Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Perhaps it is just too new an organization to have a branch in your
    area?

    Perhaps the organization is just NOMinal...

    maybe it's a nom de plume.
    
    

    Geez, I see the matriarchy is fast at work!  All this misandry
    in one topic!  See what a backlash we're getting?!

    I've never heard of the N.O.M., not that that proves anything.
    
    			Steve

    But Spelt backwards. Its M.O.N! Hey mon! We gots to fex thissss Thing!

    
    is this a real organization?
    
    I mean, I feel there may be some legpulling going on here, but I'd
    really be interested to hear the charter of the organization if it
    really exists.
    
    or is it a pheNOMenon of wishful thinking?
    
    -Jody
    

 It does exist, but I don't know anything about it.  I saw a guy on TV several
months ago who is the president of the organization.  Can't remember the 
program, nor the context of it unfortunately.





Jim

    
    
     Well I hope is does exist. Perhaps a unified body of men can start
    to change the tide from the present " Men are evil pigs" to " Some
    men are evil Pigs".
    
    
    David

    as -of course- are some women

       The mere existence of an organization doesn't necessarily imply
       that the organization has any inherent value or popular support.
       This might be particularly true when an organization is formed
       that appears to mock an existing organization.
       
       The National Association for the Advancement of White People, for
       example, was David Duke's response to the NAACP.  It's far from
       clear that the NAAWP, Mr Duke, or their followers have accomplished 
       any of their goals or gained any semblance of legitimacy.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    RE. 10 11
    This is exactly what I'm eluding to. There are numerous splinter groups
    around the country fighting mini-wars against male stereotyping in
    relation to the cause they stand for. The cause I'm most interested in
    is the lack of rights regarding probate issues. NOW has focused an
    enormous amount of political pressure to influence policy and
    legislation to restrict mens rights in this arena. Presently the Weld
    administration is eyeing child support as a means to fund AFDC. And we
    all know how the legislature will view any "revenue enhancement"
    opportunity.
    Hold onto your hats!
    There needs to be a focused effort and presently there is none. Maybe
    this NOM could create a forum for focus.
    
    				dan d
    

Re: .12

As a member of NOW, I disagree with your statement regarding NOW's purported
attempts to "restrict men's rights".  Nothing could be further from the
truth.  I don't want to turn this note into a discussion of NOW, but I
don't like seeing misrepresentations.

Every indication I have is that NOW is fighting for expanded women's rights
with the aim of benefiting both women and men.  This doesn't imply a
restriction on men.

			Steve

    
    -1
    
       Examples please. Your statement is just a wee bit hard to
    swallow.The white male has been the  Example Given for every horrid
    sin every imagined. The NOW exists to advance Wymym ( which is great)
    the method is generally to expose only those negative character traits
    of men as a " See we told yah ".
    
    
    David

    re 13
    I apologize for clumping NOW with radical feminist ideals. So I guess
    I should have said "some radical feminist factions of certain well
    organized political groups". If you have knowledge of NOW's position
    Ipersonally would like to know more of how they view this particular
    issue. 
    				humbly yours,
    					dan d 

    by the way, a lot of the bad image that feminist groups have
    is the result of distortion by popular writers looking for
    a cause to sell books or magazines. this is well documented
    in the book 'backlash' by susan faludi.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    > this is well documented in the " backlash' by susan faludi
    
       And of course she was completely unbiased! Merely a concerned 
    womyn noting the unjustified complaints of men as wymyn simply tighten
    the screws on the " White male Rack "!
    
    David

    no, David, she didn't even get into the 'unjustified complaints of
    men'. She documented media articles and books that were based on
    the thinnest of research or none at all, to point out that a lot
    of what has been said about feminists was untrue.
    
    Have you read the book btw?
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    > have you read the book  btw
    
      NO! I think I had to wash my hair that day:-) Do you really think
    a woman could be unbiased in determining the fairness/unfairness of
    mens responses to wymyns allegation!! Bit like the fox guarding the
    hen house ( no pun intended ).
    
