OBJECTIVE -- ONE MILLION SIGNATURES BY D-DAY (DAD'S DAY 1996)!
This goal, in an issue which may at long last be perceived by both politicians and the media as the crisis that it is requires an unambiguous definition. Which is it? "Eliminate Fatherlessness" or "Equality"?
"Eliminate fatherlessness" doesn't get confused with the oft-repeated feminist demand for "equality", which 3 decades of uninterrupted media barrages to redefine this word to mean exactly what they want it to mean has done. Your intentions are now obvious but this predisposition toward the feminist definition prevents most men from easily or quickly understanding what "equality" for men means. Concluding that you intend the opposite of what it sounds like you mean on first thought takes time, and another 3 decades would is required to redefine it. Even if this process started today, the huge resources required to redefine languages and social concepts don't exist. We don't have another 3 years, much less 3 decades, or the $Billions it would take, to redefine the meanings of words -- even though the Oxford Dictionary hasn't changed its definition. We don't have the manpower or the time to indoctrinate the millions of men required to implement the changes mandatory to salvage our social structure and our very ability to earn a living.
American men have come to accept that it is the COURT which should and will make the MOST important decisions in their lives -- those regarding the welfare of their own children. This is a new phenomenon. It is almost unique in the world. Nobody believes that it can or will work-- AT ALL. And it doesn't. Find one single father who believes the court is not corrupt beyond repair? Even with courts ruling in favor of women almost universally, few women don't think the same. Family decisions belong to families, not to government and courts, and families means fathers.
Demand "equality" at court and devote the next millennia to matriarchy. It is certain this will happen. The creators 3 decades ago of the "joint custody" policies unanimously agree now that "asking" for "equity" in a court battle between a father and a mother is a dead end street. It is precisely WHY we have social pathology and the attendant media male bashing now -- NOBODY respects the male who allowed his society, the greatest in the world just 3 decades ago, to utterly collapse. It IS our fault. They are right. We listened to and sympathized with feminist demands, we failed to understand and explain how corrupt and destructive these demands were, we allowed the courts to take our families, and now we demand respect. From whom? Didn't we get what we deserved? Is the man whose parent's divorce and whose own divorce was enabled by other men, now supposed to show respect for those men, or even for himself?
We are still too weak to demand our children back. The court takes our savings, our cars, and our houses and we are too weak to demand an end to the pathology. They take our incomes and our future incomes -- and we wag our tails like puppy dogs when the feminazis pat us on the head and tell us how chivalrous we are for 'supporting' our children (who because of the fatherlessness this created quadruple the prison population). Taxes are increased even more to fund pathology created by this descent into fatherlessness, and rather than objecting we watch hours and hours of sports on TV to occupy that place which should have been used to evaluate the problem. A total of 2 men make a few ripples in the calm pond of single-motherhood, try hard to reverse this process [Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey], and we stand with our hats in our hands hoping that Congress will REDUCE the amount by which the funding for this social pathology INCREASES from 9% to 6%.
GOALS REDUCE social pathology! Goals reject a 6% increase in place of a 9% increase. Goals reject more divorces last year than there were marriages 5 decades ago. Goals reject the entrenched illegitimacy and illiteracy army. Goals give notice that social collapse and government intrusion into private family matters (which were at one time protected by every important document in human history from the Bible, the Magna Charta, and finally the Constitution) have ended. Goals give notice that court intrusion and corruption are not needed or acceptable? Goals end the annual transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from men to women to fund the destruction of the very families they worked hard to create. Goals allow men who inhabit 'land of the free and the brave' the right to fathers and fatherhood?
Or it isn't a goal. It is a mere whisper of electrons across the Internet.
Consider the following fact.
The US is Tops in the World. In DIVORCE!
These are the divorce rates [number of final divorce decrees granted under civil law per 1,000 mid-year population] from around the world, per the UN "Demographic Yearbook", 41st Issue, 1989.
Which countries do you believe consider a married man's earnings to belong to him, and which countries do you believe consider a married man's earnings to belong at least partially if not half to his future ex-wife? I know, I know -- correlation does not prove causation, but just indulge me here for the sake of moving this discussion forward. I realy am working hard to understand the claims that correlation has absolutely nothing to do with causation, and that subsidizing divorce does not lead to more divorces.
All standard disclaimers apply -- this presentation of statistics coupled with a thought or speculation is already admitted to be sexist, demeaning, biased, bigoted, racist, misogenystic, anti-feminist, inconsiderate, unthoughtful, and unpolitically corrrect! Please advise if I left off your favorite ad-hominen. But the following is correct -- and the conclusion is inevitable.
Country Divorce Rate Rate as % of US Rate Sri Lanka 0.15 3.03% Brazil 0.26 5.25% Italy 0.27 5.45% Mexico 0.33 6.67% Turkey 0.37 7.47% Mongolia 0.37 7.47% Chile 0.38 7.68% Jamaica 0.38 7.68% Cyprus 0.39 7.88% El Salvador 0.41 8.28% Ecuador 0.42 8.48% Mauritius 0.47 9.49% Thailand 0.58 11.72% Syria 0.65 13.13% Panama 0.68 13.74% Brunei 0.72 14.55% Greece 0.76 15.35% China 0.79 15.96% Singapore 0.80 16.16% Tunisia 0.82 16.57% Albania 0.83 16.77% Portugal 0.88 17.78% Korea 0.88 17.78% Trinidad 0.97 19.60% Qatar 0.97 19.60% Guadeloupe 1.18 23.84% Barbados 1.21 24.44% Finland 1.85 37.37% Canada 2.46 49.70% Australia 2.52 50.91% New Zealand 2.63 53.13% Denmark 2.81 56.77% United Kingdom 3.08 62.22% Russia 3.36 67.88% Puerto Rico 4.47 90.30% US 4.95 100.00%
Achieving the goal requires solving the high divorce rate problem, and the high illegitimacy rate problem.