FATHERS' MANIFESTO Home Page

THE MEN'S MANIFESTO

A Commonsense Approach to Gender Issues -- Philosophy and Politics of the Legitimate Men's Movement -- by R. F. Doyle

                         




                      V Edition  1995 c
Men's Defense Association




About the Author
  

  
  
  Richard  F.  Doyle was born December 3, l930 in Rosemount,
Minnesota.    He   attended   St.   John's   Prep.   School,
Collegeville,  Minn.,  White Bear High  School,  White  Bear
Lake, Minn., and St. Thomas College, St. Paul, Minn.
  Doyle served four years with the U.S. Air Force during the
Korean  War.  He was an air traffic controller for l7  years
and  an active commercial pilot and flight instructor for  3
years.    His   business   experience  includes   restaurant
management, shrimping, editing and publishing.
  Divorced  in  l957,  Doyle was shocked  by  the  anti-male
prejudice evidenced by the court system.  Later he  came  to
realize  that this was but one facet of a broad and sinister
phenomenon.
  He  formed the Men's Defense Association in l972 and Men's
Equality   Now   (M.E.N.)  International,  an  international
coalition  of similar organizations, in l977.  He became  an
author  and  lecturer on gender issues, especially  divorce.
His  best known work is The Rape of The Male (Poor Richard's
Press, l976.  Out of print).  He has appeared on national TV
shows,   as  well  as  many  local  TV  and  radio  programs
throughout the country.  Currently, he is Editor-in-Chief of
The  Liberator, premiŠre monthly newsmagazine  of  the  U.S.
men's  rights/divorce  reform movement,  with  international
circulation - and is happily married.

 Introduction
  Throughout the Western world there is a great to do  about
the  alleged  problems  women  encounter  because  of  their
gender.   Astigmatically, those of men, especially  fathers,
receive  very little attention in today's society.   In  the
last  generation or so, the position of men has deteriorated
significantly.  The male of the species is under  increasing
attack  legally,  politically, economically and  culturally,
causing  many  to become confused, helpless, and  oppressed.
It  is our mission to defend their interests, in the face of
enormous contrary forces and opinion.
  Luther  once  compared humanity to a drunkard  who,  after
falling  off his horse on the right, remounts and falls  off
again  on the left.  That's an excellent analogy to  sexism.
In the past, most prejudices favored men over women.  Today,
that situation is reversed.
  This  booklet  presents the other  side  of  the  coin  of
sexism,  the side that's more real, and publicizes the  long
held, and admittedly arguable, position of the Men's Defense
Association  (MDA)  on these issues.  The  purpose  of  this
booklet  is  to provide an understanding of the politics  of
gender,  and  to outline the various approaches  within  the
legitimate  men's movement.1  It consists of  two  sections,
based  on  those subjects.  This is outline only;  to  cover
these   controversial  subjects  in  detail  would   require
volumes.  It is not the purpose of this booklet to more than
briefly  address  the  issues  of  divorce  reform.    Other
literature is more suited to that.2  This is not a scholarly
treatise, nor is it intended to be.  I have neither the time
nor talent to undertake such a task; it is intended to point
the way for scholars, as did The Rape of The Male before it.
  This  booklet  is based on the principle of common  sense,
defined here as a form of basic intelligence derived from  a
firm  grounding  in  decent  values  and  realistic  thought
patterns,  from  living  close  to  the  earth  and  to  the
realities  of  life.  Education is important, but  that  and
fluency in language do not equate with common sense.
  It  is time to speak out, especially for the common man  -
the guy working on a farm, in a factory, driving a truck, or
laying  bricks.   For  men  without  the  time,  talent,  or
inclination  to  sit  behind desks  manipulating  facts  and
statistics  favorable to their cause (also mine),  as  their
more  glib detractors do.  The Men's Defense Association  is
dedicated  to the needs of regular guys, in full recognition
that movement also includes sophisticates, but they are  not
a large constituency.
  The  arguments  herein will outrage chivalrous  instincts,
but   such  instincts  are  largely  responsible  for  men's
problems.   They  will be unpopular with some,  because  the
very  idea  of  men's rights is unpopular, and  shocking  to
them.    But   truth  is  more  important   than   political
correctness.   The  anti-slavery  cause  was  unpopular  and
shocking 200 years ago, as were earlier moral voices  crying
in  the  wilderness.  To perceive our position as anti-woman
is wrong.  It is pro-justice.
  Admittedly, there are evil men and good, competent  women,
and  some traces of discrimination against women may remain.
But  that which exists against men is vastly greater.  NAACP
spokesmen  can advocate black's rights without  denying  the
relatively few problems of whites.  It is irritating  to  be
drawn  into  the  victimization game, but  we  can  not  let
women's lib claim the high (low) ground by default.
  General  Eisenhower said, "If you can correctly  define  a
problem you are already half way toward its solution."   Men
have been virtually helpless against their enemies (yes,  we
do have enemies - many of them) primarily for three reasons.
First,  we have been unable to define - therefore understand
-  who  we are and what our problems are.  Second,  we  have
been  unable  to  agree  on  a philosophy  of  amelioration.
Third,  we  have  been unable to cooperate  sufficiently  to
mobilize in opposition.
  Perception  of  these problems divides the  men's/fathers'
movement   into  two  major  and  several  minor  divisions,
discussed later herein.
  For  in-depth examination of these issues, the  reader  is
referred to The Liberator newsmagazine, a publication of the
Men's  Defense  Association.    To  learn  more  about   the
men's/fathers'  movement, get and  read  the  booklet,  "The
Men's/Fathers'  Movement  &  Divorce  Assistance  Operations
Manual"  (available from the MDA list of publications).
                             R. F. Doyle
  
                              
                              
                              
                        GENDER ISSUES
                              
                    I. THE PROBLEM AREAS
  ESTHER  VILAR,  IN  HER BEST SELLER, The Manipulated  Man,
calls  the  American  male  "the most  exploited,  the  most
suppressed,  the  most manipulated man on the  face  of  the
earth."  Dual discrimination ."  Dual discrimination -  pro-
female    (a   perversion   of   chivalry)   and   anti-male
("misandry," meaning hatred of men, manhood and  fatherhood)
- is everywhere.  This double standard exists in many fields
-  domestic relations, employment, crime punishment, and  in
our very image.3
  This  bias  is  so  institutionalized,  it  is  taken  for
granted.  The commonly accepted notion, the basic premise of
women's lib, has long been that discrimination against women
is  greater  than  that  against men.   This  is  more  than
fashionable nonsense; it is a bizarre hoax.  As many  people
cannot  distinguish  ladies from  women,  many  also  cannot
distinguish  truth  from  falsehood  or  right  from  wrong.
This is explained by a founder of modern psychology, William
James, who noted that, "There is nothing so absurd that,  if
it is repeated often enough, it will not become accepted."
  In  modern  times there are few expectations of women  and
many  expectations of men.  Indeed, a good case can be  made
that western women are the most pampered creatures on earth,
like sacred cows.
  Political  correctness  is  the  big  trend  among  social
levelers  today.  Children's rights, as we know, are  widely
revered.  Everyone knows the support women receive, but men?
Nothing.   The very term, "men's rights," reeks of political
incorrectness.   It  turns  off  conventional  liberals  and
conservatives  alike. This enormous reservoir  of  sentiment
makes judicial and social reform incredibly difficult.

A. Gender in general
     
     1. Integration and sex melding
  A  large segment of the population seems to be at war with
normal life.  Some have mounted an ill-conceived move to rid
us of all distinctions between men and women, to move toward
an  androgynous  society.    They  denounce  masculinity  as
"macho," and likewise denigrate true femininity.  Rambo  and
John Wayne are bogeymen, except it's OK for women to imitate
them; witness the many actresses clumsily playing tough cops
and other male roles.  This phenomenon is too widespread  to
be  attributed to a mix-up in hormones.  Its adherents  seem
to consider sexual characteristics restrictive and to resent
traditionally distinct members of either gender.   It  tends
to erode the biological polarity between the sexes, which is
so essential to life itself.  Indeed past civilizations that
lost these distinctions have ceased to exist.
  When  it  suits their purposes, "feminists"4 consider  the
sexes  both  identical, e.g., in employment, and  different,
e.g., in child custody - a classic "have their cake and  eat
it  too"  situation.  They would mandate social  integration
and  the  "right" for women to elbow their  way  into  men's
schools and clubs (but not vice versa, of course).  Thus, to
promote  less  important rights, freedom of  association  is
trampled on.
     
