Conference quark::mennotes-v1

	As a male liberationist, I definitely do not feel that men's rights and
	women's rights are opposed and conflicting.  I see men's liberation and
	women's  liberation  as being inextricably linked.  I see our society's
	strict gender roles for women and another separate set for men as being
	the  root cause for most of our unfair male/female inequality problems.
	I  see the women's liberation as freeing women from our outdated female
	gender  roles,  and  men's  liberation as freeing men from our outdated
	male  gender  roles.  Both working toward the same point, freedom to be
	yourself  whether  male  or  female,  and  not to be forced to fit some
	strict  opposing  standard  for  men and women as if we were all of one
	type   like   assembly-line  doughnuts  made  from  one  mold  with  no
	distinct individuality.
	
	Why does  it  seem  like  many men fear men's liberation even more than
	they  fear women's liberation (which I can at least understand in light
	of  'women  free  =  men  less  free'  concerns).   But  why fear men's
	liberation  to be free yourself too? I've never understood this fear...
	(honest feelings on this appreciated).

	-Erik

    
    	Well Herb, help me out? How does one go about asking a simple
    	question or expressing something he does not understand in 
    	other men? Maybe I'm not a good discussion leader but I tried
    	to ask the previous questions as 'unloaded' as I could [maybe it
    	didn't work] as way to start a discussion on this...
    
    	My questions weren't 'aimed' at anyone but...
    
    > people who have already concluded that your agenda is not trustworthy
    
	assuming that I have an agenda (which my feelings for male
    	liberation is I guess), how is it "untrustworthy?"
    
    	Actually this may tie in with the "Why is there fear" question.
    
    	How do you generate discussion on this? Should you ask the
    	questions? How would you ask?
    
    	Maybe this is not an important conversation for other men, just
    	something that I was curious about... 
    

    I don't know what the part of the "movement" that is calling
    itself "men's rights" is saying.  MY GUESS is that they are
    worrying about things like custodial rights, fair treatment
    in divorce courts, etc.
    
    I can imagine that the sense of unfairness is based on
    what is thought to be a gender bias ("the woman always
    gets A and the man always gets B" because the judge thinks
    the "woman can do X, but not Y and the man can do Y but
    not X".)  Is that the concern of "men's rights?"
    
    IF (a big IF) I have made the right assumptions about
    your question, Erik,  then I don't think that "women's
    rights" is opposed or in conflict with "men's rights."
    They are both looking for a fairer shake in court and
    the fairer shake might happen if fewer judges had sharply
    separated gender roles so firmly entrenched in their minds.
    
    But I am not at all optimistic that gender roles are
    going away, so I can see that someone who is basing his 
    hope for the future on the end of gender roles (you?)
    could be getting pretty damn frustrated.
    
    Wil

    OK, I'll bite ;-)...   Assuming that if women were made more free, that
    would result in men being less free, one can suppose that implies a
    finite amount of 'freedom' being available in the world.   If there is
    an infinite amount of personal freedom in the world, then it would make
    sense that one can be 'more free' without others being 'less free'.
    
    Unfortunately, I see two arguments to this, so I'm not sure what my
    conclusion would be ;-)...   First, by the Europeans becoming 'more
    free' recently, I don't think you'd find many Americans that would
    consider themselves 'less free'...  
    
    However, as personal freedom increases, there does become a point where
    that freedom impinges on the rights/freedoms of others (if I am free to
    play music as loud and as late as I want, and you are free to sleep in
    the apartment next to me, at some point in time our freedoms collide),
    so society normally creates some formal rules that we call laws that
    can limit our freedom - an argument for the 'finite freedom' side...
    
    OK, let me try this...  If women are considered "less free" than men,
    yet men are still acting legally under the law, then one should suppose
    that women would be able to become "as free as man" without impinging
    on the freedom of men...
    
    And I will now leave this discussion ;-)
    
    Dave

RE:   <<< Note 602.3 by MAST::DEBRIAE "We're a Family of Assorted Flavors..." >>>
    
>>    	other men? Maybe I'm not a good discussion leader but I tried
>>    	to ask the previous questions as 'unloaded' as I could [maybe it
>>    	didn't work] as way to start a discussion on this...
    
          If you tried to make them "unloaded", it did not quite work out.
    It is like asking the question "Do you enjoy being a murderer? Yes, or
    no?"  The premise being that you are indeed a murderer.  Your questions
    were similarly loaded.      
    
>>	assuming that I have an agenda (which my feelings for male
>>    	liberation is I guess), how is it "untrustworthy?"
    
         With the loaded questions, it appears to be a dare for all of
    the "unliberated" males to come out and expose their sins so that they
    can be shown the way to the ultimate truth.  Untrustworthy.     

    Here are the loaded pieces (plus side comments) that I picked-out:
    
    From: <<< Note 602.0 by MAST::DEBRIAE "We're a Family of Assorted Flavors..." >>>
                             -< War Of The Sexes? >-
    
>   	I get  this  feeling  particularly  from the part of the men's movement
    
>	whereas  I  do not notice it so strongly  in  radical feminist space 
    
>	while most other feminist women I've met care about and support men's 
>        liberation).
    
        In these three pieces, a clear bias is stated.  No one can
    argue about your feelings, since they are not presented as facts which
    can be disproven.
    
   From: <<< Note 602.1 by MAST::DEBRIAE "We're a Family of Assorted Flavors..." >>>
    
>	Why does  it  seem  like  many men fear men's liberation even more than
>	they  fear women's liberation (which I can at least understand in light
>	of  'women  free  =  men  less  free'  concerns).   But  why fear men's
>	liberation  to be free yourself too? I've never understood this fear...
>	(honest feelings on this appreciated).

             If a man does not fear men's liberation, how can he answer
    this?  There may also be disagreement as to what would define
    "liberation" for men.
    
                                      Greg
    

    
    
               I don't think that there is a "war".
    
    
    
                   Just lots & lots & lots of battles. ;^)
    
    
    Dave

    IMHO-I think most men and women are not engaging in this battle, rather
    just a handful (figuratively speaking) of people who have
    misconceptions (whether they be from past isolated experiences) about
    the opposite sex.  I think most of us (men and women) have found out
    that it's pretty tough out there alone and that maybe it's not so bad
    being dependant on one another and even admitting that your dependant
    on the other.  I know with my wife and I (and our family) the strategy
    is: "We will do whatever is best for OUR FAMILY".  This meaning my wife
    put her career on hold, and I work more than one job.  (This we have
    found is best for OUR FAMILY and need not be debated)  We could care
    less what the "womens movement" and "mens movement" are up to.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike 

    The women's movement (and economic conditions) have accelerated women's
    success in the (for pay) work force. Typically, these working women
    find themselves STILL doing the great bulk of the housework. To the
    extent that housework is shifted to the male of the household, freedom
    for women can mean less freedom for men (the freedom to watch football
    while wife does the vacuuming).
    
    For me, the important aspects of "the men's movement" are (1) shifting
    some of the responsibility for providing for the family to the wife, so
    the husband doesn't bear more than his share of that burden; and (2)
    enabling men to engage in a wider range of vocations (home-maker) and
    emotional expression (new-age sensitive guy). Unfortunately, women in
    the work-force have largely assumed male attitudes and values,
    reinforcing male emotional constipation. Unfortunately, even would-be
    "menists" (me, for example) find it easier and more comfortable to let
    wife do the dishes while we wield the circular saw.
    
    Finally, I think I've quoted Larry Niven here before: "I don't believe
    there's a war between the sexes -- there's too much fraternizing with
    the enemy." :)
    
    - Hoyt

    
    
    re the issue of freedom
    
    I do think that to some extent some men do feel they are losing
    a sense of freedom as a result of women gaining freedom.  Some
    men I know who feel they are victims of reverse discrimination
    feel that because the women and minorities are allowed the jobs
    these men no longer have as many jobs to choose from.
    
    Also I have seen this to some degree in my relationship.  If I 
    choose to come home and not make dinner because I don't feel
    like it my SO gets upset because he is then forced to make dinner
    if he wants to eat.  So by me not playing the stereotypical role
    of woman cooking dinner he feels I am infringing on his time
    because he is then forced to fend for himself.  Now this does
    not happen all the time, and I do not always make dinner (but
    I do more than he does).  
    
    In general IMO when things change people do get upset which is
    natural.  Most people resist change even though they may know that
    ultimately it is what is best for them.  I see this as the basis
    of these battles.  No longer are the women providing as much for
    the men and the men are getting upset with this.
    
    As for the men's rights issues.  I agree that when it comes to
    father's roles in their childrens lives the fathers clearly are
    losing as are the children.  This is terribly unfair and the
    battle to educate the legal system isn't in full force yet.

    Did anyone hear the gunshots? Gee! What war? I guess there has always
    been a battle of the bedroom. But an out and out war? Where the guys
    are starting to sound like Popeye? 'That all I can stands, and I cant
    stands no more!!' Guys sleeping in cars when they have their TROs in
    hand as the ex moves in her new boyfriend? Naaaw! Guys being falsely
    arested to give the ex an upper hand? Naw! Could it be him suporting
    not only the children, but the able body ex wife and her boyfriends?
    Why certainly not! How about a man who holds a good job, his ex runs
    from one mans hut to another dragging his child and when he even thinks
    the subject of him getting custody brings his own lawner down on him.
    You know, the lawyer he is paying good money to, as well as the lawyer
    for the baby/children, and he has to pay for the ex's lawyer for she
    doesn't have it in this day of equal pay for equal work for she is
    spending it on a good time with her new boyfriends. Gee, I really don't
    think you have anything to worry about if your a woman. Why this is
    freedom! For you! Real freedom! Relax! Your starting to sound like
    there is something out there, someone who maybe ready to take some of
    your freedom. Naw! Your getting paranoid or something..... Relax.

    
    The main problem I have with all of the "equlity" movements is that
    when you fix the problems of one group while ignoring or even
    exaserbating the problems of another group it is not called
    equlity, it is called hypocrisy.  When tigher and tighter controls
    are put on collecting child support, while nothing is done to fix
    the problems of visitation and custody.  While nothing is done to
    protect a man from comming home at night to find the locks changed
    and her boyfriend living in the house and the man being forced to
    finance the whole situation.  While the only way to make two groups
    "equal" is to give one group preferential treatment (EEO??).  When
    a speaker can stand up in public and say, "Our forfathers/mothes were
    the downtrodden so now it's our turn", and bee cheered,  we have
    a problem.
    
    I find some of the man-hate retoric coming from the "womens rithgts"
    groups strangly remenicent of the retoric towards Jews in the pre
    WWII era and some of the retoric towards blacks comming from the deep
    south.  I have no desire to be anyone's master, but I have an even
    deeper aversion to being anyone's slave.
    
    fred();

re .10

Wielding the circular saw is housework just as washing the dishes is.  The real
solution in "dividing up" the housework is to not set hard rules as to who does
what, but to recognize that both need to be able to contribute to all chores.

Rich (a single person)

    On a recient local talk show called "PEOPLE ARE TALKING" was aired a
    program called dead beat dad's. The program was about how there might
    be wanted posters of men who have not paid child suport or alimony, and
    have skipped out. I have no proble with this, if the person was out and
    out trying to beat the system. But I saw no moms, I saw no provisions 
    to look at each case one by one. Just go out and hunt these guys down
    like the dogs. And don't shoot my husband in frount of the dog, you 
    might tramitize the dog. 
    
    	There was a woman who was making a statement that 
    men should be forced steriloized for they are cannot pay. WOW! Does
    this bring back the jack boots and the arm bands? Doesn't anyone think
    that perhaps these guys are living on $11 a week? Or sleeping in a car
    or on a couch to suport?  
    
    	A man cannot have equal justice in our court systems today. If a
    man is deliquent with child suport or alimony for he is busy trying to 
    pay off the joint marrital bills he can go to jail. If his ex denies
    him access to his children, GEE pal, thats too bad. We are not to
    have feelings or input to our children. But we must pay at every 
    road turn of life for things we cannot see. Children fathered by other
    men who may not care about our children. Funny this thing they call
    equality. For who? Certainly not for me, or lots of other men.
    If this is petty BS then why are men trown in jail, falsely arested,
    and alienated from their children.  
                                                  

    Another point made about justice is that I know a man whose ex is
    unemployed because she wants it that way. He is paying temp alimoney in
    the state of N.H. where there is none. He is also paying child suport
    which is also fine. But! He has to pay for the GAL, the childs lawyer,
    and the joint marrital bills, and if he doesn't win this case, he
    may pay for alimony for longer than he might think! He will probably 
    have to pay for his ex's attorney too!! It was her who wanted the
    divorce. Gee? Whats fair? Where is equlity here? In lip service. 
    Lets take this one more step. How about this guy being threatened by
    his mother-in-law? She threatened to blow his brains out with a
    shotgun! Gee? Whats this male agressive sh*t!! It took him three weeks
    to get a TRO!!! THREE WEEKS FOR A MAN! One hour for a woman! Justice
    in the finest hour.

Justice is...

- coming home from working graveyard and finding your wife and 6 yr old son
gone, for two days.

- learning that your wife has filed for divorce and you have a restraining
order against you so that you cannot come near your house

- having a stranger knock on your door with papers signed by a judge that
doesn't know you from 'adam' ordering you to leave.  Don't pack anything.  Go,
or go to jail.

