Ordinarily, I would say screw the consequences -- leave my name on it.
Under the circumstances, I think for the time being anyway that it might
be wise to have you remove my name/email address from my post. But I would
LOVE to see it forwarded, if for no other reason to see and gauge everyone
else's response to it. Take my name off and Go for it!!
I'd like to share an idea for the above. As I slide kicking and screaming
and fighting it each step of the way into old age, I have managed to come to
a few inescapable conclusions about all this divorce and equality stuff.
I have watched how 'equality' works both in the Navy and in our
courts. And I have seen how our economy has slipped these past thirty or
so years. Now, I think it might be time to fight fire with fire. For a couple
of months now, I've engaged in my own little boycott. I need some feedback
from one of the 'leveler' heads around here before thinking about enlisting
anyone else in this obviously unPC action.
To my view, there is little that can be said against turning this equality
game around to our own advantage. The logic behind my boycott runs something
like this: Until men are afforded equal rights in their homes and in dealings
with their own families, why should they subsidize those who would also have
their place in the workforce?
Simply put and to the extent possible, I will henceforth refuse to deal
with any woman in the work place. Whether that be Sears, McDonald's, or
whatever. I will spend the limited funds left me by the court on whatever I
must -- but I will no longer willingly give my money to the beneficiaries of
the discriminatory policies now at work against men. I will ask to be waited
on by a male clerk, a male waiter, a salesman. If one is not available, I
will find out from the management why not. Only in those situations where the
need outweighs the backslide will I hand my money to a woman. All of the
ramifications of this are still pending. So far, the results from others have
been mixed: some anger, some concern, some resentment. But I think there also
has been some grudging agreement with my tactic by other men, especially so
once I give a little explanation of my reasons.
I don't believe all women belong back in the home, barefoot and pregnant.
Rather, I believe that they must be shown that to enjoy the benefits society
is bestowing on them nowadays, they must also recognize that there are some
trade-offs. They need to learn that, now having been denied a tip or a sales
commission, they have a personal stake in the problem, that there is a price to
pay for milking men like cash cows, and that that price is going to get steeper
if they refuse to assist us in some true equality. I figure they can scream
'sexist' as much as they want to. It's my money and I'll spend it where and
on what I wish, and that includes to whom I give it.
Okay, I've had my say. Do you think that I'm a bit 'touched' in the head,
or is there a thread of realistic grounds for forcing some improvements in
this society? Any reactions you might have would be appreciated. Thanks,
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 09:47:00 PST
>From: Wilson, Johnny
>Subject: Re: War Room! (fwd)
>I recommend that the author continue with this idea but to caveat it as satire.
>It would only work if every man in the world did the same thing. Most are not
>going to do so, especially if they do not perceive that they are affected by
>the bias. Men are their own worst enemy, because we as a whole are too
>independent by nature to band together in mass. We are like the many Indian
>tribes. We are divided by the general public's inability to see the big picture and
>their basic trust of "The System."
>Instead work to change the laws and the publics perception, the latter being >almost impossible. Work on changing laws. The system is going to enforce
>the LAW. That is the reason that those in the business "industry" of law use
>as an excuse "It's the LAW." It's not their fault, "It's the LAW"
>Respectfully-----Johnny Wilson >>email@example.com
[Response from 'anonymous']
The system is NOT going to enforce the LAW!! It hasn't for the last
eighteen years, that I know about. Changing the LAWS and creating more
of them for the system not to enforce leaves us exactly where we are
right now -- childless and broke. Ask me about the LAWS that the system
is supposed to be enforcing. Should we start with five state statutes
and stuff like unLAWful termination of parental rights? Or should we
just focus on the U.S. Constitution -- equal protection, due process,
indentured servitude, unLAWful taking of property, and guilty until
proven innocent? Nobody has broken down my door apologizing for any of
That is precisely the reason for using such tactics as a boycott.
No, not every man would honor a boycott of products or services tendered
by women; nor should that be expected. The whole idea behind a boycott,
seems to me, is to rattle the bars of our cages, make some noise that
people cannot help but hear. I don't believe it would take all that many
men to create the right 'noise level'.
