Conference quark::mennotes

    The case in Illinois?
    
    she also initially told the father that the baby had died.
    
    Illinois must be a hotbed of adoption agencies.  There's another case
    brweing wheein the mother is of American Indian heritage.  The adoption
    went according to Illinois law but neglected US Law as it pertains to
    Native Americans.  But that's another issue.
    
    RE: listing the father on the BC.  My daughter didn't list her
    baby's father on the BC either.  He did show up at the hospital but
    wanted nothing to do with the kid, etc.  She left him off and didn't
    persue support or anything - without telling him - as he divested
    himself of job and assets so that there'd be nothing for the State to
    come after.  I don't know if he's awoken yet.
    
    Btw, around the house Rich is known as "the sperm donor" rather than
    the "father."  In Rae's view, if he ever wants visitation rights, he'll
    have to prove paternity.  Sort of a turnaround from the usual paternity
    case.
    
    As the grandfather helping with daycare, etc., I do wish he'd toss in a
    couple of bucks.
    
    ed

    
    And if had been the other way around--the child was removed from the
    mother and the mother told the child had died or something, then
    she found out about a few years later--then what kind of a response
    would we be hearing?

    I'm seeing a few cracks in the ice of allowing the male to be an
    actual parent to a child rather than a "sperm donor" and a walking
    wallet, but there's still a loooong way to go.

    fred();

.0>    From what I can see, there are no penalties (legal) that she is guilty
>    of with our present system in this country.

From what I have heard about this and other cases, there are substantial
penalties, but they mostly fall on the child, the adoptive parents and a little
bit, on the agencies.

.0>    What _should_ be the penality for doing this? Should it be a crime?

As I remember the news, the couple was not married.  My take is that this should
not be a crime, unless the couple is married.  If they are married, it should be
a felony.

.0>    The boy is in the middle on this one due to the (apparent) abuse of the
>    father's rights.

I'm not sure that "father's rights" is relevant here.  In the language of .1,
this guy is a sperm donor, not a father.

Society gives me a simple, traditional way to protect my rights as a father: get
married, preferably before the pregnancy.  That protection is not complete,
judging by numerous notes here, and that is a problem we ought to fix.

I don't see why we should pay our legal system to create new rights for guys who
did not act to protect their own rights.

    
    Well to all those who whould change the BC to 'sperm donor', I think
    that is absolutely SEXIST! How about egg donor instead of mother.
    
    RE the daughter refering to 'sperm donor'. Do you want that child to
    have such a low opinion of men (especially if a boy) that you/her would
    want to prejudice a child? No make that POISON the child. Pollute the
    child with that warped (IMHO) thinking?
    
    
    Funny how these things work...
    
    BTW I believe that not listing the father could affect the child's
        benifits from the givmint even if not married; SS and veterans
        bennies come to mind. But then again, rule #1 applies!
    
    
    Steve

RE Note 154.3        
                 CSSE::NEILSEN "Wally Neilsen-Steinhardt"             
    
>.0>    What _should_ be the penality for doing this? Should it be a crime?
>
>As I remember the news, the couple was not married.  My take is that this should
>not be a crime, unless the couple is married.  If they are married, it should be
>a felony.

    What difference has marriage got to do with it. Is the child a
    'Bastard' in anyones opinion? Does the father have _NO_ legal rights
    unless the mother 'decides' that he should pay child support.
    
    Think about this. Please! How can there be such injustice?
    
    Steve

If they were married, it wouldn't make any difference, as the husband would
automatically be named the father (whether or not he was the actual
biological father).

				Steve

    Even if they were married, and the husband was not the father of the
    child. He gets stuck. If mom decides to abort the child before term, he
    as no say. What the heck. Can't win either way. Looks like a one way
    street to me. 
    
    Insofar as punishment.... What kind of punishment would be layed on a
    man for doing something like this?? Kidnapping? Sounds about what I
    would lay on to her. Besides a whack with a 2x4 on the top of her
    genitlia.(sp).
    
    Best said by a local attorney when I was in the mist of the battle.
    That this is a problem of the late 20th centry.