- having to beg your wife to just give you some of your personal things, and
driving over to get them and having them sitting in the middle of the
drive-way.

- finding out your wife was having an affair with someone she worked with

- having your wife tell your son, "Daddy's thinking isn't right anymore."

- having lawyers tell you that you have no chance in Hell in getting your son
because by being male, you're the wrong sex to be raising a young child and the
courts will never grant you your son until he's probably a teenager

- having your "X" make your 8 yr old son a latch-key child, tending to himself
and keeping himself while she works

- your "X" not having money for your son to see a doctor about a rash on his
body, but when thinking it was ringworm, she makes an appointment for the dog
to see the vet, incase the dog caught it

- having your "X" get mad at you for being late to make your visitation time
when you were held up in traffic, and then not letting your son see you

- having an "X" that won't talk to you on the phone, but only communicates
through your son or her attorney's office

- having an "X" that threatens your son that she'll send him to a military
school if he doesn't listen to her

- having an "X" that raises your son's shirt and beats him with the palm of her
hand.  He tells her she has no right to hit him and she says, "I can do
anything I want to," then she hits him again to show him.

- having an "X" that keeps changing her mind about when you can have your son
for vacation time

- having to pay full child support for the month that you do get your son for
the summer visit

- having to "pretend to split child support" by the man paying his half, while
the "X" contributes nothing, and on top of that, the man must still fork out
money when he has his on son, because that's not figured into child support

- having to pay child support until your son reaches 21 and attends college,
when the man that is married isn't forced to send his children to college
anyhow

- listening to your son tell you that he wants to live with you but you know
you haven't a chance of getting custody... yet

    
    Dwight - that's a powerful note.
    
    Made me feel sad, and angry, and horrified, and frustrated.
    NO_ONE - no parent, no child - should have to tolerate this in
    the name of justice, surely?
    
    And if some of it's happened/is happening to you - I feel for you.
    'gail 

    'gail, I may be misinterpreting but your note has a touch of
    'innocence' about it, which I find disingenuous.  That sort of thing is
    no surprise.  Some of it happened to me, and a couple of things which
    aren't in that list.  It happens all the time, and such-like is
    reported frequently in Notes, if nowhere else.

    The more I see and hear of the "land of the free" the less I like it. I
    hope to God that Britain never becomes the kind of place where such
    things can even happen, much less become part of life. Certainly, there
    is some positive discrimination towards women in divorce, partially as
    a reflection of the realities of childrens' needs but mainly of the
    roles of the respective parents in respect of who is the bread-winner.
    There has also been an attempt to offset the damage caused by the
    bread-winner, who is almost always male, walking out. But this! I hope
    and believe, never, ever in Britain.
    
    You see what you get when you make divorce the easiest option....
    
    Laurie.

    Thanks for those words, Gail.
    
    What I wrote was/is my story.
    
    db

    
    Re .19
    Maybe you're right - I am pretty innocent about this kind of thing.
    I haven't heard about this sort of stuff from divorced male friends
    here in the UK, and also I guess the law here may be different.
    
    In Notes I've read stuff from the female point of view, and
    quite a few generalisations about how rough the divorce justice
    is in the USA, but Dwight's note hit me because of it's
    specificness and my feeling that it was his own experience (which
    seems to have been correct) rather than just a general rant.
    
    Btw, I don't think it's a bad thing to continue to be shocked by
    the viciousness with which we treat each other.
    Once we stop noticing or caring, the chances of us bothering to
    change things drop dramatically, IMO.
    

    If Charles Dickens was around these days to see and write agian. The
    things he could say about our society. Not much of a difference is
    probably what he would write. 
    
    

RE  The notes of suffering of men 

What did you guys do leading up to these actions taken by your wives?  
Nothing?  You were excellent husbands/partners?

I sense that there is a lot of information missing in the stories that 
you are telling.   I don't doubt that you have suffered and that some
things that happened to you were unjust.  I'm very sorry about that; I
don't enjoy seeing people suffer.  However, how and how much did the
women suffer before they took the actions they did? 


							--Gerry

    Gerry,
    
    	My crimes to the world was that I worked to much, according to her. 
    As she stayed home, and I picked up both checks of hers and mine, as in
    working a second job to compensate... 
    Some other good excuses were that he painted the house the wrong color,
    or I (she) has fallen out of love with bla-bla. An itch to be
    scratched, and his wasn't long enough. Or when recessions come, death
    till us parts goes. 
    
     

Re: .24

Gerry, I find your inference rather insensitive.  Or are women not allowed
to be jerks?  Sure, there's always two sides to a story, but women are
just as capable of being mean-spirited and uncaring as are men. 

Given the widespread publicity given to some women's one-sided tales of woe,
I don't see a problem with men offering their picture for consideration.

					Steve

    
>    	My crimes to the world was that I worked to much, according to her. 

I never meant to imply "crimes."   Just behaviors that would disable 
communication, caring, and relationship.

I'm sure that there are a minority of cases in which the woman is evil 
and gets a restraining order on false pretenses.  However, in many 
cases, wouldn't it be fair to say that there had been some form of 
incommunicative behavior or threats or neglect on the part of the man?

Not necessarily in your case, but in most cases?
	

							--Gerry

>Given the widespread publicity given to some women's one-sided tales of woe,
>I don't see a problem with men offering their picture for consideration.

I'm saying that there seems to be something wrong with this picture.  
And I understand that it involves some heavy emotions.

All I ask is that the men reflect a little bit on the way that they 
are telling their stories.  And I understand that I don't have the 
background information to make any kind of informed judgement about 
any of the marriages being described here.

But I'm a good writer, a good people person, and I have good
intuition.  And I still think that there may be something wrong with
the picture being painted, here.  I'm reporting it as I feel it.  I'm
sorry if it hurts to hear that. 


							--Gerry

    Gerry,
    	I would suggest that you take a day and go down to the local
    district court.  Ask where they are hearing domestic violence cases and
    listen for a while.  I think your opinions which appear to be derived
    from the press and popular opinion might undergo a reversal.  
    						John
    

Of course, nobody is perfect, and if you ask the "other party" they'll always
have some sort of rationalization as to why they did what they did - nobody
likes to think of themselves as a "bad person".  But it can and does happen
that men get victimized by women in their lives, just as women can get
victimized by men.  What does a man need to have done to "deserve" his wife
having an affair?  What atrocity does he need to have committed to have his
children taken away from him?  Why is there an assumption that the man must
have done something to deserve the hurt?  After all, we're told in no
uncertain terms that it's wrong to suggest that a rape victim may have done
something to "invite the attack"; what makes it right in this case?

				Steve

 Why are you blaming the victims, Gerry?

    Why must a man be forced to leave when a woman says, "I don't love you
    hun, or I have fallen out of love and am seeing bla bla". Why are men
    to be second class citizens to our children as they are fathered by
    boyfriends and other beu's. Why do they have parental preference to
    visitation because they are dating the ex? And we are told every other
    week if she feels like it. How about when she takes off with the child,
    and says its better employment. Of course we are making more, pay more,
    and have less say in how our children are raised. Of course we have no
    feelings about children. They don't seem to belong to us when we can
    only see them every other weekend if we are on good behiavor. 
    
    I don't want to give you all that I am the angry father, with an ax to
    grind. I am just making a point that is the feelings of alot of men.
    Men who are facing just as many problems as women in the world. Men
    who have been thrown in jail for no real reason. Were just a bunch of
    rascle rastes who go around drinking, picking up women at bars, kicking
    dog bunch of guys. You know the Larry Flint kind of guys. Please, if
    you want to shoot me, not in front of the family dog, you might
    tramatize it.

    >Why must a man be forced to leave when a woman says, "I don't love you
    >hun, or I have fallen out of love and am seeing bla bla". Why are men
    >to be second class citizens to our children as they are fathered by
    >boyfriends and other beu's. Why do they have parental preference to
    >visitation because they are dating the ex? And we are told every other
    >week if she feels like it. How about when she takes off with the child,
    >and says its better employment. Of course we are making more, pay more,
    >and have less say in how our children are raised. Of course we have no
    >feelings about children. They don't seem to belong to us when we can
    >only see them every other weekend if we are on good behiavor. 
     
                           
    	Why? Because we men want it that way...
    
    	We're the tough _ones_. We're the _ones_ in control. We're the
    	macho _ones_ who can take it 'like a man'. We're the _ones_ who
    	protect women becuase they are too meek and need men to support 
    	and protect them.
    
    	Sounds like the 'real men' ideology we push on each other coming to
    	its natural conclusions. We must like this conclusion as we
    	complain like hell whenever anyone tries to change it.
                                                                      
    	Maybe if we had more equality and less macho male bullshit this
    	stuff would disappear... but no, we like being 'real men'. So quit
    	yer complaining and take it like a man, sissy wimps afraid of a 
    	little court action...
    
    	We men treat women as so completely different from us for our entire 
    	lives, and then we're surprised that they get 'different' treatment
    	in the courts as well. We don't want women to be like men, except
    	in court, where they are supposed to be _exactly_ like men. Doesn't
    	work that way...
        
        -Erik
     

    
    
    re .24
    
    Gerry,
    
    
    It is not the ex-wives that did these things to the exhusbands.
    The court system does it.  The court system allows the mothers to
    legally get half of everything, get the kids with no questions asked,
    get child support which makes the man unable to survive let alone live,
    etc.  It is also the lawyers who see money in their eyes knowing they
    can manipulate the women into going after what the law will allow.
    
    All of this not only destroys finanically the fathers, but it puts
    undue emotional trauma on the children involved.  Plus after most of
    this has taken place the mothers find that they can use the children
    as pawns in this game and not one thing will happen to them for doing
    so.
    
    
    It takes a husband and a wife to get a divorce.  It takes a divorce to
    destroy a family.  It takes a divorce and the legal system to destroy
    the children's relationship with the noncustodial parent which is
    most likely to be the father. It really has nothing to do with what
    the men did or what the women did before the divorce.
    
    Michele

    
    
    re 34
    
    Erik,
    
    
    Not really sure where you are trying to go with your note.
    I don't think men are asking women to be treated the same way
    in court.  The problem here is that in court the men get the
    short end of the stick.  They have every right in the world to
    complain about it.  That is usually where it stops.  Legally 
    unless you can prove your wife is unfit (read next to impossible)
    the fathers have no say in their kids lives after a divorce.
    
    The women involved hold all the cards.  Is it so difficult to 
    ask for the fathers to be awarded equal time with their children
    as the mothers?  It is not an issue of what the woman does to
    the man after the divorce.  It is an issue of how the woman is
    legally allowed to divorce her children from their father.
    Clearly this is wrong.  The men for the most part can handle the
    pain, but the children are victimized over and over by the bs
    the mothers are allowed to pull.
    
    
    Sadly, I believe the only way this is going to change is when
    the generations of kids who are going through this now become
    lawyers and judges and principal players in this game.  Only 
    at that point will the players involved know how to determine 
    what is truly best for the children because they were the victims
    the first time around and will be determined to not let it happen
    to other kids.  I don't think that some judges minds can be changed
    now, but they are few and far between.  Face it, many men of the old
    school still beleive that a mother is the only parent who can do
    a good job being a parent because that was the only role they saw
    their mothers play.
    
    
    Hopefully it will change faster than I predict and the children will
    not have to suffer any longer than necessary.
    
    Michele

    
    	Michele,
    
    	My point was to suggest that perhaps women have all of the cards in
    	court becuase men have all of the cards during the rest of their lives.
    
    	Whether they do or do not, our heavy gender roles expect that things 
    	are this way. That women have been made to serve men their whole lives,
    	cook for them, handle their children, sacrafice their careers; that
    	women are so dependent on men that men have to hold doors open for
    	them, order their food for them, protect them, support them, etc.
    
    	With these  macho man ideas we push on men and women, is it
    	any wonder that women finally get 'their day in court'? Would
    	things be as bad if we didn't assume roles are 'male' or 'female',
    	that either the man or woman could have been the one sacraficing 
    	their lives for the children and homestead, etc?
    
    	I think so. 
    
    	I also think it's ironic that it is men who are the ones who scream 
    	loudest about having gender roles reduced though; they scream in 
    	fear of being labelled 'feminine'. Guess that fear has its price 
    	(and in court is the one place where men are the ones made to pay 
    	for having strict gender roles for once).
        
    	-Erik
	

    It seems to me that a critical error is letting a wife quit her job and
    stay home with the children. The instant that happens, she becomes
    eligible for alimony and is nominated as the preferred custodial
    parent. This is especially true if she really doesn't like her work:
    she can guarantee continuing support by getting divorced, whereas she
    might have to return to work when the kids hit school age. 
    
    If you accept that provider role, then you're liable to get screwed by
    divorce. Reject it! Even if you "make a little more money" -- Dog, I've
    heard that so many times, and the sum turns out to be about $100/week.
    For a lousy hundred bucks, you get to have a comparatively remote
    relationship with your kids, approaching zip relationship if your wife
    turns to divorce in the classic ugly manner described in earlier
    replies.
    
    Drive an old car. Listen to the radio instead of CDs. Put two kids in
    one bedroom. Vacation at your in-laws summer place. Live cheap. Live on
    HER income.
    
