cwelcuma
New
Reged: 06/04/08
Posts: 4
|
|
Greetings.
I am new to this forum. I am new to the Mens' Rights Movement, so please forgive me any presumptuousness. I have, however, studied the issues at great length online, as well as on the printed page, and I've come to the following conclusions:
1: We need a clear direction.
There are many, many groups and organizations fighting the good fight. This is very good, and indeed it has seen some success, but it lacks cohesion. What I believe is called for, so to speak, is an UMBRELLA organisation, which could bring its collected force to bear upon the various issues that concern us.
This would have a number of effects: 1: a sense of legitimacy, 2: a somewhat more united front, 3: a greater pool of resources, and 4: greater support amongst the various member organizations, and the networking that would be a natural by-product of such an umbrella entity.
We are undoubtedly the underdogs in this fight. If we are to proceed in any appreciable and palpable way, we need to close ranks. In aid of this, we need a clear, unambigous MANIFESTO, together with some kind of governing body (perhaps brought into existence by a process of election) for the umbrella organization. The proposed manifesto needs to delinate our stance intellectually, as opposed to viscerally, and make clear our true stance (and not convey the false idea that we want to somehow return to the 1950's).
This "inner circle," or governing body, (perhaps culled from amongst the de facto "leaders" of the various extant organizations), could then act as a ruling force: deciding our collective course of action on each issue, in a "first among equals" capacity.
2: More women than men vote, and most of the women who vote tend to be feminists. We need to rectify this disparity. The proposed umbrella organization should do all in its power, not only to educate men (and our female allies) on the issues, but encourage men of all ages and backgrounds to vote. The feminists have gotten a free ride for a long time, and much of that has been down to male apathy, and unwillingness to engage the enemy upon the political battlefield. If we want to be victorious, this clearly has to change.
3: our enemy is formidable, but fortunately not altogether inscrutable. They are, in fact, very predictable. We need to use this latter fact to our advantage. However, we should not be overconfident. The feminists have everything working for them: millions of dollars in misappropriated government funds, while we have nothing in terms of official subsidies.
To counter this, we need people who have a viable shot at PUBLIC OFFICE, and thus perhaps allow us some kind of public funding to flow into our "war chest." Further, we need to accrue as many individuals sympathetic to our cause with degrees in law and governmental issues.
4: the proposed umbrella org. needs to have several "departments," each of which would focus upon one "arena" of the fight: from our "warriors," those with the ability to practice law and the ability to influence state and federal policies. A "think tank" that could propose new tactics or courses of action. A "media watch-dog" division that would keep the org. as a whole abreast of current trends, as well as keep an eye on what the feminists are doing. And a "stumping" division that could do everything from distribute fliers, give speeches, to build web sites (in other words, the "foot soldiers").
5: never underestimate the power of a symbol. Just take a look at warfare from Antiquity, to the medieval and Renaissance eras, and beyond. A banner is a powerful motivating force. We need a symbol to galvanize our forces as a whole.
6: we need to distance ourselves from the radicals. As the pendulum swung too far with the feminists, we too run the same risk. We need to avoid disparaging our opponents, and women in general. We must appear reasonable, and more importantly, we need TO BE REASONABLE.
7: we need to focus on issues we have a chance of WINNING. It's all very well to be upset about depictions of males on bumper stickers, on T-shirts, etc. Yes, they are crass. Yes, they are divisive. But these gross generalizations, demonizations, whatever have always been with us. They are never going away. The best thing we can do is bring economic pressure to bear (boycotts of companies, etc). These issues are peripheral, however. How much time and money have been spent fighting them? We need to focus on the more important issues: fairness in the family courts, equal money for male medical issues, women defendants recieving lighter sentences. Those things.
Please forward this to any Mens' Rights organizations you may be affiliated with, and please respond via my e-mail address: returnofthefallen@hotmail.com
In ernest,
-B.
Thank you.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1066
|
|
A great post, and one which much better and more comprehensively states views that I and others have previously expressed, more than once, both here and elsewhere.