     2. The male image
  Males  have  achieved  the  greatest  accomplishments   of
civilization,  yet  are  widely  perceived  to  be   brutal,
villainous or incompetent. Ads denigrating men are common in
the  media.   Meanwhile, women are practically canonized  by
simple  virtue of being female.  One Pennsylvania legislator
declared  on the floor of the state senate that "A woman  is
born  clean and decent.  If she is bad it is because  a  man
made   her  that  way."   Female  glorification  is  further
demonstrated by the, seriously taken, demand for a statue of
a  "combat woman" to be erected at the Vietnam War  Memorial
to  specially and separately memorialize the eight women who
died  in Vietnam, contrasted with 58,000 men who died there.
Sexual    assault   propaganda   discussed   later    herein
demonstrates regnant anti-male hysteria.
  Consider  the "women and children first" slogan.  Consider
the  horror with which killing or maiming women and children
is  looked  upon,  as  opposed to killing  or  maiming  men.
Actually,  chivalry  is not bothersome,  if   restricted  to
ladies, and if gentlemen likewise receive their due.
  The attack on males and manhood may be a rebellion against
authority,  with  which men are often identified,  or  were.
Ironically  these  sentiments adversely affect  women  also,
because attacks on manhood are attacks on all humanity.
  In some instances, that barbarous practice of circumcision
may be directed at manhood per se.
     
     3. Health concerns
    Medical research expenditures demonstrate the preference
for  women.   Breast and prostate cancer kill  almost  equal
numbers  of  men  and women respectively.   Yet,  as  Warren
Farrell's The Myth of Male Power documents, 660% more  money
is  spent  on  breast cancer research - the one cancer  that
kills women.
  Aaron  Kipnis, psychologist and author of Knights  Without
Armor, says that males account for:
     70% of all assault victims
     80% of all homicide victims
     85% of the homeless
     90% of persons with AIDS
     93% of persons killed on the job
  Men  die  on average eight years earlier than women.   The
popular  attitude  is, So what?  If it were  the  other  way
around,  the  outcry would be deafening,  countless  studies
would  be  undertaken, $ millions would  be  thrown  at  the
disaster.
     
     4. The ERA
  The ERA sounds like a good idea.  It is, but bad law.   It
applies,  ratchet-like,  in one  direction  only-  to  favor
women;  never in the direction of equality.  Its  effect  in
state  implementations has been to eliminate all  reasonable
distinction  between  the  sexes unless  they  favor  women.
Banning father-son banquets as sexist borders on the insane.
Requiring universities to provide athletic budgets for women
equivalent  to those for men is like requiring hospitals  to
provide  paternity wards for men.  Women's groups  have  not
been  involuntarily integrated.  Women's  tennis,  golf  and
chess  tournaments still exclude men.  Female reporters  and
guards may watch male athletes and prisoners at toilet,  but
male reporters and guards may not watch female athletes  and
prisoners  at toilet.  The ERA means just what  most  people
think it means - equal rights for women.
  

B. Employment
     
     1. Affirmative action
  This  idea has done more harm than good.  The criteria  of
gender  and  quotas are far too significant  in  hiring  and
promoting  employees.  If a well-qualified man  applies  for
work or promotion in government or big business, and a woman
applicant is even remotely qualified, it is likely she  will
get  it.   In  some  areas (for example,  teachers  of  law,
medicine and economics), women are earning considerably more
than equally qualified male counterparts.5
  Mandates  of  the  Affirmative Action craze  have  created
dangerous, inefficient and bizarre results.
  Female  police  officers  have  often  failed  in  violent
situations.   It's  only  a matter  of  time  before  female
"firepersons"   cause   tragedies.    Responsible   military
officials have demonstrated that our combat forces  are  too
watered down with women to be effective6.
  For  years the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hired
women  and minorities who did not know the front end  of  an
airplane from the back and tried, largely unsuccessfully, to
train  them  as  air  traffic controllers,  while  qualified
pilots were denied this employment.7
  The  Royal  Canadian Mounted Police have ceased recruiting
male  officers until the number of female officers attain  a
politically correct percentage.8
  The  functions  of  government  and  business9  have  been
hindered  and  the mail slowed down.  Women  reporters  have
invaded  male  athlete's locker rooms during  showering  and
dressing.  Try getting into a women's locker room.
  Affirmative action is based on three false premises:  that
the  success of males is due to discrimination, sociological
conditioning  and  conspiracy,  that  normal  women  can  do
anything  normal  men  can - and do it  as  well,  and  that
overall  women's  pay  should equal  men's.   Some  call  it
"reverse"   discrimination,  but  incorrectly  so,   because
original discrimination does not exist.  "Quotas" is  a  far
more  accurate term. The underlying intent is  to  implement
redistribution of income.
  The  allegation  that  females are  discriminated  against
relies  on  the fact that average fully employed women  earn
about  72  cents  for every dollar earned by  average  fully
employed men.  Does this evidence discrimination?  Of course
not!   The  market  of supply and demand  sets  wages.   All
commodities, including labor, reach a price level consistent
with  their worth, unless interfered with by outside  forces
such  as  union or government dictates.  Higher paying  jobs
are  usually  more  arduous, or require  more  training  and
dedication.    Men's  natural  characteristics   (especially
greater  motivation  and  aggression),  as  well  as  social
expectations,  cause them to seek and excel  in  these  type
jobs.
  Men  work  harder,  longer, at  more  dangerous  jobs  and
prepare  themselves  better  educationally.  By  their   own
preference, most women have not pursued full time careers or
obtained   the  training  men  have.   Men  are  practically
required  to  work (ask those in alimony jail), while  women
have  greater  choices  in  the  matter.   Wage  comparisons
deceptively  equate  women who polish fingernails  in  plush
offices,  who  drop out for long periods to  raise  children
(they quit jobs eleven times oftener than men) with men  who
labor  deep  beneath the earth's surface in coal mines  year
after  year.   According to a Rand Corporation  study,  "The
typical  male  worker has more job skills than  the  typical
female worker, so it's not surprising there's a wage gap."
  Admittedly, in the past, some men obtained better jobs and
higher wages simply because of their sex.  Even that  had  a
rational purpose - to assure enough income for every family,
by having only one breadwinner per family.
  Besides being illogical, affirmative action is costly  and
unfair  to the many well-qualified males who go unhired  and
unpromoted.
  What  if  affirmative  action were applied  in  the  other
direction?   What  if  it were decreed that  henceforth  all
children  of  divorce  be placed with  fathers  until  their
numbers   equal   those  placed  with   mothers,   or   that
professional  basketball  teams  must  be  composed  of  70%
Caucasians, or that four % (or whatever it is) of  the  U.S.
Congress  must  be  mentally retarded because  that  is  the
percentage of retarded persons in the country?
  Quotas negate equal opportunity.  Anyone ought to be  able
to  develop  his  or  her capabilities;   and  ought  to  be
employed wherever qualified, but not in preference to better
qualified persons in pursuit of some egalitarian pipe dream.
     
     2. Pay equity, and comparable worth
  These  are  schemes  to pay women who opt  into  plush  or
comfortable  jobs the same as men who do hard  or  dangerous
work.   All  that is needed to implement this is a  feminist
oriented  bureaucracy willing to declare hard work easy  and
easy  work  hard.  Like "no fault divorce," which  sent  the
divorce  rate  skyrocketing, this silliness  has  unintended
consequences.  Popular in liberal state governments, it  can
financially break them.