    - Hoyt

    re .38,
    
    Hear hear, way to go!  
    
    Seriously, I know marriage ain't what it used to be, but I didn't know 
    it has become this cheap.
    
    Eugene

    
    
    Erik,
    
    
    I now understand where you are coming from.  However, I tend to
    disagree with your theory of women having the cards in court.
    Women have the cards in court becuase the men who set up the laws
    in the first place only saw women in the role of mother. It was
    these men who put the cards in the woman's hand.
    
    I was not raised in a conventional household, and I think that
    upbringing of not having to play the gender game  really
    helped me.  So it is hard for me to beleive that men still 
    have all the cards in this game of life.  Sure men do still have
    some advantages, but I believe I could do a job that a man could
    do (unless it involved the use of strength because a petite 5'1"
    person is not going to be able physially to compete with a person
    larger than that in general).
    
    
    I don't think the men who made the laws that prevent fathers
    from being fathers were made with the view of men as being the
    macho men.  I think it was honestly a reflection of women's role
    in society at the time the laws were decided upon.  The women was
    seen as the caregiver and that was it.  The man was seen as the
    economic provider which is pretty much the way the courts continue
    to see the man.  Mind you the woman did not have the chance at
    that time to be the provider even if she wanted to reverse the 
    roles.
    
    
    >because men have all of the cards during the rest of thier lives.
    
    Please explain.  Is it the men who hold the women's cards until they
    divorce the men?  Not sure of this statement.
    
    Michele

    Now! Erik, we are not talking about womens issues here. I think we are
    talking about wining, complaining mens issues. As in what is p*ssing us
    off lately. Gee, I am not trying to ask you to take a second class
    life, nor am I trying to do so either. I don't think men really want to
    keep you in the kitchen, or bare foot and pregnant. And like many men,
    they don't want to spend time working two, three, or more jobs to make
    ends meet. We are just like you, want the same things in life that most
    folks want. Alittle time with our children, alittle fair representation
    in courts, and less of what wrong with you men lines. Sometimes its the
    roll play that makes us fall into these easy to call pigion holes. As
    you all have been hitting us on the head with Valueing Diferences, we
    are asking the same. The horra files that I have, as you have called,
    wined about are not wines. But actual things that men go through, just
    like you. Or perhaps you have never been there? Ever sleep in an alley?
    Or in a car? If your lucky you can move back to mom and dads. Many of
    us cannot. For we are men, industrable, God fearing men. Men are to
    open doors, make the agressive moves, and get called male macho pigs as
    they pay for your dinner and your fun entertainment. As we take you
    places and pamper you with flowers. Perhaps some of us are getting
    alittle tired of being named called. 
    
    	I have had the recient advantage of doing some reading for my
    divorce in a law libary. As far back as I can read or track it, it
    seems that we are constantly painted as the rasputins who go out and
    swill beer, are unfaithful to our wives, and etc. And that seems to be
    a very general blanket statement. But no one has exposed the mindless
    cold hearted moves that some women make here either. Imagine in a mens
    notes files a topic of PMS apearing. Wounder if something like this of
    a common mans problem would be discussed in a womens note file. Perhaps
    like who is going to be picked for the star quarterbacks of this years
    football league. 
    
    	How about this little ditty, ever go into health clubs like Holiday
    Health? There is an exclusive womens side and a co-ed side. Sounds to
    me like things out of the 60's where there is four sets of rest rooms.
    One set for the colored and one for the whites. And there are exclusive
    workout places for women, not for men. Womens World, designed for women
    by women. If there was a place like this for men, it would be hours
    before a women would have called discrimination agianst the club. Lets
    take this one more step, in the town of liberalizm, in the times of the
    enlighten women and man, where equality is said to be at the pinical
    exist a womens bank in Boston Mass. This bank has exclusive women on
    the board, not a man in sight. Wow! A throw back to the days of what?
    The charter is to lend money to womens business only. Well things were
    going fine till they had a little finaical run in, they hired a man to
    help them out. What walls are we putting up for equality? What do you
    expect from all of this? A revolution of women and men fighting hand to
    hand in the streets? Open and blaintent discrimination is fine for one
    gender but not for another? I am not shure who is the militant group
    here. I wear no jack boots nor arm bands.
    

>    Women have the cards in court because the men who set up the laws
>    in the first place only saw women in the role of mother.

	Exactly.


>because men have all of the cards during the rest of their lives.

    	As in; the men have a lot of automatic privileges that are not so
    	easily extended to women. Things like high visibility careers (doctors,
    	CEO's, leadership positions, etc), being independent and not having
    	to be children-minded, being respected for being aggressive, etc, etc.

    	Perhaps I used your phrase improperly; I use 'have all the cards'
    	as in 'have the upper hand' or to be better off.

    	-Erik

    Erik,
    
    	I think your living in a vaccum here. There are many women in the
    world as doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs. To make the statements as
    you have made in 602.42 sound like we are still in the late 60's or
    early 70's. Women are even astronats! We have women truck drivers,
    women dentist, women driving fork trucks, etc. What are these cards?
    Poker cards on saturday night with Felix, Oscar, and the guys? Your
    more than welcome to join in a hand! Bring lots of pennies, we don't
    accpet credits.:)
    
    

    
    wimmyn have had the vote since the '20s.
    
    they certainly could make their will felt if they use it.
    
    

    -2
    
    Yeah, things are getting better. But still, we're not there yet. How
    many women are truck drivers, are doctors, etc.  What are the percentages,
    how much do they make compared to men, 
    how many are in management and leadership positions,
    how many daughters are steered away from 'male' careers,
    and so on...
    
    But yeah, better than the 70's... (thank goodness)
    

    re .27
    
>cases, wouldn't it be fair to say that there had been some form of 
>incommunicative behavior or threats or neglect on the part of the man?
    
    Jesus wept!  What planet do you live on, to suggest that
    'incommunicative behaviour' could justify being thrown out of your own
    home?  Absolutely unbelievable!  You have no idea how offensive that
    is.
    
>I'm sure that there are a minority of cases in which the woman is evil 
>and gets a restraining order on false pretenses.  However, in many 
    
    Oh, Gerry, you have no idea.  You really and truly have absolutely no
    idea what is going on.  You have to live it.
    
    Is the restraining order process being misused by many women to their
    advantage?  Absolutely.  I won't claim a majority, that would be
    foolish, but the number is so much higher than you idealists and
    feminists will ever admit.  I *know*.
    
    I was threatened with it - but I called her bluff.  It's a great way to
    live: "Do what I want or I'll have you thrown out of the house."
    
    After I separated, my wife filed (obviously on the advice of her
    lawyer) for mental cruelty and abuse.  What this boiled down to was
    name calling when we fought.  My lawyer wanted to know my side: "Yes,"
    I said, "WE did abuse each other and call each other names when we had
    an argument - it's not a *real* fight if you don't".  He nodded, and
    said, "Fortunately, more and more magistrates are beginning to realise
    that."
    
    The maintenance negotiations weren't too bad.  Whoever had been
    advising my wife missed the boat, and she left before the new rules
    came into effect.  I pay a reasonable amount.  Under the new fixed
    percentage of income *before* tax rules I would have filed for
    bankruptcy.
    
    Of course, I not only pay directly, but indirectly.  As an unemployed
    single mother she qualifies for legal aid.  I don't.  I'm middle class:
    too poor to hire a lawyer and too rich for the government to do it for
    me.  My income actually drops, as well, since I lose the tax breaks (I
    no longer have a dependant spouse or children).
    
    Custody was never an issue.  "You lose," said my lawyer (and he was a
    good one).  I do have joint guardianship, so I'm supposed to have a say
    in where my kids go to school etc.
    
    However, my wife elected to take them interstate.  I see them four
    times a year, if I'm lucky.  That's four days a year, by the way.  I
    wouldn't want any misunderstandings.  The problem is that they're too
    young to travel on their own, but if I travel there where do I go? 
    Where can I take them?  I don't have a house there.
    
    The elder boy is in a private school, not of my choosing (nor would it
    be), and I'm expected to pay.  I'm really looking forward to the day
    the younger boy reaches school age...
    
    The crazy thing was that had I acted in the first twenty-four hours I
    could have prevented a lot of this.  Aside from the wonderful
    experience of returning after a long day at the office to find the
    house empty, not just of people but also as much furniture as was
    removable, I made a simple mistake, through ignorance.  (In a funny
    way, her going interstate left me with more furniture than would
    otherwise have been the case.  She took anything that wasn't nailed
    down, but she couldn't transport that much.  I went round to her
    friend's house that night and simply walked into her garage and took
    everything back that was scheduled to be put on the train.  There was
    no interference, even if the police had been called I was retrieving
    what was still then *my* property).
    
    Ordinarily the police aren't interested in missing person cases in the
    first twenty-four hours, nor (I thought) could this really be
    classified as a missing person case.  So I didn't ring them.
    
    As it happens, I could have had a warrant out for the children's
    return, that first day.  As their father, who didn't know where they
    were or what had happened (not hard to guess, but there was no note or
    anything), I could properly have gotten the police involved.  Terrific.
    
    Incommunicative behaviour?  Absolutely, Gerry, there was plenty of
    that.  Lots of it, really.  That tends to happen, as relationships feed
    upon themselves in the process of self-destruction.  But, really, so
    what?
    
>I never meant to imply "crimes."   Just behaviors that would disable 
>communication, caring, and relationship.
    
    It is a crime to get divorced, if you're a man.  It is a crime to fail
    in a relationship.  It can't be anything else, because otherwise the
    courts wouldn't punish you so much, so hard.  The word was well chosen.
    
    I was charged and found guilty of knowingly being a man and knowingly
    being involved in a failing marriage.  My crime was compounded by
    the presence of children.
    
    Behaviours that would disable communication, caring and relationship? 
    What the hell has that got to do with the way men are being abused by
    the system?
    
    Threats?  I was the one threatened.  Her grounds were quite flimsy, and
    she knew it.  No history of drinking or drug use, no history of
    violence, but a solid work history of 60-70 hour weeks, as I tried to
    keep our heads above water after we went from two incomes to one.  I'm
    not claiming sainthood, but by God I won't wear any demon label.
    
    Neglect.  Yeah, that's a good one.  I used to sleep a lot on weekends,
    largely because I didn't get a hell of a lot during the week. 
    Obviously this caused some difficulties with the kids.  Apparently,
    instead of any form of recuperation I should have been spending money
    we didn't have taking them out everywhere.  I was neglecting them. 
    (And I'm not even going to start on the money problems.  Suffice to say
    I couldn't earn enough to meet the outgoings until I took control of
    the budget).
    
    There's plenty more, but I'm not comfortable even with saying this
    much.  The point, however, should be made.
    
    You know the funny thing, Gerry?  I got off lightly.  I really did.  In
    the scheme of things I came away about as well as could be expected -
    any more would be an unexpected and unusual bonus.  You should see what
    men go through when they *really* get screwed.
    
    PS: BTW, to our proud British friend who thinks and hopes that this
    won't go on there - I'm in a Commonwealth country, not America.  This
    kind of bullshit is happening all over.

Erik ain't got a clue.  His mouthing off from the keyboard ain't worth squat.
He's got his own hang-ups with the word, macho, and is blind to what men are
saying here.  Everytime I think he's reached the peak of being ignorant to what
men are feeling, he boldly takes one more step forward.


I don't care about where we are today by society's standards.  I don't care if
there are women fork lift drivers or not, women bankers, etc.  And I damn sure
don't want to be held accountable by the court system for any such crap and be
punished for it, with the system thinking it's making up for past debts to
women.

All I want is to be treated "fairly."  I don't want to be held accountable for
things of which I have no control.  I care about the welfare of my son.  Moving
out of his life and becoming a weekend father, someone to play daddy, destroyed
much of his spirit.  It broke my heart.  I use to be someone with big dreams
for my family.  Since I was forced out, I have only lived one day at a time. 
The only thing that keeps me going... that keeps me here... is the hope that as 
my son grows older, that I will get custody, and that I can somehow make up for
many lost times.  It hurts having him tell me, "Dad, I don't want to live with
mom, I want to live with you."  It hurts having to look into his blue eyes and
try to tell him that we have to give it a little more time.... to hang in
there.. that one day we get it worked out.  It hurts to have him over for a
weekend... then have to pack up his things and take him back to a prison, give
him a hug, and say good-bye until the next visit.

The average divorce case, held by our traditional court system, is a mockery of
justice.  When I went through mine, I wasn't afraid of my "X" or her lawyer, I
was scared to death of the "system" that was handling my case.  After a couple
of trips to the court house, I knew I was at the mercy of some stranger who was
treating me like I was a criminal.  It's a terrible feeling... a feeling of
being totally helpless.  Waiting for the ruling of the court felt like waiting
to see if I was going to get the "chair," a "hanging," or "gas."

re:  .27 

Gerry,

>>>I'm sure that there are a minority of cases in which the woman is evil 
and gets a restraining order on false pretenses.  

Gerry, it's real clear that you are uninformed in this area.  Let me tell you
something about restraining orders... and in particular... in my case.  You
probably feel that a man that has one must be beating his wife or making
threats, eh?