We hear all the time of men who were really taken to the cleaners in divorces but who still have millions. If only such men could be persuaded to support such an "umbrella" organization, such as you suggest, perhaps the legal prejudice against us, in divorce, could be overcome. The contributors to NOW consist largely of women who have cleaned out several husbands in divorces, and probably worked one or more to death to boot!
I hope you will continue your efforts and research to find a way to get all of the men's rights organizations to pull together and concentrate their energy in a coordinated and focused way.
Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I have a few ideas for a symbol or logo, such as you mentioned, for a unified men's rights organization.
|
cwelcuma
New
Reged: 06/04/08
Posts: 4
|
|
This is from another forum, similar to this one, that I posted the same original message (above) on:
"I agree about people who have viable shots at public office but regardless, it's not a great thing to vote in favor of for a majority of the electortate"
Yes, unfortunately you are quite correct. If we are to push forward, that has to change. The only way that can change it to get backsides off couches, and into the voting booths. This will take time, and it won't be remotely easy. Yet, we cannot afford to be daunted. Things are only going to get worse. If the feminists have their way, (and they already do in so many ways), then fathers will have to kiss any right to see their children GOODBYE, period.
I don't think that I'm being overly dramatic when I say that we're looking at the possible end of western civilization. The feminists are going from strength-to-strength, while we wallow in self-pity! Our anger is palpable, but we are merely lashing out at thin air, here.
Further, we have to focus on battles that we have an actual chance of winning. We CAN reform the family courts, given enough determination, the right advocates, and provided we're willing to put forth the time and effort. It won't be easy, by any means, but it can be done. We can expect to go from failure to failure, until at last we do succeed. This will take a supreme act of will, but if we concentrate on the fact that all we want is fairness, all we want is to be counted, and not a return to the benighted status quo of the pre-feminist movement.
We cannot afford to delude ourselves: stereotypes and derision cannot be utterly defeated. We should not waste our time railing about T-shirts or bumper stickers, no matter how justified our anger might be. Further, we must avoid falling into the same traps. Women are not evil. Sadly, many have been duped (even brainwashed) by an ideology of victimhood and seething hatred directed at roughly half of the population of the planet. Let us focus on the lasting problems, and not the ephemeral.
We need to assert our efforts against the tangible, real problems that face us. And we need to choose our battles carefully, soberly. As heartbreaking as it has been for many men who have had their children stolen from them, before they even had a chance to meet them, we cannot win the abortion battle. No one's going to take us seriously on that front. I know how painful it has been for many: I had a friend who desperately wanted to be a father, to hold his offspring in his arms. He was a large, strong man. He could have beaten the ever-loving crap out of me. I saw this same man break down. He crumpled, as if someone had ripped his heart out and robbed him of his will to live. He chose to end his life a little over a year ago. I know how devastating it has been for some men...but it's a fight we can't win.
The feminist movement began as a legitimate cause, most reasonable people can agree on that. That cause, however, has abandoned its true principles and gone too far. Now, it is a movement bent on creating hysteria and angry, irrepairable divisions between the sexes, between mothers and fathers, wives and husbands.
It has become a rabid demagoguery, a modern day Inquisition that sees the demonic agents of the "Patriarchy" everywhere. It's message is one of contempt, and nothing more.
The more people we can educate, and the more people we can urge to become politically active, the better our chances and prospects become. It will take time, decades perhaps, but at the very least it will slow the beast down.
Never believe that they are not determined. Moreover, they have a vast array of support networks working in the name of their hateful ideology. To counter these massive obstacles, we have to bolster our own forces. Much like building an army, if you will. It's slow, escpecailly when you have to start from scratch, but it is better than the alternative.
Remember, politicans are generally spineless. They are creatures attuned to the poltical winds, relying upon them for survival. The political winds, like all evanescent things, change. It can happenly quickly, or it can be excruciatingly slow, but the flow of those winds are nonetheless malleable.