    
    If he is responsible for supporting the child whether or not they are
    married, then he should have the same other rights whether or not
    they are married.
    
    fred();

.6>    would lay on to her. Besides a whack with a 2x4 on the top of her
>    genitlia.(sp).

Under current law, this "punishment" would be a crime.  

I don't think this conference should be used to advocate crime.

Any proposed law in the US containing this as a punishmnet would almost
certainly violate the Constitutional ban on cruela dn unusual punishment.

.5>    What difference has marriage got to do with it. 

Marriage is the traditional way of avoiding and resolving these problems in my
society.  If anyone has a better way, let's hear it.  Otherwise I think we
should stick with what we have.

>Is the child a 'Bastard' in anyones opinion? 

Bastard is just a loaded word, so I would not use it.

>Does the father have _NO_ legal rights unless the mother 'decides' that he
>should pay child support.

Look at this from the point of view of the court.  An unmarried man comes to the
court and claims that the child of an unmarried woman is in fact his child. 
Suppose she denies it.  What is the court supposed to do?  Take the word of the
man or the woman?  Order DNA testing, which is uncertain and expensive?  Try to
figure out who was sleeping with whom a couple of years back?  
    
>    Think about this. Please! How can there be such injustice?

If we don't act in the ways society gives us to protect our own rights, I don't
think that "injustice" is the right word.  And I don't think the courts can or
should take all the responsibility for securing our rights.

    
    re .10

>If we don't act in the ways society gives us to protect our own rights, I don't
>think that "injustice" is the right word.  
    
    Under todays rules/laws/courts, the only way a man can do this is to 
    go down to the vet and have himself relieved of his "worldly instincts".
    Then have someone follow him around with a video camera to have 
    constant, conclusive proof against any accusation.

>And I don't think the courts can or
>should take all the responsibility for securing our rights.
    
    Oh?! Go tell that to the ACLU.
    
    fred()

    .9 Oh dry up Wally, Or I'll tell the Beaver about you!:)

    I, as one female, wish to commend Wally for being a concerned 
    male in relation to taking a stand on what constitutes behavior
    that is not acceptable between human beings.

    Thank you Wally.

    June Cleaver

    a.k.a.  justme....jacqui

    .9 Too bad sleeping in a car in the dead of winter because the courts
    have embelished your wadges cruel, or being denied access to visitation
    of your children on a trumped up acusation called cruel. I know a few
    men. Better yet... Wally why not come sit in on a meeting with our
    local Fathers Gruop and see first hand what life is really like from
    behind that keyboard. And Justine, your invited to join us too.

.14>    local Fathers Gruop and see first hand what life is really like from
>    behind that keyboard. And Justine, your invited to join us too.

First you insult me (see .12) and then you invite me.

I think I'll decline your kind invitation.

    Has this FATHERS GROUP done anything to set up group housing for
    men who are 'locked out'?  Has this FATHERS GROUP done anything
    to publicize 'safe housing' for locked out men?  Sitting around
    listening to tales of mis-treatment is theraputic, but spending
    part of that time devising and publicizing safe spaces is also
    necessary for healing the wounds.  Finances do shrink and by 
    grouping together for shared living does ease some financial
    and emotional burdens.

    No shelters, for there is little money. But there is a safe lawyer who
    has adpoted our group. And is a lawyer that you can trust to do a good
    job that will not sell your soul to the Devil because its a money deal
    to be made..... 
    
    In the business of divorce, many attorneys that you employ turn upon
    you. Becoming the ex's second and third attorney. And even the judge
    and the GAL. Its a profitable business divorce is. 

    Shelters do not have to be separate entities but be spare rooms
    or have men group together to rent a place.  Have a clearing 
    house system.  Emergency, short-term housing like agencies do
    for foster kids...have foster ex's for new ex's.

    

    So far there is no interest from our local and fed goverment to help
    sponcer such an noble program. And what I gathered from our beloved
    United Way. The word is: 'No'!

