberal job program for men.  The Civil
Rights Act of '64 was sold to the public as a way to help black men
support their families by giving them extra legal protection at getting
jobs.  Sex discrimination was slipped in at the last minute before it
passed.  I didn't even know about it until 20 years later.  What I'm
trying to say is that this was not even a political issue in public
discourse and if it was I'm sure, as with abortion, it would never have
passed.  But the public did support helping black men.  They were
duped.  I think it is time we revisit these decisions made by the
elite, evaluate honestly their effects and propose or repeal
legislation.  The '64 Act contains the structural problems and is the
cornerstone of the most evil ideological lie of the 20th century.  I
swear, I rate it right up there with Stalinism and Nazism as to the
totality of negative effects and potential effects on a culture.  We
may be experiencing some material well being for now, but things will
get worse unless that structural problem is resolved.  Men and women
are different and the lie can't be lived for long without serious
consequences.  You can see them already.

Tom

Begin forwarded message:

"lindsay jackel" <jacke-@...> wrote:
> That doesn't mean they are cast adrift, but it does mean
> they should recognise their issues/problems and deal with them in
> parallel, and not seek to impose them on the majority.

This is an important point not only for the men's movement, but recent
political history.  We have gone through a period of unprecedented
attention to minority community rights with great successes for those
communities.  All this done on the back of the judeo-christian
tradition of patriarchy.  They got a darn good deal with us
patriarch's.  It's long overdue that the culture that was so tolerant
and progressive start getting some attention and rights also.  Men and
boys are being whipped to death.

You're a real treat Lindsay.  You wouldn't be young, handsome and
articulate would you?  No, I'm not gay, but I am looking for someone to
lead the men's movement.  In the eighties I would have picked Mel Feit
if he promised not to wear a dress.

Tom

Begin forwarded message:

warren.gra-@... wrote:
>  I'm hard put to see why same-sex marriage is a rude and cruel
> affront to us, Tom.

Well Warren, the whole heterosexual game for all parties is deeply tied
to reproduction.  We can play around with it, but most of us have as
the ultimate goal marriage and family.  In same sex relationships they
are play acting the roles because in reality they can't reproduce.
Reproduction is a major endeavor by all parties and is tied into the
social fabric.  Add to that a legal contract of marriage which is based
on the judeo-christian religious ritual, then you have a serious
investment by heterosexuals and the society based on reproduction.  Now
we have a group of people taking short cuts in all this and demanding
they be a part of the party.  They seem arrogant and disrespectful of
the struggles of heterosexuals.  Maybe some of them should become more
understanding of our problems too.

>  Laws like "Megan's Law" (the one which requires everyone in town to
> be notified when a sex offender moves in, even though he's served his
time)
> are a violation of basic constitutional rights, in my opinion.

I didn't support Megan's law either for that reason, but I'm not that
adamant about it.  I have worked and lived with sex offenders and took
enough interest to read alittle about it too.  They are a big problem
in the community unless they have supervision and programming.  Maybe
it's not such a bad idea to be aware of them in our communities as long
as extra help is given them for some abuses of this.  The other problem
I see is that many people arrested for these offenses aren't
necessarily predators or classic pedophiles, but Megan's law treats all
of them the same.

Tom

Begin forwarded message:

"troy mcginnis" <mcginni-@...> wrote:
> There is an immediate example on the list. You effectively opened the
door
> to Tom to make a homophobic statement about same-sex marriage, and he
> did--thank you for your moralizing, Tom, and I apologize right now for
> picking on you--but because you are largely in control of this topic
right
> now, calling Tom's comments homophobic (or God forbid, inappropriate)
is not
> kosher. Does that mean we cannot critique Tom? Yes, in many ways it
does.
> You have silenced men's voices. Just not mine. Why? In the interest of
> promoting a particular definition of the kind of man that needs to be
> protected in the men's movement.

Ray's comments on this showed no "homophobia" and he was inclusive of
gays in the movement as well as I am.  What Ray wrote on this matter
and concerning racism etc, was on the mark.  As for your claims that my
comments on same sex marriage being "homophobic" I think is a judgement
call that is quite a reach.  Gays have over twenty years of solid
social and political gains in this country while the rest of us men go
begging.  If gays want to be considered part of the men's movement than
it might serve them well to be considerate of other men's issues.  I
think most responsible gay and straight men would like to work together
and poinitng accusative fingers is not their style.  You can object to
my or Ray's opinions, but to accuse us of "homophobia" is way out of
bounds.  Your behavior just exemplifies the irresponibility of the old
left.  We're the new left.

I have been a kind of bohemian artist type most of my life and gays
were always around in my circle.  I have done feminine kinds of work
and have a certifiable feminine personality type (high scores on the
M/F and hysteria scales of the MMPI).  All that proves regarding
"gender issues" is that men can be feminine and do feminine types of
work better than most women and get paid accordingly and still treated
in a sexist manner.

I just read through the rest of your email and now understand better
where you are comming from.  Yuck, how can you stand having homosexual
relations?  Oh well, to each his own I guess.  There are some
heterosexual styles that are disturbing to me also.  Sometimes I think
we all lose track of what love really is.  But that's a discussion for
another time.

It appears that you generally have a good attitude but that you have
difficulties with hysteria in your presentation.  I agree that gay men
should have equal access to their biological children.

Tom

>
> > such
> > as, A) gays should be included in the men's movement, but not all
> > issues promoted by gay activists are necessarily core issues for all
> > men,
>
> How would my son put this? Oh, yeah...
>
> "Duh."
>
> Maybe you haven't noticed this, but men who are not fathers are not
nearly
> as likely to be sympathetic to fathers' rights issues as are men who
do have
> children. We include single and childless men in a "men's movement"
while we
> all know that fathers' rights are central. Why? And if fatherhood is
central
> to a men's movement, explain the growing presence of gay-dad
organizations,
> and please *particularly* explain why such organizations are not part
of the
> fathers' rights movement when their members clearly qualify--being
both men
> and fathers--but single, fatherless heterosexual men are assumed to be
> recruitable and valuable to the movement. Don't pretend this isn't
stupid or
> homophobic.
>
> The use of "gay activist" here suggests that gay activists speak for
gay
> men. They don't. The so-called gay rights movement is itself a
ridiculous
> "rainbow coalition" that suppresses issues of importance to gay men
in favor
> of promoting women's issues as those of importance to all
non-heterosexuals.
> It is interesting and no coincidence that when the Human Rights
Campaign
> (like I've written before) sends me a survey on so-called "gay
issues" and
> asks for money, the issues the instrument asks me about are the very
things
> that you claim are the core issues of a men's movement (same issues,
but of
> course a radically different, usually women-centered perspective and
> advocacy position--no, I don't give them money). The *problem*, of
course,
> if you bothered to learn anything about that which you would exclude,
  is
> that in the absence of any effort at inclusion of gay men in a men's
> movement, these guys are easy targets for feminist activism and
> indoctrination. Not only does the men's movement generally fail to
include
> gay men, it throws them to the wolves. There in the wilderness, stupid
> masculinity norms like chivalry and self-sacrifice for women (many
gay men
> tend to engage a certain hypermasculinity...in an environment of
> 'resistance' based on sexuality, it is conceivable that the positive
values
> of masculinity are also intensified) make it easy for (pro)feminist
and
> lesbian leadership to exploit these men, and convince them (for
instance)
> that a woman's right to choose is equivalent to his right to choose a
life
> partner of the same sex. This is not true, but the men's movement
does not
> care...it simply lets these men put their money, their political
power, and
> their identities in the hands of a gay rights movement that, like most
> feminist movements, is incapable of caring about men.
>
> >B) how it is that fathers he knows turn from heterosexuality to
> > homosexuality in mid-life, if sexuality is determined at birth
> > (so-called sexual orientation) rather than by choice, preference or
> > life experience (NOTE: This is an actual question rather than a
> > rhetorical one.)
>
> Personally, I don't believe that sexuality is determined at birth. I
think
> that is ridiculous. Only sex is determined at birth, and because
there are
> exceptions and variations even in that, I do allow that it is
possible that
> genetics might have some influence on a predisposition toward same sex
> intimacy. "A little experience" doesn't make a man gay, either. Man,
the
> ignorance. Homoerotic behavior and play is present in every man's
personal
> history...I wonder what constitutes a "little experience"? If I were
> paranoid, I'd jump to the conclusion that Ray is quietly suggesting
that gay
> men have been "turned" by contact with other gay men at some point in
their
> lives. That would be roughly consistent with the stereotype of gays as
> sexual abusers (check your stats: heterosexual men are more likely by
far to
> sexually abuse women, other men, and children than are gay men; not
to say I
> believe all guys are potential rapists, but in most real cases, it's
> straight men who deviate). Ray will use anti-male propaganda to
support his
> position vis-a-vis gay men but cry foul when such stereotypes are
applied to
> heterosexual men? Can somebody tell me what the word for that is
again?
>
> There are both "essentialist" and "constructionist" theories about
human
> homosexuality. It is a contested area of knowledge. It may be
expedient for
> some activists to make a truth claim to an essential (genetic)
> homosexuality, these activists are patterning their legislative
agendas
> after legislation designed to address racism (skin color is more
salient,
> and clearly genetic). They are not necessarily correct in their
assumption
> of the nature of homosexuality. In any event, if homosexuality were
to be a
> genetic trait (very doubtful), the trait would only be something
behavioral
> (I'm not quite adept at talking about this) and not physical. These
guys
> would still be men. They would still be slightly larger on average
than
> women, feared by women in dark alleys, they would still get to stand
at the
> urinal beside the rest of us, they would still ejaculate, they would
still
> get prostate cancer, they would still be more likely to be put to
death than
> women, they would still be less likely to earn a college degree than
women
> in similar circumstances, they would still be more likely to work
themselves
> to an early death....
>
> Now, I'm going to go out on a limb, and let you all know (just in
case you
> don't, already) that I'm not the straightest guy on this list, at
least not
> right now. I do not self-identify as "gay" because that tends to be a
label
> suggesting affinity with the political goals *and tactics* of the
> gay/lesbian community, the politics of which I believe are
insensitive to
> men and issues that affect men, even within the so-called "gay"
community.
> In short, and at the risk of offending someone, queer politics are
boring
> and unimaginative. What's more, I am sexually attracted to and still
date
> women, at least until recently. I suppose I am bisexual (if you need a
> category--I don't, myself), but I'm unsure about what that term is
supposed
> to mean in contemporary parlance, and it still carries with it an
> association with an anti-male, feminism-driven political ideology
that is
> hateful toward men. I don't feel any different about myself now than
when I
> was happily married to my wife, and no, sexuality was not the cause
of my
> divorce or the problems in my marriage. I do know, however, that I am
very
> wary of entering a committed relationship with a woman, and am
downright
> adamant about not marrying a woman again, but only because I believe
that
> marriage is an unsafe institution for men right now (thanks to
feminist
> "reform"). I am not willing to risk my resources or social
capital--the
> stuff I use to take care of my son, of whom I have custody--by
engaging an
> institution that right now is so very clearly nothing more than a
vehicle
> for transferring rights and wealth to women, with little or no
protections
> available to men. You can all imagine how this "fear of commitment"
has
> played with the women I've been involved with  in the years since my
> divorce--they were none too happy with me. I figure I have options. I
am no
> less a father, no less a man, no less "macho," and in no way
diminished by
> my exercise of freedom as a man to choose to develop meaningful and
> sometimes sexual relationships with other men as well as women.
>
> This aspect of my life certainly sensitizes me to some of the issues
I have
> raised, but you need to know that I am not really an activist for gay
> issues. If you look at my life, you can see that I have lived much of
the
> same life as most of the other men here, and I continue to be
cognizant of
> the incredible abuses of ideas about men and gender that so often
result in
> unfair applications of public policy that privilege women (and
particular
> forms of dysfunctional masculinity) for no reason at all. It is not
concern
> over sexuality or queer issues that drives my interest (I could give
a damn
> what most people think of me or my sexuality, since it is a private
matter
> not usually a public issue), but rather my experience as a
> man--single-mother home, student, military, married, employed and
> unemployed, monied and broke, divorced, playboy ladykiller, father,
bar-room
> brawl veteran, custodial parent, and now single in his thirties in a
> relationship with another guy because it works for me, and eases some
of the
> alienation and loneliness I feel as a man. The idea that my
experience and
> the experience of others like me has no place in discussion of men's
rights
> and a men's movement is simply not true. There. I've outed myself. As
a man.
>
> Warren's not-so-negative experience with personal revelation on this
list is
> fresh in my mind, but what the hell. Of course, Seven-of-Nine still
does it
> for me, I don't know about the rest of you.
>
> >C) If there are more than two genders, what are they?
> > Various women's groups have claimed that bisexuals, transsexuals and
> > the transgendered are distinct categories, but Troy thinks I'm being
> > "homophobic" if I even make reference to those categories.
>
> No. Ray is wrong. He's just afraid of being called a homophobe.
Whatever.
> Wasn't my intent, although it seems clear that such a label might not
be far
> from the mark.
>
> What I was trying to work through in this thing about multiple
genders was
> an idea that gender is a useless legal descriptor in its current
form. Sex,
> biological sex (do you have a penis or not? do you have a vagina or
not?),
> is much more stable than gender as a category...much more like
"black" and
> "white," and like these racial categories, can be applied readily in
> analyses of policy and law to uncover biases, prejudices and
discrimination.
> Gender, as a social product of choice and interaction, is far less
stable
> and should NOT be confused with sex. The instability of gender allows
> misguided ideas like hate crime legislation to find purchase in public
> discourse, precisely because we connect sex to particular notions of
gender
> (on both sides of the political debate) that are probably not
reflective of
> how people live their lives. Ray's need to know what "more than two
genders"
> are suggests that he operates under the assumption that they are
knowable.
> Gender is "knowable" when we attach particular meanings of gender to
> physically-embodied sex--Ray, like feminists, understands gender as
sex, and
> therefore falls victim to the same ignorant assumptions about what is
> masculine/feminine/etc. as his adversaries. That road's going nowhere
fast,
> or didn't anyone notice that?
>
> > In any case, I'm interested in what list members here feel ARE the
core
> > issues for a men's political movement. I've suggested 1) Repeal of
the
> > Violence Against Women Act, 2) Paper Abortion, 3) Abolish Alimony,
4)
> > Equitable Child Custoday/Visitation, 5) Abolish Death Penalty, 6)
> > Gender-equal Sentencing. I excluded abortion per se, school prayer,
and
> > same-sex marriage because they are divisive and not core men's
issues.
> > I also suggested that any men's movement needs to be racially
diverse,
> > tolerant of religion, open to all sexual preferences/orientations
> > (excluding sex offenders, of course), and we should seek alliances
with
> > sympatico women's groups.
>
> Perhaps we do not disagree as much as our dialogue suggests. I have no
> quarrel with these six "core" issues, but I'll carry my perspective
through
> the end of this post. One question would be whether something like
equitable
> child custody and visitation would be supported for homosexual
fathers as
> well as heterosexual dads, or would Ray's men's movements turn the
other
> cheek when a spouse sought to deny a gay dad access to his children
on the
> basis of his sexuality or a same-sex relationship status. Paper
abortion is
> not the only issue related to men's reproductive rights, either. What
about
> eliminating barriers to adoption for men, or creating special legal
> relationships between stepdads and their children? We seem okay with
> establishing special legal relationships as alternatives to marriage
(the
> same-sex issue), so why not other kinds of parent-child relationships
that
> don't replace biological ones but yet enhance our society's overall
> commitment to children?
>
> Once we all agree on core issues, discussion really begins about what
they
> mean. I am not convinced that once we enter that arena that abandoning
> certain vocabulary is a good idea, since the debate will heat up and
we'll
> need those words, to fight them, to redefine them or perhaps even to
finally
> get rid of them in favor of better more useful terms. In addition, I
do not
> think that dismissing the perspectives of men who live differently or
with
> each other is a sound strategy for turning these core men's issues
into
> concrete and inclusive action for *all* men. I damn sure know that I
want to
> be involved, and I am even more certain that I deserve to be included.
>
> But that's just my opinion.
>
> troy mcginnis
>

Begin forwarded message:

"ray blake" <bd63-@...> wrote:
> In any case, I'm interested in what list members here feel ARE the
core
> issues for a men's political movement. I've suggested 1) Repeal of the
> Violence Against Women Act, 2) Paper Abortion, 3) Abolish Alimony, 4)
> Equitable Child Custoday/Visitation, 5) Abolish Death Penalty, 6)
> Gender-equal Sentencing.

That a boy Ray, now we are talking turkey.  I agree on all of the
above.

> I excluded abortion per se, school prayer, and
> same-sex marriage because they are divisive and not core men's issues.

Same sex marriage is a no brainer for the men's movement, it's a rude
and cruel affront to all heterosexuals regardless of their religion or
lack of it.  You can exclude abortion and school prayer if you want
Ray, but you are going to be one lonely guy in the men's movement.