We do have some advantages, however. I don't want to go into them via this forum, though. I can gaurantee you that more than one of "the enemy" has run across my post already. We don't want to give them any more of a "heads-up" than we have to. If this all seems a bit cloak-and-dagger, well...that's because...in a very real sense, it is. One of the advantages that we have is something of the element of surprise (the feminists don't deal too well with the unexpected, after all). We don't want to sacrifice that...not yet. We need to gather a collective of individuals WE CAN TRUST, and the sooner the better.
Let me just come out and say this, though: I'm not talking about ANYTHING ILLEGAL, just in case you're worried. All action taken must be explicitly within the realm of the law, and political. I'm not talking about drafting some "male version" of the SCUM Manifesto, urging people to commit violence or break the law in any way whatsoever. No. It must all be political.
We stand before a mountain, my friend. In order to win, we're going to have to raze that mountain, one well-directed blow at at a time. But we must not become militant, unreasonable, radical, or unwilling to compromise.
Hot emotion must be countered with cold logic, hysteria with facts, irratic frenzy with precise calm. If we can but temper our anger with patience, determination, and strategy WE CAN WIN THE DAY.
For the right, the fair, and for the honor.
-B.
|
cwelcuma
New
Reged: 06/04/08
Posts: 4
|
|
"A great post, and one which much better and more comprehensively states views that I and others have previously expressed, more than once, both here and elsewhere."
First off, thank you. I really do appreciate that. I have faith that this is the way forward. In many ways, this is something of a call-to-arms.
"We hear all the time of men who were really taken to the cleaners in divorces but who still have millions. If only such men could be persuaded to support such an "umbrella" organization, such as you suggest, perhaps the legal prejudice against us, in divorce, could be overcome. The contributors to NOW consist largely of women who have cleaned out several husbands in divorces, and probably worked one or more to death to boot!"
I hear you, and I understand your anger, and I appreciate your passion. We will need that in the coming fight. Now, I don't wish to alienate you (quite the contrary, I wish to bring us all together into a united front, one that will be more difficult to assail), however, I do have couple of things that I think need stating: firstly, we must be wary of attempts to villanize feminsts (and women in general). Most certainly, groups like NOW are despicable. But the more we lash out at them, the more we use words like f^min^zi, the more ammunition we give our adversaries - the more unreasonable we appear - and thus the more difficult our task will become. We're already fighting an uphill battle.
I believe that most feminists think that they are right. That they are guided by a moral imperative, if you will. We cannot hope to shake that erroneous belief if we sling insults at them. The more of them that we can illuminate, the more of them that will defect (possibly to our cause, possibly bringing their contacts and networks with them). This cannot simply be opportunism on our part, however. It must be genuine. We need to be able have a dialogue with them, an open and reasonable debate. Of course, many of them will refuse to be reasonable. This can only help us in the long term, as they more and more reveal themselves to be the radicals that they are.
We have to be in this for the long term. We have to be willing to dig in our heels and fight from the trenches. But, as Shakespeare said: "...for when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner."
And we ARE PLAYING for a kingdom. The kingdom of Democracy. Will hysterical ideology win out, or will logic, fairness and reason? We must be reasonable. We must be gently defiant, but steadfast. Yet, if our crusade is to be righteous, then we too must be righteous.
"I hope you will continue your efforts and research to find a way to get all of the men's rights organizations to pull together and concentrate their energy in a coordinated and focused way."
I have not yet begun to fight, brother!
"Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I have a few ideas for a symbol or logo, such as you mentioned, for a unified men's rights organization."
Yes, there is plenty. Copy and paste the original message, together with the rest our conversation, and POST IT ALL ON EVERY forum you know of. Let's get the ball rolling, my friend.
As for the symbol, keep your ideas in mind. When we are getting to the stage where we become a viable entity, we'll need those.
It has begun.
For fairness, for honor.
-B.
Edited by cwelcuma (06/05/08 03:43 AM)
|
cwelcuma
New
Reged: 06/04/08
Posts: 4
|
|
From another forum:
I have recieved some interesting e-mails.