C. Crime and punishment
     
     1. A blatent double standard
  In   what   is   perhaps  the  most  egregious   area   of
implementation of perverted chivalry, men are punished  more
rigorously than women.  Decision to arrest, amount  of  bail
required,  guilt  or  innocence  in  judgment,  severity  of
sentence,  physical conditions of imprisonment,  release  on
parole  all favor women.  The MDA has files full of examples
of  grossly disparate treatment between men and women.   Men
are  arrested  and imprisoned for crimes which women  commit
with  impunity.  If a man is caught looking into a  home  in
which  a  woman  is  undressing, he  will  be  arrested  for
voyeurism.  If a woman is doing the looking, again  the  man
will  be  arrested;  this time for  indecent  exposure.   It
happened;  the  Mississippi Supreme Court  rationalized  the
verdict.
  In  Texas  a  man and woman violated a local ordinance  by
swimming  in  the nude.  Police arrested only the  man.   In
Minnesota, procedures requiring the summary jailing of drunk
drivers   are   seldom  applied  to  drunk  women   drivers.
Prostitution is a good example of this double standard.   It
is  the only transgression in which the buyers of an illegal
commodity  are  more  culpable than the  sellers.   This  is
because most sellers are women and buyers men.
  If a woman accuses a man of rape ("spousal" or otherwise),
brutality  or  "sexual  harassment," the  man  is  routinely
denied due process, not permitted to properly defend himself
because  it  might insult the female complainant, regardless
of  truth.  Where it is a man's word against a woman's,  the
woman's  is  usually  believed.   Gary  Dotson  was  wrongly
convicted  of  rape  and  imprisoned  6  years!   After  the
"victim" recanted and admitted lying (without punishment, of
course),  the  judge  kept  him in  jail  months  after  her
recantation just for the hell of it.  Practically every time
a man and woman get into a physical fight, regardless of who
is  the  aggressor, the man is blamed.  If  married,  police
usually throw him out of his house.  Although there  are  as
many  physically battered men as battered women10 (arguably,
there are more psychologically battered men), government and
society  throw tons of money and sympathy only at  "battered
women."
  Judges  are  reluctant  to  jail  women.   While  men  are
arrested  4 times as often as women, they are imprisoned  24
times as often.11
  Women  premeditate over half of the domestic murders  they
commit,  and  yet  half  of them claim  self-defense,  quite
successfully.   They  are convicted of  l5  percent  of  the
homicides in this country, but suffer less than l percent of
the  executions.  Since 1930, 3,313 males have been executed
and only 30 females.
  A  woman can murder a man and receive less punishment than
a  man  who  cannot pay his alimony or who urinates  in  the
street.   They murmur "brutality" and hearts begin bleeding.
No rebuttal is possible; the victim is dead.  Jilted actress
Claudine  Longet,  who  killed  her  live-in  lover   Spider
Sabitch,  was convicted and sentenced to 30 days,  the  same
time  a young Wisconsin lad served in l984 for playing hooky
and a Cheyenne, Wyo. man for violating a local ordinance  by
fishing with a worm instead of a fly.   She served the  time
at her convenience in a specially redecorated cell.
  Acquittal or token punishment of women who murder and maim
men,  such as Longet and Lorena Bobbit, signals open  season
on men.
  If  a  man kills a fetus against the mother's will he  has
murdered  a human being.  If her abortionist does  it,  it's
her "right" and the fetus loses human status.
  The  courts  jail  male  repeat  offenders  for  life  for
stealing a few hundred dollars, or for rape with no physical
harm  and  far less mental harm than that suffered  by  many
men in divorce.
  We  lock  up male prisoners behind steel and concrete,  in
overcrowded  conditions.  We provide  women  prisoners  with
furnished  cottages and grounds for strolling.   The  Attica
men's  prison in New York compares most unfavorably  to  any
women's institution.
  Ninety-four percent of prison inmates are male12.   If  94
percent  of prison inmates were female, the problem and  the
injustice would receive far more attention.
     
     2. Inter gender violence
  Society  and the media are profoundly indignant  regarding
violence  against  females  -  only.   The  facts,  however,
demonstrate  that  this  is  another  example  of  perverted
chivalry.  Here they are:
  *   Men  are  the  victims of two to three times  as  much
violence as are women.13  Much more if you consider warfare,
where  men  sacrifice life and limb in defense of women  and
children.   (Yet  Marylin French,  in  her  recent  The  War
Against  Women, says most casualties in wars are  women  and
children.  No kidding.)
  *   Wives  and female companions are as likely to initiate
family violence or murder a husband as are husbands and male
companions.14
  *   Women  are far more likely than men to abuse children,
especially boys, and the elderly, throughout history  -  not
merely since receiving the preponderance of custody.15
  *  Women are more violent than men.16
  *   Women are more dangerous because they use weapons more
often.17
  *    Violence  by  women  is  increasing  and  by  men  is
decreasing.18
  *   Statistics  on  gender violence are  skewed  by  men's
reluctance  to  report abuse,19 and by the  fact  that  many
reports   are  generated  by  "battered  women's"  shelters,
spawning grounds for all sorts of feminist agitprop.
  *   According to the "National Crime Survey,"20  less than
one percent of men or women are victimized by spouses.21
     
     3. Rape, the big lie!
  The  earliest false rape charge was reported  in  Biblical
times.    It   seems  Egyptian  potentate  Potiphar's   wife
attempted to seduce Joseph.  When it failed, she accused him
of rape and had him thrown into prison.22
  Between 27% and 60% of rape allegations are false.23
  The  1990  "National Women's Study," in a survey of  4,008
women,  reported the incidence of rape is 683,000 per  year.
Here are the unadulterated facts:
  *   Prof. Neil Gilbert of the Univ. of Calif. Berkeley has
shown  that exaggeration is rampant and definitions  of  the
term, "rape," are highly dubious.24
  *  The U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
(NCS),  in  a 1990 survey of 50,000 women, reported  130,000
rapes  per year, and the FBI Uniform Crime Report  for  1990
claimed 102,560.
  *  Despite claims that as high as 37 percent of women have
been  "raped,"  only  1/10  of one  percent  of  women  have
reported rape.25
  The National Center for men in New York and Dr. Roy Schenk
have  devised "consensual sex contracts" to protect men from
women who after having consensual sex decide to charge their
partners with rape.26
  
     
     4. Child  abuse
  As  with false rape and battering charges, false claims of
child abuse against men  have increased dramatically.   Yet,
the truth is that 62% of child abusers are mothers.27
  Further,  only one percent of alleged child abuse involves
serious  assaultive  behavior the public  regards  as  truly
abusive.28    Douglas  Besharov  Ph.D.,  of   the   American
Enterprise  Institute, reports that 67% of all  child  abuse
claims are unfounded. Other experts claim this percentage is
much higher in divorce situations.
  
     
     5. Harassment
  Allegedly-discriminated-against    women    are     filing
preposterous claims and winning outlandish court  awards  or
settlements  for  minor  insults or leers.   The  widespread
credit  given  the charges Anita Hill brought against  Judge
Clarence Thomas is a good example.  The 10 year old  charges
were a blatantly political and spiteful attempt to deprive a
patently   decent   conservative  of   his   Supreme   Court
nomination.

D. Domestic relations
     
     1. The situation
  Married  men are no more than guests in their  own  homes,
evictable  at  the  whim of wives and  judges.   Unwarranted
eviction  of  males is routine procedure upon initiation  of
divorce  without much recourse, not some rare aberration  of
justice.   Then, they are characterized as "runaway fathers"
(after  being kicked out).  Prof. Amneus says this  is  like
stabbing a man in the back and then accusing him of carrying
a concealed weapon.
  Law  does not govern divorce; judicial anti-male prejudice
does.  There is sufficient legal precedent on either side of
most  any  issue to justify any decisions judges  choose  to
make, even contradictory ones - anything to favor the woman.
  The  family is like a three-legged table, held up  by  the
rights of men, women and children.  Remove one leg, and  the
table  falls down.  This is what has happened to the  modern
family  - the men's rights leg has been removed, largely  by
government action.
  Divorce has aptly been termed "the rape of the male."   To
any  reasonable person, being raped in the back  seat  of  a
car,  as  happens  to very few women, is far  preferable  to
being raped in divorce court, as happens to many men.
     
     2. The tragedies
  The  U.S.  has  an  appalling  50  percent  divorce  rate.
Between one and three million children are semi-orphaned  in
the  U.S.  every  year.29  According to the  Census  Bureau,
three  out  of five children born today will spend  part  of
their childhood in a single parent home.  The destruction of
children's  homes  and  families by  routine  divorce  court
removal of fathers is one of the worst forms of child abuse.
  The  process has pauperized both men and women.   Half  of
America's  seven  million poor families are  so  because  of
divorce,  separation or out-of-wedlock births.  In contrast,
of America's 50.4 million intact families, only 7% are poor.
Family breakdown is the greatest cause of poverty.
  The  results of divorce burden taxpayers with unacceptable
welfare costs, generated when dispossessed men refuse  -  or
haven't  the money - to subsidize the destruction  of  their
families  and the placement of their children in  fatherless
homes,  where  they  are far more likely to  be  mistreated,
neglected, demoralized and sexually confused.
  In  view  of  the whole catastrophe, it is  little  wonder
divorced men are 6 times more likely to commit suicide  than
divorced women.
  Consequently, the institution of marriage is in jeopardy.
     
     3. Child custody
  Over  90  percent of child custody awards are to  mothers.
True, few men fight for custody; not because they don't want
it, but because of the overwhelming odds against winning and
because of the prohibitive costs.  His children are a  man's
raison d' ˆtre.  Loss and probable estrangement of them  are
among  the  greatest injustices that can be visited  upon  a
human being.
  Divorce  has  eliminated paternal  authority  in  divorced
families  and  the  threat  of  it  greatly  inhibits   that
authority  in  intact families.  Violent crime continues  to
skyrocket.   Its cause has experts puzzled, but should  not.
The roots develop in childhood.  The rate of delinquency and
other  problems  among children of divorce, including  grown
ones,   is   frightening,  especially  those   in   maternal
custody.30   Three quarters of prisoners in our  jails  come
from  female-headed families.31  The same pattern  is  found
among drug users.
     