> I also suggested that any men's movement needs to be racially diverse,
> tolerant of religion, open to all sexual preferences/orientations
> (excluding sex offenders, of course), and we should seek alliances
with
> sympatico women's groups.

I agree with all of the above, except I would fight to the death to
include sex offenders.  Am I the only unprejudiced and enlightened
person in the world or what?  I know all of this is alittle
complicated, but it's not that complicated and seems more like common
sense to me.

> Opinions?
>
> Raymond

Got anymore good questions?

Tom

Begin forwarded message:

"ray blake" <bd63-@...> wrote:
> In a previous post, I said the same thing about abortion,
> that it's too divisive as a men's issue and would take focus away from
> core problems that men have to confront with the establishment
feminist
> bureaucracy.

Abortion is one of the points in the Manifesto, not because of any
concern for dealing with "establishment feminist bureaucracy", but to
destroy it.

It appears that the Democrats will be recieving a major blow in the
upcomming elections.  We will then have the Republicans fleecing us of
our money and our freedom while the "feminist bureaucracy" is kept in
place to keep us poor men absent our balls.  I don't know if anyone
here has noticed, but the two laws that made all this possible with no
public discourse, the Civil Rights Act of '64 that added "sex" at the
last minute and the Supreme Court decision Roe vs Wade, has been a boon
to the Republican agenda.  They're raking in the money while us
poorbees fight amongst eachother over abortion and the violence against
women act.  I think the whole thing is a set up like the JFK
assassination.  If it is not, then I'm sure the power elite can
appreciate how it's functioning.

Forget about dealing with the "feminist bureaucracy".  We have bigger
problems that will require it's dismantling.

> Just like I don't think school prayer is a core male
> issue either, though guys like Tom would disagree.

I wasn't specific about this in the Manifesto, but on this list I said
my concern was mostly for my kids singing "Christmas Carols".  I prefer
the image of Christmas Carols to prayer, but I agree that the principle
is the same.  BTW, could you be more specific about what you mean by
"guys like Tom"?  Do I detect Anti-Christianism?

Tom

Begin forwarded message:

I'm sorry, but I just have to jump in again.  What Troy wrote here is
wonderful and I agree 100%.  One of the points in the Manifesto is
decreasing prison penalties.  The death penalty is an outrage to all
men, and should be to all people.  If I see one more victim on TV
gleefully watching their perpetrator be killed, I'll throw up.  That
this horseshit should be socially approved is a true sign that at this
late date we are in big trouble.  Would we have these horrors without
feminism?  I doubt it very much.  What's the worth of one criminal
males life compared to the right of choice?  Another trade off of men's
lives at the alter of feminism.

Thank you Troy.

Tom Smith

"troy mcginnis" <mcginni-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ms-discussion/?start=1368
> Perusing Amnesty International's web page, and in particular, the
section
> "On the Wrong Sides of History: Children and the Death Penalty in the
USA."
>
> http://www.amnesty.excite.com/rightsforall/juvenile/dp/index.html
>
> You needn't be a member of AI or even a supporter of the organization
to see
> the really disturbing thing about the death penalty as applied to
crimes
> committed by people under 18: most children who are convicted of
crimes that
> lead to a supervised death in US prisons are *male* children. Of
course, by
> the time these people have exhausted their appeals and are paraded in
front
> of the cameras on their way to the chamber, they are grown men...that
is how
> we see them, and their grown-up faces are the faces we put to the
brutality
> of their youth. The AI site, notably, puts a female convict on death
row
> first in the list of "Illustrative cases," but that is a kind of
deplorable
> tokenism that clearly suggests that the reason we should take a look
at
> children and the death penalty is because it *might* affect a few
girls
> along with the boys.
>
> I am not a fan of the death penalty, mainly because it serves no real
> function beyond justifying and assuaging the very real violent
feelings of
> grieving survivors of the victims. It does not appear to serve as a
> deterrent to crime, and the ease and enthusiasm with which we sentence
> people to death is at times as disturbing as the crimes that earn such
> punishments. The death penalty may be a form of justice, but it is a
ragged
> and primitive form that feeds the disempowering notion that
victimization
> survives the victim. It reduces us all to rather bloodthirsty beasts
without
> the power to reflect on our actions, or overcome the adversity of
violence.
> Amnesty argues, as many do, that the death penalty in the US is
racist, and
> I tend to agree. But more important than that, the death penalty is
only
> *imaginable* if it is sexist.
>
> The fact of the matter is that the death penalty is used to kill men.
And
> boys, apparently. Very generally speaking, it is easier for our
society to
> put men to death for an increasing number of crimes and supercrimes
> (so-called "hate" crimes, for instance--what a stupid idea), and to
justify
> such policies by drawing on the tired rhetoric that reduces men to
walking
> social problems, to living breathing symptoms of the toxicity of a
so-called
> patriarchal society that many imagine (and yes, it is "imagine")
rewards men
> for violence against others. It would seem that the idea of men as
*the*
> social problem has been extended to cover boys as well, those
children in
> our society who might by accident of birth and with a little luck
become the
> dangerous Man we are being taught to fear. And to kill.
>
> Throw racism into that, and we can stop wondering why most men's
movements
> are almost devoid of racial diversity: too many men of color and
> particularly black men are either growing up, growing old, waiting to
die or
> all of the above behind bars.
>
> I'm still reading the pages...I thought maybe some of you might be
> interested. I would like to know why it is so easy to declare a male
> offender under the age of 18 an adult for purposes of criminal
prosecution,
> but why it is so rare to see the same happen to female offenders (if
they
> are even charged with a crime, something that seems almost as rare).
>
> Troy McGinnis
>
>

Begin forwarded message:

warren.gra-@... wrote:
> You're all over the place as to
> whether it's a personal statement on your part or a statement which is
> supposed to represent men in general.

I thought that I made it clear that my personal beliefs coincided with
"the direction the movement should go in as represented by the points
in the Manifesto".  I only did that because you questioned whether I
was acting on belief or political expediency.

> But there is
> a case for abortion being legal, apart from belief in "a woman's
right to
> choose."

Before you said this you related the story of the guy getting drunk and
knocking up the bitch (non PC for girl).  I feel alot like Dr. Laura on
this subject that it's high time some responsibility was exercised by
everyone in such important intimate relations.  If you have qualms
about God, then please feel free to look to ethics in this regard.

So now we have established that you support abortion and don't agree
with that part of the Manifesto.

> It (the Manifesto) did not speak for me at all; in fact it was
> labelled as "radical," which implies that it belongs to the fringe.

I did that intentionally for a few reasons.  A year ago I searched Deja
News for the term "masculism" and found only a few posts that just
mentioned it.  I knew that it was an important identity item for the
movement and wanted to make sure it wouldn't be confiscated by the male
feminists or others like yourself that are somewhat tepid toward how to
proceed in the movement.  I also wanted it to have a kind of
adventurous and masculine tinge of threatened violence, therefore the
term "radical" fit the bill.

>  Clearly it excludes non-religious men.

What the heck is a "non-religious man" anyway?  It's the same as using
the term a "non-bitchy woman".   Just by stating that as an issue puts
you at odds in a religious way.

>  I consider myself a knowledgeable men's movement guy, and I don't
> have to agree with your manifesto.  Besides the abortion issue, I do
not
> have to agree that father custody is inherently superior,

You have to admit, it sure does simplify things.

> or that patriarchy
> (whatever that is) should be upheld,

Good point, I'm not sure what patriarchy is either.  I just like the
sound of it.

>or that equality is a bad thing in order to be a men's movement guy.

Now this is an important issue like the abortion point.  It's contained
in my "repeal the sex discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Act of
'64".  By the way, you seem to be confused on this and implied later in
this email that I intended the total repeal of the Act which I don't.

Men and women are very different and to circumscribe that difference by
mandated legal equality, which is under the erroneous assumption that
the female sex is the oppressed, makes a men's movement impossible.
Under modern economic and social realities, the female sex is at an
advantage without any legal egalitarian mandates.  It's my firm belief
that this point alone determines a masculist as opposed to a feminist.
But don't get me wrong, you can believe that I'm wrong if you like and
call yourself a masculist, but I don't think people will believe you
for long.

>  In fact, I've gotten pretty tired of people making assumptions about
> what political agenda I *have to* subscribe to since I speak on
behalf of
> men.

I hope you don't get too tired Warren, we need you to do research.

>  It is this presumption on your part that I think has caused some of
> the responses to be pretty strong.

I tend to present alittle arrogantly.  My apologies.

>  Bottom line:  believe what you want, advocate what you want,
> campaign for what you want.  But don't pass your beliefs off to us as
> something the rest of us have to subscribe to in order to be men's
movement
> guys, or to others as something that men's movement guys all agree
with.
>  Because that's irritating.

It's OK with me if you don't want to be associated with the radical
wing of the men's movement (masculism).  But when you're ready, I'll be
happy to give you one of my "Masculist" tee shirts.

Tom
The American Union of Men
The Masculist Manifesto http://members.home.net/qim/masculistmanifesto

Begin forwarded message:

"troy mcginnis" <mcginni-@...> wrote:
> Finally, I would still like a rationale for the points, not an
ideological
> justification for their use in the manifesto, or an explanation of
your
> personal (or is that "political?") beliefs, although those have a
place in
> discussion. This list had something to do with being about men's
studies,
> and about allowing views and perspectives alternative to the old AMSA
list,
> right? Well, perhaps we could discuss this damnable manifesto in some
> meaningful way, a way that might lead us away from the obvious
hypocrisy
> toward a plan of action that might be useful to more people on this
list,
> including those who are working on trying to inject some meaning back
into
> the study of men as a group, and who are charged with teaching, say,
"gender
> and society" but have only one coherent contemporary body of
knowledge from
> which to draw. I know everybody's not into it, but it would be ever so
> helpful...

Well, thanks Troy, I'd be happy to explain the "rationale" of the
"points" in the Manifesto if for no other reason than to spur
discussion.

I'll paste it here and go through it point by point:

>THE MASCULIST MANIFESTO

Masculism is simply the opposite of feminism.  Women needed an identity
and program to assert their rights and so do we.

>BY QIM
"QIM" is my internet handle and has a spiritual meaning that is
explained in the book "QIM Tunes" written by five autistics using
Facilitated Communication.  I was the facilitator.


>Definition of Masculism: The radical wing of the men's movement that
>advocates for the abolition of political and cultural assumptions of
equality >between genders. A realistic approach to gender differences
that attempts to >identify those differences and how they are best
expressed in the social and >political melieu. Supports the
establishment of a modern partriarchy and >assumes that we are now
living in a matriarchy.

The main purpose of this definition is to highlight the central
differences between feminism and masculism.  In order to further their
agenda, the feminists for legal reasons had to assert the equality of
genders in all significant ways.  This has always been a murky area in
the social sciences and the feminists, especially in the decade of the
eighties, had great successes in the social sciences of controlling the
discussion, and more importantly the research, in the fields by
invoking the sacrosancty of gender equality and by using the speech
control techniques of political correctness.  If a professor didn't go
along with this, they found themselves in a difficult position in the
departments and often had their jobs threatened.  If you doubt me, just
read the literature during that period.

Masculism must open this up to get at the truth instead of having the
feminist use the social sciences to further their legal and political
privileges.

The idea of a "modern patriarchy" I "rationalize" as a way to focus
historical lessons to this emerging new social movement.  THIS IS  A
PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT that attempts to reorganize post-feminist social
and political life.  As such it's an enlightened movement that wants to
utilize new knowledge and progressive social and political lessons.  WE
WILL USE the honest and more progressive lessons of feminism.


>POLITICAL GOALS:

>Elimination of discrimination based on sex in the civil rights act of
1964.

Women were comming up fast before the '64 Civil Rights Act.  This piece
of legislation made them politically and socially superior.  It was the
foundation of a social matriarchy in the white community and solidified
it in the Black community.  Only a small group of very well off men in
this country still enjoy any semblance of patriarchy.  I know that
techniquely we are still a partiarchy, but one that is totally
disconnected from the majority of men.

The idea of the Civil Right Act of '64 causing feminine superiority is
based on gender differences.  While men have an imposing physical
superiority, women have us by the balls sexually.  It's an even trade
off.  Of course the feminists have always maintained that this is
silliness and based on differences in sex drive which they have fought
tooth and nail to defend the absence of, precisely to fend off this
charge.  I won't go through the arguments as to why they are wrong, I'm
sure you have all heard them.

>Assumption of Father's Custody instead of Mother's Custody. Also
ending >provisions supported by government for child support and
instead replacing it >with the government "safety net".

This is just a way to deal simply and understandably with the problem
of Father's Rights.  The problem is that many men don't trust other men
with their children and truly believe that women are better at this.
There is some truth to that, but that's not really the issue.  Custody
disputes can be based on the desireability of men caring for the
children if they chose (primary physical custody), and if not than
primary power in the divorced family can still reside with the father
eventhough he may not be primary caretaker (physical vs legal custody).

The safety net idea is another attempt to simplify, though the power
and money hungry feminists will go to their grave claiming abdication
of responsibility.  Money is corrupting and has no place in power
struggles over children.

>An end to drug and substance laws which victimize men. Increase in
government >support for rehabilitating substance abusers.

I think this is self evident.  Remember, one of the main allies for
feminists besides the socialists were the temperance people ie
prohibition after the right to vote in the teens, the drug war with the
advent of feminism in the '70's.  THIS IS NO COINCIDENCE BOYS.

Government responsibility for helping with rehabilitation extends to
many other men's health issues also.

>Criminal justice laws to be liberalized to end unnescessary long
sentences >and provide humane prisons and rehabilitative programs.

The conservative turn in criminal justice also coincides with the rise
of feminism.  The feminist got the democratic party to trade off
traditional men's issues and become "law in order" in order to further
their agenda.  Jail sentences and conditions are criminally feminist.

>Added legal protections to avoid innocent people being accused and
prosecuted >for sex offenses.

The length of rape sentences have quadrupled the past thirty years.
The greatest number of innocent people being sent to jail are on rape
charges (the recent DNA evidence used with old rape cases as reported).
  As abhorent as sex crimes are to most of us, we do have a testestore
problem all of us.

>Support for the legal freedom to express religious sentiments and
knowledge >in public forums within the spirit of the Constitution.

I miss my kids singing Christmas Carols at school!!  I loved God around
as a kid!!

>The elimination of feminist laws and programs of the past thirty years.

Many of us men with fewer resources than many academics have been
having our heads pummelled for years with feminist laws.  Which ones
they are at what should be done about them is something we all can
discuss, but you can be sure we will need to revisit them when power is
at hand.

>The abolition of abortion.

I explained this one pretty thoroughly in a recent post.  There is one
thing I want to add.  Both Roe vs Wade and the Civil Rights Act of '64
were the legal basis for feminism going through the roof.  Both
developments had no popular input.  With the Civil Rights Act, the
American people were under the impression that it was to better the lot
of Black families by helping black men get jobs.  It did the opposite.
Roe vs Wade came out of nowhere.  I was a liberal at the time and
tepidly supported abortion, but didn't think it was much of an issue
because I knew there was very little popular support. Even with my
political position I thought that such a serious issue needed much more
popular support.  Feminism = men going to jail for life and women
getting government help for abortions.

WAKE UP MEN AND FIGHT!!

Tom Smith
The American Union of Men

Begin forwarded message:

zqsll-@... wrote:
>  A  men's movement which blames women or society or
> otherwise avoids owning responsibility for our own problems is a
men's
> movement most men will and should  avoid.

It appears there are quite a few academics here.  I appreciate that
there are more of you tackling these issues and I commend you for doing
so.  As academics you can cast these aspirtions and still cover your
fannies with fellow academics who may happen to be feminists.  But the
situation is different with many of us movement people in the trenches.
  We have fought and watched for years the feminists blatantly use their
political advantage with absolutely no regard for men.  It is clear
that they aren't to be reasoned with, but to be defeated.  To us it's a
political war with feminism, not with women who aren't feminists.

You are clearly acting as an apologist for the feminists.  The
irresponsibility of the feminists the past thirty years and the
incredible damage it has done to our culture, has brought the men's
movement to a place where we will take no hostages.  And we will win.

Tom Smith
The American Union of Men
The Masculist Manifesto http://members.home.net/qim/masculistmanifesto

Begin forwarded message:

Dear Troy,

Thank for this reply.  It's clear that you're an old war horse for the
movement and should be respected for your efforts.

I will respond more fully here, but I first want to make clear that
though I have an eye on the best political route for the movement, all
of what I do is based on a personal belief.  Ethics, morals and God
come first.

"troy mcginnis" <mcginni-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ms-discussion/?start=1316
>
>
> Political savvy? Entertain me further. This kind of stuff is just
fuel for a
> feminist fire.

The more fire from the feminists the better.