The first was from someone who dubbed herself: YOUR (as in my)WORST "F'ING" NIGHTMARE. She threatened to do one or two unspeakable things to me. I would reproduce her message here, but I'm afriad both the profanity and the overall subject matter are a bit much for these forums. I expected this, of course, altough not quite so soon. Heh.
Apparently, this person had seen my post here. The gist of her e-mail was this: "U won't live long enough to do anything U want 2 do..." or, whatever. Touched a nerve, I think. I saved her message, and am contemplating possible legal action, though I don't expect much would come of it, anyway.
Oh, well. It's war.
I've also recieved three other e-mails from individuals interested in my above proposals.
For honor.
-B.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1066
|
|
===========================================================
I have recieved some interesting e-mails.
The first was from someone who dubbed herself: YOUR (as in my)WORST "F'ING" NIGHTMARE. She threatened to do one or two unspeakable things to me. I would reproduce her message here, but I'm afriad both the profanity and the overall subject matter are a bit much for these forums. I expected this, of course, altough not quite so soon. Heh.
===========================================================
I knew this would happen. This is why I have never given out my e-mail address in my posts here. BTW there are greedy nerds, who even advertise here, who can discover your e-mail PW in exchange for a fee. I always just use the "PM" feature of this site until I get to know someone better.
As far as legal action is concerned, even if you had the e-mail address that this threat was sent from, it could have gone thru "anonymizer" or some other such service, or even been sent from a foreign jurisdiction where justice is even more for sale to the highest bidder than it is here, and any attempt to prosecute would thereby be pointless.
No, I never use the "femi***i" expression, nor do I put my arguments on a personal level, although it is certainly tempting to do so at times. Innuendo like this and other low tactics and name calling are inneffective but, unfortunately, in this area a purely rational, high-minded and objective argument may be equally non-productive, in my opinion. The secret to success in persuading human beings, as all successful politicians know--and you can see it happening at this very moment in the election campaigns--is to find the most effective mix of mental and emotional appeals. Most people believe that their feelings and reactions are every bit as valid, and worth listening to, as their minds. I'm not this way, personally, but I see the truth of this proven again daily.
FOR FREEDOM AND AGAINST ALL ASSUMED GUILT OR LIABILITY IN ANY COURT,
jb
Edited by jbar (06/07/08 12:14 AM)
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
There are two courses of action men can take: passive and active. Passive meaning doing their part without direct confrontation with those in power. An example of this would be deciding not to marry or even have relations with a woman. The other, active, can be further split between civil confrontation (e.g., writing your "leaders" and other "legal" avenues), and illegal action, such as armed rioting.
Civil confrontation works, but it takes a HUGE effort my a LARGE portion of the populous. Men today are just NOW opening their eyes to the bias in the system. Most still live by ancient chivalry codes and buy into women needing help and protection and to be placed on a pedestal. It's usually after they've been burned by the system (via the same females they thought as kind) do they realize how wrong things are. And I say "usually" because even after that some men still hold strong to their 19th century chivalry values thanks to brainwashing they receive on a near daily basis from the media.
Most men today are a slave to their work, so any worthwhile effort - especially in something that hasn't affected them yet - is put on a backburner. Thanks to the internet, though, I believe many (younger) men are starting to wake-up to the fact and are taking the passive route. Why build-up a nice life only to have it all come crashing down by the simple act of a woman who just isn't happy anymore?
I do not condone the "non-civil" approach, but I can see it happening if things get too bad. We routinely see on the news now where a divorced father has everything taken away by the court system and ends up killing (or trying to kill) his ex-wife, their kids, and even the judge.
The bigger picture here that many people fail to grasp is that everything revolves around the almighty dollar. Divorces and Family Law itself is a HUGE industry for lawyers. Cutting this life-line would have a big affect on how many make their income. But even bigger is corporate America. They will (and do) do anything to meet their bottom line. Make the connection b/w them and the female and you'll see just how strong the ties that bind truly are (and how much of an effort it REALLY will be).
|
chatter box
Platinum
Reged: 11/09/07
Posts: 1304
|
|
[quote]The first was from someone who dubbed herself: YOUR (as in my)WORST "F'ING" NIGHTMARE.[/quote]
I knew my X was out there bothering mens rights groups.