    David ( I did read Sam Keens " Fire in the belly" Does that help )

    David
    
    yes, as a matter of fact I do think a woman can be fair about
    men's responses just as I think a man can be fair about women's
    responses. it takes more work to get into and understand another
    persons mind set. however, I will state again, that the reason
    that I mentioned the book is that it documents that much of the
    bad press and blame put on the woman's movement is not as a result
    of actions of the woman's movement but poorly documented and researched
    material by people out to get media attention and make money.
    
    That is the only reason that I'm bringing this up... that in attacking
    the woman's movement you are attacking a media image that, if examined
    carefully proves to be  the creation of those who have their own
    axes to grind.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
     Bonnie,
    
      So any article written is such away as to diminish the image of
    the womans movement is result of money hungry buck chasing mis-quoting
    people? Please accept that it is easier to mis-read the motives of
    an opponents counter-point than to prove that those who disagree are
    suffering from distortingly blind greed!
    
    
    David

    No, David, you persist in taking what I am saying and exaggerating
    it to a degree that is not consitent with the point I was attempting
    to make.
    
    Perhaps we'd better just let this drop. 
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    No, Bonnie, I just try and put it in perspective. A little Ad Absurdum
    can help define the picture a little better!.
    
    
    David      P.s. But if you really wanna quit and move off to another
               topic I accept your retreat :-)

Re: .15

Are you referring to your claim that Mass. is trying to use child support
to fund AFDC?  I haven't read anything about that in the newspapers or anywhere
else, so I find it hard to respond.

				Steve

    This was reported on 90.9 last week. The becon hill boys must have
    started drooling when they say how much these "supposed dead beat dads"
    owed the DOR. Scary huh! These Weld guys sure know how to add.
    re bonnie etc
    Didn't mean to start a man/woman bashing session. Most woman I speak
    with that are awair of the realities around this issue are very
    empathetic and supportive. After all, unfairness hurts both sides of an
    issue.

.16>    by the way, a lot of the bad image that feminist groups have
.16>    is the result of distortion by popular writers looking for
.16>    a cause to sell books or magazines.
    
    Right, I guess Catharine MacKinnon really didn't write that "all
    intercourse is rape" ... she was misquoted.

    
    
    -1
    
      Did she really say that?? My God if she did how the hell could
    she justify it?

    Yes, and that's hardly the most radical thing she's ever said ...
    
    Unless, of course, the quote was fabricated.  We'll have to wait and
    see what Faludi says about MacKinnon ...

    David
    
    No, I'm not retreating, just have learned over the years when it is
    wisdom not to keep going around and around on the same subject,
    especially when it is ratholing the topic. :-)
    
    and Mike
    
    I don't recall Faludi  mentioning MacKinnon. Her point was more
    that people writing about feminists and their impact/agendas ignored
    basic research, used anechdotes and examples from movies and tv shows
    and similar sloppy scholarship to paint a picture much at variance
    with what was and is actually happening.
    
    and IMHO I think that MacKinnon is full of feathers...and has no more
    relevance to the average heterosexual woman than a moose, maybe less.
    Assuming that is (standard disclaimer here) that she's being quoted
    correctly.
    
    Bonnie
    

    Then radical feminist MacKinnon isn't a victim of distortions, right?
    
    What does Faludi say about Susan Estrich?  She's come up with some
    gems over the years, too.
    
    These are well-known radical feminists, the kind of people that the
    author of .12 and .15 is referring to, and I'm not sure why their
    relevance to heterosexual women is a consideration (you brought that
    up in .29).

    RE: .30  Mike Z.
    
    Actually, Mike, your own views about sex and rape are far closer
    to MacKinnon's views than most feminists are [close to her views.]
    
    The only thing I know about her views, of course, are what I read
    from people who denounce feminism (as a whole) because of these views,
    so I'm taking it on faith (from you) that she really believes that
    "sex = rape."
    