    I am not saying for some group other than the grass-roots FATHERS
    GROUP to put into action this process.  This is how other efforts
    start out.  There are private foundations one can apply to in 
    order to get funding for seed money.  Having FATHERS who have space
    put up their floors for emergency purposes only is a start!

    throwing a buck or two in a tin, (as women did in the early 70's for
    shelters) is another.
    
    Taking in an NCP must have considerably less risk to you and your
    person, than taking in a battered sister did for the early shelter
    builders.
    
    meg

	Meg, I don't follow your thoughts regarding 'less risk' in taking in
	a NCP as opposed to a 'sister' .... please elaborate.

	Cha

    I think Meg is referring to the fact that battered women are often
    followed by violent men trying to regain control of them.  Said violent
    men represent a danger to those trying to provide an alternative to the
    battered woman.  Nonetheless, shelters for battered women have been
    developed from grass-roots efforts in many communities.
    
    NCPs presumably don't bring such a threat with them.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Thanks Doug O,
    
    that is exactly what I was saying.  Given the fact that women and
    families that have sheltered battered women have been killed if the
    batterer finds out who sheltered them, (and unfortunately the way the
    cycle of domestic violence runs people often go back to their batterer
    multiple times, and often confess all) taking in a women with an
    abusive partner is a considerable risk.  However, the first shelters
    were people willing to take that risk to help out a woman in an abusive
    relationship with nowhere to go.  
    
    Taking in a person who has been abused by the legal system, rather than
    physically threatened IMO carries almost no risk of having a former
    partner sho up at your home with a shotgun in hand.
    
    meg

    Perhaps having the legal system abusing the NCP forces the hand to show
    up with the shot gun. For many, there is no viable way out. Execpt
    violence.

    Violence is not the way out of anything.

    I will agree. But tell that to the guy with the shotgun.

    Ruah,
    
    In many cases no divorce has been initiated, and there are NO children,
    so this isn't an ncp case.  It is only a sad person who resents having
    his or her "property" decide to move herself out of puching range.  
    
    meg

    M_Evans,
    
    Don't assume the facts. 

    Ruah,
    
    As soon as you don't, I won't.  Been there, done that, called 911, 
    learned to lock and load to protect my family, and now donate money and
    direct women to the local safehouse.
    
    meg

    Good. I have slept in alleys, cars, in trees, and dumpsters. And I
    donate my time to the cause. But, again, you have a nack to assume.

	Meg,

	First of all, let me say that from your entries, I percieve that you
	have been battered physically by your partner and are coming from a
	totally different direction. However, let me point out, that the 
	bottom line is that a person is harmed (physically, emotionally or both)
	and that person is in need of shelter, solice and perhaps monetary help
	in getting through that hell called divorce or separation. Whether the 
	battering is physical or mental what difference does it make ? A woman
	is less physically strong (perhaps) but is able to wield the fist of 
	a legal court system that does irrepareable damage to another human 
	being and you and others fail to recognize that pain and suffering or 
	the compassion it takes to help to releive it. Did you and your other
	sisters contribute to Women's shelters out of compassion for someone
	else's pain or was it out of anger ?  It is not right to batter or
	abuse another person whether it is with their fist or their actions.
	I am extremely saddened by the lack of compassion for men's issues in
	a divorce or separation. It is as if they do not exist. They only exist
	for those of us who have to deal with them. 
	
	As for you comments on risk. The risk of a female coming to 'get' the
	male after him leaving is small. I agree but is that not because the
	woman loses nothing (legally) in the process ?  What if the 'legal' 
	tables were turned around and the courts weighted 'mental' abuse as
	equally as physical abuse ?  What if, under those circumstances, the 
	male took off with the kids, money, etc. and left the house, claimed
	abuse and got a restraining order preventing her from seeing her 
	children and striped her of her ability to financially survive ? Are
	you saying there would be NO RISK from the anger of that woman ? Are
	you saying that that woman could not seek out and destroy that person
	who has so destroyed her future that she could not survive with NO
	CHANCE of changing it (due to a lopsided court system) ?  Given those
	facts I beleive a woman would be just as capable of commiting the 
	horrible crimes I read about that men are now commiting against their
	former spouses. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying I understand.