Something we can agree on now.
|
allthumbs
Platinum
Reged: 07/12/07
Posts: 560
|
|
Can you imagine the ridicule an all male organization would get? "National Organization of Men" wouldn't be accepted by most as it isn't PC. Politicians would shrink away, as would most business. Business understand that it's women who SPEND the money, generally speaking. No, for now, grass roots mens groups are better served by influencing politicians (who make the laws) behind the scenes. Any large, umbrella organization would not be held in esteem by most, because it would be seen as sexist and not PC.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
I think by-and-large that's why many men today are just taking the passive route. I, like many other men, have tried the "make your elected officials aware of the problem" route to no avail. Its a mindset change that is needed and maybe the passive route will finally get their attention (although, I'm thinking it will eventually lead to other anti-male legislation).
|
EZmark
Platinum
Reged: 06/04/07
Posts: 292
Loc: Florida
|
|
I disagree. I am just too busy trying to survive and pay the X to dedcate much time to the cause of justice for fathers. Many if not most divorced women getting supported don't work or are under employed. Many other burned fathers I know are just beaten into giving up and living with injustice.
Passive resistance only works in against the backdrop of civil resistance accompanied by press coverage and with an empathetic population. Influencing politicians is a waste of time unless you are a major lobbyist. The empathetic population is growing as the US prison population swells above 2.5 million, the worlds largest per capita, and the divorce rate continues to spiral to the word's top five, and spousal homicides increase in number, all costing the taxpayers peace of mind and $. Unfortunately the press coverage and media portrayls of father rights is ridicule, so that has to change before passive resistance works. That will change if media conglomerates are faced with litigation for biased coverag, however frivolous. Medai hates legal exposure and brand image tarnishing, it's all they really have. Note most stories have no subjectthat can actually cause them a problem in court, that is looked at before a story is decided upon. It's just not worth the risk with so many other stories o run. Medai avoids anything involving ACLU, NOW, NAACP. Men and especially Fathers need an organization that can institute these cases easliy with case law and motions on file and ready. Any media conglomerate that takes up a bais in their programming and is hit with that will become the story for their competition. The sharks will feed on each other, especially during slow news periods.
I beleive the real way to effect the media, and thereby the public support, is through the adverisers. If you think media is sensitive to bad press and brand tarnishing, an advertisers million dollar budget will go running for safety and ROI at the first sign of trouble. While women may be the overwhelmingly largest demographic for soaps, sitcoms and other genres, men also make up the demo for sports and some shows. While women spend on the product advertised, me still can control at least 50% of most household budgets and most major corporations. We may not be able to boycott tampax, but there are other Proctor and Gamble products that could be boycotted and trashed on placards at sports events etc. The bad facts about their products could be pointed out in viral videos and blogs. Cyberwarfare. These companies, to avoid losing millions and damaging their brand among would contact their ad agencies who would stop buying time during those male offensive shows, and perhaps even indicat suppor for father friendly prgramming. These are the same people that support the politicians and drive their agenda.
We need media watchdogs, judicial watchdogs, political watchdogs. We need tech experitise and legal experts. We need to take many small efforts and aggregate it into an organization that can creat facts and data that can be easily accessed and re-used. I agree we need an umbrella, there are a few that may become the one.
I agree the goal should not be extreme, equal parenting if wanted, equal support obligations, alimony only in extraordinary circumstances, equity assessed as in any other civil contractual court.
The effort has begun. From mother's parental right of sole custody to shared parenting initiatives the court are beginning to change. It will not continue if NOW is allowed to manipulate the playing field. Today it is not popular to call the deadbeat alienating mother just what she is, but calling a father that gets cheers. The cheering crowd is getting smaller as more of them become victims. Every victim should do whatever they can with the orgaizations out there today. I see changes coming.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5141
|
|
I think you could call it something that would honor the fact that most fathers actually want to do the right and fair thing by thier kids... calling it something like the "fair parenting association". I like a "father's rights" named organization also, because it puts the focus where it needs to be. You're right, "national Organization for Men" would be laughed out of existence. But "separated Parenting Association" (SPA... ok, that's a weird acronym for a bunch of men... but you see my point, look for something with a catchy acronym)... would be quite popular and would properly name the organization as one that cares about NOT try to polarize itself and embrace the extremists.