My attorney told me that a restraining order is almost automatic in divorce
cases.  Why?  Because ESPECIALLY when they have you served with papers and
ordered to leave the house, they don't won't you coming near it.  Their lawyers
usually encourage them to get a restraining order, (the lawyer usually makes
$100 to $200 for doing it anyhow).  Plus, to the woman... it's a sign of power,
and my "X" thrived on power.  She grew up a lawyer/judges daughter, therefore
she loves to exercise power and be in control.  Till this very day, she hasn't
changed.  Right now, she's giving me crap about vacation time with my son.  If
it ain't her idea, she won't do it cause she ain't controlling the situation.

I'm a black belt and a boxer.  I never laid a finger on my "X," however she
can't make that claim.  When I had bought her a home, (thinking that would help
make her happy), I had cut my forehead open while moving us in, and had to go
to the hospital for stitches.  I had a headache the rest of the day while
finishing the move. She started an argument with me about the automatic
sprinkler system coming on and she had the windows up.  I was carrying a box
through the doorway when she hit me with a backfist in the mouth.  She was a
student of mine from earlier years and a green belt.  Did I hit her back?  No. 
But as I looked back, she probably wanted me to.

I asked her why she felt the need for a restraining order... she replied it was
"her" home and I wasn't welcomed around it.  I was shocked and ignorant about
restraining orders and wondered how one could get one without provocation.  The
order even referenced that I was a black belt and a boxer.  She said, "Well I
had to tell them that because you ARE capable of hurting me, and it convinced
the judge to sign the order."

Let me also say, that with the average black belt, you don't have to worry
about him/her losing their temper and striking.  But with lower ranks, such as
green belts, you can expect almost anything.  It's true that a "little
knowledge is a dangerous thing" in this case.

One more thing on restraining orders... my "X" is a cunning creature.  She also
knew that if she could play "scared" and build some kind of record against me,
that it would help her case.  She deliberately came out and started arguments
with me when I came back on two occasions, (after pleading with her on the
phone to let me get some personal items, and she said OK), and once when I came
to get my son.  She called the police and charged me with harassment.  Once,
after picking up my 6 yr old son, she had us both pulled over by the police! 
That really bothered him.  Later, when I went to get the rest of what she was
willing to let me have, I had to call the police to meet me and go with me. 
I'd have to call from a pay phone, and sometimes wait up till two hours before
a squad car would be free to escourt me over there.

Since then, she had thrown up to me more than once, "... but you've got a
record!"  She's real proud of that.  I just use one of Rocky's lines, "yea, but
it ain't worth bragging about." And when you do go to court for harassment
charges, you're guilty by default.  I even had the judge tell me, "There is no
real evidence or proof against you, Mr. Berry.... but BASED ON THE COURT'S
EXPERIENCE, the court finds you guilty as charged."  Then you wait to hear how
much you have to pay or how much community service you have to do.  The gavel
hits the block of wood... POW POW.  "Next case."

As I said, my "X" thrives on power, control.  Even after the divorce, she went
another step and had a "permanent restraining order" revised against me.  It
states that I cannot even call her at work or home.  After a while, I did call
some and we talked about things concerning my son.  Today, if I call and need
to talk to her, she simply refuses to come to the phone.  Makes it tough to
work out plans for you child.  Yet, when she has needed extra money or help
with her TV breaking or advice on buying stereo equipment or something, she was
willing to talk.  But by law, if my son were with me and got hurt, and he was
taken to the hospital, BY LAW, I cannot call her, or I risk punishment by the
court.

    re .48

>student of mine from earlier years and a green belt.  Did I hit her back?  No. 
>But as I looked back, she probably wanted me to.

    This brings back bad memories.  If there is one thing the feminazis
    will never admit it's the degree to which many women will go to justify
    their own actions, up to and including inciting and voluntarily
    suffering violence.  I've seen it happen and I've been through it.

    I am absolutely convinced that my wife wanted me to thump her.  She
    went out of her way to generate arguments.  There was one towards the
    end which was a classic.  Broadly speaking, she ran up enormous
    interstate telephone bills ringing her mother, instead of writing like
    she used to.  Financially we were right on the edge.  A 30� stamp I
    could afford, $300 phone bills I couldn't.  In the end I threatened to
    get an STD bar put on the phone, upon which of course I was the evil
    bastard who was trying to control her life etc., etc.  No amount of
    logic was ever going to get through.

    The thing is that she would hang on to an argument like a bull terrier. 
    She would push and push - and in the end I would warn her.  Foolish me! 
    That was a goad.  The number of times I had to leave the house...

    If I'd thumped her that was it.  Instant restraining order, no
    questions asked.  No sane person would push like that, so often and so
    long.  But then, hey, I'm guilty of incommunicative behaviour, so I
    deserve what I get, right?

    My response to all this, quite frankly, was to avoid her like the
    plague.  I might be guilty of avoiding the arguments, but most often
    not of starting them.  She wanted, no, needed them so that she could
    build up the right picture of me in her mind to justify her stealing my
    kids.  I'm no angel, but I worked damned long and hard to support them,
    they never went hungry or without decent clothes and the kids got to
    playgroup and so forth.  I still can't reconcile her claim that I
    stifled her with the bloke who supported her when she went back to
    school to finish her certificate, who paid for her singing lessons,
    paid for her car so she could get around, taught her how to use the
    word processor so she could write.  No, she needed something stronger
    than mere discontent, and she set about creating it with a vengeance.

 The more I read from the experiences of people who have gone through this
nightmare and compare them with the well meaning but utterly uninformed
opinions of the blame the victim crowd, the more I am convinced that they
haven't the slightest clue as to what is happening.

 Men deserve the shafting they get in family court because they are macho?
You must be puffin' on some pretty strong weed, my friend. That doesn't even
begin to make sense.

 There are certainly horror stories on both sides. Men abuse men, and women
abuse men. To think that one side is more virtuous than the other shows an
alarming lack of understanding of the problems and issues. In order to protect
women against outrageous acts by their husbands, a series of changes were made
to the law. What has happened, however, is women are now free to use these 
protections to bludgeon their husbands into submission regardless of whether
there is any rhyme or reason to do so without compunction for abusing the 
system. The flaw in the system is gaping. 

 The Doctah

    .45
    Are we body counting like we did in Viet Nam? How many dead or living
    have or have not? Can we cut the ears off the dead? Or do we cut them
    off the living?

    
    
    re 45
    
    Yes things are getting better for women.  I myself am an engineer
    who was lucky enough to have been taught that I can be whatever
    I choose to be regardless of who I am.
    
    Women are still not making as much as men on average.  I honestly
    do not see this changing in the near future.  But there are more
    women making closer to what men make than there ever was before.
    
    I seriously doubt that any daughters are now steered away from
    traditionally male careers because there is not need to do so.
    Women with the same education can compete equally in the career
    world with men who have similar educations.  Though they can
    compete equally they are not rewarded equally.
    
    Sure we are not there yet.  When we do get there will anybody
    really know we are there?  I doubt it because the the there will
    have changed to suit everyone due to the constraints being prestented.
    As women advance further into their careers and have less time
    to devote to family and home the men involved with these women
    will be forced to take up the slack.  Hopefully the government of
    this nation will realize and take action to start protecting the
    family as a whole including breaks for both women and men.  Hopefully
    the courts will stop choosing what is best for the children and
    start choosing what is best for the members of the broken family.
    
    Michele

    RE: .47
    
>I don't care about where we are today by society's standards.  I don't care if
>there are women fork lift drivers or not, women bankers, etc. 
>
>All I want is to be treated "fairly."
    
    	These two lines do not mesh (to me)...
    
    	In other words, you want to live in a vacuum... you  walk into court 
    	totally blind to the realities of the day, and then you are
    	surprised when you learn for the first time that things are not
    	equal between men and women. A bit like someone never wanting to
    	read the papers about crime in his neighborhood and then being so 
    	surprised when someone breaks in through his unlocked front door... 
    	"I don't care about crimes, as long it doesn't happen to me"
    
    RE: everyone else
    
    	Yes, the court system is sometimes unfair to men presently. (I have 
    	just as many horror stories from woman about husbands skipping out,
     	etc). But why do you all think it is this way? Did it just happen
    	all by itself? 	Is it just "those mean coniving women" again?
    
    	I think one would be blind not to see this a result of our hang ups
    	on gender roles, specifically the traditional stereotypes about
    	"what it is to be man" and "what it means to be a woman." I see the 
    	court simply acting according to those gender roles.
    
    	Others here do not??? It's so clear I don't see how... Why else?
    
    	-Erik

    
    

    RE: .52
    
    	Michele, 
    
    	I know quite a few families and have female friends who grew up in
    	families who fed their daughters with "you should be a nurse, you 
    	should take typing class so you can be a secretary, you should look
    	pretty so you can get a man soon and marry, etc." These were never 
    	said to their sons, they were never told it was important to look
    	pretty, or to find a mate and get married. They were encouraged to
    	do well in science and math. They were encouraged to become doctors
    	and engineers. 
    
    	In some families it was even as obvious as "You can be an engineer and 
    	you can be a nurse" to sons and daughters at the dinner table. Even
    	though the daugther was extremely good at math, and the son was
    	terrible at it. How did it turn out, _she_ is married with children
    	and is a secretary, _he_ went off to become a well-paid engineer.
    
    	There is still a lot out there, unfortunately, especially when
    	listening to female friends talk about what it is like in a 'male'
	field and what it was like growing up wanting to be _in_ a 'male'
    	field. There is still a long way to go. We in the high tech field 
    	seem to have it a little better in progressive issues than other
    	fields.
    
    	Anyway...                
    

    re .53
    
>    	In other words, you want to live in a vacuum... you  walk into court 
>    	totally blind to the realities of the day, and then you are
>    	surprised when you learn for the first time that things are not
>    	equal between men and women. A bit like someone never wanting to
    
    Your incredible and superbly developed insensitivity has to be seen to
    be believed.  I know *exactly* what Dwight meant and what he said
    meshed perfectly.  
    
    You, on the other hand, can take your PCness and shove it.  You are
    totally blind to his reality, and mine, and every other man who has
    been screwed for no other reason than being.  The courts are not
    sometimes unfair to men, they are invariably unfair to men in divorces. 
    It's built in.  Right now I'm glad I'm on the other side of the world
    from you.

    Erik,
    
    	As you have read in some of the earlier notes, that men walking
    into court are already guilty. They know that their chances are a
    rodents rectum in hell of getting a fair treatment. So of course they
    are going to do the stereo type crappie things. I have seen a man
    slapped with such force he was knocked on his ass and flew 6 feet to
    land. No chance of a TRO here, he's a man. This game is not fun, this
    is got to stop if we want to give our children a chance to take on the
    world tomorrow. We have to start coming to a table of negoitations and
    working together if we want to have a world tomorrow. If we don't, we
    will fuel the fires that will embelish us all. The lawyers are the ones
    who make the money off our hides for the breaking up of a family.
    And  you will also notice that the fathers that the system goes after
    the most are the ones with the good jobs. The Digitals, Wangs, etc.
    I have an apartment with welfare moms and their children in them. They
    have fathers of their children who are not paying child suport. They
    need to pay and need to be encuraged to see their children. Yes, I too
    see both sides of the fence.

.37> 	My point was to suggest that perhaps women have all of the cards in
.37>	court becuase men have all of the cards during the rest of their lives.

Two wrongs do not make a right.
        
.37> 	With these  macho man ideas we push on men and women, is it
.37> 	any wonder that women finally get 'their day in court'?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

.37> 	...in court is the one place where men are the ones made to pay 
.37> 	for having strict gender roles for once...
        
Two wrongs do not make a right.
    

    re: .55
          
    	Well do your best to educate me then. You still haven't answered:
    	
    	1) Why this all came to be...
    	2) Why it is still existing today...
    	3) How you go about changing the conditions which are why it is 
    	   still existing today...
    	4) Relate some of this unfairness in relation to a wife who has
    	   given up her entire life and devoted it to serving her husband
    	   and having the (I would say naive) trust in him that she puts
    	   her entire dependence onto him, then he dumps her for a younger
    	   and prettier woman, leaving her to support _their_ children. (as
    	   in the typical divorce cases I personally know).
    
    	I don't understand these things from your eye so please elaborate. 
    	You do not like some of my answers, so how about providing some of 
    	your own, instead of a quick "it's <mysteriously> built in".
    
    	From the divorces I've seen (including my parents), it is very
    	messy for both sides of the equation. I could not imagine never
    	having gone to school, having no ability or training to have any
    	sort of career or way to provide for myself because I allowed 
    	myself to be made 100% totally dependent on another person with my
    	love for him and the pressures to be a housewife (aka 'good wife').
    	I couldn't imagine a worse horror, nevermind being stuck with the
    	children to support somehow on top of it all. I personally could 
    	not imagine a more horrific position to be in (for _me_). 
                                                                       
    	There are two sides to divorces - both sides get screwed. Ain't
    	gender role playing great...
    
                                                                         

    The game goes to stur the pot and get folks to go at it with vengence.
    In the same way that both .55 and .58 are exchanging good words, the 
    divorce game goes. Both side dig in hard now. The attornies are
    jingling their pockets with our haterid. Ahh! The money one could make
    in a over priced market. Making money off your back sides, trashing 
    the chances of our children growing up without emotional scars. Why
    isn't Johnny/Jane doing well in school these days? Cause they are
    worring about stroking the emotions of mom/dad, trying to make a pick
    of who is better than the other? Wow! What a dicision? Who are we going
    to hurt the most is their decision of choice. Gee, why should there be
    a choice? Whats wrong with joint physical custody? 