	Chuck

    Chuck,
    
    First off I have not been physically battered by any partner.  Assuming
    that from what I stated is beyond me.  However, I have sheltered
    battered women in my home, taken them to the Dr, the hospital, the
    police, and have had an angry partner of a battered women (no kids no 
    property to speak of, no divorce action filed at that time, unless you 
    consider women property) threaten me and mine with injury and death if
    I din't disclose her whereabouts.  
    
    I donate to shelters to avoid having my kids injured by someone else
    whose only interest is in recovering their punching bag.  
    
    Now if you feel there are men on the streets (and 40% of homeless
    families headed by women are running from an abusive spouse), because
    they have been stripped of everything, why not shelter those people
    yourself?  Why not set up a fund to get a shelter for men that will
    include job training, legal counsel, and whatever is required to get
    them on their feet again?  You know it can be done, as it has been done
    somewhat by women and for women.  Get out there and do something
    besides whining about how unfair the system is.  Or do you fear that
    your brothers will do something to you and yours?
    
    meg

    Meg,
    
    Fear not.... We are doing something about it. And the out come might
    not be to your personal liking. But thats the way it goes.... 
    
    And if you don't like us whinning... don't read it.:) 

    154.34
    
    And if you don't like us whinning...don't read it.:
    
    	Come on that was a pretty childish thing to say....

    
    I have hesitated to get involved in this.  However,  I am and continue
    to be distressed about he hypocritical one sidedness of the men's/
    women's issues (as demonstrated once more in this note).  On the other
    hand, I do agree that the main problem with men's issues is the lack of
    enough men with enough gonads to stand up, be counted, and ban together
    in a political force that would get some politician's attention.

    However, the Democrats blame a good chunk of the reason that so many
    of them were turned out in the last election on "angry white males".
    Hmmmmm ;^).

    fred();

    Ruah,
    
    If it is male bashing to suggest that you take care of your own, just
    as women have, then I guess I will continue.  Having been a parent for
    almost 21 years, encouraging action instead of whining and malicious
    threats is something I don't plan to grow out of.  
    
    
    The constant din of the feminist horn gets to sound like an over *plaid*
    song on the local radio that only plays the top 10 songs. And many
    of us just hunker down to it.
     
    * I never knew you could see colors on top 40.  
    
    meg

    SNAVE_M,
    
    Yep.....

    
    re meg,

    The problem I have with that is it seems that women's problems are
    supposed to be _everyone's_ problems while men's problems are supposed
    to be the sole obligation of men.  Women who complain are "activists"
    while men who complain are "whiners".  Just seems a bit hypocritical.

    fred();

	Meg,
	
	I appologize for my assumption that you were coming from the angle
	of a battered spouse. I got that idea from your comment about 'been 
	there, done that, called 911 ...'. After re-reading your note I guess
	it stems from an experience or 2 in working *with* other battered
	spouses ... not yourself.  
	
	Let me try to inject some sanity into this string and explain that I
	am against any violence towards ones spouse. However, I believe that 
	most of the laws and legislation, support and sympathy has been focused
	on the womans side of the divorce issue *because* of the violent-type
	of situations that you are familiar with. Not all divorces and 
	separations occur because a male beats his wife. Yet, I feel, that 
	the legal systems is set up to punish males as if they all beat there
	wives and deserve to pay for it the rest of their lives.  Those 
	situations (violence against another) should be persued through the
	courts and the person punished appropriately. I think we already have
	that and it's called Assault and Battery. 
	
	Chuck (I'm not explaining this very well ... )

	P.S. (You're correct in saying if I'm upset about a situation I shoudl
		get up and do something about it .... however, I look at what
		happened to that guy over in Keene and I just shake my head, I 
		found myself agreeing with what he said but NOT to the extreme
		he was carrying it. There's got to be some common sense in what
		is appropriate consequences of various actions that bring on
		divorce and separation --- and that is what I don't see 
		happening.)