     4. Money and property
  Redistribution  of  wealth - from  male  to  female  -  is
likewise an important consideration.   With the children  go
house  and  financial packages designed to maintain  mothers
and  children  at or near their former level  of  affluence.
Unrealistic  standards are often used in establishing  these
figures.32   Divorce transfers more funds  in  America  than
will and probate.
  Draconian seizure methods are employed against men  unable
to  meet  alimony, palimony, and support orders.  They  lose
assets,  including unemployment compensation, pensions,  and
even  disability  annuities.  Thousands of  victims  are  in
illegal debtors' prisons for inability or refusal (God bless
'em) to pay.  And we criticize the Soviet Gulag!
  There   is   seldom  enough  money  left   after   divorce
obligations for the father to live comfortably.   An  income
just  sufficient  to  support one household  before  divorce
cannot  be  stretched to support two afterwards.   The  myth
promulgated  by  feminist  Lenore  Weitzman,  based  on  her
contrived "studies," that an ex-husband's standard of living
skyrockets  by  42%  has  been disproved  by  the  scholarly
attorney, Jed Abraham, JD.33
  The  term, "feminization of poverty," is a popular  clich‚
designed  to  justify the transfer of male-earned  funds  to
women,   which  is  illogical  because  women  already   own
approximately 70% of the nation's wealth.34  Female  poverty
results chiefly from the feminization of custody.
     
     5. Mom's atomic bomb
  To doubly ensure maternal custody or to deny visitation to
fathers,  it is becoming common to accuse fathers  of  child
molestation.   As in all accusations by women  against  men,
the  burden  is  on  the man to prove  innocence,  which  is
exceedingly difficult.  There are over 700,000 false reports
of   child  abuse  in  America  each  year,  mostly  divorce
related.35  Estimates are that between 90% 36 and 77% 37 are
untrue.
     
     6. Rights and responsibilities
  It  is  patently  evident that government  enforces  men's
responsibilities,  but  not their  rights.   Conversely,  it
likewise   enforces   women's   rights,   but   not    their
responsibilities.    For  example,  divorce   orders   allow
visitation  to  non-custodial fathers  and  sometimes  token
amounts  of support from the rare non-custodial mother;  but
these provisions are usually only as good as the inclination
of mothers to comply.
     
     7. Logic
  We can easily overlook false planted axioms in considering
issues.  For example, modern ideas of chivalry postulate the
false  premise  that all women are ladies.   Clucking  about
runaway  slaves and Irish freedom fighters (both "unlawful")
postulate planted axioms that slavery is acceptable and that
Britain   legitimately  occupies  part  of   Ireland   (both
"lawful").    So  too,  the  uproar  over  "deadbeat   dads"
postulates  the false premise that child support orders  are
reasonable and that the whole process is fair to men.
  Women  who  fail to prepare for careers, promise  to  live
with  a  man for life, have their children, throw them  out,
expecting  support from them or from taxpayers  -  and  then
plead poverty - deserve no sympathy.

E. Delinquency
    Juvenile delinquency, adult crime (because the child  is
father to the man), and other aberrations are increasing  at
an  astronomical  pace.   There is a direct,  causative  and
irrefutable  correlation  between mother-custody  and  these
problems.   It is massively documented in the book,  Garbage
Generation,38 especially in the Annex to Chapter One.

F. Government and the economy
  Over   the   past  25  years  federal,  state  and   local
governments have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in a
futile  attempt  to eradicate poverty - from the  outside.39
Sensible persons like Dr. Thomas Sowell and Charles Murray40
believe  poverty is a state of mind, and can  be  eradicated
from the inside only.  A government that cannot deliver  the
mail on time may be hard-pressed to deliver us from poverty.
  In January 1992, 13.5 million Americans were on AFDC.  One
in  7 American children is now on welfare and 2,000 more are
joining  the rolls every day.41  During the last  l0  years,
welfare programs have eaten up over $300 billion, with  more
people  dependent on the dole now than when  these  programs
began.  These  programs  are  imposing  an  obscene  debt  -
$151,000 per taxpayer - on our grandchildren.  If it has  to
be spent, the money could be put to better use.  Back in mid-
1992  total  welfare spending in "the war on poverty"  since
its  inception in 1961 has been $3,5 trillion  (in  constant
dollars),  an amount that exceeds the entire cost  of  World
War   II  after  adjusting  for  inflation.42   While   AFDC
regulations  encourage mothers to collect, they  are  biased
against  fathers.   Regs. permit the  former,  but  not  the
latter,  to  receive both welfare payments  and  wages  from
work.43
  Government administration of domestic relations is fascism
at  its  worst.   Like  entitlement and  affirmative  action
programs,   it   subordinates  individual   sovereignty   to
political  factions and arbitrarily redistributes  property,
sabotaging free enterprise and violating basic human rights.
  Former  President Reagan's Task Force on the  Family  said
welfare  is largely responsible for breakdown of the family.
Fifty percent of the increased divorce rate between l964 and
l970  can  be traced to the incentives provided  by  welfare
growth.44
                              
                   II. CAUSES AND CULPRITS
  Anti-male  prejudice is a square dance  of  officials  and
assorted other fools.  What motivates them?  Reasons include
a  massive perversion of chivalry, fad, self-aggrandizement,
and Freud's discovery - penis envy.

A. Politics and morality
  Neither  liberals nor conservatives have been  friends  of
the  male sex, but there is a difference.  Many liberals are
seminally  opposed  to  that  essence  of  manhood,   rugged
individualism, as well as to such other things  as  property
rights.   Adolescent egalitarians listing to port  hold  the
notion  that  all persons are equally deserving  of  earthly
goods,  that  justice  and  peace  on  earth  demands  equal
distribution  of  wealth  regardless  of  effort  ("to  each
according  to his needs").  They favor big government,  with
all  the  mischief  that  entails.  Conservatives  generally
uphold  commonsense principles, but are too na‹ve  to  grasp
that misandry is antithetical to these principles.
  In  his  A  History  of  Marriage and  Family,  Australian
Professor  Willystine Goodsell posits  that  the  causes  of
modern  Western social decline are identical to those  which
caused  the  fall of the Roman Empire.  Women took  on  non-
traditional roles when men left to fight the Punic Wars, and
remained  in  those  roles after  the  wars.   This  led  to
promiscuity,  divorce  and widespread  demoralization.   One
need not be a college professor to see the parallels.

B. Judges, legislators
  The   former  appoint  themselves  protectors   of   frail
womanhood  (The Galahad Complex).  Unless they  have  led  a
very   sheltered   life,   many   of   their   actions   and
pontifications  about gender issues are  na‹ve  and  stupid,
sometimes  downright criminally so.  As Dickens  said,  "The
law is an ass, an idiot."
  The  latter  will  enact any abomination  a  fad-conscious
public  desires  - for votes.  Fear of the powerful  women's
lib  juggernaught influences their thinking.  P. J. O'Rourke
aptly calls them A Parliament of Whores.

C. Bureaucrats
  Big Brother is increasingly intruding into our lives.  The
primary  concerns  of any bureaucracy  are  to  justify  its
existence  and expand its operation.  Bureaucrats aspire  to
replace  "the man in the family," control the lives  of  the
thusly-created  dependents  and  assume  responsibility  for
their needs.  Witness:
  *   Judges,  police, and social "workers" are taking  over
the role of fathers.
  *   Social "workers" encourage wives to kick husbands  out
and  eagerly  provide courts with supporting  rationale  for
awarding   maternal  custody,  to  build  case   loads   and
ultimately their empire.  They lobby for ever harsher  anti-
male   legislation,  which  only  creates  more   need   for
themselves.    They  oppose  realistic  reforms   (such   as
tightening  eligibility and father custody),  because  their
careers depend on existence of the support problem.
  *   Another  entire bureaucracy has grown  up  around  the
collection   of  alimony,  palimony,  and  support.    Local
governments  have turned into giant collection agencies  for
divorcees; it is one of their largest functions.
  George Orwell call your office.
  Why  do bureaucrats fear and sabotage a society of morally
and  financially healthy families?   Because  they  have  so
much to lose from it.

D. Lawyers
  Lawyers share with wives the legalized plunder of divorce;
it's  one  of  their  biggest sources of income.   Voluntary
reform will not spring from this quarter.