    
    	Hmmm... yup.
    
    	I can't tell you how angry I get when I think of all of _both_
    	my parent's hard earned money they saved all their lives for a nice 
    	retirement together being sucked dry by their use of lawyers.
    
    	They could have had vacations galore around the world in their
    	care-free retirement days, but instead... 
    
    	It's all so ridiculous...
     

    Whew!
    
    Erik, you are so hot on your feminist agenda, that you can't
    hear a guy when he is hurting.  Dwight's statement in .17
    isn't saying "Where did I go wrong?  Help me understand how
    I contributed to this mess.  Help me understand what I did to
    deserve getting so royally screwed."
    
    Dwight simply cited a long list of pretty awful stuff, and it
    sure seemed like it happened to him, not someone else.
    
    I sat here stunned by it.  And 'gail's reply in .18 said it
    all for me.  "No one should get treated that way."  All I felt
    was sympathy for the victim.  I was so overwhelmed by it, I did
    not know what to say to Dwight.  I thought about backing up
    'gail for saying what she said, but thought that was a lame
    response.
    
    'gail responded to the feeling that Dwight must be having.  
    
    Erik, you are responding to your own agenda.  You want to know
    the "facts" of the case, so you can analyze and judge the
    people in it.   
    
    Lay off, man.  When you are working away at your agenda and 
    someone comes in and gives you lip, you have every right
    to ask where they are coming from, but when they tell you
    what Dwight has told you, then you need to say something
    sympathetic, that you are sorry that they got treated that
    way, that they have helped you to see that there are two
    sides to this issue, etc.  Then shut up.  Let the guy find
    someone who is working his side of the agenda, someone who
    has found a place of support and maybe some answers, who
    can offer that to him.
    
    Anything else that you can say to him from your side of the
    agenda amounts to kicking him when he is down.  
    
    You have to EARN an enormous amount of trust from him, and 
    wait for him to ask you to help him look at his own behavior.
    You can't just launch into that, on your schedule.
    
    Someone is standing outside their house as it burns to the
    ground and you walk up and ask them if they were smoking
    before the fire started?  
    
    C'mon...
    
    Wil

    that was to -2...

    -1, yup, let's trash the other side from both our protected spaces,
    more fuel for the gender wars...

    I'm curious. Are these guys in pain alone in their pain, are their
    wives not hurting too? Were these guys housewives themselves? Did 
    they have a career? Did their wives? How much did their wives earn?
    More than the men? Or were their wives the ones who did all the 'female' 
    things, the house work and child rearing and all that? Do the courts
    really give a woman CEO of IBM who earned more than her husband who 
    stayed at home and did the house work more benefits? Is it really that
    one-sided, or were the gender roles in their lives just one-sided? 

    Educate me to the one-sided pain men feel, I see the court acting
    according to the prevailing gender roles of the day... the very same 
    gender roles men rally against changing. Don't understand that...

    -Erik 
           

    
    	These note references are getting all out of whack...
    
    	Wil, this is still my note here. We are discussing gender roles
    	here. This was not a separate note a victim started asking for
    	support, it was a discussion on gender roles.
    
    	Perhaps we should start a separate note "Victims of Gender Roles"
    	were victims can ask for and receive support. 
    

>    I'm not so sure a "good people person" would be quite so ready to suggest
>    that the people doing the bitching are responsible for the situation.
    
A good people person knows that there are times when getting other 
people upset is a good thing.  It depends on the context.  "Comfort" 
and "calm" are not always the greatest goods.

A good people person also knows when it's time to shut up, to read, 
and to learn something knew (which he can't do when he's blabbing 
away).

So I'll shut up for a while and listen to others.  Maybe there's 
something here that I am not seeing clearly or do not understand.


							--Gerry

    
    
    re -1
    
    Erik,
    
    >is it really that one sided.
    
    Take a look in the noncustodial notesfile and read the horror stories.
    
    I feel from your replies that you are somehow trying to justify
    why these men have been screwed as they have.  It has nothing
    to do with what they did to the wives or what the wives did to
    them.  It is the unfairness in the court system.
    
    How did this unfairness come about?  Male lawmakers who at the
    time only saw women as mothers.
    
    What is being done to change things?  Father's rights groups which
    do not just cater to the fathers (they include second wives,
    grandparents, children of divorce, basically anyone directly affected
    by the unfairness of the courts) are working to make changes.
    Again take a look in the noncustodial parents note file.
    
    
    >Are these guys in pain alone in their pain, are thier wives not
    hurting too?
    No they are not alone in their pain.  The children who no longer are
    actively involved with their dads are in pain.  The grandparents who
    no longer get any access for the most part are in pain.  The second
    wives who have to deal with the bs are in pain.
    
    Yes the wives are hurting as well, but clearly financially and custody
    wise they are not hurting unless they were on the short end of the
    divorce stick (which is not in the majority of cases).
    
    >Were these guys housewives themselves?
    Look regardless of whether or not these women you speak of were
    housewives or not the court is still in their favor.  So what if
    they decided to stay home and raise the children.  That was a choice
    they made.  You can not tell me that they did not have the
    opportunities to at least go out and learn a skill or trade.
    They choose to rely soley on their husbands.  To me that was 
    a grave mistake because they sold themselves short.  I would
    love to be married and stay home to raise my kids, but I also
    want to continue working to some extent if anything just to
    satisfy my need for furthering my career.  Unfortunately,  the
    choice of staying at home to raise the children has no bearing
    whatsoever on how men get screwed.
    
    
    Why do you see so resistant to truly listening to the stories
    being related here.  They do happen.  They are true.  They seem
    to be the norm instead of the occasional one.  Sure women get
    screwed too, but just because you make the choice to allow yourself
    to be completely dependant upon an individual does not give you
    a right to remain completely dependant on the individual if that
    individual decides they no longer want you to be soley dependant
    on them. (sorry about the long sentence!!)
    
    Michele

    Re Erik's question: how did we get to the state of law re divorce?
    
    I think it has to do with reactionary attitudes toward "sin." Mom is at
    home, a paragon of virtue, taking breaks from the ironing to bandage
    little Johnny's scrapped knee. Dad is out bowling or getting drunk or
    philandering or otherwise being a jerk. When the marriage breaks up,
    the beastial MAN must be PUNISHED for the sin of a failed marriage. Due
    to his low nature, we cannot depend on any good will which we'll assume
    in holy Mommyhood.
    
    This is implicit in (nearly) everyone's assumption that the child will
    be better off with Mom at home. If Mom should stay home with when we're
    married, then obviously Mom should get custody when we divorce. This is
    reinforced by the perception that SHE wants a divorce because abusive
    Hubby is bad for Kid. Men only want divorces so they can marry younger
    women.
    
    The part that's really maddening is alimony. It's a man's job to go get
    a job. If SHE finds herself suddenly in need of an income, then the
    obvious source is HIS job. This is true even though an absolute
    marjority (I *think*) of working-age women DO work nowadays.
    
    In short, the woman benefits from a picture of society based in the
    1950's. Deviations from that Ozzie and Harriet ideal are due to
    inherent male character flaws, which society (esp. certian religious
    institutions) deems sufficient cause to condemn the man to pergatory.
    It only lasts 18 years, though (unless Kid is college material).
    
    I think the legislatures and courts have to wake up to 90's realities.
    
    - Hoyt

It's pretty much more of the same from me.  Skip it if you aren't in 
the mood for it.

Take care.


							--Gerry


One question:

Can we honor the good intentions of these laws?  In other words, can 
we work to change the laws--making them fairer to men--and still 
protect women from violent husbands and still make sure that the kids 
get the financial support that they need?

I also apologize for hurting people's feelings with my "what about 
communication?" remarks.  I did not intend to imply that the lack of 
communication justified the court's treatment of men; I don't believe 
that to be true.

All I was trying to say is that there is something very, very wrong 
with the ways in which we are teaching our men and women to relate and 
to form partnerships.  No?  I mean, there seems to be something 
_systematically_ wrong with most partnerships that end up in a woman 
using antiquated legal means to "get" her ex-partner.

Some people divorce, and, as they divorce they refrain from using 
antiquated laws to hurt each other.  For example, my mother asked for 
child support only for the two children still in highschool, until 
they turned 18.  (My father paid the support dutifully, and then cut 
off support promptly on each of their birthdays.  Yet he never sent 
either one of his children a card.)  

My mother might have been able to get some support for me until I was 
21.  She might also have been able to get support for my college 
education.  But she took only what she needed.  She knew that I could 
get loans for school and that I didn't need money from my dad while 
most of my needs were taken care of at college.  My mother also never 
set restrictions on my father calling or visiting us (though he never 
visited and almost never called any of the kids).

And I know of a lot of other divorces that were very similar.  (My 
best friend from high school, his parents had a similar divorce.)  
Though hurt, angry, and a bit hateful, the parents were able to 
negotiate a fair way to provide for the kids, taking into account that 
the women could work, and they did this *BEFORE* the unfair court system 
came into play.  The way it worked was that the two parties went into 
court and said, "This is what we worked out.  Okay?"  And it usually 
is.

Let me repeat, I think that I am hearing you guys that there is 
something radically wrong with the court system, and it is biased 
toward women.  I support any work that is being done to change these 
laws.  (I would only ask that they be changed in a way that 
gives a partner more protection against violent spouses, and that the 
kids get the financial support that they need to live well.)

I would like to be heard also: usually, there is something radically 
wrong with a relationship that ends in a women invoking antiquated
laws unfairly to get her ex-husband.  What led up to this?   And how
could it have been either prevented or tempered?  If you live "The War
of the Roses" as a lifestyle for X number of years, why should you
expect your ex-wives not to use the laws to get you?  [This is not a 
justification of the laws; they should be changed.]

And I put the part in about dad not calling or contacting us kids for
good reason.  Your notes in here remind me of my father carrying out
his contractual agreements from the divorce: lots of emphasis on the
legalities, and very little emphasis on human caring for the kids.
Although he wasn't bitter about getting "screwed" in court (I don't
think; I haven't spoken to him much), he really wasn't interested in
raising his kids.  Is it fair of me to link you guys with my father
and his situation? Probably not.  It's probably me being a little bit
knee-jerk.  However, I don't think that he's the only father out there 
who is more concerned with "control" or "contract" than he is with 
honestly relating to his kids.  He's also not the only father who 
worked and played and lived as he pleased, and just expected his 
family to "be there" for him with little relating effort on his part.  
My dad never beat me, never beat mom, never verbally abused us, and never 
cheated on my mom (I think).  But his emotional neglect of us was 
very, *very* cruel.  And I'm still trying to recover from it's 
effects.  

You can't just go to work, give your family money, drive the kids to 
ball games, not be explictly abusive and then turn to me with a 
straight face and claim that you were a good and caring father.  I 
know better.  It takes more than that.

And it hurts to sit here and read these tales of woe, knowing that 
there are more cases out there like my dad.  Men who think that a 
caring relationship is writing a check or deciding on what school the 
kids go to.

If you aren't this kind of man, then I'm not talking to you.  (I don't 
pretend to know for sure.)   Being a child of divorce and reading 
these replies from the fathers in here, I sense that there is so much 
more going on, so much that is between the lines, and so much that is 
being ignored.  Where it's happening, I don't know.  But I sense that 
it is happening still.  

And I can't "prove" it.  I only "feel" it.  Sorry if that's not good 
enough for you all.

Enough.  I broke my promise to shut up.  Time for me to get back to 
that promise.



							--Gerry

    Version 2.0 two of this note, by request of the moderators.  (Formally
    reply .60)

    Been reading this notes string with an ever increasing sense of
    incredulity at the insensitivity shown by that poor soul who is so
    hung up on the evilness of "machismo".  The man hasn't a clue, it
    seems, how men feel about the treatment they typically receive from
    the courts in divorce cases, and his devaluation of their feelings is
    not calculated to win him any converts to his cause, whatever that
    cause might be.  

    It obviously hasn't occurred to him that telling men who are clearly in
    pain, that they had it coming to them, not because of anything they did
    personally, but because of how "easy" men have had it over the
    centuries, is precisely the wrong thing to do if he wants to convince
    them of his righteousness.
     
    Nor will it likely do any good to remind him that this is the Mennotes
    conference, devoted to the concerns of men, and that he will find a
    much more receptive audience for his views over in Womannotes.  Men's
    feelings are not given a lot of value there, which is fine when one
    considers that the purpose of that conference is expressly devoted to
    women's issues.  While there is no particular reason to not discuss
    feminist issues, as they effect men here in Mennotes, I find it
    reprehensible to use feminism as a battering ram against people who
    are hurting.
    
    It is to wonder.

    Mike 

    Gerry:
    
    Some men are good fathers and want to be some don't. It sounds like
    yours wasn't that interested in 'fathering.'
    
    The same goes for women. I know of terrible moms or uncaring moms.
    
    There are all kinds of people in this world.
    
    I personally know of a 'bum' who cares less for his 3 young sons living
    near poverty with their mom. No support money (no job), doesn't visit,
    'skipped' the kids christening, etc. Maybe someday he will realise...
    