    What happened to the guy in Keene...?

    fred,
    
    when women started working on helping our battered sisters this was
    considered a private, family issue at best, and a woman-only problem
    most of the time.  The only way we got beyond this was by helping
    ourselves first.  After women already had the networks set up to help 
    other women out of ugly situations, other people finally noticed that 
    this may just be a societal issue.  there are still groups of people
    who feel that women should remain with an abusive spouse in this
    country and refer to those of us who help women out of these
    situations as home-wrecking man-haters.  While some of us may not like
    men, due to abuse suffered at some mens hands, the majority of us know
    that abuse in the home is not normal and that most men are loving
    humans.   
    
    In yor case with people saying they are beggared by support orders, I 
    believe you will have to start at grass-roots level, just as women did,
    and work your way out from there.  To me allowing a brother to live in
    a car when you have shelter, and THE ONLY thing he did wrong was to
    choose the wrong spouse and attorney, is immoral.  What is wrong with
    taking him in?  It seems highly unlikely that you will  have his
    ex-wife pounding on your door at three in the morning with a loaded
    shotgun, demanding that you give him back to her so she can teach him a
    lesson.
    
    meg

    I know a man who has had his mail tampered with, his truck set on fire,
    and his phone tampered with. And no athorities will help him. He has
    also been denied vistation of his child for over 6 years. 
    
    The police and the local FBI refuse to get involved because its a
    marrital problem. And this man was divorced for over three years when
    this started to happen. 
    
    Another man, as many seem to do these days, took his life because his
    wife was beating him every night. She was a black belt marshal arts
    expert. He was a computer person... 
    
    More whinning I supose.

    Another man would come home to his apartment, and for over a month on
    any given night, waiting for him was the local police to arrest him for
    falsely horrasing his ex wife. 14 times he was arrested on the spot,
    falsely inprisioned, and 14 times he was found inocent.... 3 times he
    wasn't even in the same state when the illedged crime happened.

    One man was imprisioned for non payment of his child support. He had
    paid with checks and was then before the judge showing cancled checks.
    He was still found guilty and told to pay back child support thru his
    local DCYS.
    

    Another man had been arrested for non payment of both child support and
    alimony. His ex wife went before the local town officials and convinced
    them to close the mans business... I guess they found a couple of code
    violations. Aparently the code inforcer would not make a deal with him
    to make good the bad code in a time that would fit the fincial levels
    of the man who owned a small garage. So the business was shut down. And
    he went to jail because he could not pay. This happened in Laconia NH
    about 2 years ago. 

    So George -- Meg has described what she, personally, has done to help
    battered women; the question she has asked over and over is:
    
    What are YOU -- you personally, not the police, not the courts,
    not the FBI -- what are YOU -- doing to help these men?
    
    					andrew

    I have attended divorce procedings and became both a second
    attoney(unoficially) and moral support to many men who had their
    hired mouth peace. As a go between the two camps in a
    closed door settlement. 
    
    I have gone with a number of men who were refused their child
    visitation(s), and wrote the courts an affadavid(sp). I have given
    testomony to a case where a woman slap the NCP dad, infront of the
    kids, and I have even helped find a missing set of kids when a mom
    bolted from state. 
    
    I still give support to men and women who call upon me for advice.
    Although I will tell them upfront that I am not an attorney, and I wish
    no money for my free time. I have been sucessful in making a fair and
    just divorce. 
    
    Now that we are in the flushing out, Andrew... What have you done for
    your cause? What ever it maybe?
    
    I am also in the mist of writing a supreme court apeal. And this is not
    a local state level apeal.... This is DC Bound friend. Plus I have
    custody of a now 7 year old, and have had custody for 5 years. I hold a
    40 hour, help dads, and am going to night school for my masters in
    computer science........ Need I say more?

    My cause, as you put it, is helping people stay sober and clean.
    I've donated my time, my effort, and my money for almost ten years.
    
    There are people who are clean and sober today as a direct result of my
    efforts.  And we're talking long-term -- they've maintained their
    sobriety for years.
    
    As I said earlier, grass roots begins with you and me.  I know I've
    been doing my part.
    					andrew

    I certainly know that I have done my fair share for my part. Hopefully,
    there will be less blood letting, and more fair and just divorces.