E. Feminists
  "Feminists" wallow in rhetoric about female victimization.
Besides preaching misandry, the basic premise of women's lib
is that women are more discriminated against than men.  That
is the biggest hoax in the Western world.
  Feminism has become a veritable religion.  Government  and
philanthropists throw vast sums of money at its crockpot  of
programs,  philosophies  and  jamborees.   Every  state  has
generously funded a network of commissions on the status  of
women,  despite the fact women, in general, are  financially
as  well  off as men.45  Battered women's shelters are  also
funded,   despite  the  absence  of  justification.    These
establishments serve as headquarters for covens of feminoids
primarily  to pursue their own agendas and only  secondarily
to help these alleged victims.
  Feminism   is   irrational   and   socially   destructive.
Consider:   Spokeswomen profess to seek equality but  demand
special  privilege.   They demand the  advantages  men  have
earned without the disadvantages, like having to earn  them.
They  demand  equal  representation  in  the  boardrooms  of
industry, but not in the grubby jobs or among the burned out
inhabitants of skid row.  That's like wanting a   one  sided
coin.
  Equal   rights  imply  equal  responsibility.   The   more
responsibilities  women reject, the more unequal  they  make
themselves.
  This  outfit  begrudges  veterans  benefits,  conveniently
ignoring the sacrifices of veterans, including the thousands
of  acres  of  graves  of  men  killed  defending  the  very
existence of this country.  Their wild demands would not  be
possible  without these sacrifices.  That is  called  biting
the  hand....  They consider women too fragile to be pinched
in  an  office, but tough enough to engage in  combat!   Dr.
Thomas  Sowell  (fn  40),  put it best  when  he  said,  "In
reality, the crusade for civil rights ended years ago.   The
scramble  for special privilege, for turf, and for image  is
what  continues  today  under  that  banner  and  with  that
rhetoric..."
  Women's  lib is a "ladies" auxiliary of the radical  left.
The hard core embraces Marxism, although Gloria Steinem will
admit  only to being socialist.  Prime purposes of  feminism
are  to  establish  a  lesbian-socialist  republic  and   to
dismantle the family unit.46
  Women's  lib is no joke.  Neither should these hydrophobic
harridans be taken too seriously.  Even including their camp
followers,  these  modern sophists  are  only  a  vociferous
minority presumptuously claiming to represent the views  and
interests of all women.  Sane women invariably eschew them.
  The  struggle for men's rights is positive, not a reaction
to  women's lib.  It is inevitable that the two philosophies
clash - and they do - head on.
  
 Riddle:  Is feminism a cure for which there is no disease,
          or a disease for which there is no cure?

F. The media
  An  important reason the public is little aware  of  men's
issues is that the media, electronic and printed, serves the
lowest  common intellectual denominator, tending toward  the
sensational  and the nonsensical.   Together with  libraries
and  bookstores, the media is awash with feminism  which  it
promotes   and   parrots   as  if   prophetic,   functioning
practically   as  its  bulletin  board.   Media  worshippers
enumerate, analyze, deplore and sulk about their complaints.
Entire forests have given their lives for this purpose.
  Men's more legitimate gripes and philosophies are censored
as  if heresy, although balance is feigned by publication of
writings  from anti-male male authors, under  the  guise  of
"masculinist" material.
  Several  big name entertainers, long on talent, but  short
on  intellect, have clambered aboard the feminist bandwagon;
Actors Ed Asner and Alan Alda come to mind.

G. Divorces and welfare recipients
  Greed  is  a  primary cause of divorce.  The assurance  of
winning  all  motivates women to initiate  at  least  eighty
percent  of  divorces, confident that  somewhere  out  there
(many  know  precisely with whom) lies a better life.   Most
women would not divorce without these incentives.
  Divorced  and unmarried mothers are the largest  group  of
welfare recipients, some because they have no pride or enjoy
ripping  off the public, others because they need  a  safety
net  when dismissed ex-husbands cannot or will not pay their
freight.  Whatever the motivation, most are parasitic.
  As  Liberator writer, Muldoon X says, AFDC seems to  be  a
heaven for bums and brood sows.

H. Ourselves
  Can  victims be blamed for their plight?  Damn right  they
can!   Men  themselves let it happen.   We  meekly  accepted
false  accusations.   We rolled over  like  submissive  dogs
before anti-male hysteria.  Like helpless animals caught  in
car   headlights,  we  stood  by  while   our   rights   and
responsibilities   were  taken  away.   We   abdicated   our
trousers.
  In  the  last  decade, a "men's movement"  has  come  into
existence,  made up of disillusioned feminists,  masochists,
homosexuals and other lost souls seeking salvation  in  male
bonding,  drumming, mythopoetry, etc.  They meet at "warrior
weekends," where they beat drums, denounce masculinity,  cry
a  lot,  and grope at each other in "consciousness  raising"
sessions, presided over by charlatans selling paraphernalia,
conducting  seminars, giving "massages," or reading  poetry.
Many  are  sex  melders convinced there is  something  wrong
(macho)  with  the  traditional male image.   Presumptuously
claiming  to  represent men's liberation, this outfit  would
like to liberate us all right, from our manhood!
  Female misandrists are overt and honest about it.  We,  at
the  MDA,  grudgingly respect that.  It is  easily  defended
against.   We  are  more  concerned  with  covert  misandry,
attacks from the rear by nominal males masquerading as  part
of the men's movement, or even as the men's movement.
  Male  characteristics are also liabilities; the  qualities
that cause us to excel - ego, rugged individualism - prevent
us from cooperating in our defense.
                              
                      III. AMELIORATION
  THE   ENORMOUS  RESERVOIR  OF  ANTI-MALE  SENTIMENT  MAKES
JUDICIAL AND SOCIAL REFORM INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT, BUT  GENDER
JUSTICE WILL BENEFIT WOMEN AS WELL AS MEN.  DECENT WOMEN  DO
NOT WANT SONS, BROTHERS, AND LOVED ONES TO SUFFER INJUSTICE,
OR  THE  INSTITUTION  OF MARRIAGE TO DISAPPEAR.   TO  CHANGE
THINGS,  WE MUST FIRST UNDERSTAND THEM, THEN ACT UPON  THOSE
UNDERSTANDINGS.

A. Gender realities
     
     1. There is a difference
  Males  and  females of every species are vastly  different
physically     and     anatomically,     emotionally     and
psychologically.   For  example, male testosterone  provides
extra aggression and drive.47  Androgyny is abnormal.
  These distinctive, natural characteristics, predominant in
each sex, are the result of eons of evolution.  To deny this
is  to  deny science, behavioral and biological, as well  as
the evidence of one's own powers of observation.  Even Betty
Friedan has come to admit, "Women aren't male clones."
  This  is not to imply that men are better than women,  but
different, and just as good.  Men should be proud  of  their
masculine characteristics and resultant abilities, as  women
should  be  of  theirs.   Society must  recognize  that  the
differences  between the sexes is what makes  the  world  go
around.   Men and women are equal - but different.  V‹ve  la
difference!
     
     2. The accomplishment curve
   (Passages from The Male View, by Kevin Russell, England)
  Why  are  Men the Thinkers, the Inventors, and the Saints?
If  we  represent all the men in the world on  a  horizontal
line  starting with the geniuses and the saints on the  left
and moving to the villains and the drop-outs on the right we
would get a shape something like this:
  
  
  
  
Saints                                                   MEN
Sinners
  
  If we do the same thing with all the women in the world we
would get a shape like this:
  
  
  

Saints                                                 WOMEN
Sinners
  At  both the saints' end and the sinners' end, men  appear
in  reasonable numbers;  women, on the other hand, hardly at
all.   Professor Camille Paglia put it rather well when  she
said,  'There is no female Mozart because there is no female
Jack-the-Ripper.'
  This  being  the case, I often wonder why it is  that  the
media,   and   particularly  female  writers   and   women's
magazines,  consider only the right hand end  of  the  men's
line but concentrate almost exclusively on the left hand end
of the women's line.
  Almost every top chef is a man.
  The  best  orchestra  in the world,  the  Vienna  Symphony
Orchestra is composed entirely of men.
  No  woman  has  ever  won  the world  chess  championship,
despite equal encouragement of the sexes in many countries.
  82% of all the saints are men
  On  the  rare  occasion when a woman does  become  a  high
achiever  she  almost reaches masculinity, and,  of  course,
loses  her  femininity.   It  is  because  of  her  loss  of
femininity that men do not feel attracted to such  a  woman.
It has nothing to do with the fact that she is successful.
  So  why  is  it that maleness and high achievement  go  so
closely hand in hand?  Dr. Charles Goodheart at Gonville and
Caius College, who has studied the difference in the results
between the sexes for 16 years, states quite frankly that it
is  all  a  question of testosterone, the male hormone  that
gives  men  'forcefulness, aggression, ambition, originality
and  general  push.'  Women underachieve because  they  lack
this hormone.  The same hormone that produces the yobbo also
produces the genius.
     