> Let me say plainly that I do not make claims to have the answers. I
only
> know a horse beaten to death when I see one. You are correct that the
issues
> raised in the manifesto are issues that must be addressed, but I
think you
> have missed the point(s).
>
> Abortion in particular is bothersome. The baldly unsupported
assertion that
> "abortion must be abolished" does little to directly address the
issues of
> men's reproductive or parenting rights (and there might be other men's
> issues that are connected to abortion laws, etc.). It is just a
slogan, and
> I for one am tired of sloganism constituting so-called social
movements.

I don't understand how abortion has little to do with men's
"reproductive and parenting rights".  It goes to the core of both.  As
for sloganism, we need lots of them and good ones.  This is politics
Troy!!

It's clear you have a problem of some sort with abortion (pro life) and
are doing alot of rationalizing.  This point in my Manifesto is the
most critical.  It's also an issue that in the near future will go
beyond what it represents today and into issues of genetic control of
offspring.  My main project on the net is autism (a long story).  I
believe that autistics are essential to all of us, but they will be
killed off like Down's Syndrome by means of genetic identification and
the tool is abortion.  The same will also be possible with other more
normal genetic differences.  So abortion will cause us to confront
moral and ethical dilemnas that many think go beyond the serious
problems we already have in that area with abortion.

I repeat, we send people away for life for drugs (mainly a male issue)
and give government help for abortion (a more serious moral issue).
Both are a direct consequence of feminist political power.


> You argue for a moral stance. Sloganism is not a moral strategy: it is
> shallow and its promises usually hollow.

Politicians are shallow and also their promises, but we need them.

>I understand your concerns, as a
> man, for every issue in your manifesto, but come on... I hate to be
the one
> to break it to you, but there is more to ethics and morality than
God, and I
> am not convinced that ethics or morality are synonymous with the kind
of
> religious activism that your manifesto suggests.

You sound like an academic, tell me how morals and ethics developed the
millenia before the Enlightenment, and even during it?  It all came
from the one God people.  I agree that since the enlightenment, others
have done excellent work in ethics, but most of them study a good deal
of theology as a basis.

> How many men does your
> manifesto exclude? No, really. Tell me HOW MANY MEN DOES YOUR
MANIFESTO
> IGNORE, DISREGARD OR REJECT? WHO ARE THEY?

None.  I have identified the more important issues that any
knowledgeable men's movement person would have to agree with.  Of
course their are many men not identified with the men's movement that
will have serious problems with some of the Manifesto's points, but I'm
not addressing them.  The Manifesto is a document that is meant to wear
well with time.

Please give me your thoughts on who it excludes.

> And Tom is right: it isn't me. I'm damned tired of all this. Tired of
taking
> a beating for standing up for men, tired of arguing with my feminist
> colleagues and peers, and tired of arguing with frustrated zealots in
the
> so-called "men's movement" who won't dare to reflect *just a tiny
bit* on
> what they pass off as goals for a better life. I understand the
frustration.
> I have a dick. I understand the anger and sense of powerlessness with
regard
> to public policy and law: I am a father. But given all that, I
personally do
> not want this manifesto to be taken as representative of "men's
views" or
> "men's political goals" any more than I am willing to let profeminist
> scholarly work speak as the definitive interpretation of *men's
experience
> of manhood.*

Boy, you really have serious problems with the Manifesto.  All I have
heard about is the abortion issue.  What else?
>
> People like you spin your wheels in this battle, Tom. Such writings go
> nowhere. I've seen it before. Hell, I've signed such things before,
in more
> bitter times. Of course, I could be wrong. Hasn't feminist propaganda
worked
> to create a society-wide misrepresentation of men and masculinity?
Arguably,
> yes. Maybe such a thing will work for a men's movement, too, now that
I
> think about it.

That's realy unfair to accuse me of that.  I'm not doing that at all.
The feminist did that when they insisted for political reasons that
there were no gender differences and even contolled the social sciences
and their research for 20 years behind that horseshit.  I believe it
did incalcuable damage to our social progress.  It was the egghead male
academics that allowed the feminists a shot at all of our butts.

> If so, best of luck, but don't somehow pretend that using
> the same tactics of misrepresenting the issues and twisting the truth
> employed by feminists is more "moral" or ethical when the men's
movement
> does it.

I repeat, I'm not doing that and if you think I am please be specific.

> And don't assume God is going to be on your side, either. The Big
> Guy, as I was taught, is supposed to be about justice, not about
who's got
> the better PR campaign.

Well, it is clear from the Bible that the Big Guy is keenly aware of
our progress in PR and expects us to use any moral means, within the
accepted limits of our perception of His morality of the times, to
further our agenda.  We are flawed and often err, but tell me what is
unjust about my Manifesto?

> Finally, I would still like a rationale for the points, not an
ideological
> justification for their use in the manifesto, or an explanation of
your
> personal (or is that "political?") beliefs, although those have a
place in
> discussion. This list had something to do with being about men's
studies,
> and about allowing views and perspectives alternative to the old AMSA
list,
> right? Well, perhaps we could discuss this damnable manifesto in some
> meaningful way, a way that might lead us away from the obvious
hypocrisy
> toward a plan of action that might be useful to more people on this
list,
> including those who are working on trying to inject some meaning back
into
> the study of men as a group, and who are charged with teaching, say,
"gender
> and society" but have only one coherent contemporary body of
knowledge from
> which to draw. I know everybody's not into it, but it would be ever so
> helpful...
>
> I did not mean to write a personal attack (this time), but I will not
> apologize for responding to one.
>
> Good luck to the American Union of Men, but I'm not going to hold my
breath.
>
> Troy McGinnis

OK Troy, later today I will send a separate post doing what you asked.
I want you to know from my heart that I don't give a hoot who leads the
movement as long as it takes the course my Manifesto suggests.

Tom
The American Union of Men
The Masculist Manifesto http://members.home.net/qim/masculistmanifesto

Begin forwarded message:

Hi Troy,

I'm sure that the "Manifesto" could use some work and that is why I'm
asking for comments.  But I think you are missing the point of it.
It's meant as a political statement and not a scholarly attempt to
represent the truth, though I have tried to include all the major
issues of the men's movement.

I'll respond:

"troy mcginnis" <mcginni-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ms-discussion/?start=1309
> I'd like to know the rationale behind each of the points. For
starters,
> these:
>
> "Support for the legal freedom to express religious sentiments and
knowledge
> in public forums within the spirit of the Constitution."
>
> This point (and others) links masculine identity to religious
expression,
> which is not very inclusive at all. There is also an implication that
> religious speech is not protected by the constitution (which is not
true),
> or worse, that religious speech should somehow be privileged. Why is
it
> necessary to tie masculinity directly to a notion of religious
freedom?

It's just a statement of intent to represent the religious rights
justifiable desire to include God more in our public life.  This
doesn't require draconian measures or a suspension of the constitution.

> "The elimination of feminist laws and programs of the past thirty
years."
>
> What do we mean by "feminist laws and programs?" What criteria would
we use
> to determine whether a law were "feminist" or "acceptable?" Would we
assume
> that laws benefitting men only are acceptable, but laws benefitting
women
> are not? Sounds like the same system we are trying to critique here.

I indulged in alittle hyperbole here.  This statrement again attempts
to to represent our resentment at all the legislation that has been
passed for thirty years without any organized male representation.
What laws they may be, is something we can discuss and do something
about when we have power.

>
> "The abolition of abortion"
>
> At the risk of igniting some ire, I have to say that this point is so
dead
> tired I cannot stand even to think about using this line as a
starting point
> for any men's movement discussion. The abolition of abortion is not
about
> men or masculinity, but about some other self-righteous interest.
After a
> lot of thought, I have personally concluded that abortion decisions
do not
> belong with the state or federal governments, but with the individual
> parents of unborn children. A more interesting line of thought would
be to
> abolish or change current abortion laws that clearly exclude fathers
with an
> enduring interest in a particular pregnancy. I am not at all in favor
of
> denying abortion to women, necessarily, but as I have said many times
> before, I'll be pro-choice when men have one.

This is an important issue and one that will absolutely be required for
any credible men's movement.  It's also the cornerstone of feminism and
just on a political basis needs to be included.  For those that have
qualms about this issue amybe alittle perspective may help.  Abortion
and drugs are moral issues and we have people going to jail for life
for drugs (hurting oneself) and governemnt financed abortions (killing
a fetus).  To some of us this is a prime example of the power of
feminism.  This is also a powerful moral and spiritual issue.  It's my
belief that the men's movement goes nowhere without God.
>
> I think this manifesto is thoughtless and inflammatory tripe.

Inflammatory maybe but it's far from thoughtless unless you have
political objections to it.

> I hope it was
> submitted in a satirical spirit, and that I have unwittingly taken
the bait.
> I can laugh at myself, but these ideas are really not all that funny.
> Sometimes makes me wonder why any of us really try to rethink
approaches to
> the study of gender inequality.

In your case I wonder also.

> We need to go deeper, much deeper, if we
> really hope to generate useful insight and real inroads in a struggle
for
> recognition of men and their voices, and the very real structural and
> political threats with which men live daily.

We've done that for years.  What we need is political savvy and a good
leader.  Maybe I'm not the one, but it surely isn't you.

Tom Smith
The American Union of Men
The Masculist Manifesto http://members.home.net/qim/masculistmanifesto

Hi All,

I'm archiving some work here that I have done on other forums in my
advocacy of my "Masculist Manifesto" (http://members.home.net/qim/mascu
listmanifesto).  It's pretty radical so the responses I get are
critical for the most part, but it sure makes a great vehicle to spur
discussion.  The "m-s discussion list" is the only semi-official men's
studies list on the net.  It's a break off group from the official
association for men's studies.  Apparently they are mostly feminist and
these guys (m-s list) are masculist wanna be's, but have a long way to
go.

I'll paste the Manifesto below so that you can have a reference point
if you want to read the discussion.

Tom
Moderator

THE MASCULIST MANIFESTO

BY QIM



Definition of Masculism: The radical wing of the men's movement that
advocates for the abolition of political and cultural assumptions of
equality between genders. A realistic approach to gender differences
that attempts to identify those differences and how they are best
expressed in the social and political melieu. Supports the
establishment of a modern partriarchy and assumes that we are now
living in a matriarchy.



POLITICAL GOALS:

Elimination of discrimination based on sex in the civil rights act of
1964.

Assumption of Father's Custody instead of Mother's Custody. Also ending
provisions supported by government for child support and instead
replacing it with the government "safety net".

An end to drug and substance laws which victimize men. Increase in
government support for rehabilitating substance abusers.

Criminal justice laws to be liberalized to end unnescessary long
sentences and provide humane prisons and rehabilitative programs.

Added legal protections to avoid innocent people being accused and
prosecuted for sex offenses.

Support for the legal freedom to express religious sentiments and
knowledge in public forums within the spirit of the Constitution.

The elimination of feminist laws and programs of the past thirty years.

The abolition of abortion.

Begin forwarded message:

Dear Vincent "Patriarch",

Thank you for tackling the patriarchy issue so well.  I couldn't have
broken it down better.

I suppose the central reason I felt it necessary to give patriarchy a
central position in the Manifest was the knee jerk reaction of
feminists on this and the necessity for us to deal with this issue
first.  The distinction between a societal "hierarchy" and "patriarchy"
is an important one.  What the feminists have proved the past thirty
years is that anyone can control the hierarchy irregardless of their
association or lack thereof of a patriarchal agenda.  Probably the
purist patrairchy's can only exist in small units where the benefits
can be felt from top to bottom, a situation that doesn't exist in
advanced civilized "units".  The family would be where this can occur,
though I would not want any legal "edicts" on this either and would
treasure variations also.

The hierarchy is the enemy and not patriarchy.  It's the heirarchy that
has been oppressing us and the feminists are just in the way.  To me
feminist women and republican women are one and the same.  Why do you
think the demos are so far to the right and only move left on feminist
issues?  If men wake up and see how they have been duped, there's going
to be a BIG VACUUM in the democratic party.  I have a coalition in mind
that could fill it.

Tom

"vincent a. patrick" <vinc-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ms-discussion/?start=1343
> Hello Tom and others,
>
> I am not interested in slanging matches, but I find the topics which
have
> been raised about Tom's Manifesto interesting.
>
> For a start, the question of patriarchy.
>
> When people talk about patriarchy, sometimes they mean a society led
by
> dominant males.  I don't have any problem with this as an outcome, as
long
> as it is obtained by a process of individual actions rather than by
legal
> or other edict.  You might term this a 'natural' patriarchal society.
>
> Of course you might not like the existence of a socially dominant
group at
> all, but that is not the issue here.  You have probably heard some
folk in
> the men's movement complaining about patriarchal society when what
they
> really dislike is a hierarchical society.
>
> The other significant form of patriarchy is familial patriarchy, in
which a
> man is the 'head of the family'.   Perhaps it is the precursor to a
> patriarchal society, but it need not be.  Matriachal families can
exist in
> a patriarchal society, just as patriarchal families could in a
matriarchal
> society.  Again, I see nothing wrong with a familial patriarchy,
provided
> that it is not enforced through legal or other edict.
>
> Familial patriarchy can be a a good thing.  It is probably fair to
say that
> my family runs on those lines: a family which has survived, when many
other
> 'equalitarian' families have undergone breakdown.  Our family is a
happy one.
>
> Feminists use the label 'patriarchal' as an epithet, synonymous with
> excessively cruel and extremely coercive behaviour.  However, we
could
> apply the feminist logic equally well to 'motherhood', since the
> relationship between mother and child is also hierarchical.  In this
regard
> most patriarchs, like most mothers, are well meaning and work to the
> benefit of the family.  The question is not whether a man enjoys
> patriarchy, but whether he is reasonable.
>
> So, clearly, I am comfortable with benevolent patriarchy as a modus
> operandi.  Where I probably differ from Tom is that I am happy for
other
> families in our society to choose their own hierarchical forms.  It
doesn't
> mean that those who have chosen differently have chosen well, but the
> freedom to make mistakes should always be there.  In that sense I
would not
> support a push to make all families specifically patriarchal, even
while I
> can see arguments for the benefits of familial patriarchy.
>
> Tom, your comments on this are invited.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vincent Patriarch
>

Begin forwarded message:

> Best wishes everyone. You, too, Tom. And for heaven's sake, don't get
so
> damned mad (a little advice from one who tends to go off himself a
little
> too often).
>
> troy

Don't get so damn mad?!?!  Are you kidding?  You just equated me with
the Ku klux Klan, anti-semites, "tyranical asholes", "brainless turds"
and "hateful" right wingers.  Let's get real here.  Yes, I'm more than
a tad bit angry and I request sir, that you not throw this kind of
horse shit at me or anyone else if you want a serious discussion.

The item in my email that appeared to irk you the most was my use of
the word "slut".  I admit that when I was younger and before I spent
2.5 years in the big house for pot, I cringed at the use of this kind
of terminology (bitch especially) myself.  Maybe I shouldn't use such
provocative words and phrasing, but I admit that I am playing to the
more war wearried members of the movement with that kind of stuff and
not to you sensitive young folks who had their hands slapped by
feminist matriarch's all through their education.  I will raise and
challenge yours, mine and everyone elses perceptions that have been
influenced by feminist indoctrination.

Using the word "slut" is a challenge to the masses to reevaluate the
present laize faire attitudes to casual and uncommitted intimate
relationships.  The use of the word slut is comming from all segments
of society and indicates to me a desire by all of them to deal with our
social attitudes toward intimacy.  Just as blacks always called
themselves niggers when no one else could, young feminists do the same
with the word slut.

The curious thing about your reply is how totally off the mark you were
in your interpretation of my email.  You jumped to all kinds of knee
jerky opinions that indicates that you don't hear so well for whatever
reason.

The following passage from your email contains the essence of the
problem:

> Fourth, and I rarely do this, but enough with invoking an inferred
blessing
> from my God this way. Brainless turds have pushed bad ideas behind
God's
> good name for centuries. In addition to my son, I got two fabulous
gifts
> from God: the capacity to love, and the ability to think. Tom's
response
> unapologetically squanders both of those gifts on a passion tainted by
> bitterness that suffocates friendliness and strangles thought and
discourse
> using the mantle of God as the weapon of choice.

How can you jump to these horrible conclusions about a person you don't
know and who has said nothing that remotely supports such a thing?  You
need to check yourself out and starting with your father is a good
thing.  This shows a level of maturity and male identification that is
worrisome.