    I've seen you expound the view that "rape = sex" (in fact, I've seen
    you engage in lengthy debates about it with feminists who believe
    that "rape != sex.")
    
    Soooo.... If you believe that "some sex = rape" (with rape as a subset
    of sex,) then your views are closer to "sex = rape" than someone who's
    views are "rape != sex."
    
    N'est-ce pas?

.16>    by the way, a lot of the bad image that feminist groups have
.16>    is the result of distortion by popular writers looking for
.16>    a cause to sell books or magazines. this is well documented
.16>    in the book 'backlash' by susan faludi.
    
.30>    Then radical feminist MacKinnon isn't a victim of distortions, right?
    
I don't think there's a contradiction here, because Bonnie said "a lot of
the bad image that feminist groups have", not "all of the bad image that
radical feminists have".

				--  Bob

    
    
    re 12
    
    There currently are organizations that deal specifically with
    the probate system/child support/custody issues with respect
    to men.  FAIR is one of them that comes to mind.  That I believe
    is only one of the widespread ones.  Take a look in the 
    NonCustodial Parents notesfile.  You could get more info
    there.  
    
    As for child support being used to eliminate AFDC, I really
    can't understand how Weld thinks this is going to work.  If 
    they can't get the support out of these non-custodial parents
    now, what means are they going to use to do this?  Can he really
    be serious that this will work?  It really pisses me off that
    he can even think of this as plausible and completely disregard
    the welfare of the children the program benefits.  
    
    
    Michele

    in re .32
    
    or even the bad image that some people have of 'radical' feminists
    or even feminists in general.

    Nothing in Faludi's book on Estrich?

    nope

    Well, Bonnie, after reading .16 I thought you had come across
    something that was going to dispel the radical feminist image.

    as I said, if you want to borrow the book..
    
    BJ

    Now that the feminists have "beaten their chests' and cried about being
    soooooo misunderstood", I would like to know more about N.O.M.
    
    This is MENNOTES???
    
    
    		Wayne
    	
    
    

    
    >>>    This is MENNOTES???
    
    Only by title.
    

    
    
    No, it's mynnotes!!!!!!!
    
          8-)
    
            Greg

    If this isn't MENnotes for you (generic), then you (generic) are free
    to start another notesfile more to your liking and to police it however
    you see fit, consistent with corporate guidelines.
    
    As for me, the subject of MEN is inextricably bound together with the
    subject of WOMEN because we both gotta live with each other - and to do
    that, methinks, requires more than a modicum of empathy for whoever and
    whatever the other is.
    
    Pay no attention to the provincial donkey behind the curtain.

    Ooooh!!!  I'm being oppressed!!!!  HELP ME!   HELP ME!

    Forget it, buddy.
    
    (: >,)
    

    Yeah, besides, congenital oppressors (men) can't be oppressed by their
    congenital victims.  I know that cuz the PC crowd says so.
    
    Mike

    I feel oppressed by the term "PC", being a sensitive Macintosh kind of
    guy.  Couldn't you throw a "y" in it or something?
    
    Ray

    Not a chance.  The term PC is - well - PC.  Subsitutes are not allowed.
    
    So sorry.
    
    Mike 

.43

>    Pay no attention to the provincial donkey behind the curtain.

provincial donkey??

-stephen

    re .43
    
    		People like you bore me to tears. If you don't like my
    notes start your own notesfile. As for me, my value is not linked to
    women. I value me as an individual and a man.
    
    	I'm still asking for information on N.O.M.

    
    Did any men here see the two-part Donahue show this week (Mon. & Tues.)
    on the Men's Movement?   What did you think?
    
    	darch (who only saw part 1)
    

    Re: .50
    
    > People like you bore me to tears.
    
    Yeah, I can just see you bawling, you great big macho hunk of man you.
    