     3. Sex roles
  The foregoing gender differences dictate that normal males
are  superior  at certain functions and normal  females  are
superior at others.  Men achieve greater heights of success,
intellectually and physically, and greater depths of failure
than    do    women.      These   separate   characteristics
realistically   determine   occupational   roles.    It   is
appropriate  that there be male and female  roles  in  life.
Men   are   naturally  the  beef-luggers   and   women   the
seamstresses.
  Similarities exist in the animal kingdom.  Modern  notions
have  us so confused we would do well to look there  to  see
what is normal.  Only one filly ever won the Kentucky Derby,
even with the mandatory five pound handicap colts carry when
racing  against  them.   Nowhere in  responsible  biological
literature  can we find a single instance of  the  identical
behavior  of the males and females of any species.   In  the
lion  species, females doing the hunting has been  cited  as
disproving  this  contention, but  actually  it  proves  our
point.   Lionesses  hunting are like  housewives  marketing.
Lions are the undisputed authoritarians.
  Much  of  normal  women's success  in  traditionally  male
occupations is due to males bending over backward to  assist
them and to overlook failings.
  Reform does not require yanking every woman back into  the
home,  but  does  require elimination  of  the  practice  of
pushing them ahead of men into non-traditional roles.
  We  believe  the  sexes should be symbiotic,  not  melded.
Traditional  gender  roles  and  responsibilities  are  very
practical  and enjoyable.  Specialization is efficient,  and
the  contrast is one of life's joys.  Although we seldom see
it  outside the movies now, there was a time when  men  were
men and women were glad of it.
     
     4. Manhood
  Manliness  (Hombria)  is something to  be  proud  of,  not
ridiculed.  It means for men what feminism should  mean  for
women.    The  work  ethic  and  rugged  individualism   are
preferable to dependence on government.
  Manhood  is  the age at which males come to  accept  adult
responsibilities, demand legitimate rights and are proud  of
their gender..
  The  terms,  true men and manhood, are highly  subjective.
While  they  do not necessarily imply the deer slayer  type,
they   definitely  exclude  homosexuals  (Troublingly,  this
definition   excludes  Frederick  The  Great  and   arguably
Alexander  The  Great, Julius Caesar as well  as  Napoleon).
Surrender of manhood is too high a price to pay for equality
     
     5. Homosexuality
  Homosexuality  is unnatural, and the increasingly  popular
fad  of homosexual parenting operates to the clear detriment
of  society.   It is disingenuous to compare "civil"  rights
for   homosexuals  to  those  for  minorities.   Voluntarily
deviant  behavior  does not deserve the same  considerations
involuntary  skin color does.   To dignify such behavior  as
an  "alternate life style" is like equating bestiality  with
kindness to animals.
  Incredibly   enough,  to  criticize  such  activities   is
politically   incorrect,  often  termed   "homophobia."    A
misnomer  because  that means fear of homosexuals.   No  one
fears  homosexuals;  decent people are  simply  revolted  by
their disgusting sexual practices.
     
     6. The trade-offs for chivalry
  Chivalry  is the tradition of according certain privileges
to  ladies,  as distinguished from all women.  Although  its
perversion  causes most of men's gender problems,  it  is  a
reasonable  tradition and the tradeoffs were  once  mutually
beneficial. What trade-offs?:
    From  men  -  serious sacrifice and higher work  output,
surrender of our seats in lifeboats to women and children, a
duty to fight and die in wars defending country and family.
  To men - head of household status, custodial preference of
children  in  divorce, veteran's preference and dual  sexual
standards.
  The  last item requires a higher moral standard for women,
especially wives.  Is that unfair?  No, just as the physical
and  mental  sex  distinctions are not  unfair.   There  are
practical reasons for it, chief among which is that husbands
cannot  surreptitiously  introduce  extra-familial  children
into their families, but women can.48
  Reasonable  and  fair  inter-gender relationships  require
recognition  of  distinctions  between  ordinary  women  and
ladies,  and  between  ordinary  men  and  gentlemen.   With
restoration   of   balance,  chivalry  could   be   mutually
beneficial to ladies and gentlemen.
  Is it reasonable to expect ordinary men and women to agree
to these trade-offs?  Probably not.  Ladies and gentlemen  -
yes.
     
     7. Patriarchy and the sociological argument
  One  of  the most astute and learned observers  of  social
behavior  in  America  today  is Professor  Emeritus  Daniel
Amneus,  of  the Calif. State University, Los  Angeles.   He
makes  a compelling case for patriarchy, as does the  Bible.
Some  of  the  following observations  are  based  on  these
sources.
  Unlike   some   other   species,  humans   are   naturally
promiscuous.  The early eons of human existence were savage,
with "families" composed of females and children fathered by
predatory, comparatively better provisioned males.  Each sex
desperately  needed what the other had by nature  (that  is,
families  vis-…-vis  food).  Perceiving  the  advantages  of
mutual  support and cooperation, probably around  the  stone
age,  the sexes gradually initiated monogamous relationships
(much  later  formalized as marriages).  Under  this  gender
contract, each sex made necessary sacrifices to benefit  the
other;  women  gave  fidelity, men  gave  hard  work,  often
resulting  in  death,  injury and  shortened  lives.   Women
received  security and men received legitimate,  inalienable
children.
  These  relationships were patriarchal;  whether  naturally
(as  some believe49) or artificially, to prop up the  weaker
male  role  (as  Amneus  believes),  is  immaterial.   Thus,
patriarchy, relative prosperity and the dawn of civilization
emerged  simultaneously,  and are quite  obviously  mutually
dependent.  The very fabric of society depends on  viability
of that "contract."
  The contract has been the primary object of feminist rage.
An  unholy alliance of feminists, the Welfare State and  the
divorce  system has been instrumental in relieving women  of
contract  obligations, while assuring them of its advantages
and  denying  them  to  men.  Consequently,  the  course  of
history  has  reversed  itself -  back  toward  matriarchal,
savage societies.  For proof, see any ghetto.
  From  this  perspective,  reform  is  quite  simple  -   a
prosperous society with stable families requires that  males
be positively motivated to work.   This requires restoration
of the conditions of the contract.
  Some say patriarchy is an outmoded value system.  Although
technologies  change,  values are  eternal.   The  Bible  is
replete with references to husbands' authority over wives.50
  Maybe an idealized society would not be patriarchal,  just
as  an idealized society might not be market-oriented.   But
this  is  the  real  world.  These forms have  pragmatically
proved themselves best.
  Patriarchal societies are civilized; matriarchal societies
are  not.   Sometimes this is difficult to see  in  changing
societies, because of the generations-long time lag.   That,
for  example,  is  why Sweden remained relatively  civilized
long after rejecting patriarchy.
  Perhaps  patriarchy cannot be restored;  but  the  attempt
will  help  return the pendulum away from matriarchy  toward
the  center.  If patriarchy's enemies are kept  up  in  arms
about  the  prospect,  they may be diverted  from  elsewhere
further eroding what is left of fathers' rights.

B. Domestic relations reform
     
     1. On marriage and money
  Marriage requires licensing, but having children does not.
The reverse would seem to be more sensible, with only mature
and   financially   secure   parents  licensable,   but   is
impracticable.  So, until justice is restored, it  would  be
wise for men to avoid both marriage and parenthood.
  Money greases the wheels of divorce; women require it  for
themselves and "their" children after divorce, and attorneys
become  involved  for the fees.   The Men's  Defense  Assoc.
feels  that  to  finance  an evil system  by  paying  unfair
alimony, support and attorney fees is more immoral  than  is
refusal to pay.  Removal of the money incentive is a key  to
reform.   Atlas must shrug himself free.  Widely implemented
money  strikes could be a powerful means for restoration  of
justice.   Because  it is unlikely the  system  will  reform
itself, the men's movement may be forced to comprehend  this
reality and effectuate it.
  Children  need a complete home, including both father  and
mother, sustenance and guidance.  Likewise, parents,  unless
proven  unfit,  have a right to live with  and  guide  their
children.    It  is  parents'  responsibility   to   provide
children's  needs, so long as parents' rights  are  honored.
But  if  society, through its judicial system, denies  these
rights  to  men and aspires to control their families;  then
society,  through  its  welfare  system,  must  assume   the
financial   responsibilities.   The   specter   of   chaotic
consequences may jolt the system into reform.
  Only  the  aged  and the infirm have reasonable  claim  on
public  welfare funds.  A 90% reduction in the AFDC  program
seems entirely reasonable.  It is only common sense that  no
one,  man or woman, has a right to bring children into  this
world unless they have the means to support them.
     