Tom

"troy mcginnis" <mcginni-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ms-discussion/?start=1339
> Well, this is one of those rare moments when Troy gets chewed out by
the
> more conservative rather than the more liberal subscribers. Always
> invigorating, and always points out how much work we all have to do
before a
> thoughtful men's movement that makes sense for people will emerge.
>
> Jeez.
>
> Forgive me, but I cannot address this thing in great detail at this
hour. I
> will point out a couple of things, though.
>
> First, I believe Tom chose *not* to address the most important thing
I wrote
> (and I am perhaps presumptious to assume it was important in the first
> place). Called it too academic, I think...a charge usually leveled at
> something someone doesn't want to think about (which might be why
they pay
> us to do it?).
>
> Second, I don't happen to be a Jew, myself, but perhaps that does not
> disqualify me from being able to identify and abhor anti-Semitism.
>
> Third, I'm damned sick of the implication that my faculties have been
warped
> by my "feminist" education in the social sciences. Most people who've
been
> on this and other lists for a while generally know where I stand. I
like to
> believe that I have not come across as someone who has fallen off the
sanity
> wagon. I honestly care about men and their lives, as well as women and
> children and *their* lives. I wouldn't beat my head against the wall
raising
> hell and questions on my campus or in discussions if I didn't.
>
> Fourth, and I rarely do this, but enough with invoking an inferred
blessing
> from my God this way. Brainless turds have pushed bad ideas behind
God's
> good name for centuries. In addition to my son, I got two fabulous
gifts
> from God: the capacity to love, and the ability to think. Tom's
response
> unapologetically squanders both of those gifts on a passion tainted by
> bitterness that suffocates friendliness and strangles thought and
discourse
> using the mantle of God as the weapon of choice.
>
> Fifth, this isn't the sixties. I'm not marching anywhere in a movement
> backed by right-wing (or left-wing) crazies interested in
establishing a
> clearly unworkable system of social benefit that unjustifiably favors
one
> group over another. This is the reason I skip and sometimes heckle
"Take
> Back the Night," okay? And let's get real: you have to be more than
male to
> be protected under this ridiculous manifesto. You have to be
"religious"
> (oh, yeah, you can express your spirituality in various ways, but I
wonder
> how long it would take the leaders of the modern patriarchy to get as
tired
> of the Jews as you already are...what happens then? to jews, or gays,
or
> blacks? or to the poor, whom you claim to champion? to my son?), you
> apparently have to be straight, and if the given definition of the
poor is
> to be believed (the poor, alienated Christians), you also have to be
mostly
> white. This sounds like a lot like the inauspicious beginning of
another
> "movement" we have come to know over time: the Ku Klux Klan (somebody
else
> give the history lesson, please).
>
> Sixth, I cannot support anything like this document. I am not a
feminist,
> but that doesn't mean I'm a tyrannical asshole who should be
commended for
> taking responsibility for his "sluts," either. Man, that was
offensive.
> Women consent to sex and risk; so do men. The *risk* is what is
different
> for men and women, in that women's risks are minimized and controlled
> because women have choices *after* sex, while men's commitment to
risk is
> made at the moment their dicks get hard. THERE is the problem. You
could
> arguably eliminate this inequality by criminalizing abortion, which
really
> seems to be the only agenda item, and one clearly driven by
association with
> the "poor" religious white...er...right who suffer so damned much.
This same
> group of "progressives," however, has been notoriously resistant to
dealing
> with problems associated with unwanted children, turning to moral
education
> and proselytizing--rather than real political action and social
change--for
> solutions. Elimination of freedom is not the road to freedom. And I
well
> know that lecturing and (self)righteous words do not ease the hunger
of a
> needy child or poor family.
>
> This became unexpectedly hateful. Still, I think the discussion should
> continue. I'll try to get back to it. In the meantime, I'm going to
forward
> this discussion to my dad, the minister, with whom I often have
strident
> debates. Being an evangelical, he's rather right-wing and deeply
religious,
> but I love him and have admired his ability to balance his faith
against
> good sense. Notably, he and I disagree over abortion and, say,
same-sex
> marriage. More notable than that, however, is that we have found ways
to
> talk and learn from one another in spite of our disagreements on
these and
> other issues...all without condemning one another for our respective
> ignorance. His perspective on this reactionary exchange may be
helpful to
> me. It will certainly not be insulting.
>
> That's enough for tonight.
>
> Best wishes everyone. You, too, Tom. And for heaven's sake, don't get
so
> damned mad (a little advice from one who tends to go off himself a
little
> too often).
>
> troy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Smith [mailto:qim@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 1:04 AM
> > To: ms-discussion@eGroups.com
> > Subject: [ms-discussion] Re: The Masculist Manifesto's Rationale
> >
> >
> > "troy mcginnis" <mcginni-@...> wrote:
> > > But you are calling masculism the
> > > "opposite" of feminism? That I do not buy.
> >
> > I like to think of Masculism as complementary to the "Women's
Masculist
> > Auxilary".  Feminism is clearly dead in the water.
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I
> > > have yet to figure out how denying dissident voices a forum and a
> > place at
> > > the feminist banquet constitutes inclusion.
> >
> > Thanks for proving my case that "feminism is dead".
> >
> > > The idea of masculism here does nothing different. It appears to
value
> > > inclusion (more stated than enacted, in my opinion), to promote a
> > stable and
> > > better life for everyone, provided understanding of the world is
> > centered on
> > > men. Is that what was intended?
> >
> > By no means.  I personally will have no involvement with any
political
> > group that functions the way feminism has.  Men and women are
> > complementary and interdependent.
> >
> > > If so, it is not the opposite of feminism,
> > > but rather its compliment. It is everything that feminism is but
> > should not
> > > have become. What is worse, by your own admission such ideas are
born
> > of
> > > feminism itself, rather than of men's sense of identity and self
in a
> > world
> > > that has changed economically, politically and socially since the
> > anomalous
> > > period of the 1950s...hell, since the last decade.
> >
> > The only lesson to masculism from feminism is that we are in a
> > political struggle to end feminism and form coalitions with other
> > emerging women's groups.  The identity issue is a creative process
that
> > is only beginning now with the demise of feminism.
> >
> > > > >Definition of Masculism: The radical wing of the men's movement
> > that
> > > > >advocates for the abolition of political and cultural
assumptions
> > of
> > > > equality >between genders. A realistic approach to gender
> > differences
> > > > that attempts to >identify those differences and how they are
best
> > > > expressed in the social and >political melieu. Supports the
> > > > establishment of a modern partriarchy and >assumes that we are
now
> > > > living in a matriarchy.
> > >
> > > This definition conflates sex with gender. Gender is a social
> > identity based
> > > on sex; sex is a physical characteristic. The terms cannot be used
> > > interchangeably.
> > >
> > > Gender is far more variable than sex...so variable, in fact, that
we
> > should
> > > give serious consideration to doing away with binary definitions
of
> > it. A
> > > straight man and a gay man, speaking very broadly, do not in my
mind
> > share a
> > > gender, but only a set of physical sexual characteristics. Through
> > physical
> > > bodies, men experience the physical world differently from women.
> > Likewise,
> > > and without intent to offend, straight men experience many
aspects of
> > the
> > > physical world differently than do gay men. These physical
experiences
> > > inform people's gendered social identities, their interactions
with
> > others,
> > > and their life choices. The implication is that gender is
> > multi-faceted
> > > within sex categories--an idea that is echoed in men's studies'
less
> > > interesting notion of multiple masculinities (as opposed to
> > masculinity as a
> > > singular set of values and practices). Because gender is variable
> > within sex
> > > categories, cultural assumptions about equality--or
sameness--among
> > genders
> > > are inherently unfair, both within a particular sex category and
> > across the
> > > categories. Feminism (as we are discussing it here) does not
> > acknowledge
> > > this idea, and instead talks the talk of gender while promoting
> > policies and
> > > ideas that clearly work to ascribe a monolithic definition of
gender
> > (as
> > > masculinity) to men while espousing the diversity of
possibilities for
> > > women's expressions of self in society and politics.
> > >
> > > My point here is that sex differences do exist, and they form the
> > basis for
> > > creation of a plethora of gendered identities which are social in
> > their
> > > expression, not purely physical. If doing away with the
assumption of
> > > equality among genders would mean that in addition to women,
various
> > *men*
> > > would benefit from the recognition of diversity and the inherent
and
> > > unavoidable inequalities that come with it--including gay,
hispanic,
> > poor
> > > white and most especially black men--then I'm all for it. But
because
> > this
> > > manifesto defines gender *as* sex, and therefore only sees
society as
> > > divided according to sex category (men and women), it is
misleading
> > and
> > > would ask us to establish a social order that privileges one
*sex*,
> > not
> > > gender(s), over another. This is exactly what feminism is forcing
us
> > to do
> > > through legislation and litigation. I do not think it an
appropriate
> > or even
> > > particularly progressive tactic.
> >
> > I kind of understand what you are saying with this sex/gender
dicotomy,
> > but it really is of more interest academically than to the man on
the
> > street.  The Manifesto didn't have this in mind and I'm honestly not
> > sure how it is divided between sex and gender as you say it is.  I
used
> > the term "gender" exclusively and then I threw in "Patriarchy" and
> > "Matriarchy" to function in a few ways.  One to counter what the
> > feminists have already done in custody positions and the other to
give
> > it all an historical perspective.
> >
> > As for the importance of gender differences and being fair, I agree
> > that it is an important consideration that is often ignored, but so
are
> > many other human differences.
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Are the central differences cultural? Physical? Political?
Specify.
> > What
> > > values are here? What does masculism actually *stand* for?
> >
> > As I said in my statement you address here, study of gender
differences
> > has been severely suppressed in academia due to feminist political
> > considerations.  That there are significant differences that impact
us
> > all in subtle and not so subtle ways appears to be common sense to
> > those not pushing a feminist agenda.  In Mr. Lindsey's post today on
> > mathematical skills this problem is well illustrated, both the
> > differences and their impact and the successful suppression of them.
> > It was this obvious suppression of a search for the truth in the
social
> > sciences these past few decades, that in my idealism and naivite,
> > aggravated me the most about feminism's impact and the apparent
> > complicity of many educated men.  The social sciences should be
renamed
> > the feminist political action group.  They have also indoctrinated a
> > couple generations of Americans to their nonsense.  That many of the
> > same people who came up during the free speech movement and Vietnam
> > would eagerly embrace these kind of MaCarthy era tactics, is an
irony
> > that shouldn't escape any of us.
> >
> > > With regard to feminists controlling discussion, I have to agree
> > > wholeheartedly. I wonder, though, how establishing a "modern
> > patriarchy"
> > > actually addresses this?
> >
> > I'll snip off the rest of this paragraph where you go on to claim
that
> > feminism has established it's own version of patriarchy and your
desire
> > not to do the same.  I agree and would add that any movement even
> > appearing to act the way the feminist did would have serious
problems
> > of support.  This is precisely why I found the idea of a "modern
> > patriarchy" appealing.  On the one hand it challenges men's knee
jerk
> > reaction to the negative connotations of men's historical and
political
> > perceptions of themselves.  It goes to the heart of a "positive
> > masculine identity".  To move forward we need to come to terms with
the
> > past.  Also there may be lessons from the past in this area that we
can
> > use in the future.  We have to establish in a natural and vigilantly
> > noncoersive way of reveling in the greatness of men and the
patriarchal
> > values that nurtured it in the past.  We also need to find ways in
this
> > culture to nurture it ourselves, but in a new kind of "patriarchal
> > network" which at the same time does not be appear to be like
> > Republican and Democratic men of the fifties handing out jobs to
> > relatives and friends young male sons.  For me this is the creative
> > area of the movement and the most fun, but I have no idea about how
to
> > do it.  The academics would be good for this area.
> >
> > As for masculism being just another variation of a top heavy
> > patriarchy, even like the feminist one we have now, this may be the
key
> > as to why men are having trouble getting together again.  The
feminists
> > took the spoils of our generation of men's suffering in and over
> > VietNam because it had divided us so intensely.  The ones on the
right
> > wanted to proceed with the old patriarchy and the left of course
wanted
> > something different.  The left won of course and now we have an even
> > more top heavy patriarchy with the added benefit of the girls
getting
> > government sponsored clubs to beat us daily with.  No, I don't want
the
> > old partiarchy either, too many mindless and arrogant rich men and
> > republicans in charge makes me nausious too.  The coalition that my
> > manifesto creates, is directed at the most powerless men in society
and
> > that is the poorbees on the left and the Christian Right, which is
also
> > mostly poor.  That group of Christians was really meant to be on the
> > left, but was forced over to those sorry asshole republicans because
> > they had nowhere else to go.  Now they do and I want those shit head
> > feminists out of my Party!!  Whenever I use exclamation points, I
want
> > you to picture all of our masculists number one hero, SAM KENNISTON.
> >
> > > Will masculism help social science? Or are we to be marched out
into
> > the
> > > fields and shot for our ideological shortcomings?
> >
> > You have to understand, I come from the social sciences and have
worked
> > in the most delicate and dependent area of the social sciences all
my
> > life.  I lost jobs, was persecuted and humiliated regularly
throughout
> > my career at the hands of feminists.  They were viscious and it was
a
> > miracle that I was even able to continue the work with them around.
> > And the high priests were running roughshod over your profession.
Even
> > the commies had it better in the fifties in your profession.  I
believe
> > that is now changing.  I have even had the distinction of being one
of
> > the first to knock heads with the newbie social science masculists
on
> > the net over facilitated communication, of which I'm an advocate.
They
> > were acting pretty cliqueish too, if you know what I mean.  You may
be
> > jsut a student, but that profession seems to attract little Hitlers.
> >
> > > A men's movement must have
> > > a rich intellectual base, a brain trust of some kind, and at
least an
> > > epistemology...we need to find a way to add to knowledge of gender
> > and power
> > > relations in order to critique a social movement that has
resulted in
> > abuses
> > > of power that remain invisible due precisely to the inability of
> > scholars to
> > > question the sanguine view *provided* us by a largely non-critical
> > feminist
> > > social science. Without it, men will continue to argue
passionately in
> > > court, without an empirical or theoretical leg on which to stand,
> > much less
> > > base an argument.
> >
> > Right on!!  Get to work on it.
> >
> > > > The idea of a "modern patriarchy" I "rationalize" as a way to
focus
> > > > historical lessons to this emerging new social movement.  THIS
IS  A
> > > > PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT that attempts to reorganize post-feminist
> > social
> > > > and political life.  As such it's an enlightened movement that
> > wants to
> > > > utilize new knowledge and progressive social and political
lessons.
> >  WE
> > > > WILL USE the honest and more progressive lessons of feminism.
> > >
> > > If this is what the manifesto is intended to use, then I have to
> > wonder why
> > > you use the absolute *worst* sloganistic phrases (like "modern
> > patriarchy").
> >
> > Explained above and you took the bait.  See it as my lesson to you
in
> > adopting a "positive masculist identity".  Free yourself from the
> > shackles of feminist indocrination and move to glorify men!!
> >
> > > Of course the men's movement will use feminism...this movement is
most
> > > likely born of it, and God knows the manifesto seeks to make
> > motherhood
> > > stronger in its way. Nowhere in the manifesto is there any
indication
> > of how
> > > we are supposed to use or find "new" knowledge, unless we are to
> > accept the
> > > fact that "new" knowledge, like "modern patriarchy," is simply the
> > > reconstitution of old knowledge as an unquestionable truth.
> >
> > I'm here to show the way and to inspire.  I leave it to you to do
the
> > rest.
> >
> > > > >POLITICAL GOALS:
> > > >
> > > > >Elimination of discrimination based on sex in the civil rights
act
> > of
> > > > 1964.
> > > >
> > > > Women were comming up fast before the '64 Civil Rights Act.
This
> > piece
> > > > of legislation made them politically and socially superior.  It
was
> > the
> > > > foundation of a social matriarchy in the white community and
> > solidified
> > > > it in the Black community.  Only a small group of very well off
men
> > in
> > > > this country still enjoy any semblance of patriarchy.  I know
that
> > > > techniquely we are still a partiarchy, but one that is totally
> > > > disconnected from the majority of men.
> > >
> > > How many *women* still "enjoy" a semblance of patriarchy? Please.
> > Only a
> > > small group of men and women enjoy *wealth*, which frees them from
> > the tasks
> > > of day to day living that might require an alternative
arrangement to
> > > "patriarchal" power structures in their families and at work.  I
can
> > see
> > > what you are saying here, but it gets muddy. Certainly the Civil
> > Rights Act
> > > changed our society, and asked us to shift our values away from
ideas
> > of
> > > assumed "superiority" of particular groups over others. And yes,
> > perhaps the
> > > Civil Rights Act and later affirmative action programs helped far
> > more black
> > > women than black men, but why isn't the real question about why
black
> > men
> > > have not seemed to benefit substantially from the Civil Rights
Act? I
> > do not
> > > think it was the act itself that is a problem, but the fact that
> > feminist
> > > activism--in its rush to be inclusive and promote the interests of
> > women
> > > specifically--usurped the power in the act, and was *allowed* by
> > politicians
> > > to refocus discourse on civil rights away from racial inequality
to
> > gender
> > > inequality (provided of course that gender inequality is
determined by
> > > physical sex). If this were not the case, black men would not be
the
> > least
> > > advantaged group of people "protected" by civil rights
legislation.
> > Perhaps
> > > supporting racism is another example of feminist inclusion. If
> > masculism is
> > > no different except for who suffers and who does not, can we look
> > forward to
> > > black women being excluded from protections against racist
policies
> > and
> > > practices? Convince me masculism is not as racist as feminism.
> > >
> > > > The idea of the Civil Right Act of '64 causing feminine
superiority
> > is
> > > > based on gender differences.  While men have an imposing
physical
> > > > superiority, women have us by the balls sexually.  It's an even
> > trade
> > > > off.  Of course the feminists have always maintained that this
is
> > > > silliness and based on differences in sex drive which they have
> > fought
> > > > tooth and nail to defend the absence of, precisely to fend off
this
> > > > charge.  I won't go through the arguments as to why they are
wrong,
> > I'm
> > > > sure you have all heard them.
> > >
> > > Even trade off? What the hell...?
> > >
> > > Women don't have gay or bisexual men by the balls, sexually. So
much
> > for
> > > inclusion of a substantial and growing population of men in the
United
> > > States.
> > >
> > > The assumption of imposing physical superiority is ridiculous, not
> > because
> > > it is not true on the face, but because it is irrelevant. I
believe
> > the last
> > > thing I read about that was that men are ON AVERAGE 15% larger
than
> > women.
> > > Ha. I thought size didn't matter, but we are going to lead a men's
> > movement
> > > on the assumption that bigger is better? that we trade strength
for
> > sex? I
> > > don't think that is the direction we need to go, although I have
to
> > admit it
> > > looks suspiciously like where we came from.
> > >
> > > > >Assumption of Father's Custody instead of Mother's Custody.
Also
> > > > ending >provisions supported by government for child support and
> > > > instead replacing it >with the government "safety net".
> > >
> > > I'm all for ending mandatory child support, but that is a
discussion
> > for
> > > another time.
> > >
> > > But a "government safety net" under a "modern patriarchy" sounds a
> > lot like
> > > men will continue to pay for women's and other men's
children--they
> > just
> > > won't notice the increase in their withholding.
> >
> > The Manifesto points to and endorses government intervention.  I
see it
> > as a new progrssive era for government intervention.  The idea is
to do
> > what past progrssive movements did, smooth out the top heavy
> > partiarchy.  But in this new wave, attention needs to be given to
> > connecting all socio-economic levels of men in the interests of
their
> > families safety and well being.  We need research and program ideas.
> >
> > >Or is the modern patriarchy
> > > going to encourage women to earn wages? If it does not, then it
would
> > appear
> > > that children are the sole responsibility of men. Is that not
what we
> > are
> > > dealing with right now?
> >
> > We don't need all these women with children in the workforce and
most
> > of them would prefer not to be.  Dr Laura is doing great work in
this
> > area, but government may be able to help.  I'm getting tired and
don't
> > understand the 'sole responsibility" thing.
> >
> > > > This is just a way to deal simply and understandably with the
> > problem
> > > > of Father's Rights.  The problem is that many men don't trust
other
> > men
> > > > with their children and truly believe that women are better at
this.
> > > > There is some truth to that, but that's not really the issue.
> > Custody
> > > > disputes can be based on the desireability of men caring for the
> > > > children if they chose (primary physical custody), and if not
than
> > > > primary power in the divorced family can still reside with the
> > father
> > > > eventhough he may not be primary caretaker (physical vs legal
> > custody).
> > >
> > > So men have all the choices? Again, feminist legal work in
divorce and
> > > custody areas have established this idea already.
> >
> > That's why I have no qualms with presenting this in the manifesto.
> > They can do it, we can do it.  But I sincerely believe that it is a
> > societal necessity to establish in some way the unique role of
fathers
> > in families as their leader.
> >
> > > Terry Arendell asserts
> > > that custody of children should fall to the "primary caregiver"
of the
> > > child, thereby ensuring that mothers will always get custody of
> > children in
> > > divorce (and thus also be able to exploit income from their
children's
> > > fathers). Masculism would have us define caregiving as
wage-earning
> > (not
> > > explicit but implied here) so as to allow a primary breadwinner
> > custodial
> > > preference. *sigh* There's more to raising children than that.
> >
> > The manifesto indicates no connection with money and custody and
even
> > implies otherwise in it's child support provisions.  In the maifesto
> > it's men first and women second in the family irregardless of money
or
> > "sole physical custody" for that matter.
> >
> > > A real question that needs to be answered is *why do so many men
> > distrust
> > > other men with their children?* How can one man have the 'primary
> > power in
> > > the divorced family" and that not cause conflict with the OTHER
MAN
> > in the
> > > family? What's the stepfather to do? I don't know, but I have
worked
> > hard,
> > > personally, on my relationship with my son's stepfather. We
disagree
> > on many
> > > things, but we always find common ground because we each have
> > experienced
> > > separation from our children from first marriages. He works hard
to
> > be a
> > > good dad to my son, and I commend him when I can (and I am
speaking
> > for him,
> > > but I think not inappropriately) because I know he does not get to
> > parent
> > > his own children regularly. We respect each other, and believe me,
> > except
> > > for a tendency to leave socks on the floor in the master bedroom
(and
> > I got
> > > ousted for that), we are very different people. Neither my ex-wife
> > nor I pay
> > > child support, but families on both ends of the telephone line
> > cooperate to
> > > make sure that each family is healthy and cared for. I do not
like the
> > > emphasis here on men's distrust of other men as the justification
for
> > > custody. Other men do not take us to court: our ex-wives do
(okay, I
> > admit,
> > > in my case, we are past this kind of bickering). Let's look at
those
> > > relationships as the ones that need attention, as the ones that
have
> > been
> > > affected by the power differentials created by feminist driven
> > policies that
> > > privilege women/mothers over men/fathers.
> >
> > Well, in my case the first two step dads were drug addicts, and they
> > didn't listen to anybody, but I got along with them with lots of
effort
> > on my part.  I was denied my kids by the way on the grounds of
drugs.
> > The present one is great, no problems.  I don't know why you brought
> > this up in the first place as a custody issue.  They don't have
didley
> > to do with anything except screwing the ex.
> >
> > > > The safety net idea is another attempt to simplify, though the
power
> > > > and money hungry feminists will go to their grave claiming
> > abdication
> > > > of responsibility.  Money is corrupting and has no place in
power
> > > > struggles over children.
> > >
> > > Would love to see women take responsibility for their own actions.
> >
> > So would Dr Laura.  When I used to ruminate about the men's
movement in
> > the eighties, it was this issue that stumped me.  I mean, how were
men
> > ever going to get women to take responsibility?  They weren't, it
had
> > to come from somenone like Dr Laura.  I'll bet any money that God
sent
> > her, but we will never know.
> >
> > > The
> > > choice to have a child is codified in case law; the responsibility
> > should be
> > > assumed. Child support should be voluntary, and men should be
able to
> > > abdicate their parental rights and responsibilities if they
disagree
> > with a
> > > woman's choice to have a child.
> >
> > To the former, right on, to the latter, bull shit.  On this issue,
my
> > form of masculism is uncompromising, having a child under any
> > circumsatnces is a gift of God in anybody's life and both parents
will
> > be legally required to be responsible for them.
> >
> > > > >An end to drug and substance laws which victimize men.
Increase in
> > > > government support for rehabilitating substance abusers.
> > >
> > > I agree with this one. Needs some fleshing out, though.
> >
> > I think I said enough on that.  This is probably the most unpopular
> > point in the Manifesto, but necessary.
> >
> > > > I think this is self evident.  Remember, one of the main allies
for
> > > > feminists besides the socialists were the temperance people ie
> > > > prohibition after the right to vote in the teens, the drug war
with
> > the
> > > > advent of feminism in the '70's.  THIS IS NO COINCIDENCE BOYS.
> > > >
> > > > Government responsibility for helping with rehabilitation
extends to
> > > > many other men's health issues also.
> > >
> > > Again, I agree.
> > >
> > > > >Criminal justice laws to be liberalized to end unnescessary
long
> > > > sentences >and provide humane prisons and rehabilitative
programs.
> > >
> > > Applications of criminal justice should be uniform with regard to
men
> > and
> > > women. Killing someone must be recognized as murder in the
absence of
> > > extenuating or aggravating circumstances. Prison reform will not
come
> > about
> > > until someone figures out that women commit punishable crimes.
> >
> > Boy, I'm starting to feel like you and I are brothers again
marching in
> > the streets in the sixties.
> >
> > > > The conservative turn in criminal justice also coincides with
the
> > rise
> > > > of feminism.  The feminist got the democratic party to trade off
> > > > traditional men's issues and become "law in order" in order to
> > further
> > > > their agenda.  Jail sentences and conditions are criminally
> > feminist.
> > >
> > > > >Added legal protections to avoid innocent people being accused
and
> > > > prosecuted >for sex offenses.
> > > > The length of rape sentences have quadrupled the past thirty
years.
> > > > The greatest number of innocent people being sent to jail are on
> > rape
> > > > charges (the recent DNA evidence used with old rape cases as
> > reported).
> > > >  As abhorent as sex crimes are to most of us, we do have a
> > testestore
> > > > problem all of us.
> > >
> > > Rape has basically been defined as any unpleasant interaction
between
> > a man
> > > and a woman, as determined by a woman. I will have to address this
> > later,
> > > because I am wearing down and have to be in class at 8am...but
perhaps
> > > someone will pick up a discussion of consent, of "authentic
consent"
> > and
> > > some of the issues that surround the current legal definitions of
> > rape?
> > >
> > > > >Support for the legal freedom to express religious sentiments
and
> > > > knowledge >in public forums within the spirit of the
Constitution.
> > >
> > > Religiosity and masculism are not the same, are they?
> >
> > Under my form of masculism, "religousity" is embraced as an integral
> > part of a "positive masculist identity".  I assume that all men are
> > religious, but that it is expressed in different ways.
> >
> > >We don't plan to
> > > criminalize feminist speech do we? I would hope not...the idea is
to
> > get it
> > > beyond itself.
> >
> > Do I look like a shit head McCarthyite or feminist?  I've been
"telling
> > it like it is" since the sixties, even to the feminists from the
early
> > seventies on.  "Fuck them if they can't ake a joke" has always been
by
> > motto.  I even defend the inflammatory rhetoric of the Nazi's as
much
> > as I did my radical compatriots of the sixties.  I love free speech
and
> > would defend it to the death.
> >
> > > > I miss my kids singing Christmas Carols at school!!  I loved God
> > around
> > > > as a kid!!
> > >
> > > My kid is Jewish. I guess the modern patriarchy will exclude him
from
> > school
> > > activities as well, eh?
> >
> > Oh shit, here we go.  I sometimes wonder why I stick my kneck out
> > defending you Jews so much.  You're such a pain in the ass
sometimes.
> > Your kid can have separate religious celebrations in which the whole
> > school can attend if they chose, or you can chose to exclude them,
and
> > vica versa.  I know the Christians won't exclude you.  We could sing
> > Christmas Carols together!!  Wouldn't that be lovely?  On this
issue we
> > can all use our common sense to enrich our lives.
> >
> > Though you guys do piss me off alot, I want you to know that I love
you
> > none the less for it.  You know, Christ was a Jew.
> >
> > > > >The elimination of feminist laws and programs of the past
thirty
> > years.
> > > >
> > > > Many of us men with fewer resources than many academics have
been
> > > > having our heads pummelled for years with feminist laws.  Which
ones
> > > > they are at what should be done about them is something we all
can
> > > > discuss, but you can be sure we will need to revisit them when
> > power is
> > > > at hand.
> > >
> > > I have no abundance of resources, unless you count a bunch of
books
> > and my
> > > library card.
> > >
> > > And if feminism has gone awry, as I believe it has, you can bet
that
> > > academics are no safer than other men from the deleterious
effects of
> > > sex-based discrimination and oppression in terms of opportunities
for
> > > advancement and freedom of speech (in our case, academic freedom,
> > perhaps).
> >
> > And much less likely to sue about it too.  If I would have sued like
> > women do, I would have made alot of money, and I even knew that I
had
> > winnable cases.  I hate sueing.
> >
> > > > >The abolition of abortion.
> > >
> > > Abolishing abortion does not eliminate it.
> > >
> > > Abolishing abortion forces families and women to have children
they
> > might
> > > not be able to afford or want. Child caregiving will force either
a
> > man or a
> > > woman into the home to be a full-time parent, which might be
> > desirable, but
> > > LOOK AT THE ECONOMY and tell me that a single-income family with
more
> > than
> > > two children has a snowball's chance in hell at doing well.
Forget it.
> > >
> > > Unwanted or impoverished children must be supported by someone,
and
> > in a
> > > "modern patriarchy" that someone will be the collective
wage-earning
> > > workforce. Socialized parenting...I love it (not). Are we ready to
> > > reconstitute welfare? Not that abortion eliminates welfare, but
fewer
> > > children born into resource-poor families means that these
families
> > have a
> > > fighting chance, even if that chance is relative with regard to
> > government
> > > assistance.
> > >
> > > Abolishing abortion will not establish reproductive rights for
men in
> > any
> > > important way, and avoids the issue altogether by taking away
women's
> > > reproductive rights altogether. Abolishing abortion simply removes
> > choice
> > > from everyone, and punishes both women and men as well as the
> > children born
> > > to them.
> > >
> > > I want the choice to become a parent. Or not. I think everyone
should
> > have a
> > > choice. I don't like abortion, and it is abhorrent as a birth
control
> > method
> > > (as some might characterize it), but that is my personal moral
stance.
> > > Unfortunately, because the laws governing abortion do not
recognize
> > my right
> > > as a man and prospective parent whose life will be impacted by the
> > birth of
> > > a child to a woman with whom I have had sexual relations, my
personal
> > moral
> > > stance is irrelevant. If a men's movement could make my moral
stance
> > > relevant, I would be very supportive.
> >
> > I get a kick out of how such knowledgeable men's movement people
can be
> > so concerned about protecting the most serious immorally sanctioned
act
> > of women while they send us to jail in droves and for criminally
long
> > sentences and you guys don't say a peep about that.  Just because
some
> > of your college students, or maybe you're a student, won't think
your
> > cool not supporting them and their sluts in immoral and
irresponsible
> > behavior, doesn't mean that many other men have young and
irresponsible
> > poeple to defend their coolness to.
> >
> > > I really have to go to bed, guys.
> >
> > Me too.  Thank you for the discussion of the Manifesto.  Feel free
to
> > continue if you'd like.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >

Begin forwarded message:

"troy mcginnis" <mcginni-@...> wrote:
> But you are calling masculism the
> "opposite" of feminism? That I do not buy.

I like to think of Masculism as complementary to the "Women's Masculist
Auxilary".  Feminism is clearly dead in the water.

<snip>
> I
> have yet to figure out how denying dissident voices a forum and a
place at
> the feminist banquet constitutes inclusion.

Thanks for proving my case that "feminism is dead".

> The idea of masculism here does nothing different. It appears to value
> inclusion (more stated than enacted, in my opinion), to promote a
stable and
> better life for everyone, provided understanding of the world is
centered on
> men. Is that what was intended?

By no means.  I personally will have no involvement with any political
group that functions the way feminism has.  Men and women are
complementary and interdependent.

> If so, it is not the opposite of feminism,
> but rather its compliment. It is everything that feminism is but
should not
> have become. What is worse, by your own admission such ideas are born
of
> feminism itself, rather than of men's sense of identity and self in a
world
> that has changed economically, politically and socially since the
anomalous
> period of the 1950s...hell, since the last decade.

The only lesson to masculism from feminism is that we are in a
political struggle to end feminism and form coalitions with other
emerging women's groups.  The identity issue is a creative process that
is only beginning now with the demise of feminism.

> > >Definition of Masculism: The radical wing of the men's movement
that
> > >advocates for the abolition of political and cultural assumptions
of
> > equality >between genders. A realistic approach to gender
differences
> > that attempts to >identify those differences and how they are best
> > expressed in the social and >political melieu. Supports the
> > establishment of a modern partriarchy and >assumes that we are now
> > living in a matriarchy.
>
> This definition conflates sex with gender. Gender is a social
identity based
> on sex; sex is a physical characteristic. The terms cannot be used
> interchangeably.
>
> Gender is far more variable than sex...so variable, in fact, that we
should
> give serious consideration to doing away with binary definitions of
it. A
> straight man and a gay man, speaking very broadly, do not in my mind
share a
> gender, but only a set of physical sexual characteristics. Through
physical
> bodies, men experience the physical world differently from women.
Likewise,
> and without intent to offend, straight men experience many aspects of
the
> physical world differently than do gay men. These physical experiences
> inform people's gendered social identities, their interactions with
others,
> and their life choices. The implication is that gender is
multi-faceted
> within sex categories--an idea that is echoed in men's studies' less
> interesting notion of multiple masculinities (as opposed to
masculinity as a
> singular set of values and practices). Because gender is variable
within sex
> categories, cultural assumptions about equality--or sameness--among
genders
> are inherently unfair, both within a particular sex category and
across the
> categories. Feminism (as we are discussing it here) does not
acknowledge
> this idea, and instead talks the talk of gender while promoting
policies and
> ideas that clearly work to ascribe a monolithic definition of gender
(as
> masculinity) to men while espousing the diversity of possibilities for
> women's expressions of self in society and politics.
>
> My point here is that sex differences do exist, and they form the
basis for
> creation of a plethora of gendered identities which are social in
their
> expression, not purely physical. If doing away with the assumption of
> equality among genders would mean that in addition to women, various
*men*
> would benefit from the recognition of diversity and the inherent and
> unavoidable inequalities that come with it--including gay, hispanic,
poor
> white and most especially black men--then I'm all for it. But because
this
> manifesto defines gender *as* sex, and therefore only sees society as
> divided according to sex category (men and women), it is misleading
and
> would ask us to establish a social order that privileges one *sex*,
not
> gender(s), over another. This is exactly what feminism is forcing us
to do
> through legislation and litigation. I do not think it an appropriate
or even
> particularly progressive tactic.