        Meg,

    As I've said before,  I also agree that the biggest problem with men's
    rights is a severe shortage of men with enough gonads to stand against
    political correctness and fight for children's  rights as well as their
    own. I can safely say that I've done my fair share over the last 14
    years. You can go browse through Quokka::Non_custodial_parents, MN, WN,
    and Soapbox for the details.  I don't have time to recount all of them
    here. 

    I've also spent a more than a significant amount of time in
    "counseling" men (such as I can because there is usually no other place
    for men  to go).  Offering whatever experience, strength, and hope that
    I can, and yes I have taken in men for a night or two when needed, and
    I have spent nights sleeping in my truck, and months living in a hotel
    that was condemned as a health hazard shortly after I moved out.  It's
    not usually the ex wife who shows up at the door.   It's usually, as
    George has also indicated, the ex's henchman in the form of uniformed
    officers.  

    And to start another fire storm, I've found that most of the so-called
    "family crisis centers" are in reality "family destruction centers"
    staffed by man-hating amazons who's mission is not to help families
    solve problems, but to castrate (figuratively if not literally) 
    every man they can get their hands on.

    fred();

    Fred,
    
    I am one of those amazons, if you consider a "man hating amazon" one who
    after getting a woman to the hospital, and getting her kids into
    counseling, I suggest that she is not a punching bag and ought to look
    harder at her relationship with her partner.  I am not talking about a
    slap here.  We are talking broken cheekbones, collarbones, teeth, black
    eyes, dislocated joints, broken ribs, and severely traumatized kids.  
    
    Can you imagine sitting with someone for an hour helping her comb the
    safety glass from the sliding door out of her hair?  
    
    I don't say the shoe isn't sometimes on the other foot.  My former SIL
    proved that to me, but she is at least locked up for another couple of
    years, hopefully long enough that my nephew will have reached majority
    before she can try another custody grab.  Mentally unstable people
    don't deserve access to their kids in an unsupervised setting,
    particularly not those who have tried to kill their partner, and the
    child.
    
    meg
    
    

	::Rauh,
	
	You'd better learn how to spell appeal before you write one.
	
	;-)

    
    Meg,
    
    I've never said that such cases never happen.  However,  If your
    wife ever goes to one of those places, you can kiss your family
    goodby.  Because they _do_ consider _every_ case to be the man's
    problem.
    
    fred();

        ::jollimore

    He may be pitching a lot of balls and giving up a lot of hits but at
    least he's out there pitching.  Also if you file any court papers
    yourself, the case cannot be thrown out on the basis of spelling and
    grammar.

    fred();

    ::jollimore,
    
    Consider that fact that I dont have the time to run a spell check as I
    answer the phones. Its a dirty job, but someones gotta do it.:) Sides,
    when I fill the papers, as Fred says, I can use some time and even a
    spell ckecker!:) 
    
    As they say in the zoo business....Bear and grin!:)

            re meg,

    The "Family Crisis Shelter" here in Pueblo, Co. was so bad in their
    management and so blatant in their man-hate venom that they lost their
    funding.  Who were the real losers?--The women who really _do_ need
    help.  There has since been a new shelter open under new management.

    Right now I am working with a man who is gut-wrenchingly torn between
    trying to stay with a mentally and physically abusive wife and 
    the quilt of abandoning his children to pseudo-hell.  The odds that he 
    will be given custody in court are not good.  Talk about someone who
    is truely trapped in a no-win situation...

    fred();

    I put a note/reply in =wm= a while back pleading with them to look around
    them and talk to women that they might see that were using the childern
    to 'punish' the man with violation of visitation rights and other
    abuses like that. I asked that they look and see what something like
    that might leave as an impression on just one little boy. One little boy
    who might grow up and hate his mother and maybe his wife for what his
    mother did to him denying him visitation with his father. Maybe, just
    maybe, they might be able to prevent one case of spousal (wife) abuse,
    something near and dear to their hearts. Tell their friends, people
    they see not to do that. Break the cycle. Stop. Think.
    
    The response; 'ho hum, not our problem, don't bother me...'
    
    I was shocked and amazed. I have since taken spousal (wife) abuse
    complaints in =wm= less seriously. 
    