     2. Simple fairness
  Simplistic   suggestions  for  reform   usually   advocate
changing  "the  law,"  but most law is  fair  on  its  face.
Biased  application of the law is what needs  changing,  not
just in domestic relations but across the board.
  Nearly  all  needed  reform measures fall  into  a  common
category  -  fairness to men.  Here's how that  would  work.
Merit,  not  sex,  would become the criterion  for  awarding
custody, property and money.  Because marriage is a lifetime
contract,  spouses  aspiring to  terminate  it  unilaterally
without  very  good  cause  would  thus  be  prevented  from
absconding  with  the  fruits of marriage.   More  men,  who
seldom  need outside financial support, would gain  custody.
Present  assurances to aspiring divorcees  would  disappear,
vastly  decreasing incentives to divorce and decreasing  the
rate   dramatically51.   Non-custodial  fathers   would   be
required  to  pay  their fair share only; and,  having  been
treated  fairly throughout the process, would be  much  more
inclined to do so, greatly increasing collections.
  The  foregoing  idea relies heavily on interpretations  of
"fairness.".  If judges continue misinterpreting that  term,
as  they  probably will, Prof. Amneus' suggestion - outright
prohibition  of alimony and maternal custody  -  may  become
necessary, and a majority of the men's movement must support
it.
  Regarding  support  payments,  positive  motivations  work
better   than  negative  ones.   So  far,  only  the  latter
(extortion and jailing) have been employed.  Why not  try  a
scientifically valid principle?
  The  MDA  publication, DIVORCE, What Everyone Should  Know
recommends  specific law changes.  If those  and  the  above
generalities were implemented, the divorce rate would become
almost  insignificant within a few years, greatly curtailing
the destruction of children.
     
     3. Custody
  It  is our fundamental belief that government has no right
to deprive a man of his children or his property.
  The argument that men work and women do not, used in favor
of   exclusive  maternal  custody  and  exclusive   paternal
support,  is stereotypical nonsense. A Roper poll shows  70%
of  women  work  outside the home, or  plan  to,  and  those
holding  full  time jobs have doubled since  l970.   Another
argument is that raising children burdens mothers enough, so
they should not be obliged to share in the costs.  Nonsense;
most fathers would love to be so burdened, and most of those
with custody forgo receiving support.
  Although  the  idea  may  be  shocking  to  some,  routine
paternal  custody  in  divorce would  practically  wipe  out
delinquency   and  eventually crime.   There  is  no  better
police force than millions of unemasculated fathers.   While
maternal  qualities  are important to very  young  children,
paternal  qualities  are  more  important  to  older   ones.
Discipline is not normally a maternal quality.
     
     4. Abortion, illegitimacy
  For  many years the MDA took no official position  pro  or
con  on the morality or legality of abortion, other than  to
insist  that  fathers, married or otherwise should  have  an
equal right in determining the fate of their offspring, born
or  unborn (If you think about it, this is a strong argument
against  abortion).   More recently,  we  have  adopted  the
following  position, a compromise among several  approaches:
Abortions should be illegal beyond the first three months of
pregnancy, except in cases of extreme physical danger to the
mother  or  extreme  deficiency of the  unborn  child,  both
conditions medically certified.  In the first three  months,
consent must be obtained from parents or legal guardians  of
minors and from husbands of married women.
  Women   become   pregnant  through  voluntary   acts   and
omissions,  and  should  not ask taxpayers  to  finance  the
consequences.   Therefore, abortions  should  be  funded  by
taxpayers only in cases of danger or deficiency, or in cases
of  rape  or  incest that are reported to police within  one
week of occurrence.
  The  term  "choice"  as  it  relates  to  abortion  is  as
misleading  as the terms "gay" and "feminist."   Why  should
women have any more choice in this matter than, for example,
pedophiles demanding to determine how to relate to children?
There  are  myriads  of  other  examples  of  such  nonsense
"choices."  Should women have a greater right to choose than
do the children?
  Because only females get pregnant, the responsibility  for
contraception and sexual non-participation lies more heavily
with  them.   In  view  of  the widespread  availability  of
contraceptive devices and except in the rare cases of actual
rape,  pregnancy results from voluntary choices by  females;
and therefore involuntary financial responsibility for these
children  should  not  devolve  upon  fathers.   True,  male
partners may also be irresponsible, however they do not  get
pregnant.
  Sure,  this is a double standard, one of the gender trade-
offs  discussed earlier.  It may not seem fair; however  the
dictates of nature (i.e., female pregnancy) are not  subject
to chivalrous notions of fairness.  Persons wishing to argue
the  issue  of fairness should take the matter up with  God.
The  Men's  Defense  Association deals  with  more  temporal
realities.
  Where   fathers,  likewise,  made  conscious  choices   in
initiating  pregnancies  (as opposed  to  just  copulating),
their  responsibilities - and rights - become equal to those
of mothers, no more, no less.
  Illegitimate  children?   There is  no  such  thing,  only
illegitimate parents.

C. Philosophy
     
     1. An apparent dilemma
  Perceptive  persons  have  asked  if  there  is   not   an
inconsistency in our arguments.  They ask how we can  defend
traditional  sex roles in some instances, as  in  employment
and  chivalry;  and attack them in others, as  in  custodial
preference.   The dichotomy between those acknowledging  the
distinctions and those minimizing them also brings  forth  a
seeming  problem  for  men in our quest  for  equality  with
women:
   There are differences between the sexes, "as any fool kin
plainly see."  If the claim of big differences is true,  the
argument  for  maternal preference in  child  custody,  male
preference  in  jobs, including combat "jobs,"  and  harsher
treatment for males in the criminal system seems plausible.
     If  differences do not abound, existing preferences are
obviously unjustified prejudices.
  Either   way,   men  come  out  short;  the   conservative
separatist  approach costs them custody, while  the  liberal
unisex  approach  costs job preference and  the  traditional
masculine image.
  Let  us  consider the possibility that both contradictions
are merely paradoxical and the problems can be reconciled.
  Making   merit   and  normalcy  the  criteria   for   role
assumptions,  removes the problem.  Normal  men  and  normal
women,   under  normal  circumstances,  have  normal  (i.e.,
traditionally sex differentiated) roles to play in life.  On
the  other  hand, abnormal circumstances - such as  divorce,
immorality,    hormonal   imbalances,    strange    personal
preferences, etc. - require individual considerations  based
on these unique circumstances.
  As  a general rule, as children grow older they need their
mother's maternal qualities less, their father's socializing
qualities  more.  However, due to individual  circumstances,
certain  fathers should have custody of very young  children
and  certain mothers should not.  Likewise, certain  mothers
should  have  custody of older children and certain  fathers
should not.
  While  men are generally stronger and predisposed  to  the
more   arduous  tasks,  certain  women  -  with  interesting
concoctions of hormones no doubt - could be beef luggers  or
used  in  combat and certain men could not.  While  men  are
generally   more   dangerously  aggressive,   certain   male
prisoners  should  be  incarcerated in  sorority  house-like
facilities and certain women prisoners in concrete dungeons.
  So,  under  the normalcy test, more men than  women  would
serve  "hard  time," more mothers than fathers  will  obtain
custody  of  infants, and more men than women  will  be  top
executives  and  foxhole "grunts."  But the  decisions  will
have been made after reasonable scrutiny.
  To  establish norms based upon exceptions and to refuse to
consider exceptions both defy common sense.
  If  merit  and  normalcy  criteria  are  used,  reasonable
tradition  will be preserved, pleasing conservatives,  while
the   absence   of  unreasonable  tradition  should   please
liberals.
  But  if  society,  especially judges, continues  to  prove
incapable of reasonable scrutiny, our only salvation may lie
in  resort to the Amneus prescription of invariable paternal
custody,  no  alimony or child support, men in  all  arduous
jobs, women in the kitchen.
     
     2. Politics
  Neither traditional liberals nor traditional conservatives
have   been  friends  to  men  (Such  an  affinity  is   too
politically incorrect).
  However,  conservatives more closely conform to the  basic
evolutionary  principle that has brought the human  race  to
the pinnacle of the animal kingdom - survival of the fittest
(the dreaded "social Darwinism").
  Liberalism, or survival of the weakest at the  expense  of
the  fittest,  correlates  with throwing  husbands  out  and
making them support alienated families.
  Of   the   formal   political  parties,   the   one   most
philosophically aligned with the idea of men's rights is the
Libertarian.  It wants government the hell out of our lives.
  While  there is clearly a place for liberals in the  men's
movement,  it  would seem that we should be  libertarian  or
guardedly conservative.  Having more common sense, these two
parties may be more educable.
  Conservatives traditionally argue for merit as a  judgment
criterion, as opposed to the liberal tradition of preference
for  chosen groups (quotas, affirmative action, etc.).  That
way,  men  would  have equal opportunity for custody,  jobs,
promotion,  etc.  - and no doubt superior outcome  regarding
jobs.
  Liberals usually advocate guilt-free lifestyles, which has
been  shown  to  be inimical to marriage and family.   Their
denial  of  sex  distinctions seems unrealistic.   The  male
qualities liberals abhor are what make males male, what make
them succeed as well as fail.
     