I kind of understand what you are saying with this sex/gender dicotomy,
but it really is of more interest academically than to the man on the
street.  The Manifesto didn't have this in mind and I'm honestly not
sure how it is divided between sex and gender as you say it is.  I used
the term "gender" exclusively and then I threw in "Patriarchy" and
"Matriarchy" to function in a few ways.  One to counter what the
feminists have already done in custody positions and the other to give
it all an historical perspective.

As for the importance of gender differences and being fair, I agree
that it is an important consideration that is often ignored, but so are
many other human differences.

<snip>
> Are the central differences cultural? Physical? Political? Specify.
What
> values are here? What does masculism actually *stand* for?

As I said in my statement you address here, study of gender differences
has been severely suppressed in academia due to feminist political
considerations.  That there are significant differences that impact us
all in subtle and not so subtle ways appears to be common sense to
those not pushing a feminist agenda.  In Mr. Lindsey's post today on
mathematical skills this problem is well illustrated, both the
differences and their impact and the successful suppression of them.
It was this obvious suppression of a search for the truth in the social
sciences these past few decades, that in my idealism and naivite,
aggravated me the most about feminism's impact and the apparent
complicity of many educated men.  The social sciences should be renamed
the feminist political action group.  They have also indoctrinated a
couple generations of Americans to their nonsense.  That many of the
same people who came up during the free speech movement and Vietnam
would eagerly embrace these kind of MaCarthy era tactics, is an irony
that shouldn't escape any of us.

> With regard to feminists controlling discussion, I have to agree
> wholeheartedly. I wonder, though, how establishing a "modern
patriarchy"
> actually addresses this?

I'll snip off the rest of this paragraph where you go on to claim that
feminism has established it's own version of patriarchy and your desire
not to do the same.  I agree and would add that any movement even
appearing to act the way the feminist did would have serious problems
of support.  This is precisely why I found the idea of a "modern
patriarchy" appealing.  On the one hand it challenges men's knee jerk
reaction to the negative connotations of men's historical and political
perceptions of themselves.  It goes to the heart of a "positive
masculine identity".  To move forward we need to come to terms with the
past.  Also there may be lessons from the past in this area that we can
use in the future.  We have to establish in a natural and vigilantly
noncoersive way of reveling in the greatness of men and the patriarchal
values that nurtured it in the past.  We also need to find ways in this
culture to nurture it ourselves, but in a new kind of "patriarchal
network" which at the same time does not be appear to be like
Republican and Democratic men of the fifties handing out jobs to
relatives and friends young male sons.  For me this is the creative
area of the movement and the most fun, but I have no idea about how to
do it.  The academics would be good for this area.

As for masculism being just another variation of a top heavy
patriarchy, even like the feminist one we have now, this may be the key
as to why men are having trouble getting together again.  The feminists
took the spoils of our generation of men's suffering in and over
VietNam because it had divided us so intensely.  The ones on the right
wanted to proceed with the old patriarchy and the left of course wanted
something different.  The left won of course and now we have an even
more top heavy patriarchy with the added benefit of the girls getting
government sponsored clubs to beat us daily with.  No, I don't want the
old partiarchy either, too many mindless and arrogant rich men and
republicans in charge makes me nausious too.  The coalition that my
manifesto creates, is directed at the most powerless men in society and
that is the poorbees on the left and the Christian Right, which is also
mostly poor.  That group of Christians was really meant to be on the
left, but was forced over to those sorry asshole republicans because
they had nowhere else to go.  Now they do and I want those shit head
feminists out of my Party!!  Whenever I use exclamation points, I want
you to picture all of our masculists number one hero, SAM KENNISTON.

> Will masculism help social science? Or are we to be marched out into
the
> fields and shot for our ideological shortcomings?

You have to understand, I come from the social sciences and have worked
in the most delicate and dependent area of the social sciences all my
life.  I lost jobs, was persecuted and humiliated regularly throughout
my career at the hands of feminists.  They were viscious and it was a
miracle that I was even able to continue the work with them around.
And the high priests were running roughshod over your profession.  Even
the commies had it better in the fifties in your profession.  I believe
that is now changing.  I have even had the distinction of being one of
the first to knock heads with the newbie social science masculists on
the net over facilitated communication, of which I'm an advocate.  They
were acting pretty cliqueish too, if you know what I mean.  You may be
jsut a student, but that profession seems to attract little Hitlers.

> A men's movement must have
> a rich intellectual base, a brain trust of some kind, and at least an
> epistemology...we need to find a way to add to knowledge of gender
and power
> relations in order to critique a social movement that has resulted in
abuses
> of power that remain invisible due precisely to the inability of
scholars to
> question the sanguine view *provided* us by a largely non-critical
feminist
> social science. Without it, men will continue to argue passionately in
> court, without an empirical or theoretical leg on which to stand,
much less
> base an argument.

Right on!!  Get to work on it.

> > The idea of a "modern patriarchy" I "rationalize" as a way to focus
> > historical lessons to this emerging new social movement.  THIS IS  A
> > PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT that attempts to reorganize post-feminist
social
> > and political life.  As such it's an enlightened movement that
wants to
> > utilize new knowledge and progressive social and political lessons.
  WE
> > WILL USE the honest and more progressive lessons of feminism.
>
> If this is what the manifesto is intended to use, then I have to
wonder why
> you use the absolute *worst* sloganistic phrases (like "modern
patriarchy").

Explained above and you took the bait.  See it as my lesson to you in
adopting a "positive masculist identity".  Free yourself from the
shackles of feminist indocrination and move to glorify men!!

> Of course the men's movement will use feminism...this movement is most
> likely born of it, and God knows the manifesto seeks to make
motherhood
> stronger in its way. Nowhere in the manifesto is there any indication
of how
> we are supposed to use or find "new" knowledge, unless we are to
accept the
> fact that "new" knowledge, like "modern patriarchy," is simply the
> reconstitution of old knowledge as an unquestionable truth.

I'm here to show the way and to inspire.  I leave it to you to do the
rest.

> > >POLITICAL GOALS:
> >
> > >Elimination of discrimination based on sex in the civil rights act
of
> > 1964.
> >
> > Women were comming up fast before the '64 Civil Rights Act.  This
piece
> > of legislation made them politically and socially superior.  It was
the
> > foundation of a social matriarchy in the white community and
solidified
> > it in the Black community.  Only a small group of very well off men
in
> > this country still enjoy any semblance of patriarchy.  I know that
> > techniquely we are still a partiarchy, but one that is totally
> > disconnected from the majority of men.
>
> How many *women* still "enjoy" a semblance of patriarchy? Please.
Only a
> small group of men and women enjoy *wealth*, which frees them from
the tasks
> of day to day living that might require an alternative arrangement to
> "patriarchal" power structures in their families and at work.  I can
see
> what you are saying here, but it gets muddy. Certainly the Civil
Rights Act
> changed our society, and asked us to shift our values away from ideas
of
> assumed "superiority" of particular groups over others. And yes,
perhaps the
> Civil Rights Act and later affirmative action programs helped far
more black
> women than black men, but why isn't the real question about why black
men
> have not seemed to benefit substantially from the Civil Rights Act? I
do not
> think it was the act itself that is a problem, but the fact that
feminist
> activism--in its rush to be inclusive and promote the interests of
women
> specifically--usurped the power in the act, and was *allowed* by
politicians
> to refocus discourse on civil rights away from racial inequality to
gender
> inequality (provided of course that gender inequality is determined by
> physical sex). If this were not the case, black men would not be the
least
> advantaged group of people "protected" by civil rights legislation.
Perhaps
> supporting racism is another example of feminist inclusion. If
masculism is
> no different except for who suffers and who does not, can we look
forward to
> black women being excluded from protections against racist policies
and
> practices? Convince me masculism is not as racist as feminism.
>
> > The idea of the Civil Right Act of '64 causing feminine superiority
is
> > based on gender differences.  While men have an imposing physical
> > superiority, women have us by the balls sexually.  It's an even
trade
> > off.  Of course the feminists have always maintained that this is
> > silliness and based on differences in sex drive which they have
fought
> > tooth and nail to defend the absence of, precisely to fend off this
> > charge.  I won't go through the arguments as to why they are wrong,
I'm
> > sure you have all heard them.
>
> Even trade off? What the hell...?
>
> Women don't have gay or bisexual men by the balls, sexually. So much
for
> inclusion of a substantial and growing population of men in the United
> States.
>
> The assumption of imposing physical superiority is ridiculous, not
because
> it is not true on the face, but because it is irrelevant. I believe
the last
> thing I read about that was that men are ON AVERAGE 15% larger than
women.
> Ha. I thought size didn't matter, but we are going to lead a men's
movement
> on the assumption that bigger is better? that we trade strength for
sex? I
> don't think that is the direction we need to go, although I have to
admit it
> looks suspiciously like where we came from.
>
> > >Assumption of Father's Custody instead of Mother's Custody. Also
> > ending >provisions supported by government for child support and
> > instead replacing it >with the government "safety net".
>
> I'm all for ending mandatory child support, but that is a discussion
for
> another time.
>
> But a "government safety net" under a "modern patriarchy" sounds a
lot like
> men will continue to pay for women's and other men's children--they
just
> won't notice the increase in their withholding.

The Manifesto points to and endorses government intervention.  I see it
as a new progrssive era for government intervention.  The idea is to do
what past progrssive movements did, smooth out the top heavy
partiarchy.  But in this new wave, attention needs to be given to
connecting all socio-economic levels of men in the interests of their
families safety and well being.  We need research and program ideas.

>Or is the modern patriarchy
> going to encourage women to earn wages? If it does not, then it would
appear
> that children are the sole responsibility of men. Is that not what we
are
> dealing with right now?

We don't need all these women with children in the workforce and most
of them would prefer not to be.  Dr Laura is doing great work in this
area, but government may be able to help.  I'm getting tired and don't
understand the 'sole responsibility" thing.

> > This is just a way to deal simply and understandably with the
problem
> > of Father's Rights.  The problem is that many men don't trust other
men
> > with their children and truly believe that women are better at this.
> > There is some truth to that, but that's not really the issue.
Custody
> > disputes can be based on the desireability of men caring for the
> > children if they chose (primary physical custody), and if not than
> > primary power in the divorced family can still reside with the
father
> > eventhough he may not be primary caretaker (physical vs legal
custody).
>
> So men have all the choices? Again, feminist legal work in divorce and
> custody areas have established this idea already.

That's why I have no qualms with presenting this in the manifesto.
They can do it, we can do it.  But I sincerely believe that it is a
societal necessity to establish in some way the unique role of fathers
in families as their leader.

> Terry Arendell asserts
> that custody of children should fall to the "primary caregiver" of the
> child, thereby ensuring that mothers will always get custody of
children in
> divorce (and thus also be able to exploit income from their children's
> fathers). Masculism would have us define caregiving as wage-earning
(not
> explicit but implied here) so as to allow a primary breadwinner
custodial
> preference. *sigh* There's more to raising children than that.

The manifesto indicates no connection with money and custody and even
implies otherwise in it's child support provisions.  In the maifesto
it's men first and women second in the family irregardless of money or
"sole physical custody" for that matter.

> A real question that needs to be answered is *why do so many men
distrust
> other men with their children?* How can one man have the 'primary
power in
> the divorced family" and that not cause conflict with the OTHER MAN
in the
> family? What's the stepfather to do? I don't know, but I have worked
hard,
> personally, on my relationship with my son's stepfather. We disagree
on many
> things, but we always find common ground because we each have
experienced
> separation from our children from first marriages. He works hard to
be a
> good dad to my son, and I commend him when I can (and I am speaking
for him,
> but I think not inappropriately) because I know he does not get to
parent
> his own children regularly. We respect each other, and believe me,
except
> for a tendency to leave socks on the floor in the master bedroom (and
I got
> ousted for that), we are very different people. Neither my ex-wife
nor I pay
> child support, but families on both ends of the telephone line
cooperate to
> make sure that each family is healthy and cared for. I do not like the
> emphasis here on men's distrust of other men as the justification for
> custody. Other men do not take us to court: our ex-wives do (okay, I
admit,
> in my case, we are past this kind of bickering). Let's look at those
> relationships as the ones that need attention, as the ones that have
been
> affected by the power differentials created by feminist driven
policies that
> privilege women/mothers over men/fathers.

Well, in my case the first two step dads were drug addicts, and they
didn't listen to anybody, but I got along with them with lots of effort
on my part.  I was denied my kids by the way on the grounds of drugs.
The present one is great, no problems.  I don't know why you brought
this up in the first place as a custody issue.  They don't have didley
to do with anything except screwing the ex.

> > The safety net idea is another attempt to simplify, though the power
> > and money hungry feminists will go to their grave claiming
abdication
> > of responsibility.  Money is corrupting and has no place in power
> > struggles over children.
>
> Would love to see women take responsibility for their own actions.

So would Dr Laura.  When I used to ruminate about the men's movement in
the eighties, it was this issue that stumped me.  I mean, how were men
ever going to get women to take responsibility?  They weren't, it had
to come from somenone like Dr Laura.  I'll bet any money that God sent
her, but we will never know.

> The
> choice to have a child is codified in case law; the responsibility
should be
> assumed. Child support should be voluntary, and men should be able to
> abdicate their parental rights and responsibilities if they disagree
with a
> woman's choice to have a child.

To the former, right on, to the latter, bull shit.  On this issue, my
form of masculism is uncompromising, having a child under any
circumsatnces is a gift of God in anybody's life and both parents will
be legally required to be responsible for them.

> > >An end to drug and substance laws which victimize men. Increase in
> > government support for rehabilitating substance abusers.
>
> I agree with this one. Needs some fleshing out, though.

I think I said enough on that.  This is probably the most unpopular
point in the Manifesto, but necessary.

> > I think this is self evident.  Remember, one of the main allies for
> > feminists besides the socialists were the temperance people ie
> > prohibition after the right to vote in the teens, the drug war with
the
> > advent of feminism in the '70's.  THIS IS NO COINCIDENCE BOYS.
> >
> > Government responsibility for helping with rehabilitation extends to
> > many other men's health issues also.
>
> Again, I agree.
>
> > >Criminal justice laws to be liberalized to end unnescessary long
> > sentences >and provide humane prisons and rehabilitative programs.
>
> Applications of criminal justice should be uniform with regard to men
and
> women. Killing someone must be recognized as murder in the absence of
> extenuating or aggravating circumstances. Prison reform will not come
about
> until someone figures out that women commit punishable crimes.

Boy, I'm starting to feel like you and I are brothers again marching in
the streets in the sixties.

> > The conservative turn in criminal justice also coincides with the
rise
> > of feminism.  The feminist got the democratic party to trade off
> > traditional men's issues and become "law in order" in order to
further
> > their agenda.  Jail sentences and conditions are criminally
feminist.
>
> > >Added legal protections to avoid innocent people being accused and
> > prosecuted >for sex offenses.
> > The length of rape sentences have quadrupled the past thirty years.
> > The greatest number of innocent people being sent to jail are on
rape
> > charges (the recent DNA evidence used with old rape cases as
reported).
> >  As abhorent as sex crimes are to most of us, we do have a
testestore
> > problem all of us.
>
> Rape has basically been defined as any unpleasant interaction between
a man
> and a woman, as determined by a woman. I will have to address this
later,
> because I am wearing down and have to be in class at 8am...but perhaps
> someone will pick up a discussion of consent, of "authentic consent"
and
> some of the issues that surround the current legal definitions of
rape?
>
> > >Support for the legal freedom to express religious sentiments and
> > knowledge >in public forums within the spirit of the Constitution.
>
> Religiosity and masculism are not the same, are they?

Under my form of masculism, "religousity" is embraced as an integral
part of a "positive masculist identity".  I assume that all men are
religious, but that it is expressed in different ways.

>We don't plan to
> criminalize feminist speech do we? I would hope not...the idea is to
get it
> beyond itself.