    My heart goes out to some of the guys here. I know of similiar
    instances. 
    
    
    There are too many uncaring people...
    
    Steve

    Hey thanks, that worked like a dream!  I gotta remember this one.
    
    Mike

re   <<< Note 602.71 by TNPUBS::GFISHER "Work that dream and love your life" >>>
    
>All I was trying to say is that there is something very, very wrong 
>with the ways in which we are teaching our men and women to relate and 
>to form partnerships.  No?  I mean, there seems to be something 
    
    This is hardly a revelation.  If there wasn't something radically wrong
    you wouldn't be getting divorced.  This isn't the issue.
    
>You can't just go to work, give your family money, drive the kids to 
>ball games, not be explictly abusive and then turn to me with a 
>straight face and claim that you were a good and caring father.  I 
>know better.  It takes more than that.
    
    There is truth in this, but again, it's not the issue.
    
>Let me repeat, I think that I am hearing you guys that there is 
>something radically wrong with the court system, and it is biased 
>toward women.  I support any work that is being done to change these 
    
    Very good, this is the issue.  The courts expect people to go at it
    hammer and tongs: it's an adversarial system.  At the same time, I
    expect judges to be above all that.  If they're not capable then they
    shouldn't be on the bench.
    
>Can we honor the good intentions of these laws?  In other words, can 
>we work to change the laws--making them fairer to men--and still 
>protect women from violent husbands and still make sure that the kids 
>get the financial support that they need?
    
    You cannot expect justice in a system built on unjust principles, and
    that is the problem.  To throw a man out into the streets, deny him
    access to his property, to humiliate and degrade him without even going
    through the motions of examining evidence is an unspeakable horror and
    distortion of what the rule of law is supposed to mean.
    
    I expect more than this.  I expect better.  I don't trust or want a
    system which, solely on the unsubstantiated word of one person
    systematically sets about to grind you into the dust, deprive you of
    everything that's meaningful, steal everything you've worked for and
    deny you the chance the rebuild.  And that's what happens.
    
    Then everybody wonders why so many men abandon their responsibilities. 
    The system takes and takes and takes and makes it quite clear that the
    pittance it returns is strictly on sufferance.
    
    Well, we've earned more than that.  I know what you said about fathers
    thinking that love lies in the checkbook, and I'm not about to debate
    that particular point.  But, at the same time, when you work twice was
    is considered the norm just to keep afloat, when you regularly exist
    without sleep, when you deprive yourself - you deserve better.  I used
    to weigh 9� stone (I'm 5'10") - because for a long time I was existing
    on one meal a day.  Today I weigh 11� stone, because I'm eating
    properly.  Sure, it probably wasn't the best thing for the kids if I
    fell asleep in the chair - but they damn well never went hungry.
    
    Yes, I would love to be able to relate to my kids better.  I have a lot
    of trouble talking to them, in part because I haven't exorcised the
    violence in my own youth (and that's something I absolutely will not
    discuss in notes).  But how the hell does anyone expect me to have even
    a chance of developing a relationship with them on four days a year?

    re: .63 (Erik)
    
    Look, whether or not a guy's ex-wife is in pain too, isn't the point.
    The point is, some men are in pain themselves, and the last thing we
    need is someone poking and prodding us, and telling us that our
    feelings are invalid, just because we might not have acknowledged the
    fact that someone else might also be hurting. 
    
    If you were to come down with a sharp toothache, would you be
    interested in listening to someone lecturing you on how much candy you
    ate in your life, and asking what are you squawking for, since you've
    got dental insurance, and think of all those poor slobs who don't?  Or
    would you rather have someone help you get through your current acute
    situation, like recommending a good dentist, or whatever?  If you are
    anywhere near human, and I assume you are, I think your druthers would
    be the latter rather than the former.
    
    If my guess about how you would like to be treated is true, try to
    apply the same courtesy to the guys here, please.
    
    Mike

        
        Re:  602.64
      
     >	These note references are getting all out of whack...
    
     >	Wil, this is still my note here. We are discussing gender roles
     >	here. This was not a separate note a victim started asking for
     >	support, it was a discussion on gender roles.
    
     >	Perhaps we should start a separate note "Victims of Gender Roles"
     >	were victims can ask for and receive support. 
     
    Yes, we are discussing gender roles here, and whether the attempts
    to address gender roles are helping men and/or women.  A victim 
    came in to the discussion and cited a long tale of woe at the hands
    of the courts, his ex and her lawyers.  You were, and still are,
    insensitive to the feeling of that reply.  You can't let go of
    your agenda to respond to the feeling, and only the feeling.
    
    Even if you were to say, "Golly, Dwight, it sounds like you 
    really got shafted.  I'm sorry for that, it shouldn't happen
    to anyone,"  I think you would still have to tack on the end of
    your statement:  "But you know, there's always the other side
    of the story, and we haven't heard from  her, and just what
    were you doing before she got the restraint order, etc, etc."
    
    Dwight isn't going to listen to you for one second because 
    you haven't heard what he said.
    
    It is like going up to someone who was horribly burned in
    that scud missile hit on the warehouse in Riyadh, and saying,
    "What were you doing there, anyhow?  Can you imagine what it
    is like for the Iraqis in those bunkers after 30 days of 
    bombing?"  No amount of logic, statistics, body-counts, horror
    stories, etc, erases the burns and the feeling about the burns.
    
    Back to this topic.  
    
    You want the men reading this notesfile to consider your agenda
    around changing gender roles.  You want men to be less macho,
    less fierce, more considerate, more nurturing.  Then be that
    way toward the men who note here.  Show us what you want  by
    example, not by fighting with us.
    
    Wil 

    re .78
    
>     >	These note references are getting all out of whack...
    
    This is more true than you know... :-)
    
>    to address gender roles are helping men and/or women.  A victim 
>    came in to the discussion and cited a long tale of woe at the hands
>    of the courts, his ex and her lawyers.  You were, and still are,
    
    Actually, there were two of us.  It's easy to tell - we have different
    nodenames and userids...
    
>    Even if you were to say, "Golly, Dwight, it sounds like you 
>    really got shafted.  I'm sorry for that, it shouldn't happen
    
    Erik tangled with me, although what you say remains true in principle.
    
>    Dwight isn't going to listen to you for one second because 
>    you haven't heard what he said.
    
    Neither will I... :-)
    
    Erik isn't even addressing the same issues.  He only wants to talk
    about women.  Well, it seems that everybody is concerned about what the
    women are going through, and they don't give a hoot how much they hurt
    men in the process.  It's all tied up with AA and positive
    discrimination and all that crap.  *I* didn't spend centuries
    oppressing anybody, I don't accept that I have to accept the stain of
    me antecendents' sins.
    
>    around changing gender roles.  You want men to be less macho,
>    less fierce, more considerate, more nurturing.  Then be that
    
    That's rich!  The reason people like Dwight and I hurt so much inside
    is because of our kids.  Erik tries to force feed us on the evils of
    the traditional male r�le while we're worrying about our relationship
    with our kids.  Go figure...
    
>    way toward the men who note here.  Show us what you want  by
>    example, not by fighting with us.
    
    That'll be the day.

    Its sad that we are reduced to this bickering amongest each other. Vs
    taking what we have learned from our Valueing Differnces, our Face to
    Face and all of the other good Digital programs that Ken has spent good
    money on us and apply it. Instead of ranting about what wrongs we have
    done to both side. To bad we cannot start to put together a plan to
    make these problems become a thing of the past. We volinteer our
    services for lots of local charitable things. Would it be nice to help
    some of these people who are in need of your suport. Help them with
    thier troubled times. Either through suport groups or through church
    organizations. Some of these men are very far from home, their luck is
    running out, and they need someone to turn to for a open arm or a hug.
    Some of those old value sets of family can be re-enforced agian.

I'm sorry for being a male, as I am guilty for past years of sweeping women
under the rug.  I deserve to be castrated to prevent the rearing of male
children.

I must also be guilty of the black man being treated as slaves, as I am a white
male, and should be held accountable for those crimes.  For this I too, should
become a slave, if to no one else, my "X".

I am also to be punished for my white ancestors that took land away from the
American Indians.  For this, I should never own land.

In short, I deserve everything I get today.  I should be ashamed of who and
what I am.  I'm scum.  The courts treated me fairly.  My "X" treated me fairly.
My son is now 11 years old.  As a white male, he also deserves all the pain and
suffering that he has endured since 1986, and more... when my "X" DROVE me from
my home, and took my boy away from me.

I can still remember my 6 yr old son saying, "Mom says your thinking is bad and
that is why she put you in the street."  That is a quote.  I remember him using
the term, "put you in the street" on several occasions.  Wonder where he
learned that phrase?

I suppose that I can only hope that if my son has a son of his own someday,
that he too, will be held accountable for the same things I, and he, are held
accountable for, according to Erik and Gerry.

Question for Erik:  I've have received mail from noters asking about your sex. 
I must admit myself, that I do not know.  Do you mind telling us your gender?? 
Several of us are confused, and it might help some to know, maybe not.

Erik, Gerry, and all others, on both sides of this conversation...
(and thanks to all those who have related, in notes, mail, AND by PHONE)

You may have put it together by now, from notes, that I divorced in '86.  It
was bitter.  I never felt so whipped in all my life.  I'll never forget that
feeling.  I'm not a religious person, really, but I kept thinking, "God, why is
this happening to me?"

I know what it's like to be hung in court without a fair trial.  I've BEEN put
out of my home... I only had an old worn out truck at that time.  That was the
only place I had to lay my head down at night.  I had to quickly impose on a
friend, explaining my mis-fortune.  I had to eat crackers, and cheap fast food,
wondering and worrying about money... paying lawyers, finding an apartment,
paying child support for the first time in my life.  My truck needed repair on a
weekly basis.  I had finally gotten about a suitcase full of clothes, which I
had to beg for.  It was like when you join the military, enter basic training,
and your training instructor calls you every bad name you can dream of, and
yells in your face at every turn, and you NEVER know what to expect next.  No,
this was WORSE than that.

I felt that I was stripped of everything, including my dignity.  I think I must
know what it felt like to be raped.  I felt that my son had been stolen from
me.  My heart was ripped.  Bob, (my son), was the last image I saw before
drifting off to sleep every night, or day, (I work nights).  Seeing his blue
eyes tear up whenever I had to tell him good-bye, after a short visit, burned
deep, deep, hurt into my soul.  He was so young, so innocent.  He didn't even
know what the word divorce meant.  I remember him saying, "Some of my friends
at school are divorced."  He meant... of course... their parents had split up
too.  I'd reach down and hug him, in an apartment at the time, that was a hole
in the wall.  No furniture to speak of.  He'd say, "I know you love me," with
tears in his eyes, as if looking for reassurance of that fact.  Of course, I
assured him that I loved him back, more than ever.  And more than ever, I
needed that little boy.  I've often said, "Bob is the best thing that ever
happened to me."

I'm not one for showing emotion, I'm a Scorpio after all, but I cried a bunch. 
To this day, I sometimes get that period on my mind and I'll start rolling
tears down my cheeks, asking, "Why?"  Many times when I lie down to sleep,
thoughts and scenes zip though my head.  I hurt.  My heart fills as though it
will burst.  Even writing this note is upsetting me.

I've had three relationships since the divorce.  I am currently engaged.  I was
told by the lady from my first relationship, that I'd never be happy.  She saw
a deep hurt in me.  She saw it destroying me.  It destroyed whatever we had, or
might have had.  I wasn't ready for a relationship.  The second saw it in me
too.  Sometimes, I'd be laying on my pillow, tears streaming down my cheeks,
and she'd touch me to find my face wet.  My fiancee sees it too.  I've come a
long way though.  But I'll admit, I'm bitter.  I'll never forget the hurt and
what this has done to my son.  My parents stayed together.  But what about Bob? 
How will all of this affect him as a young man?  What damage has been done to
him that can't be seen?

I've been told I'm 'hard' as I don't pour out my emotions.  Perhaps it's
because I cried them all out in '86.  

Next year, he'll be approaching 13.  At that time, I'm going for custody.  I'll
be scared sh*tless.  My "X" tells Bob, "The courts won't let him get you
because they won't see the need in disrupting your home-life.  They won't see
that there is any problem here."  My son hates living with her.  He hates it.
Surely, at that age, a child counselor will LISTEN to HIS feelings.  If there
is a God in Heaven, He MUST make them listen!  QUIT PUNISHING MY SON!

It's been about 5 1/2 years, and the pain is still within me.  Like an ugly
scar, I'll carry it with me till I go to my grave.  I just hope I can make up
for the loss of time with my son.  I wanted to teach him many things during his
childhood years, but I was reduced to being a weekend father.... more like a
'big brother' program.  "Hey,... want to go to a movie?"  It's unreal what
things Bob doesn't know for a boy his age.  He's led such a sheltered life with
his mother.  During his summer, he is all alone.  I call him often and talk
with him by phone.  That helps.

I've got to quit here.... too many emotions are stirring.

I love my son.  Erik, do you hear me?  I love my son.  THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL
ABOUT.  I don't give a rats *ss about your stupid G_D PC labeling BULLSH*T.  

Got it?

    Dwight,
    
    What can I say? That note hit me deep down.
    
    Hang on in there.
    