    Not one woman, as I recall said that that was a good idea and that they
    would do that.
    
    Ask for money, ask for shelters, ask for laws, ask for sympathy but
    when it comes to asking them to take a stand against possible future
    abuse, if involves helping men, then ho hum...
    
    
    Steve

    More reciently will be the way men are treated as they are now held
    accountable for the support of their teen moms who bring to term the
    children that they have no say. Asin, if the teen mom feels the whims
    of terminating the child or bring it to term. There will be no say of
    what happens in the teen fathers behalf. Execpt that he will pay.
    Period. And if he is allowed visitation from the mom. Its going to be
    just as hot as the abortion issue! 
    
    Of course the teen father is just another asshole like the rest of us
    who want to see their children. oohhh-humm.

.58>    The "Family Crisis Shelter" here in Pueblo, Co. was so bad in their
>    management and so blatant in their man-hate venom that they lost their
>    funding.  

Good.

>  There has since been a new shelter open under new management.

Also good.  I hope they can stay focused on helping the people who need help.

    One rather doubts, Keith, that the people in womannotes support anybody
    who would deny a child access and guidance from two loving parents. 
    One would also have to think that they're well aware of the potential 
    for abusive spouses to damage a child by playing games with visitation,
    even in violation of court orders.  To the extent that your note was
    recognizable as concerned with the CHILDREN, you would have gotten
    agreement.  I suspect it was not quite so recognisable.  I don't really 
    remember the note in question.
    
    One imagines that you got the response you did because of the way you
    stomped in there shouting about the rights of men (I'm guessing), not
    because people in womannotes in general are monsters who don't care
    about children.  You might say yours was a self-fulfilling action; the
    type of man who stomps around shouting about his rights reminds some of
    us of the type of man who stomps around shouting about his wife as his
    property, his children as his property, and who's attitude may be a
    very good reason for a woman to make certain that her children would
    not have such an ogre as a role model any more than she could possibly
    help it.  If your note reminded people of that in a negative way, that
    would certainly explain to me the responses you say you got.
    
    DougO

    re .62

    That's a whole lot of speculation on (you admit) not much evidence.
    However, I think it would be quite useful for you to re-read your
    own note and see how much of it you can apply to yourself.

    fred();

    Gee.... Doug... After getting my face pummled in both mens and =wn=s
    notes.... I kinda would side Keiths! After getting my nose rubbed by
    the feminist around here about men not asking directions, men not being
    able to pee on a flat rock, men doing this wrong and that wrong...
    Gee... kinda makes yha really think doesn it....:)

    Actually, I went in womannotes and looked around for Keith's
    suggestion, and finally found it.  It's 290.519.  And contrary to  what
    he says, nobody ho-hummed at him; a few people discussed his ideas, but
    in fact, the most significant disagreement came from another man in
    there, Mark Levesque.  Read it for yourselves.
    
    But you guys are right, my speculation about stomping and shouting was
    incorrect.  Keith put his opinions across reasonably and without
    rancor.  So, I guessed wrong.  One does see a lot of male stomping and
    shouting in there.
    
    DougO

    Doug! I am proud of yha! Takes a big man to admit he is wrong!
    
    I have seen the stomping from both sides too! And have read where the
    =wm= come stompin in on the mennotes too. Ahhh! Such is life!

    RE .66   OLSON
    
    
    Don't be so quick to judge others. I still disagree that there was no
    basic support for the idea. As I said, if it prevented one, just one
    case of spousal (wife) abuse it would be worth doing. Many women (more
    than men IMHO) attend marches and rallies especially for
    feminist/womans causes; take back the night, the one yesterday in
    Boston about abuse, etc. So taking a stand, saying NO to visitation
    abuse that could lead to spousal abuse would be very easy. It was NOT
    forth coming much to my dismay. I did go look at the note string
    again. Point to a note to prove me wrong, but not one woman suggested
    that this might be the case or suggested that it might be a good idea.
    
    Like I said, 'we want shelters, we want laws, we want...'nothing to do
    with cases of visitation abuse EVEN if they directly lead to spousal
    (wife) abuse later on.
    