The American public has a good understanding of the basics of divorce:
She gets the kids, she gets the house, she gets the furniture, and she
gets child support -- and maybe alimony; He gets to pay for everything.
The public also understands that, even outside of marriage, she has the
right to decide to be a parent (or not) but he does not. The public also
understands that it is paying for the Women's studies curriculums, the
Women's Task Forces, the Women's Commissions, the Women's Bureau (Dept.
of Labor), and the sexual discrimination laws and sexual harassment
laws now that protect mainly: Women. What the public doesn't understand
is how much they are paying for these Male exclusion policies and
practices, i.e., the cost of Fatherlessness in America.
The idea of hurting somebody financially, whether they are male or
female, is repugnant to me, deep down. But it is more repugnant to see
what is happening to a country that I defended for over twenty years.
I would try anything else -- if it had a chance to work. On the other
hand, I haven't had any weeping, apologetic judges trying to return
my kids to me. Or the thirty or so thousand dollars in overpaid c.s.
Or my self-respect. Or anything else the 'system' has stripped from
me. For the fact of the matter, I haven't heard of too many guilt-ridden
females insisting on paying for their own attorneys or fighting with the
'system' to return money they didn't need, or ... you fill in the blanks.
So the question is, how long are we supposed to let this crap go on?
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!! It's my money
and I'll spend it any damn way I wish! It's time the American public
got a little more educated. Ask yourself this question. Which way will
cost the least to solve our fatherlessness problem? A few dollars here
and there right now? Or to continue on our present course, simply doing
what we are now -- basically, nothing?
What IS being done isn't working. What is being done won't change
judges' decisions. And what is being done won't make judges suddenly
start enforcing LAWS that are already on the books! What is being done
will not force any judge to suddenly start being fair. What are we going
to tell our sons when they go through the same thing? Gee, Jimmy, I
tried but they wouldn't listen? Not if I can help it!
From firstname.lastname@example.orgThu Nov 23 04:38:38 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 19:21:49 -0700 (MST)
From: "Donald J. King"
Subject: Re: Boycott
At 01:19 PM 11/13/95 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 1995, Donald J. King wrote regarding the suggestion to
>> It's a good idea, except, I think it may be misdirected. If the same
>> boycott were initiated with respect to court ordered support, the message
>> would be clearer.
>> There are three things I see that would result. One, is the further
>> escalation of the gender wars, by the feminazi's, which, isn't all bad.
>> Two, greater polarization of the fembots, and more of them, as a result of
>> recuiting efforts made to induct those innocent females that have been
>> burned by the boycott, which relates to item three. Three, a lot of bad
>> feelings generated among innocent women, who might even be on our side.
>> This would have to considered in this boycott. Those females that share our
>> views of the feminuts shouldn't be alienated.
>> Such a type of boycott would have to include some means of making a
>> determination as to whether or not the females being boycotted, are closet
>> fembots. I don't know how to do that. If you could devise method of making
>> that determination, or alternatively, identifying entities that are fembot
>> oriented, it might work.
>Feminism has damaged women worse than it has damaged men. And it has
>damaged the relationship between them even worse.
>Women who are already anti-feminist, which seems to be a vast majority of
>women, aren't likely to change their minds, and would probably
>participate in the boycott. Thos on the fence could be pushed to our
>side when they see that feminism is DEAD, no longer acceptable social
>behavior, worthless, and counterproductive.
You've got a point. My own wife expresses similar sentiments. As long as
it was made known that the target of the boycott was/is the fembots, it
From BoseMietze@aol.comMon Nov 13 02:41:49 1995
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 02:13:27 -0500
> Granted, I must support my wife, but we MUST make a
>stand and look political crrrectness in the face. To make the
>whole thing short but sweet, we should give each other the
>business and consider our milkings the tips the waitresses
>would have gotten (and probably are getting), if a waitrewss
>is our only choice. For those of you who know me, I must include
>a disclaimer that I make these statements in my capacity as a
>private citizen and not as a federal employee.
Wouldn't this work somehow as a double-edged sword?? I f the females aren't
taken male customers, aren't support the rest of sales staff, then they would
get fired. Then they would run to family court and ask for higher support!