    Laurie, father of three.

re .0

>	Do most people here (men and women) believe this - that for women to be
>	free, men must be made 'less free'? 


 Is freedom working 40 plus hours a week ?  I'd give up my
job in a minute to stay home with my daughter if it were at
all financially possible and I do know what it is like to stay
at home.  For a year when I was married, she worked and I stayed
home by choice.  It was one of the most satisfying years of my
life and, yes I did do most of the housework.  When the marriage
ended though, I was ridiculed by the court for this "unmanly
behavior" even though a quarter of a million other U.S. males
were doing the same thing.

   The way men become less free is by the women who want it
both ways.  The court documents from my divorce stated that
she should be granted a divorce because I did not recognize
her as a person in her own right, but treated her as less
of a person because she was a woman.  Two paragraphs later,
she's asking for alimony.


Gary

    Dwight, Bob's getting lots of hard lessons at an early age,
    but he is going to be okay with a father like you.
    
    Good luck in the custody battle, and thanks for sharing
    your stuff here.
    
    Wil

    That took alot of guts to say it all Dwight! Atta-Way! Pal! You did
    well.

>I suppose that I can only hope that if my son has a son of his own someday,
>that he too, will be held accountable for the same things I, and he, are held
>accountable for, according to Erik and Gerry.

Dwight,

I don't blame you for anything.  I don't know you.  The information I 
can get from this blasted tube is just...vapor.  Plato's shadows on 
the cave walls, know what I mean?   

And, regardless of what went on before it, it must hurt like hell to
hear from your child that your thoughts are "bad" and have the kid
think that you deserve to be thrown out into the streets.  I hope that
your son's love for you can overcome the difficulties that you both
seem to be going through right now. 

Do your best.  I'll try to do my best.

Hugs (if you'll accept them).

							--Gerry

>    nothing wrong with saying "what you wrote hurt me"...what i disagree
>    with is the slur that's implied by asking "what gender are you, Erik"

 I also interpreted the question as being genuine. Heck, it took me a while
to figure out that Laurie is a man! 

 re: Dwight

 I feel for ya, man. I hope I never have to go through the hell you've been 
through. Kudos to you for staying sane. I don't know what else to say- your
notes have hit me hard (David's too). Thanks for sharing. And don't listen to
those whose interest in this topic is purely academic or political. Many more
of us are concerned on a more personal level.

 The Doctah

	Time out.

	I've become  quite  a lightening rod here for both things I do and I do
	not  stand  for.  

	I do not have unlimited time for this work, so I can just give my quick
	gut  reactions to each of your notes, as I read them sequentially here.
	Do  not  expect  something  that  was  thought  out  with the upmost of
	sensitivity - some may be direct, some may be me stating my opinions in
	a very 'male' way, some will be more sensitive than others, some may be
	raw  me.   I'm just giving my gut reaction to these so to get thru this
	as quickly as possible...

RE: men labelling me PC

	Me, PC?  Yeah  right.   Like  I've  been  calling  all my mens activist
	friends  asking  what  I should say here.  Like I've been in conference
	with  mens  political  activists  while speaking here; getting the male
	party-line  from  the  lips of political gods to pass along here.  Yeah
	right.   Try  again.   Try  challenging  the ideas instead of trying to
	write it off to a label.

	PC? PC  means  saying  the 'least charged' thing in the group of people
	you  are  in;  agreeing  with  what  most  people in the group feels is
	'correct';  not  sticking  out; not saying something that is unpopular;
	and  so  on? I'm hardly acting PC in a MALE group here.  And I'm hardly
	being  heaped with "So wonderful things you are saying here" amoung the
	vocal  men of this conference.  I've been saying things as I feel them,
	without  regard  for  what  is  the most political thing to say in this
	group,  or changing my words so that get the least reaction.  Try again
	you  two...   try joining the discussion instead of writing it off to a
	label.

RE: AIMHI::RAUH 

	I like  and agree with much that you say in .56 and .59, and in fact in
	all of your notes here.  You say some excellent balanced stuff...

RE: He doesn't see the hurt in men
RE: He is pushing a feminist agenda

	Bullshit! Try again.

	I am  pushing  my  own personal brand of men's issues agenda, precisely
	because  there  is  hurt  amoung  men.  IT'S MEN'S ISSUES, NOT FEMINISM
	(though  the  two  are linked).  Stop writing the ideas off as feminism
	and  thus  bad  for men.  These are ideas expressed by men in the men's
	movement who are trying to help men, to end the inequality men face. 

	But the  first thing men do is get defensive and scream "They're trying
	to  change  us into women!" And they go off the scale in extreme gender
	role  enforcements ("we men must return to the macho warrior ideology")
	and  make  matters  even  worse.   As is happening with Bly, and as was
	happening here.

RE: We men are all poor victims
RE: We men are being punished for past men
RE: We men are being punished for the male privileges we live with

	First of,  this  is  civilized  court.   This  is  not a bashing on the
	streets,  it  is  not  being  physically  abused by or being raped by a
	single  person.   So  I  have  more  faith that a person will not be as
	abused physically and emotionally in a US court of law than they are in
	an  act  of  violence to their person on the streets or in their homes.
	It  is  a  different level of victim to me (I get my personal first aid
	kit  out  to  handle  all the physical wounds first, then emotional and
	monetary  ones later).  This is not saying that people aren't abused by
	legal proceedings.

	But since  there  is  a  judge,  someone in a disinterested position, I
	immediately  hope that s/he would be looking at the individual facts in
	the  case.   THIS  IS  MY HOPE - THIS IS MY QUESTION to people who have
	gone  through divorce.  I KNOW in my first hand experience, my parent's
	divorce,  the  exact  specifics  of  their  relationship  and  monetary
	situation  were  SCRUTINIZED  IN  MINUTE DETAIL AND TO THE PENNY.  They
	played  the  gender role game - thus their gender role play agreement -
	"Wife   give  up  her  career,  husband  support  her,  they  both  are
	responsible  for  their  children"  -  played a significant role in the
	verdicts.

	I have  not  read  cases  where  agreements  to the reverse (ie, a male
	houseperson to a powerful high-salaried woman CEO of IBM) have resulted
	in  "men  being  punished for being male." I have read that those cases
	resulted the same way, the agreement is continued (she supports him).

	But even that - how many cases does it happen nowadays that the husband
	has  to  support  his  wife after divorce? Not many from what I've seen
	(CORRECT  ME  IF  I'M  WRONG).  The biggest beef (I HEAR IN MEN I KNOW,
	share  your experience) is husbands paying their 50% share of providing
	for their children.  What's the beef with that? [Ask my Dad, he's wants
	out  of  ALL his responsibilities, which is simply supporting my younger
	sisters,  _his_  daughters!] Boy does he complain about how unfair that
	decision was.  How he was punished for being male.  Bullshit.  Children
	are 50% his, not the sole responsibility of his wife!

	Which is  why  I  ask - HOW WERE THE SPECIFICS OF THE RELATIONSHIP? Who
	gave  up  what,  who  had what, what were the agreements (including the
	unspoken "June and Ward Cleaver" gender role play ones).

	From what  I've seen...  the courts *do* look into the specifics of the
	relationship.   Who gave what up for whom, what the spoken and unspoken
	agreements were, and all that.  Are men here saying otherwise? 

RE: Michele

>    How did this unfairness come about?  Male lawmakers who at the
>    time only saw women as mothers.
    
	Exactly.  And  all  I am saying is that dropping this gender role play,
	creating   more   equality   amoung  men  and  women  ESPECIALLY  in  a
	relationship, is the only way to get out of this mess.

>    Look regardless of whether or not these women you speak of were
>    housewives or not the court is still in their favor.  So what if
>    they decided to stay home and raise the children.  That was a choice
>    they made.  You can not tell me that they did not have the
>    opportunities to at least go out and learn a skill or trade.
>    They choose to rely solely on their husbands.  To me that was 
>    a grave mistake because they sold themselves short.

	So what?? That's a BIG so what!

	First, I don't believe that June Cleaver and the women of even the past
	decade  had much choice in the matter.  They were forced into being the
	'good  wife'  -  by their churches, by their mothers, by their fathers,
	their  friends, community, etc.  There was not much choice about it.  A
	woman  not wanting to be a housewife was a major deal back then.  And I
	feel  it still is.  How many husbands would stay home _for their wives_
	with  the  children  so  that  the  women  could act on their preferred
	choice?  Not  many here in New England I feel.  [Though happily that is
	changing.]

	Second, if  you  believe that women really have the choice not to be 'a
	good  wife'  (today  that  is  now  expanded  to  allow a job but still
	includes  the  other 'womanly' household duties), then the same is true
	of  a  man.   He  can  ignore gender role playing too; such as "what it
	means to be a man" and "what is means to be a 'good' husband."

	He had  choice  (by your argument - I do not feel this; like women, men
	are forced into their 'unequal provider' roles too).  He didn't have to
	go  off  to  work and build his career.  He didn't have to buy into the
	agreement  of "Wife donates her life to husband, husband supports wife"
	like  spelled  out  in the traditional religious "obey husband" wedding
	vows almost everyone took until _very_ recently.
    
>  Sure women get
>    screwed too, but just because you make the choice to allow yourself
>    to be completely dependant upon an individual does not give you
>    a right to remain completely dependant on the individual if that
>    individual decides they no longer want you to be solely dependant
>    on them. 

	Personally, I  agree  for  myself.   I would not want to be put in that
	situation.   [Can  you  say  'trust'  issues?].

	But there  are two sides to the gender role agreement.  Funny thing is,
	it  seems men never realized that there was a side to their part of the
	bargain too ("I get a free slave to me for life, to iron my clothes and
	all that? Great!")

	The choice  argument  works  both  ways.   It  is  no  "so  what" in my
	opinion...    Courts  very  carefully  look  at  the  arrangement,  the
	arrangements  many  men  seem  to  have  took  for  granted ("Woman are
	supposed to do that"). 

	Having someone  give  up their career in their early years is like them
	giving  up their future for you; makes one pretty committed, I feel.  I
	don't know if I could have someone do that for (or is it 'to'?) me...

	-Erik

RE: Hoyt in .69

	Hoyt, I  _really_  like  what  you  said  in that.  It hit it right on.
	Never thought about it from that angle, especially how close the gender
	role  play  is with religion too.  How it is a 'sin' not to be a 'good'
	wife, which in religious terms meant "obey the husband".

	I especially agree with...

>    I think the legislatures and courts have to wake up to 90's realities.

	And I  would  add,  so  should many men (and women).  It ain't June and
	Ward anymore...

RE: Gerry

	It seems we have a common view of divorces around us.

>I would like to be heard also: usually, there is something radically 
>wrong with a relationship that ends in a women invoking antiquated
>laws unfairly to get her ex-husband.  What led up to this?   And how
>could it have been either prevented or tempered?  If you live "The War
>of the Roses" as a lifestyle for X number of years, why should you
>expect your ex-wives not to use the laws to get you?  [This is not a 
>justification of the laws; they should be changed.]

	Exactly what I was asking...

>You can't just go to work, give your family money, drive the kids to 
>ball games, not be explictly abusive and then turn to me with a 
>straight face and claim that you were a good and caring father.  I 
>know better.  It takes more than that.
>
>And it hurts to sit here and read these tales of woe, knowing that 
>there are more cases out there like my dad.  Men who think that a 
>caring relationship is writing a check or deciding on what school the 
>kids go to.
>
>If you aren't this kind of man, then I'm not talking to you.  (I don't 
>pretend to know for sure.)   Being a child of divorce and reading 
>these replies from the fathers in here, I sense that there is so much 
>more going on, so much that is between the lines, and so much that is 
>being ignored.  Where it's happening, I don't know.  But I sense that 
>it is happening still. 

	Ditto.  This  is  not  my  argument  here, but I feel things similarly.
	What he said....

RE: MSMITH in .77

>    Look, whether or not a guy's ex-wife is in pain too, isn't the point.

	Yes it is (to me).

>    The point is, some men are in pain themselves, and the last thing we
>    need is someone poking and prodding us, and telling us that our
>    feelings are invalid, just because we might not have acknowledged the
>    fact that someone else might also be hurting. 

	No one  is  invalidating their experiences.  No one said what happened
	didn't happen to them. No one has said men aren't hurt in divorce too.

	I am  saying  it's  about  time  we  got to the gender roles underneath
	causing  all  this.   Limiting  it  to  "it's just male victims" avoids
	looking at the real causes.

	In other  words,  using  your  dentist analogy...  Yes, I don't like to
	hear my dentist say I might have to change my candy eating habits.  But
	I'd  rather have that than one who says "Oh yes, that's so awful.  It's
	no one's fault.  It has no cause.  It just happens.  Nothing you can do
	about  it.   Let  me  mask  the pain." I can see some men going through
	divorce after divorce after divorce with never realizing what was going
	wrong.  "It's just women, I'll never understand them."

	The first  thing  my marriage/relationship counselor friend says is "It
	is not my business what happens to you two in this relationship.  If it
	ends, it ends.  What I'm here for is to get both of you to realize what
	the  common things that always went wrong in past relationships, and to
	correct  the  destructive  behaviors  between  men  and  women that you
	noticed happening time and time again but never knew what caused it." 

	I like  that.   Something  went wrong, lets see how to fix it.  Not "Oh
	yes,  men  have  it  awful.  Women!! Grr.  We'll never understand them,
	huh?"