Do I look like a shit head McCarthyite or feminist?  I've been "telling
it like it is" since the sixties, even to the feminists from the early
seventies on.  "Fuck them if they can't ake a joke" has always been by
motto.  I even defend the inflammatory rhetoric of the Nazi's as much
as I did my radical compatriots of the sixties.  I love free speech and
would defend it to the death.

> > I miss my kids singing Christmas Carols at school!!  I loved God
around
> > as a kid!!
>
> My kid is Jewish. I guess the modern patriarchy will exclude him from
school
> activities as well, eh?

Oh shit, here we go.  I sometimes wonder why I stick my kneck out
defending you Jews so much.  You're such a pain in the ass sometimes.
Your kid can have separate religious celebrations in which the whole
school can attend if they chose, or you can chose to exclude them, and
vica versa.  I know the Christians won't exclude you.  We could sing
Christmas Carols together!!  Wouldn't that be lovely?  On this issue we
can all use our common sense to enrich our lives.

Though you guys do piss me off alot, I want you to know that I love you
none the less for it.  You know, Christ was a Jew.

> > >The elimination of feminist laws and programs of the past thirty
years.
> >
> > Many of us men with fewer resources than many academics have been
> > having our heads pummelled for years with feminist laws.  Which ones
> > they are at what should be done about them is something we all can
> > discuss, but you can be sure we will need to revisit them when
power is
> > at hand.
>
> I have no abundance of resources, unless you count a bunch of books
and my
> library card.
>
> And if feminism has gone awry, as I believe it has, you can bet that
> academics are no safer than other men from the deleterious effects of
> sex-based discrimination and oppression in terms of opportunities for
> advancement and freedom of speech (in our case, academic freedom,
perhaps).

And much less likely to sue about it too.  If I would have sued like
women do, I would have made alot of money, and I even knew that I had
winnable cases.  I hate sueing.

> > >The abolition of abortion.
>
> Abolishing abortion does not eliminate it.
>
> Abolishing abortion forces families and women to have children they
might
> not be able to afford or want. Child caregiving will force either a
man or a
> woman into the home to be a full-time parent, which might be
desirable, but
> LOOK AT THE ECONOMY and tell me that a single-income family with more
than
> two children has a snowball's chance in hell at doing well. Forget it.
>
> Unwanted or impoverished children must be supported by someone, and
in a
> "modern patriarchy" that someone will be the collective wage-earning
> workforce. Socialized parenting...I love it (not). Are we ready to
> reconstitute welfare? Not that abortion eliminates welfare, but fewer
> children born into resource-poor families means that these families
have a
> fighting chance, even if that chance is relative with regard to
government
> assistance.
>
> Abolishing abortion will not establish reproductive rights for men in
any
> important way, and avoids the issue altogether by taking away women's
> reproductive rights altogether. Abolishing abortion simply removes
choice
> from everyone, and punishes both women and men as well as the
children born
> to them.
>
> I want the choice to become a parent. Or not. I think everyone should
have a
> choice. I don't like abortion, and it is abhorrent as a birth control
method
> (as some might characterize it), but that is my personal moral stance.
> Unfortunately, because the laws governing abortion do not recognize
my right
> as a man and prospective parent whose life will be impacted by the
birth of
> a child to a woman with whom I have had sexual relations, my personal
moral
> stance is irrelevant. If a men's movement could make my moral stance
> relevant, I would be very supportive.

I get a kick out of how such knowledgeable men's movement people can be
so concerned about protecting the most serious immorally sanctioned act
of women while they send us to jail in droves and for criminally long
sentences and you guys don't say a peep about that.  Just because some
of your college students, or maybe you're a student, won't think your
cool not supporting them and their sluts in immoral and irresponsible
behavior, doesn't mean that many other men have young and irresponsible
poeple to defend their coolness to.

> I really have to go to bed, guys.

Me too.  Thank you for the discussion of the Manifesto.  Feel free to
continue if you'd like.

Tom

Begin forwarded message:

Dear Mike and Troy,

I agree that Troy's response was excellent and I will try to get to it
tomarrow.  This is getting more academic and though I have done some
reading the past twenty years on this subject, I'm not up to speed in
some ways.  I think I can handle though.

Let me respond to Mike:

"michael osterbuhr" <gzmdo4-@...> wrote:
> Speaking to the general point in discussion Tom, your manifesto
> is all over the place; political chaos.  The "Patriarchy" is
> conservative or reactionary against change; hence a right-wing
> entity.  The radical extreme of the men's movement is pro-
> change in the status quo; hence left-wing.


I think it is wonderful that you have all this in the right boxes and
are assured as a result that I'm a "right wing reactionary".  That may
be edifying to your self esteem, but it doesn't do much for the truth.


> Radical                 Centrist or             Reactionary
> ____________________________________________________________
> Left                     Moderate                  Right
>
>   I have friends who consider themselves spiritual, but I
> can assure you they are not reactionary against change.  They
> do tend to get riled when Radical Atheists try to shut them
> up in public.
>
>   I also have friends who consider themselves feminists and
> some who consider themselves socialist, and still others
> who are pretty hard-line men's rightists, but none who would
> radically disrupt the current freedoms of our U.S. democracy
> to change things in favour of their group.

I'm happy for you that you have lots of friends, but I never suggested
anything in the Manifesto or here that would cause one to suggest that
I was "disrupting current freedoms".  Other than the fact that things
like "patriarchy" and "abortion" are very important in the Manifesto, I
admit that I delighted putting them in there to tease out old
progressives like yourself who have knee jerk political reactions
instead of a respectful search for the truth.  I would appreciate
anyone participating in this dialogue be alittle slower at demonizing
the messanger.


>   When you (Tom) say you're "for" a return to the Patriarchy
> and a radical masculist, it tends to be quite confusing.  I
> guess I see all extremists as fundamentally selfish and un-
> willing or unable to listen to other points of view or
> compromise for the good of the larger group.

Gee Mike, didn't you feel that old progressive knee of yours jerk?
That was nasty and I certainly haven't said anything here or in the
Manifesto to deserve that.  Shame on you man.

Keep that up and I WILL STOP RESPONDING.

>    Just a few speculations on why you (Tom) are not garnering
> much support

I have had phenomenal support with this.  Since I began this campaigne
a year ago to put masculism on the map and give it some definition, it
has taken off in the internet forums as if it has been an established
concept for years.  Don't think for a second that I didn't learn
anything from my radical years in the '60's.

> and why I suggested last week that you consider
> a more centrist (but left or change oriented) group like the
> National Coalition of Free Men or the American Coalition of
> Fathers and Children (please correct me if I have my acronyms
> wrong for NCFM or ACFC).

First of all, are you the moderator and if you are not who is?  I
called all the men's groups in the early eighties and had a talk with
the founders.  I appreciated all their efforts, but most were father's
rights oriented.  I argued with them that we needed a general men's
movement, but they said that it had been attempted repeatedly with no
success.  I thought they needed to be more radical and give that a try.
  My favorite was the Jewish guy who wore a dress on talk shows.  Wasn't
he the one that founded NCFM?  In any case he was the most articulate
and creatively intelligent of the men's movement people that I talked
to.  The dress thing wasn't really necessary though.

After talking to those guys I decided to try to come up with my own
vision of a men's movement.  The major points of the manifesto have
been in my head since the mid eighties, but I didn't publish it till
last fall.  The name for my organization I came up with in the 1986 and
has been listed and active since then.  I would have done more in the
'90's, but I spent that whole time working on a special project in
autism on the net (and at work) which I just recently concluded
(successfully).  I'm independently wealthy and plan on devoting the
comming years to the men's movement.

The organizations you mentioned are doing wonderful work and I think
all of our heartfelt efforts complement each other.

Tom Smith

--- jb_@... wrote:
> Sure is quiet in here.
>

Hi JB,

It sure is quiet.  I've been on vacation for a few
weeks, but am usually around.  The NRFC group at
egroups is very active as is mens-law.  I'll cjheck
the addresses and also give some more areas on the net
that I know about.  Give me a day or two and I'll post
them and add comments.

Tom Smith (moderator)

_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

<2e6aeaf5.24cb763-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/mensrights/?start=12
>
>   Try nrfc@.... LOTS of action!

Greg, I can't find it. Would you be kind enough to lead me to it?

John

Try nrfc@.... LOTS of action!

Sure is quiet in here.

Hello everyone,

My three main interests at egroups are God, the Men's Movement and Autism.  The
most activity in the God area is my egroup "autismfc" (40 members).  For the
men's movement it is the egroup "AUM" (17 members) which stands for the American
Union of Men and has been around for 15 years.  And for autism it is the
"autismlist" (300 members) at egroups.  I know that these seem like an odd
combination of interests, but they all tie together into a wonderful project for
our times.

Please feel free to visit these groups and join if you'd like or to just send me
an email if you are interested in what I'm doing with these things.  My homepage
is humble but does contain some biographical information and links to info on
Facilitated Communication which is the most important aspect of what I'm doing.

Thanks for your interest and support.

Tom Smith
AUTISM - FC - INTERACTIVE  http://members.delphi.com/QIM/index.html


Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mensrights
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Message http://www.egroups.com/list/mensmovement/?start=4
>
>
> qim@... (Tom Smith) wrote:
>
> >You don't seem to be very impressed
> >with my manifesto.
>
> I've just heard it all before, over and over. Why not join an extant
> group like NCFC, NCFM, or others? Why reinvent the wheel?
>
> >I lump in social with spiritual
> >...just trying to
> >simplify things.
>
> There's a paralysis of analysis in our movement. Zillions of gigabytes of
> "data" and commentary online and off. What's being DONE in REALITY to
> change feminist facts on the ground?
>
> >>>AUM is 100% with God
>
> >> Isn't "AUM" the cult in Japan that gassed subways?
>
> >Yeah, and I saw that as a sign from my friend above.
>
> A "sign" to get a new name? Would you call a school the Sam Houston
> Institute of Technology?
>
> >> Stovicek's "piece of cake" rally in DC: "Just be
> >> there!" Of course, no one was.
>
> >Oh please.  We have a serious problem here
>
> That's EXACTLY what Stovicek said!
>
> Look, there's no shortage of ideas, opinions, chatlists. There IS a
> dearth of activists and activism.
>
> >> >Custody should be automatic joint
> >> >custody
>
> >> "Joint" legal, physical, economic--- what?
>
> >The average Joe doesn't know or care about the difference.
>
> Exactly. And until he does, nothing will change. Too many men think
> "legal" joint custody matters. By the time they find out it doesn't,
> they're hip-high in CS orders, a third job, and despair: little use to
> themselves or the movement.
>
> >>>We should support the
> >>>elimination of child support.
>
> >>>showing a little boldness.
>
> Boldness in words, maybe. What about bold, concrete plans to "make it so"?
>
> >us enlightened ones are assholes
> >unless we find a way to inspire [unenlightened men].
>
> How do you "inspire" drunks? They have to bottom out or become willing to
> change. There must be "followship" as well as leadership.
>
> >I was in Attica for 2.5 years
>
> For what? Murdering logic? <g>
>
> >>men's GROUPS should do more than
> >> collect dues and widen butts on seats.
>
> >We need to stop pissing and moaning
>
> Did you learn that at home, in school, or the slammer? Women justifiably
> rage at injustice; men "whine." Who has the self-esteem problem?
>
> >Our less well to do brothers need some
> >creative social programs...
>
> How will you provide them? Noting a need is not meeting it.
>
> >Laura Schlesinger
> >...an absolute Godsend.
>
> Her kind of hectoring rarely succeeds. Shame like hers both fills and
> propels the prison system.
>
> >social scientists
> >can honestly seek the truth
>
> > Laura is [also] taking care of...us.
>
> Wow. Sociologists kick ass academically and Dr. Laura sways on media.
> Pass the beer nuts! All we gotta do is keep waitin'....
>
> >>> all this social aspect...is now
> >>> taking care of itself
>
> >> (Keerist, are men deluded or what?)
>
> >This is the attitude that you claim
> >other men have that is causing them to
> >allow themselves to get fucked.
>
> If you mean I don't like men blindly assuming others will do the heavy
> lifting, yes.
>
> >it's a question of leadership.
>
> Not the ozone layer? <g>
>
> >You can't represent men and constantly be
> >decrying how deluded they are.
>
> Good therapists don't indulge fantasies. Why should I suffer adamant
> fools lightly?
>
> >The social the spiritual compnent of all this.
>
> Is that a sentence?
>
> >These "sticky" social
> >problems are actually spiritual problems...
>
> Hmmm. Many men in prison lose their minds while "finding" Jesus. Sound
> familiar?
>
> Jews were/are spiritual folks. Did Talmudic studies save them from the
> ovens?
>
> >Robert...you've been hurt and need some
> >way to vent.
>
> Thanks, Friar Bob. I love you, too, man. Now, gimme that brew!
>
> Tom, save yourself more embarrassment. Visit some men's issues websites.
> See what's been done, tried, etc. before climbing the Empire State
> Building to breathlessly announce your discovery of America.
>
> -Robert
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com
>
>
>



-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/mensmovement/?start=4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

Hi Robert,

You don't seem to be very impressed with my manifesto.  I'll respond:

> qim@... (Tom Smith) wrote:
>
> >Any movement needs a unified vision
> >with far reaching implications.
>
> True.
>
> >Men's issues divide into three
> >categories: legal, financial and spiritual.
>
> Plus social, sexual, military, educational....and sundry others.

Down below I lump in social with spiritual and give my reasons.  Sexual is
social, educational is social, and military is legal.  I'm just trying to
simplify things.
>
> >AUM is 100% with God
>
> Isn't "AUM" the cult in Japan that gassed subways?

Yeah, and I saw that as a sign from my friend above.  I came up with that
acronym intentionally in 1987 when I was thinking about my men's movement
vision.  I wanted a spiritual basis for it.  I also liked having "American" in
it and "Union" since that was the last great American men's movement - the union
movement.
>
> >Now that we have the basis of the
> >organization, the other two components,
> >the financial and legal are a piece of cake.
>
> That sounds alot like Stovicek's "piece of cake" rally in DC: "Just be
> there!" Of course, no one was.

Oh please.  We have a serious problem here Robert of inspiring our brethern to
stop bending over to get fucked.
>
> >Custody should be automatic joint
> >custody
>
> "Joint" legal, physical, economic--- what?

The average Joe doesn't know or care about the difference.
>
> >We should support the
> >elimination of child support.
>
> At least equalize it.

Well, again this is a matter of simplification and showing alittle boldness.  I
like eliminate on this issue over equalize, but it's not that big of a deal.
>
> >endangers the children [?]
> >so did the divorce that 75% of
> >American women initiate....
>
> Agreed.
>
> Feminists tap into men's traditional fear of being shamed AND their role
> as protectors. It allows grown women to use kids as meal-tickets while
> saying father-custody is just "men wanting to pay less money." Feminists
> are like racists who said equal education would discomfit Aryans at
> Harvard.
>
> Of COURSE custody involves money...just like marriage does. If it's okay
> for female MBA's to talk about matters, it's okay for divorcing men, too.
> The main activity of women in court is to grab money. The easiest way to
> so that is to first grab the kids. And the easiest way to do THAT is to
> accuse the father of abuse/molestation.

I know all about this, I had one of those wives the last time.
>
> Guys should NOT have to pay for gals' decisions to opt out of marriage
> contracts. Kids should NOT be female chattel. However, most men fail to
> fight that. Why?
>
> The ERA, remember, was stopped when Schlafly said it meant women in
> combat. Guys think it's "okay" for boys to become cannon fodder, not
> girls. So they're not comfortable pushing for equality in custody because
> that can lead to other changes. Most men's whole identity AS men is based
> on, literally, self-sacrifice. I mean, if men don't have to "pay" to get
> custody or love or other things, what "good" are they?

Very good summary on why our brothers are such assholes.  The problem is that us
enlightened ones are assholes unless we find a way to inspire them.
>
> >Next is Criminal Justice. We have to
> >champion the victims of our gender.
>
> Is that suppose to be a "new" idea?

It sure is.  Just a few seconds ago you were ragging on our gender.  I'd be
curious to know how you vote on this crime issue.  I bet alot of men in the
men's movement are Republicans.  That shit won't fly.
>
> >We need to make bridges to the
> >prison population.
>
> Yes. Most imprisoned men lacked healthy, loving fathers.

And now they lack any support from the ones that did have healthy loving
fathers.  I was in Attica for 2.5 years
>
> Feminists make heroines out of husband-killing women. The men's movement,
> though, turns its back on men who, goaded endlessly by
> emotionally-savvy-yet-irresponsible women, finally snap and slap back. It
> should boil every man's blood that guys not only get arrested, but must
> PAY for course run by feminists who make men "admit" they "chose" to hit
> (often by screaming insults at men who need screamers' signature on
> attendance lists!); meanwhile, women who batter have excuses made for
> them ("She was just using self defense" or "She finally fought back after
> years of abuse"). Individual men might not be aware or have time/energy
> to protest such misandry. But surely men's GROUPS should do more than
> collect dues and widen butts on seats.