    
    Steve

    If 70 percent of the divorces are iniciated by women. Thus having the
    man tossed into the street.... Where do these men go? Sleep on a
    friends couch? Sleep under a bridge? In the car? The No-Tell Motel?
    
    A man who is fighting for custody and fighting against having to pick up
    the tab of the ex's attorney is unemployed. Has no attorney. Is
    mentally impared, is kicking the poop out of the opposing camp and
    their attorney. His latest is that the ex gets a free attorney,
    pro-bono, (no relation to Sonny and Cher). What gives? Why is he paying
    for something free? He is not allowed access to free legal services?
    Welp... As Roger (the impeared person) says, "Hey if I got a half a
    brain and I can kick butt against the opposing camps, imagine someone
    with all their brain can do?"
    
    Roger writes his own motions, apeals, etc. Shows up to court and
    verbally holds his own.... 
    
    Another man whose primary language is French-Canidian has kicked butt
    against a Boston groomed Feminist attorney.... He was the gentleman who
    had his truck set on fire and his mail tampered with.... This was for
    me the turning point. When I lost my attorney and saw how these guys
    were holding their own....  

    
    My ex had her attorney provided free.  Me, I had to make due with
    what I could scrounge from a part time job and borrow from relatives.

    After watching the miserable performance of two different attorneys,
    I figured I couldn't do any worse on my own.  One of those attorneys
    has now been nominated for a position on the _Federal_ court (go
    figure).  The hardest part of being my own attorney was the emotional
    upheaval when I cracked open the law books and found out just how
    bad I'd been screwed over.  Three years later, I'd had my ex thrown
    in jail for contempt twice and had won custody of my four children.

    The part that still makes me the angriest is the additional years of
    suffering my children had to endure as a result of the hypocrisy,
    bigotry against fathers, and the incompetence of those lawyers.  As
    I've said before, it's not just the men's rights, it is the children's
    rights being trampled.

    fred();

    I guess it goes to show many, that the whining part of our cause has
    not been as such. Its a 'put-up or shut-up' amounst many of us in
    group.

    >I still disagree that there was no basic support for the idea.
    
    I'm not sure what you mean.  I think that 290.523 certainly talked
    about some of the same problems you did, and in that way indicated
    'basic support' for the idea.  I also note that two people in
    particular took the time to point out that kids are far more likely to
    learn abuse from watching it directly than from ingrown resentment over
    visitation games.  There may indeed be something in what you say, and
    some of the notes following yours indicated to me that other people
    think so, too; but it certainly isn't direct enough to be a main topic
    or focus of effort.  You're talking about something that will not show
    effects for twenty years.  Sorry, but we have to address the needs of
    the women who are going to be beaten between now and then, too.  And
    the marches and rallies and take back the night and abuse shelters and
    legal aid foundations and abuse hotlines all take effort; you want
    people to sign up for another one?  Taking a stand would be so easy,
    you say.  Yet look at the flack we get for something so simple as the
    idea that our culture teaches men to be violent and some men use that
    training against women, or the idea that women should get out of such
    relationships the first time they get an indication their partner might
    be dangerous and never look back.  We say things like that and we're
    man haters.  Yet these things directly lead some women to getting out
    of abusive situations; we know, we have survivor stories.  So these
    things are provably worth the effort and save some people NOW.  You
    want us to take on another tactic, one that won't show results for
    twenty years, and run with it?  Hey, man, it may be a good idea.  Run
    with it yourself.  I'll go take my turn on the phones.  Look me up in
    twenty years and let me know your results.  I'll do the same.
    
    DougO

        re dougo

    It's not really the lack of interest or support.  It's the outright
    attack (like .72) that happens every time someone dares mention
    that something like this is needed.   As far as .72 goes, IMNSHO,
    all it does is go a long way to prove Kieth's point--"give us,
    give us, give us,...oh you have a problem?--Tough ***t".

    fred();

    .72 is an attack?
    
    You misread it badly, Fred.
    
    DougO

    Nope Doug, you didn't attack. Just whine'ed like the rest of us.