In general, you r boycott seems to be a good idea, but it'll bite you back in
the *ss! You'll end up paying mre support that ever.
I sugest you find a list of women owned businsess - probably published by
the gove't and boycott those. OF court\se you have to tell us what those
From WILSONJ@LF.ROBINS.AF.MILMon Nov 13 13:49:05 1995
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 12:50:00 PST
From: "Wilson, Johnny"
To: "Dingeldein, Dan" ,
>If you want to much up the works, you might want to investigate a book
>called"The Lawyer Destroyer" firing paper bullets, by Bruce Sawyer:
>Equal Justice Press
>c/o Bruce Sawyer
>P. O. Box 696
>Rochester N. H. 03867
I haven't read it, but would like to know if anyone has.
Johnny Wilson < email@example.com
From: Dan Dingeldein
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, TRETT@aol.com
To all, especially the war room!
: I find this kind of thing to be along the same lines as being
under the :control of a self-proclaimed (the judges) dictatorship. :
History has shown how the courts are a favorite instrument for any kinds of
dictatorships. Hitler didn't take by his own self all little decisions that
implanted his regimes, he had a carefully organized judicial system to do
so for him. Mussollinni was very attached to the use of constitutional
charters to direct the interpretation of the laws in fucntion with the
principles of fascism...
: The time has come for a concerted effort to basically "revolt"
against :the established system.
Yes, and we've got to do it together!
Let's make the ABA work toward justice a little, it is question od systemic
:A frontal attack is doomed to fail but a calculated effort to "muck up the
:works" is definately doable. Blitz campaigns against targeted legislators,
:judges and selected media types is doable. Mass mailings (paper and
:electronic) to educate and inform is doable.
: This idea of suing en-masse is a great idea but there aren't
enough :guys in our position with the resources and where-withall to pull
it of in an :effective manner.
There I do not agree,we have the potential because there is probably a few
millions guys in our situation over North America...
We have to make it happen, resources will come along the way. Let's not
wait for a messia to solve everything for us, he'll come when there'll be a
real need for him, or we'll make it out of collective will!
: What we need is a "Ross Perot" type who's got big bucks and is
:willing to committ to solving this problem. In my opinion the family law
:crisis is even more grave and dangerous than the budget crisis!
: Dan D
The feminist taking their power directly from the said deficit, don't these
two problem go together? Shouldn't they, then be fought one in direct
function of the other???
From Mewason@aol.comThu Sep 7 17:59:47 1995
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 14:40:35 -0400
Subject: Re: FATHERS' MANIFESTO - ACTION!!!!
In a message dated 95-09-05 20:55:54 EDT, you write:
>HOW WILL YOU ACT TODAY TO END FATHERLSSNESS???!!!
I filed for divorce in July because my s2bx is a feminist and wants to be a
lesbian. Hawaii is a liberal state with regards to homosexuality. It is
also liberal with regards to shared custody. We have agreed to 50/50
custody. Both parents are awarded custody, with neither being primary
custodian. My s2bx got a job after 10 years of being a stay at home
(vacationing) mom. Child support in a 50/50 split is a lot less than if she
had primary custody. Big Brother insists on child support (I do too, its
for the kids). As her income begins to equal mine, there will be no support
paid by either party. Because she has a job, and is a magna cum laude
graduate from UMBC (with a minor in that fad known as women's studies), there
is no alimony. Karen Decrow (former president of N.O.W.) summed it up best
when she said, "There is nothing scientific, logical or rational to
excluding the men, and forever holding the women and children, as if
in swaddling clothes themselves, in eternal loving bondage. Most of us have
acknowledged that women can do everything the men can do. It is now time to
acknowledge that men can do everything women can do."
> WHAT SHOULD 2,000
>SIGNATORIES DO COLLECTIVELY right now to end this pathology?
Fight on. Forward the manifesto to every republican congressman/senator.
Then send it to the democrats. Fax a copy daily to N.O.W. headquarters.
Get loud, get mad, get even. We have to scream louder than the women. We
need to get off our asses.