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...We need to stop pissing and moaning about how the girls are
being somean to us or the majority of our brothers who don't feel so harmed are
going to think we a are a bunch of pussies.
>
> >the elimination of as many legal
> >preferences for women that is
> >reasonable.
>
> Say... 99.9% of them?
>
> >Government funding that is
> >women-oriented should be resisted.
>
> Eliminated!
>
> >government funding for men should
> >be brought up to a par with
> >women.
>
> Yes!

That is why I used the word "resisted" above instead of eliminated.  Our less
well to do brothers need some creative social programs and we all know that
money and pork run politics.  This is the cash cow for the men's movement.

>
> >Laura Schlesinger has pointed the way.
>
> That reactionary shrew? She bares all with a married man, then sits in
> judgment of others? Feh! Her audience is filled with masochists.

You are way off the mark if you don't see her value to our needs.  She's an
absolute Godsend.  I was serious when I said that this was the stickiest problem
for me to come up with a solution for.  She's doing it for us.  Listen to Laura
and think about it alittle.
>
> >Now all of us and
> >especially the social scientists
> >can honestly seek the truth without being
> >shouted down...
>
> On what planet?

I agree that it is just beginning, but it is moving in that direction and as far
as I'm concerned is off the table along with the problems Laura is taking care
of for us.
>
> >all this social aspect...is now
> >taking care of itself
>
> God help us. Do you honestly believe that?
>
> (Keerist, are men deluded or what?)

This is the attitude that you claim other men have that is causing them to allow
themselves to get fucked.  It's not a question of who is deluded, it's a
question of leadership.   You can't represent men and constantly be decrying how
deluded they are.
The social the spiritual compnent of all this.  These "sticky" social problems
are actually spiritual problems and that's the reason why years ago I couldn't
come up with a solution.  But we can help it along
considerably...AAAAUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
>
> >AUM...a kind of social club that would be a
> >mixture of the YMCA and the Masonic lodge

This is alittle tongue in cheek.  I'd like to see some clubby kind of thing.
>
> Tell us about the rabbits again, George. <g>

Your such a wise guy Robert.  I know that you've been hurt and need some way to
vent.

Thank you for your comments.

Tom Smith

-----
See the original message at
http://www.egroups.com/list/united-fathers-of-america/?start=196
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

Hi folks,

I've tossed this around in my head for almost 20 years now.  In the 80's I spent
a good deal of time researching gender differences and other areas connected to
men's issues.  I sorely missed having others of like mind to hash these things
out with, but I have read some of the movement literature and have an idea of
the dominant currents.  I also have been an ardent political junkie.  Please
feel free to comment on the "vision".

Any movement needs a unified vision with far reaching implications.  It needs to
be bold, popular and true.  Men's issues divide into three categories: legal,
financial and spiritual.

I add the spiritual because a movement of men is different from any other social
movement.  If you recognize the power of men than you have to come to terms with
God if that power is to be used for the good of our children.  AUM is 100% with
God and preferably Jesus, but what the heck, it is only a political movement. 
Nonbelievers are encouraged to join and learn about God.

Now that we have the basis of the organization, the other two components, the
financial and legal are a piece of cake.  They overlap so I'll just talk about
the main issues.  The two most important of these are custody and child support.
Custody should be automatic joint custody with only exceptions with clear abuse
and neglect or potential of it.  The book "Surviving the Breakup" is the
blueprint for that.  We should support the elimination of child support.  The
government has been too active in rescuing women from their mistakes and
irresponsibility.  When people protest that this endangers the children, one
could respond that so did the divorce that 75% of american women initiate, and
as to the safety and security of our children, one can respond that the
government has criminal divisions to protect our children (Child Protective
Services)and welfare to feed and house them.  You can expect some compromise on
these things if we ever did add power to the "vision".

Next is Criminal Justice. We have to champion the victims of our gender.  We
have gone through the past 20 years one of the most extreme periods of
conservative approaches to this problem in all of American history.  It's time
for a liberal swing back.  This can be done better than liberal approaches in
the past.  It's been 20 years and the social sciences have made a great deal of
progress.  Penalties need to be reduced and incaceration needs continued
improvements.  We need to make bridges to the prison population.

Next is the elimination of as many legal preferences for women that is
reasonable.  Affirmative aciton and special legal protections need to be
eliminated.  Government funding that is women oriented should be resisted. 
Whereas government funding for men should be brought up to a par with women.  I
call this leveraging the money interests.

The last issue is social and for me years ago it was the stickiest to deal with.
That is the the misunderstanding on the roles of men and women that the feminist
movement exacerbated.  Now I see that it is part of the "spiritual" aspect of
all this and the solution is actually occurring now.  Laura Schlesinger has
pointed the way.  The backlash against political correctness has also solved
part of this problem.  Now all of us and expecially the social scientists can
honestly seek the truth without being shouted down, or in the case of the
scientists, not endanger your job.  So all this social aspect that caused me so
much thinking energy is now taking care of itself, thank God.

Those are the main issues.  There was one extraneous idea that I had for AUM.  I
used to fanticize about a kind of social club that would be a mixture of the
YMCA and the Masonic lodge that had a women's auxiliary.  It's just a dream.

Well that's all I can remember now.  Let me know if I left anything out and any
other comments you have.

Tom Smith



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

> >Sharon Van De Car wrote:

>so I want you all to organize......let AUM
> be the NOW for men.......don't hate women, just >beat
> them at their own game.....and maybe sooner or
> later...the fight to be best will stop, and we >can live
> together.......

It's official and it took a woman to do it.  God bless you Sharon.  It's time
for the vision to be consummated!

Tom Smith

-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/aum/?start=11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

I posted this below to men-law@egroups:

Gregory, Daniel, Doyle et al,

This is my first post here and an auspicious subject ("One" Fathers Movement) to
start with.  I'll get around to reading threads soon, but haven't as yet.

A brief intro.  51 yr old divorced with two kids - 13 and 10.  The divorce
happened 8 yrs ago and she was a tough one and I slipped.  So it and she was a
bitch.  But it's all OK now considering.  I became passionate about the men's
movement in the early '80's long before the divorce ( I had a few without kids
in my twenties).  Anyway, I'm a social justice kind of guy and the men's
movement is the place to be no matter your gender.  It's obvious that men are
GETTING FUCKED.  I formed a name organization in the eighties called The
American Union of Men (AUM) and even made it on national TV as a mens rights
expert ('94).  I would have been much more active in the movement except another
cause slammed me in the early '90's that has been and still is taking up most of
my time (see my homepage).

Now to respond to this subject.  Daniel's expereience with organizing I have
heard before form Doyle in the early '80's.  It sounds accurate.  I'll cut to
the chase to make this brief.  One organization is needed.  It has to be based
on a particular vision the includes all men's issues.  The Father's movement was
probably best served by (I forget his name from So. Cal.) who organized the
Joint Custody fight.  That poor guy was doing an incredible amount of work and
very effectively but wasn't getting the time of day from anyone.  The "One
Organization" has to have a spiritual element.  I recognized that in the early
'80's when I came up with the acronym AUM for my organization.  I liked the
"Union" thing too as an acknowlegdement of the latest great men's movement, the
Union Movement.  The movement needs to include the most oppressed of us,
Father's being one, but prisoners being the the most important (and many
others).  In the eighties the stickiest problem for the men's movement I thought
would be the social part - how to get the social sciences off this thing that
mnadated that it was a scientific fact that men and women were essentially the
same.  We know the feminists were behind this, but it was effecting everyones
behavior in a very negative way - women weren't taking responsiblity and it
disturbed the relations between genders.  But fortuneately that problem is
largely taken care of now with people like Dr Laura and others in the field
(social sciences) being more honest.  The next problem is identifying exactly
what "men's issues" are.  I'm sure that has been discussed here and I'll comment
as I read the posts.

I'm sure that many reading this post dropped out after I mentioned the spiritual
side of this, thinking I was going to try to get you to join the Promise
Keepers.  I would never make you feel that guilty.  God is important, but he
wants us to be men.  Others probably dropped out after the mention of prisoners.
We are not going to get anywhere without them.

It's late and I have to go to bed.  I'll talk to you guys later and check out my
page and forums.

Tom Smith
http://www.angelfire.com/QIM/index.html
autismlist@egroups.com
mensrights@egroups.com
aum@egroups.com

Daniel wrote:

> PROBLEM 2:
>
> The second great problem is the disconnectedness of men who find
> themselves in these situations. To some degree this is HUMAN NATURE, to
> some degree it is the way we men see each other - as autonomous
> creatures. SUCCESS means we are somehow closer to god, FAILURE means
> that we either deserve it or are lazy.
>
> I saw this situation over and over - men would come to the organization
> with dire and immediate legal needs, as soon their problems were gone -
> so were THEY. Less than 1% of 1% remained committed or even acknowledged
> the mutual sufferings of others and remained active.
>
> The numbers are not there to support a large national organization for a
> lot of reasons. Every year in the US there are approximately 5.5 million
> family law actions of which about 1.2 million are original divorces. Of
> those actions only about 15% OR LESS are actually contested. It is the
> contested actions that generate the MOST disenfranchised men. Of the
> contested cases, it has been my experience that a significant percentage
> of the men involved in these case have serious, legitimate problems -
> psychological, sexual, drug or alcohol abuse/addiction related,
> financial, lack of formal education, or others.
>
> This is not to say that these people do not deserve justice, but I can
> tell you that it is damned hard to support any organization, no matter
> how benevolent when you can barely support yourself. Some of these
> events are FACILITATED by interaction with the system, but  in truth,
> some exist BEFORE the interaction. ALL fathers do not deserve the
> treatment of SOME fathers. There HAS to be a standard drawn and guess
> what, the legal system - led by society at large - has drawn that line
> in the sand.
>
> Men, even in THESE situations, are combative and hostile to almost
> EVERYONE. When we need to work together, we FIND reasons to NOT work
> together. Human Nature.
>
> Psychologically speaking, there is a wide reaction to how these events
> effect us as individuals. There is a HUGE amount of self esteem loss.
> Especially for those who were raised in a more fundamentalist mind set
> to believe that their families were somehow sacred institutions. There
> is a HUGE amount of Learned-Helplessness for those who have been scalded
> at the hands of a vengeful bitch of an ex or an all powerful court. Only
> a fool would look forward to entering a room where every time you enter
> the door you get your face slapped.
>
> I have reached the conclusion that the feminization of men has led us to
> the easy path to our own "victimization." Far too many men look for the
> easy out - even when there IS NONE. I cannot remember how many thousand
> of men I have told that they keys to their legal problems exist in 3-4
> books - STATUTE - who never bother to pick up the books. At some point
> in time, we MEN MUST EDUCATE OURSELVES.
>
> PROBLEM 3:
>
> A fragmentation of organizations that deal with far too many issues
> simultaneously.
> The more organization there are, the less funds are available to any one
> organization. Simple business logic. IF every dollar what was donated to
> all the organizations was lumped into one pile, economies of scale would
> kick in rather quickly to insure that ALL organizations could get better
> services. That is the way that it works . . . BUT!
>
> Instead of picking a SINGLE issue, i.e. N.O.W. = ADVANCES FOR ALL WOMEN,
> we men have a myriad of issues, child support, false allegations, etc.,
> etc., ad nauseum.
>
> We NEED only ONE organization that has but ONE goal and that should be
> EQUALITY FOR MEN IN ALL AREA OF THIS CULTURE. It cannot come from the
> existing organizations, the fundamentalists will not support an agenda
> where the bible is not the focal point (funny how the Christian
> Coalition does not have an agenda surrounding the divorced father), the
> anarchists will not see a solution that does not revolve around the 2nd
> amendment, the middle of the roaders are drowned out by all of the
> above.
>
> WE NEED A SINGLE ORGANIZATION WITH A SINGLE ISSUE.
>
> EQUALITY FOR MEN IN ALL AREA OF THIS CULTURE
>
> There are many more problems, these are only a few.
>
> Just a few thoughts.
>
> > I have been reading several email groups for a while and decided to
contribute my two cents.  Today divorced men are extremely disadvantaged because
"we" are very unorganized as a group.  Please don't take this the wrong way
because I am in the same boat I describe.  Politicians and judges will never
listen to us because divorced men as a group do not carry any political weight. 
Men that have not had their family ripped away due to divorce do not understand
or care about the child support that we are responsible for providing or
visitation that we may or may not receive.  The only group of people that can
change the system are MEN that have been divorced.  Please do think that I feel
like men are the only group that suffer due to divorce.  I have remarried and
have more children so I understand that second wives and additional children
suffer financially because of a previous divorce.
> >
> > Back to the topic: we are very un-organized as a group.  The place to start
is uniting all the father's/second family's/children's/etc. rights groups into
ONE national organization.  One national voice with a very strong leader will
carry a lot more weight politically than many groups and many additional people
that are affected and have not joined a group.  The next step is to spread the
word to ALL divorced fathers in the country to join local chapters and begin to
voice an opinion to start a change in state and national policy.
> >
> > The National Organization of Women are ONE group, very organized and because
of this, are very successful politically.  Never mind if you agree with NOW's
goals, they are successful because they are organized with plans and goals.
> >
> > Politicians must support the largest group of constituents in their
districts in order to stay in office.  Obviously women are much more organized
than men.  It should be no surprise to anyone which group is better represented
in local, state, and national government.
> >
> > I have written letters to my local, state, and national representatives
expressing my dissatisfaction with policy concerning child support and
visitation and although some responded, one letter from one divorced-father does
very little to change anything.  I am also a member of a local chapter of a
fathers rights group.   The next step after ONE national group is all members
writing and calling government representatives and then and only then will
changes SLOWLY begin to happen.
> >
> > I am sending this letter to every email group I am a member of,  and welcome
responses and ideas on divorced fathers uniting across the country.
> >
> > Gregory A. Gee
> > ggee@...
> > 2701 Glendale
> > Pearland TX 77584
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Free Web-based e-mail groups -- www.eGroups.com
>
> --
> Daniel
> --
> "A diamond is a chunk of coal that made good under pressure."
>
> Anonymous.
>
> "One of the two hard things, is knowing your purpose in this world. The
> other, which is harder, is not to corrupt it after knowing what your
> purpose is."
>
> Gabriel Okara
> --
> "The unexamined life is not worth living"
>
> "By all means marry. If you get a good wife you'll become happy. If you
> get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
>
> Socrates

-----
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

Tom,

Did you have a chance to go to my webpage?  As you can
see, if you have, I too am fighting for men's rights,
and I am a woman, obviously.  I believe that men are
being abused and the word man has become a dirty
word.......everywhere......and truthfully it is because
women can whine better.  Well, I am very womanish, but I
am very capable, open, honest straight forward, and I
think men are getting a dirty deal....even their own sex
are ruining them.  It is disgusting and I want no part
of it......this is why I am doing what I am. I want men
to get back what they earned....and  I fight for
fathers' rights also......

Believe in your Strength,

Sharon


Hi Sharon,

Yes, I checked out your page.  I didn't see the mens rights stuff other than it
supports the military which generally is part of men's rights.

You have the right attitude.  It doesn't matter your gender in this matter since
social injustice effects us all.  But it is commendable that you feel it so
intensely and are a woman.  I was impresesed by your passion but was confudsed
from your page as to what the Washington thing was about.  Tell me about it.

Tom




Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

>On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 23:34:53   Sharon Van De Car wrote:
>>The name threw me but thought I would check it out.
Can
>>you tell me about all of you?
>
>
Hi Sharon,

I just formed this group but haven't had time to set it
up right.

When it comes to men's rights I'm an independent
operator but am well established in the movement.  I
have been on national TV as a "men's rights expert"
(Nov. '94) and have an organization that was formed n
the '80's called The American Union of Men (AUM).  I
named it that in recognition of the fact that any men's
rights organization would have to have territoriality
and relgious underpinnings.  But the main vision is for
social reform and political representation.  The social
reform part is now being well covered by Dr. Laura God
Bless her soul.  But the political needs are yet to be
satisfied.

In recent years (the '90's) I have been working another
project much more intensely.  It turns out to be a
spritual project, but didn't start out that way.  It's a
long story but it has to do with disabilities and
autism.  My hompage can acquaint you with that if you
are interested.  There's also a functional description
of me there.

Thank you for stopping by and feel free to post
anytime.  There are two other very active men's groups
on egroups presently and I'm sure there will be many
more.  "United Fathers of America" and "Mens Law" are
both on egroups and are excellent.

In keeping with internet ways of gathering I listed
this group under feminism also.

Tom Smith (Pres. of AUM)




Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

The name threw me but thought I would check it out.  Can
you tell me about all of you?








Believe in your Strength,

Sharon

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/5050/
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/no2usfspa

To check out the people on the mailing list, and subscribe:
http://www.egroups.com/list/amrb/
The list is only available to people who are on the list so you must to
view it.



______________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com