    If you had actually read my .43 instead of blindly jumping on it with
    both feet, you would have seen that I didn't say I don't like your
    notes.  I said that if you don't like the way *this* file works you're
    free to start one of your own.  I will point out that I, on the other
    hand, have registered no complaints about the way this file works.
    
    > As for me, my value is not linked to women. 
    
    Horsepuckey.  If it were not for women, you whould have no value or,
    for that matter, existence.  Your statement smacks of the self-centered
    mind of a child; since you're not a child, you might well learn not to
    think like one.
    
    We now return this topic to its original track.
    
    -dick

    re:.51
    
    Were they banging on drums and telling manly parables?

    re: support payments going to pay for AFDC
    
    The NY Times recently ran a series of articles on welfare. One of them
    discussed support payments. In NY, if support payments are required of
    the father, and the mother still remains eligible for welfare, she gets
    $50/ month from the support payments and the state is reimbursed the
    difference for the welfare payments it is making. 
    
    My question: would this not be the case in any state? Or, at least the
    practical equivalent -- that is, if the mother got the support payment
    directly, would the AFDC not be reduced accordingly? And is there
    something wrong with fathers being forced to pay for their children's
    support rather than have the state do it?
    
    (Incidentally, the point in the article with respect to this policy is
    that the fathers resented payments that "went to the state" and the
    mothers didn't benefit enough to want to hassle the fathers for
    support.)
    
    

    
    In most states ( I don't know about all ), if a mother is getting AFDC,
    then if she gets *any* inclome then the AFDC is reduced by that amount
    (if she bothers to report the income).  If the mother is collecting 
    "child support", then the payment usually goes back to the "AFDC" to 
    offset the "AFDC" payment.
    
    Another rathole, but a pet peeve of mine is that "governments" usually
    trumpet "child's rights" when talking about collecting "child support"
    but are not nearly as interested in protecting visitation rights, etc. 
    becuse there is no money in it for them.
    
    fred(now custodial parent who can't collect from deadbeat-mom);

    re. .54 and .55
    You folks hit the nail right on the head. The state is the driving
    force behind these outrageous support guidlines because the federal
    welfare dollars are at stake. In my case I had conversations with some
    of the attourneys at the DOR about how they handle AFDC cases. If the
    woman applies for AFDC the DOR always goes for the guidline amount
    regardless of any agreements between the parties. She also said (most
    of the DOR legal staff in MASS is female) all they handle is child
    support. Custody and visitation is between the parties.
    The states apply for welfare dollars for AFDC. The individual states
    are responsible for collecting child support to pay for the AFDC
    claims. The shortfall between support collections and AFDC payments is
    made up by the Feds. In these tough times the Feds are starting to beat
    the drums to force the states to do a better job collecting support. In
    my estimation NCP and mens rights are going to take a back seat to
    "revenue enhancements" unless WE do something about it. There is new
    federal legislation being proposed to have the IRS collect child
    support for all AFDC cases.GOD HELP US ALL!!!
    			dan d

    The wilder part about it is that there is little or no effort on the
    welfare gang/dor/dhs to go after the women who are collecting AFDC's
    childs father. Many say that they don't know, or don't want to spoil
    the relationship between father and child. Hence, YOU, the employees of
    Digital, Wang, IBM, etc. foot the bills because you make better money.
    And what the heck, you to can live in a car/couch for $28 a week or
    less.

    re .57, I can live in a couch for $28 a week?  How does one live in a
    couch?  And, what does this have to do with child support?  And, would
    you really rather have these kids starve to death?  Do you really think
    anybody *wants* to live in a couch?  Have you ever looked in a high
    school yearbook, where the kids list their ambitions, and see where
    someone has said, "I want to live in a couch."  Besides, my couch cost
    $750.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    A couple years ago, I got custody of my kids.  The first thing I did
    was get a court order cutting off my child support order.  A few months
    after that I got a letter from Minnesota "child support collections"
    stating that I still owed 2 months of child support because she had
    still been collecting AFDC, and they were going to garnish my tax
    return if I didn't pay up.  I told them that I did not owe the
    "support" because I had custody and the kids were living with me
    during those two months.  They tried to tell me I was "still liable"
    for those two months of support.  I sent them a copy of the court
    order cutting off the support and they said "oh, ok".  I didn't have
    to pay the support.   They thought that I had probably neglected
    to get a court order cutting off the support and they were going
    to soak me anyway.
    