     3. Restoration of morality and harmony
  Civilization requires certain norms of behavior.  Ours has
fallen  short  in  many respects.  Hedonism  especially  has
wreaked   havoc.    Reformation   is   necessary   for   the
preservation of civilization as we know it.  The walls  some
think are there to restrict are actually there to protect.
  Like  reversing  magnetic poles, individuals  of  opposite
gender  seem  to  attract, then repel.  Long term  marriage,
like   monogamy,   may  be  unnatural,  but   necessary   to
civilization.
  As  a  matter of self-protection, no man should  ever  let
himself  care enough about a woman to let her unfaithfulness
drive  him  to violence.  No marriage or woman is worth  the
repercussions.
  Men and women must reestablish mutual harmony and respect.
The battle of the sexes is one that need not be fought.

D. Whither the men's/fathers' movement?
     
     1. The Men's/Fathers' Movement
  This  potentially large and powerful entity is at  present
fractious,  at  odds with itself as well  as  with  much  of
society, and little understood.
  Its  extensive background, history, philosophic breakdown,
and  operating procedures are subjects of a seperate booklet
published  by the MDA, entitled The Men's/Fathers'  Movement
and Divorce Assistance Manual.
     
     
     
     2. Must we have militancy?
  Martin  Luther King took the bows for overthrowing  racial
discrimination,  but it was probably Malcolm  X  who  scared
Whites into it.  The MDA hopes the culprits responsible  for
the  present unacceptable situation will clean up their  own
houses,  so that this burden does not devolve upon  victims.
But  if it does, so be it.  We will no longer counsel  self-
restraint.   Officials  beware, there are  many  justifiably
angry divorced men out here, enough to make Shay's Rebellion
look  like  a picnic.  You would be well advised to  restore
justice.    As   JFK  said,  "Those  who  prevent   peaceful
revolution necessitate violent revolution."  These words are
harsh,  but  how  else  can  one  adequately  address  harsh
realities?
     
     3. Is there a peaceful way?
  The  ideal  solution is for legitimate, heterosexual  male
victims   to   band  together  and  non-violently   overcome
discrimination!  Cooperation has often been  attempted,  but
the  efforts have always self-destructed. Money  is  one  of
many  problems.  With a fraction of the resources  available
to  women's  lib  or  of  the cost  of  incarcerating  adult
criminals sprung from fatherless delinquents, we could mount
a  strong  counter  force  for  gender  justice  and  for  a
civilized world.
  Beneath  the  corruption, our political  institutions  are
creations of wise and prudent men, and repositories of  much
that  is good.  It is these very institutions that make  our
society function, however imperfectly.  Contrary to Marx, we
should  build  a  superior  social  order  upon  the   basic
structure,  rather than the ruins, of the  old.   The  Men's
Defense Association willing to try.
  

Footnotes
1 The  "movement" term may be a misnomer; it doesn't seem to
   be  going anywhere.  "Legitimate" is explained on page ??
   (at History)
2 See MDA publication DIVORCE: What Everyone Should Know.
3 Although  earlier organizations complained of mistreatment
   in  divorce, the Men's Defense Association was  first  to
   recognize it as part of a broader pattern.
4 "feminists"  is  in quotation marks because its  adherents
   aren't  really  promoting femininity, they're  trying  to
   destroy all traces of that characteristic.
5 1984 Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
6 See  Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military,
   Brian Mitchell, Regnery Gateway 1989
7 From   the  author's  extensive  personal  knowledge   and
   experience.
8 Winnepeg Free Press 5/4/92.
9 Michael Levin estimates a loss in productivity of American
   business as high as 36%.
10   "The  Truth  About Domestic Violence: A Falsely  Framed
   Issue," p 485.  Social Work, Nov/Dec 1987,  R.L. McNeely,
   Ph.D.  &  G.  Robinson-Simpson, Ed.  D.  (The  definitive
   study.  Heavily annotated);     Dr. Coramae Richey  Mann,
   Fl. State Univ.,  Justice Quarterly Mar '88;  Dr. Amneus,
   Garbage Generation, ps. 85,86.
11 "Gender   and  Injustice"  an  NCFM  article  (POB   1993
   Baltimore,  MD  21203).  Originally from U.S.  Government
   figures  and  Gender Bias Reporter (NCFM)  9/30/90.   The
   huge disparity between punishment of men and of women  is
   further  documented on page 180 of The Hazards  of  Being
   Male.
12 From  Law  Enforcement Administration  study  of  l58,000
   prisoners in 3,500 local jails, released May l5, l980.
13 Criminal Victimization in the U.S.  1989.
14 R.L. McNeeley, ps. 485-490
15 Ibid. p 485;  Marriage and Divorce Today, Dec. 15, 1986.
16 R.L. McNeeley, p 486.
17 Ibid. p 487.
18 Ibid. p 486.
19 Prof. Clifton Flynn, Family Relations, April 1990 p 194.
20 Bureau  of Justice Statistics and Uniform Crime Reporting
   Program of the FBI.
21 R.L. McNeeley, p 487.
22 Adam and Ms. Eve, by Dr. Charles Phillips. (Temporarily
   unavailable.)
23 Charles P. McDowell, et al "False Allegations," appearing
   as a chapter in Practical Rape Investigation: A
   Multidisciplinary Approach edited by Behavioral Science
   Unit, FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, 1985.
24 The  Public  Interest, Spring 1991  issue,  "The  Phantom
   Epidemic of Sexual Assault"
25 From the "National Crime Survey;"  August 1991 Liberator.
26 NCM PO box 317, Brooklyn, NY 11240.
27 Straus,  M.A.,  Gelles,  R.J.  &  Steinmetz,  Suzanne  I.
   Behind  Closed  Doors:  Violence  in  American  Families.
   Doubleday NY 1980.
28 R.L. McNeeley, p 488.
29 The  lower  figure appears in Policy Review, Summer  '95,
   page 50.  The higher figure is from various sources.
30 Professors Hathaway and Monachesi, Adolescent Personality
   and Behavior: M.M.P.I. Patterns of Normal, Delinquent and
   Other  Out-comes,  Univ.  of Minn.  Press.   The  Garbage
   Generation,  Prof. Daniel Amneus (See Bibliography)  Many
   other studies support this.
31 Ramsay  Clark, Crime in America, pp. 39, 123.  Also  from
   The Garbage Generation.
32 (This  subject  is  covered more thoroughly  in  the  MDA
   publication, DIVORCE: What Everyone Should Know.
33 Jed  Abraham, Esq.  "The Divorce Revolution Revisited..."
   Northern Illinois Univ. Law Review, Vol. 9, #2, 1989.
34 according to Myron Brenton witing in The American Male pp
   70-71.
35 According  to  Dr.  Douglas  Besharov,  former   director
   National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect.
36 Rick  Teague, Court Psychologist for five-county area  of
   S.W. VA.
37 University of Minnesota Psychologist Margretta Dwyer.
38 See Bibliography.
39 Reason Magazine, June '92.
40 Sociological  commentators, widely known in  conservative
   circles.   Sowell is a Black economist, author and  civil
   rights expert.  Murray a widely published author.
41 U.S. News & World Report April 20, 1992, p 38.
42 See The Liberator Sept. '92.
43 Policy Review, Winter 1988, p. 62.
44 According  to  researchers Lowell  Gallaway  and  Richard
   Vedder of the Univ. of Ohio.
45According  to  the  Treasury Dept. there  are  more  women
   millionaires than men millionaires and total assets  held
   by women are within seven percent of those held by men.
46 The  Declaration of Feminism or The Document (an  alleged
   secret feminist agenda).
47 The  large  mental difference between men  and  women  is
   scientifically explained in the book Brain Sex, published
   by  Michael  Joseph in London, England.  The  information
   therein was verified in the Sept. '92 issue of Scientific
   American  Special Issue-Mind and Brain...Sex...  Source -
   Dr. Charles Phillips, Adam and Ms. Eve.  Corraboration is
   provided   by  Arthur  Jensen,  Professor  of   Education
   Psychology  at  the  University of  Calif.,  Berkeley  in
   American Renaissance, Aug. '92.
48 As   evidenced   in   the  famous  California   case   of
   Hirschensohn vs. Carol D.
49 Notably   Professor  Stephen  Goldberg,  New  York   City
   University,  author of      Eve, Dr. Charles Phillips,  p
   399.
51 Phyllis   Chesler,  Mothers  on  Trial,   p   569:    [In
   Mauritania]  "divorce  is  especially  rare  among  those
   tribes where custody is retained by fathers."


FATHERS' MANIFESTO Home Page