"Dustbin"  wrote in message
news:xV6%d.95323$y25.40000{at}fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Philip Lewis wrote:
>
>>  wrote in message
>> news:1110941689.941584.289600{at}o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Even tho I don't understand half the stuff Connor and co post here I
>>>think Brits and Australians should be encouraged to post here --
>>>because the weirdness in the rest of the world does eventually make it
>>>to the USA. And we need to be prepared. The way men have been
>>>disenfranchised in the UK seems to be happening in the US - lack of men
>>>in colleges etc. So let's hear more from the UK, because we need to
>>>know what the US's problems will be in ten years or so...
>>>
>>
>> *ROFLMAO* Forgive my wry mirth - but your argument is exactly the one I
>> have been making for YEARS for us 'brits' to pay attention to what is
>> happening in the USA!! Of course we have kept much closer pace with the
>> US since 'New Labour' came to power back in 1997. Our government is
>> absolutely riddled with feminists so that now by the year 2005 we have
>> probably 'caught up' with the degree of feminist infestation that the USA
>> is suffering from more or less. On the plus side we don't have quite the
>> negative virulence against so called 'dead beat dads' (usually dead broke
>> more than dead beat!) that you have in the US but that is probably partly
>> due to a totally incompetant CSA organisation that we have over here,
>> what we do share (in terms of parental 'rights' or lack of them in the
>> case of fathers!) is a similar pattern of laws together with an
>> assortment of due process busting practices that is so blatantly unfair
>> that a certain group protests called F4J(Fathers for Justice) has
>> resonated across the western world because their grievences are
>> 'coincidentally' shared in Canada,USA,Australia,New Zealand as well as
>> many other countries within europe. Of course F4J concerns itself ONLY
>> with custodial rights - what is also needed are similar campaigning
>> groups for all the other areas where men (and women for that matter for
>> lets not forget that feminism is actually giving many women an extremely
>> bad deal through it's actual practices - for example employers are being
>> given ever more incentives NOT to employ women because of the ever
>> increasing social costs that are being imposed upon them by feminist
>> leaning or appeasing governments) are blatantly shortchanged as a result
>> of femionist inspired policies.
>
> I'm glad to see the recognition of F4J as custodial only and the need for
> organisation that addresses wider issues.

It is an important area and F4J almost single handedly fills the niche most
admirably.

>
> We note, for example, almost all men's groups in fact base themselves on
> child custody issues one way or another: DAD (Dads After Divorce) and FNF
> (Families Need Fathers) are similar. The problem I have with these
> orgaisations is that they are - like the women - using children to further
> their aims rather than fighting a fair fight on the issues.

There are many real injustices towards men in the custodial arena and it is
right that fathers rights groups address this - I don't believe it is fair
to blame them for a lack of action in the other areas where men are
shortchanged. Anti-father feminist inspired policy and action are very hard
to defend even by feminists when it is exposed. This is because one major
weapon that feminists hypocritically use against men (fathers in this case)
cannot be used without damaging their own position i.e. children ARE
involved and once the LIE that fathers are a 'liability' (except for their
CASH of course!) or somehow 'bad for children'  is exposed they are
screwed!! After all it is very difficult (not that they don't try
nevertheless!!) to represent women (i.e. mothers in this case) as 'victims'
when it is very much the case that women have had the upper hand in custody
issues for decades.


> Many of us condemn the women for doing this but then these men's groups do
> the same.

But these are NOT "men's groups" in the broad sense but rather groups that
are focussed on a particular area of anti-male discrimination (custody and
parenting). Leaving such issues to broader based groups has resulted in very
little change and has had very little impact on public perceptions on such
issues. Even within the custodial arena fatherhood rights groups have made
little impact UNTIL the advent of F4J. If there is a lesson to be learned
here perhaps it is in activist strategy rather than activist issues that
will make a difference. That said it will be (IMO) a more uphill struggle to
garner public sympathy for the other issues where men face a raw deal simply
because feminists will find it easier to play the male chivalry card and
resisting any positive progress for men in these areas on the grounds that
either:-
a. It will somehow victimise women.(in fact this tactic is even being used
against men in the custodial and parental rights arena when it comes to say
paternity DNA testing for example).
b. It will somehow victimise children (and by that they also mean WOMEN
since women have the majority of custody!!).
They will press buttons "a" and "b" for all they are
worth because these
feminist hypocrits KNOW that despite all their talk of "equality" they can
still effectively play the male chivalry card (both institutionalised and
personal!) and that this doesn't work in reverse for men. What CAN men's
groups do when faced with this 'reality' especially after decades of
relentless anti men and boys propaganda perpetrated via the media if not
feminist inspired legislation and social policy(including education).
How can men's groups fight a 'fair fight' on the issues when the opposition
has long ago thrown away all the rule books. It would be like asking ONE
boxer in a contest to fight by the marquis of queensbury rules whilst the
opponent has NO RETRICTIONS whatsoever placed upon them!!
The task for men's groups is formidable - it must first dispel the myths
concerning womens alleged victimisation (ie. to neutralise the 'chivalry
card') and secondly that addressing these issues will result in a much
fairer society that will benefit ALL of us.

>
> We definitely need a group that addresses the issues more broadly.

Radical feminism in particular has severely infected our socio\legislative
and political systems so that the task is not only to demolish the
lies\myths of feminist propaganda but also to have eradicated all that
policy\laws that are based on feminist falsehoods. I believe it would be
almost impossible to do this without the welfare of children being brought
into the picture because of ANY progress on men's rights meant that it could
be demonstrated that women may lose out for once (instead of ALWAYS
benefiting) we could only counter the play of the inevitable chivalry card
by demonstrating that tomorrows world will be harmed by lack of progress and
tomorrows world is populated by the children of todays!
This would mean (whether we feel comfortable about this or not) that broader
issue based mens groups cannot afford to ignore the weaponry being used
against them nor the nature of that weaponry.

Phil


>
> D.
>
>> Phil




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 7:59:03 AM ---