I think it needs to address court referendums, removing individual judges who show bias against men/fathers, initiating legislation that will equalize things, as well as re-framing the problem of domestic violence against men as something thats's NOT a joke... and watching media depections of men and fathers particularly as clueless buffoons who can't be trusted with kids or households or social events... It's a serious problem!
An organization dedicated to furthering the cause of proper parenting eo encourage fathers' active participation really should be embraced by all these people who whine about absentee and deadbeat Dads, and if they failed to embrace the organization, then thier bias would be clear, wouldn't it?
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
The problem, though (again), is the mindset of our society (which is what you alluded to). IOW, our culture has been brainwashed ad nauseum with shows, movies, false/half-truth articles, etc., that show men as not only bumbling fools but also as rapist, beer-drinking, good-for-nothing else (except a walking ATM machine) neandrethals.
The sad part is that many MEN buy into this themselves!
Again, it goes back to the three (well, two CIVIL) courses of action men can take. As I said before corporations are driven by money and if men can make an effort in that area, then the corporations will begin to take notice. But I don't really see that happening anytime soon.
I really think the passive action route will have greater affect than people will realize simply because it will do the same thing only "behind the scenes" instead of up front. Like many articles have said, men are just distancing themselves more and more from marriage, simply because it does nothing to benefit them today. Sexless marriages our on the rise, so any thought of "getting more" in a marriage is out the door. Divorce rates are still hovering around the 50% mark, and we all know how badly men get the shaft when it comes to that, so why challenge the odds?
Yes, there are other things that can be disassociated from marriage like DV, but that can be dealt with in parrallel with the passive stance WRT marriage men are taking.
Its funny, but your first two words were "I disagree" yet the gist of your response made me feel you are agreeing a lot more than disagreeing.
|
EZmark
Platinum
Reged: 06/04/07
Posts: 292
Loc: Florida
|
|
I only disagree that passivity works in todays America.
http://www.acfc.org
looks like a good organization, stands for helping Fathers AND CHILDREN.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: Texas
|
|
Actually, the passive route IS working in that it is giving exposure to the bigger problem: marriage has absolutely no benefits for men. Yeah, it's in its infancy, so-to-speak, but as more and more studies surface and more media conglomerates pick up the banter, people will begin to slowly shift their mindset. The powers of the internet are also giving rise to the whole cause as more and more men realize that marriage not only has -0- benefits to them, but in many instances has the opposite affect.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1066
|
|
===========================================================
..."national Organization for Men" would be laughed out of existence. But "separated Parenting Association" (SPA... ok, that's a weird acronym for a bunch of men... but you see my point, look for something with a catchy acronym)... would be quite popular and would properly name the organization as one that cares about NOT try to polarize itself and embrace the extremists.
=========================================================
FYI the National Organization for Men is alive and well, hardly having been "laughed out of existence":
http://www.orgformen.org/4436.html
This group could not have a more distinguished group of officers and some of their best writing can be seen here free of charge. These people have some influence on the public, through their work and notoriety, and the site has telephone numbers listed to contact them. If this name is good enough for Warren Farrell, it is good enough for me.
Can't comment more about it as I just discovered their web site after having heard something about it some time ago. Further investigate it for yourselves as I will be doing.
UPDATE 0048 CT: A good site, but still not exactly what we are looking for as an ACTIVIST alternative to NOW. Issuing press communiques, giving interviews and writing articles and books is all good, but it is still not aggressive enough. Even in the "guest comments" of this site there are posters pining for the establishment of a coordinated and focused men's rights organization, which can really wield some power, the way that NOW does!
Edited by jbar (06/12/08 02:00 AM)
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