    What did they do to her for fauadlently collecting AFDC for two 
    months?  ZILCH!
    
    fred();

    .58 Lorna,
    
    Guess that maybe I was not speaking clearly. Or you were not reading
    some of the older notes. You see Lorna, sometimes our judicial system
    will empoverish men to the point that they are forced to live in a car
    or on a couch. I have met Several Men who are living like this. They
    are engineers, doctors, and etc. I have Seen on man who had his wadges
    garnished. Not a pretty sight. Left him with $28 per week to live, he
    is fighting it Pro-se. BUT! It TAKES MONTHS TO GET AN APEAL. I hope you
    can Understand that. Yes we do not want the children to starve or go
    without. BUT! IF you kill off the guy, your going to put the children
    on Welfare anyhow. So, Perhaps we can find a happy medium dispite the
    fact that the court system doesn't not ALWAYS go by guide-lines,.....:)

    re .60, oh, I thought you were talking about the women and children
    living in couches.  Yes, one of my best friends is a man who has his
    wages garnished, and the first two years after his divorce were pretty
    rough while his wife was living very comfortably, buying a new TV, a
    $500. dog, and a new car, so I realize it happens, and I don't think
    it's fair.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,

    Yes, life isn't fair. And sometimes what is fair is not always equal.
    These two thoughts were connived by my mom when I was a young lad. BUT!
    Fair and ridiculous is a more common connection to what can happen to a
    man who lives in his car/couch for $28 a week and his ex who has it
    all. The saying goes, she got the gold mine, he got the shaft. 

    Different guy got zapped like this, works a second job, got garnished
    in Mass for more, and has not seen his kids cause if he takes time out
    for them, he will go to jail because he cannot keep up with his
    support/alimony. Wicked neat? :)
    
    

            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
    
>    Yeah, I can just see you bawling, you great big macho hunk of man you.
 
    		Thank you ( doesn't gall you when your insult is actually a
    compliment )
       
   
    
   >> As for me, my value is not linked to women. 
    
   > Horsepuckey.  If it were not for women, you whould have no value or,
    
    	I can come to one of two conclusions: 
    		1. If it were not for men women would have no value
    		2. You are truly full of HORSEPUCKEY

    > for that matter, existence.  Your statement smacks of the self-centered
    > mind of a child; since you're not a child, you might well learn not to
    > think like one.
    
    	A woman conceived me, that is all you you know for sure and it is
    arrogant for you to assume you know more. As for you telling me how to
    think, go find a weak minded person, because I think what I wish. 

    > We now return this topic to its original track.
    
    		I have been trying to get information on the topic, You
    were the one trying to correct my incorrect thinking.
    

     re .54
    
    Well, the garnishment doesn't hit just men.  When my son went to live
    with his father 3 years ago, the first thing my ex did was go on
    welfare.  The state of North Carolina is now garnishing my wages for
    the time he was on AFDC.  And that is in spite of the fact that my ex
    owes me over $15,000 in child support.  The system is not fair.  Not
    only could I not get help in collecting my support when I needed it (a
    measley $95 per month) they go after me when he goes on welfare.  But I
    pay the support because it's less money than going to court over it.
    
    FWIW, my ex and I had a verbal agreement that I would not pay him
    support because he didn't for all those years.  He has physical
    custody, I still have legal custody.  Is my ex a dead-beat dad?  Yep,
    but I believe that sending my son to live with him was that best thing
    I ever did for both of us, simply because my son needed his father. 
    And I'm still ticked that I have to pay support.
    
    Karen

    See Note 811 for Details on The National Organization For Men.