	-Erik

RE: Dwight in .81

	Your notes  sound  very  bitter.   Like some of my stereotypical bitter
	divorced friends in fact.  Men bitter at women and women bitter at men.
	I feel sad for them, and wonder if they'll ever be able to realize what
	went  wrong  in  their  relationships.  If they'll ever be able to have
	another relationship with the opposite sex ever again.  If they'll ever
	be happy again.

>I'm sorry for being a male, as I am guilty for past years of sweeping women
>
>I must also be guilty of the black man being treated as slaves, as I am a white
>
>I am also to be punished for my white ancestors that took land away from the
>American Indians. 


	That sounds  silly.   But  you are venting.  OK.  But now let me vent a
	little too...

	that sounds  silly; but that sounds like my father.  he left his family
	to  live  with a new sexier younger slick chick.  he wanted out.  never
	said goodbye.  never said a word.  left in the dark.  he is so poor and
	living  on  the  streets.   he  cannot pay for his daughters, "tho he'd
	really  like  to  be able to." it's the courts, they are all after him.
	punishing  him.   everyone is after him.  just because he is male.  the
	indians.  the black slaves.  the toxins his machine company dumped into
	the  earth.   the women.  russians beating us to space.  the wars.  the
	rape.   the physical violence.  crime.  he gave up his career.  he is a
	simple  carpenter.   like  jesus.   everyone is after him because he is
	religious.  he is so poor.  first year took his daughters and me to his
	kitchen  drawers,  shows  us how he has to eat off one plastic fork and
	one  plastic knife, ones he stole from burger king.  he is so poor.  in
	court  he  says  he  cannot  pay  support for his 12 year old daughter.
	never says that he just bought him a big house, in his sisters name, so
	he  does  not  have to live up to his responsibilities.  the courts say
	look  he  is  so poor, he eats off plastic forks.  don't know about the
	new  house  he  bought.   don't  know about all the 'pensive clothes he
	bought  for  his new chicky chick.  don't know about the new cd players
	he  bought his new chick's kids.  all three of them.  now he just takes
	my  younger  sister home once a month.  he is so poor.  shows her their
	fridge,  all  empty  with no food to eat.  but she is not so dumb as he
	thinks she is.  she is only 12 but has had to grow up real quick.  sees
	that  it  is  a brand new 'frigerator.  not like mom's 20 year old one.
	she  sees  the  empty  food containers in the trash, non-critical 'fun'
	food  she  does  not get at home.  she sees the new microwave.  the new
	super  tv.   he  tells  her he would like to feed her but he can't.  no
	money  you  see.   he  is  so  poor.   tell mom.  tell your brother and
	sister.  no money.  he lies to her face.  lies about money.  lies about
	the  new  house,  his  sister 'bought' for him.  because he is so poor.
	lied  for years about the woman he lives with.  he is just driving this
	woman  he  met  hitchhiking  to  the hospital.  every time she saw them
	together.   lies.   damn insulting lies.  he thinks she is too young to
	notice.   but  he  don't  know about how much that hurts her.  my sweet
	innocent and loving little sister who loves everybody she can.  it used
	to  be  daddy.   strong virtuous daddy she loved.  but now the man that
	used  to  be  daddy  lies to her.  uses her.  he can't see how much his
	lying  hurts  her.   she is a big girl, she cries later, muffled in her
	pillows.   he  don't know my sister.  he don't care too.  he don't know
	me.   he  don't care too; i don't care too.  big brother has to pick up
	the  pieces.   show  her that men can be trusted.  men are not like the
	man  that  used  to  be  daddy.  the man that left her life forever but
	continues  to  hurt her.  but it is all because he is so poor, you see.
	and the courts.  they are after him.  the indians, you see.
 
	TIME FOR ME TO COME BACK TO REALITY, out of this piece.  Your silliness
	about "us poor men punished for EVERYTHING!" reminded me of my dad.  My
	own  personal  view  on  divorce.  I can dwell on this.  On my sister's
	pain.   On my mother's pain finding a career late in life.  On her pain
	trying  to  support my sisters all by herself on top if it all.  On the
	pain  of  my  female  friends in similar positions.  On the pain I know
	from the divorces I know.  It can become one-sided. 

	Divorces are  like  that.  But there are two sides.  Why is there a war
	of  the sexes? Why doesn't anyone want to STOP and see what are causing
	the  problems?  Women  are  finally  starting to.  But now the stiffest
	resistance for changing this comes from men; but men like Dwight are in
	pain.   Why fight things that will help? Why fear equality and dropping
	of  traditional  gender  roles?  I don't get it.  As one of my feminist
	friends  feels:  "Perhaps  men  don't have it bad enough yet to WANT to
	change it".  I dunno.  I have mixed feelings about that concept. 

>I love my son.  Erik, do you hear me?  I love my son. 

	Dwight, I  feel  sorry  for you that you were then one who got the sort
	end of the stick on your own personal divorce.

	But I  feel  lucky for you in that respect above, that your son can see
	through  all  the turmoil and say he loves you.  And I feel it is lucky
	for  him  that  he  has  a father that cares for and loves him.  Father
	loving  son,  a rarity these days (I feel; aka "men don't love men" and
	all  our  macho  training  to  be aggressive to other men; including or
	perhaps *especially* towards our fathers).

>Question for Erik:  I've have received mail from noters asking about your sex. 
>I must admit myself, that I do not know.  Do you mind telling us your gender?? 
>Several of us are confused, and it might help some to know, maybe not.

	Very interesting. I'm chuckling right now... :-)

	I _have_  made  my  gender  very  clear on many times.  In fact several
	times  I  felt  like I was beating people over the head with it.  Did I
	really  say  that  many  'confusing' things that it overshadowed when I
	'showed' my gender in pronouns and such?

	Things like  "that's not something a man would say, it's pro-women" and
	"that's  not  something a woman would say, it's pro-men"? I've got news
	for  people  who  try  to  do that, you won't be able to pin me down to
	either  American  cultural  gender role.  I don't play that game.  I am
	me, Erik, a progressive feminist MALE who grew up between two cultures.
	I  say  what  I feel.  Don't try to pin me down to exclusively American
	male  or  American  female viewpoints, it won't work.  I like to feel I
	have an absolute interest in both sides. 

	That's why  I'm  involved in men's issues while simultaneously involved
	with women's issues.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  In fact they
	are  inextricably  linked  together.   Neither  one  will  get very far
	without the other...

	But I am male...  and I can prove it.  :-) I also have a feminist SO in
	case  any of you were wondering, so this 'shed gender roles' philosophy
	pans  out  very  well  for  us.   We  each  do  things according to our
	abilities...   not  according  to  which  gender  we were born into.  I
	wonder  how  such a similar relationship so intensely based on equality
	would  play  out  in  divorce  proceedings?  Better  than Ward and June
	Cleaver I'd suspect...

	[I did  not  take the above question as a slur, perhaps I was naive but
	it seemed a sincere enough question to me.  Yes/no Dwight?]

RE: Wil, Doctah and others on how insensitive I am here

	My goddess, it finally happened.

	MEN saying  that  another  MALE should be more sensitive, MEN saying do
	not  "blame  the  victim",  MEN  worrying about cold reliance on actual
	facts  without regard for what emotions the victim experienced; and all
	those 'FEMALE' things.

	My goodness,  and  no  men here all screamed "STOP.  You are turning us
	into   women!   Women  are  sensitive.   Women  are  caring.   Men  are
	DIFFERENT!"  Men can be sensitive? Men can be understanding? Men can be
	nurturing?

	And all it took was someone acting 'MALE' to a men's issue the same way
	many  men  act  'MALE'  to women's issues.  Amazing.  Never thought I'd
	hear  men  here  say  "don't  blame  the  victim"  and  "men  should be
	more sensitive".

	Wow. Never thought it would happen.

>    You want the men reading this notesfile to consider your agenda
>    around changing gender roles.  You want men to be less macho,
>    less fierce, more considerate, more nurturing.  Then be that
>    way toward the men who note here.  Show us what you want  by
>    example, not by fighting with us.
    
	Sometimes no  one  listens  to  you  when  you  speak  gently  and  act
	'respectable'.   Sometimes  you  have  to play "Let me show you what it
	looks like"...

	I'm done. I've accomplished my goal right there.  Finally.

	Thank you Wil.  I'll leave this bone alone now for a while...  

 re: "I never thought it would happen"

 Oh, you sure showed us, didn't you. I mean all it took was a good teacher
and our knuckles stopped dragging, our excess body hair fell out, our foreheads
stopped sloping, and we became civilized. Amazing. From the cave to the fern
bar in one easy lesson- heck, in the space of a few replies. I've gotta hand
it to you, Erik, where would we be without you? I guess this means no more 
farting, huh?

 Sheesh!

 Dwight, David, others who prefer not to be reamed when relating your pain, 
let's all take our hats off to our new teacher, our own Robert Bly.

 So what's next on the agenda, teach?

    OK, peace, Erik.

>The biggest beef (I HEAR IN MEN I KNOW,
>	share  your experience) is husbands paying their 50% share of providing
>	for their children.  What's the beef with that? 

 You aren't listening.

 The way things are now, it is the height of stupidity for a man to marry. It
really is. I don't know if it's the fog of love or the promise of sex or what,
but men simply cannot possibly be thinking clearly when they decide to get 
married given the current set of laws.

 First of all, what is marriage? To men (taking a cynical approach now) it means
that you agree to have sex at the wife's whim, never have sex with anyone else,
and if she gets tired of you she gets half (or more!) of your stuff plus an
"allowance." Great! Sign me right up!

 The complaint is absolutely NOT that men have to pay 1/2 the support for their
children AT ALL. (How anyone could come to such a convoluted conclusion defies
explanation.) The simple fact is that the courts are completely unrealistic
in setting support and maintenance payments and foster an environment where
often times a man's only choice (if he chooses to survive) is to bolt. And
the custody situation is no better!

 Men are expected to pay a fixed percentage of their income BEFORE taxes. Not
what they see, but what they make before any deductions happen. So that means,
forget about planning for retirement. That means "too bad" you have to pay more
for medical coverage (which is mandated, of course) for the kids. That means
forget any kind of savings whatsoever. That means IF anything is left, THEN
you are allowed to eat, sleep, have clothes, have transportation. These
stories of men who have 11 dollars per week to eat, sleep, pay for clothes,
transportation are not made up. The federal gummint gets their money. The
state gets their money. Your ex wife gets her money. You get the remaining 
pennies. And then she comes after you for an increase in payments.

 I've known a few guys that have been completely f4d over by the court system
in their divorces. Several were paying for the guys who sleeping in their beds.
The kids were going hungry and mom and boyfriend were flying off to some island,
buying new vcrs and tvs, going clothes shopping, spending a fortune in the
bars, and the woman would go into court with the ill clothed kids and whine
about not having enough money to feed the kids and she'd be awarded more. And
the kids were in trouble with the police, because they were essentially 
unsupervised even though the mother "couldn't" work because of her back. (She
could, however, play volleyball, go dancing, etc.) She just couldn't stand
the pain of sitting at a desk for 8 hours. (Putting in 8 hours at a bar was
evidently ok, however.)

 This guy was boned. The court said 33% of what he made BEFORE taxes PER
child (and he had 2). His after tax, after la chingada income was miniscule. And
even if he worked overtime or got a second job, the ex was entitled to her
66.67% of that, too. And he had absolutely no say over where the money was
spent. So when she bought blow for her boyfriend, there was nothing he could do.

 Try putting yourself in that situation for a while. See how academic the
court's fairness is then. Imagine eating once per day. Imagine going YEARS
without having the money to buy a beer (even a Piel's light!) Imagine having
to pay for the lawyer who was doing this to you.

 It's clear you are very upset with your father for what he did to you. That's
fine. Just don't project that anger onto the people here. They don't deserve 
it.

>    Look, whether or not a guy's ex-wife is in pain too, isn't the point.

	Yes it is (to me).

 No friggen' kidding. It's ever so obvious that your issues are being given
a higher priority here than what everybody else is saying. If you stopped
talking for a while and listened, you might learn something. Then again, maybe
not, your filters are pretty strong.

 What can I say, Erik? 

 Herb and I rarely agree. I mean, RARELY. Given that we do agree that you should
LISTEN and contemplate, maybe you ought to think seriously about listening
and not proselytizing or preaching to us cro-magnons...

 The Doctah

    When someone decides to get divorced, there's necessarily a conversion
    from "us" to "me and the ex" -- and unfortunately people are often LED
    down a vicious path that creates the bitterness found in this string.
    Sometimes it's friends, e.g. her divorced sisters or his divorced golf
    buddies. More often it's lawyers, whose *professional* *obligation* is
    to serve the best interests of the *client* -- NOT the ex. This all
    happens to people who are suddenly adrift, cut off from their primary
    relationship. They're suggestible. And in the face of poor evidence
    ("Hits me!" "No I don't!") judges go along with general trends and
    traditions. All these forces weigh against reasonable compromise. The
    only inspiration for cooperation and consideration is the interests of
    the children, and THAT only until either or both parents become sure
    that he/she is the only one competent to raise the kids.
    
    "Shoot the lawyers" isn't the solution; their role will be filled by
    stand-ins before the mass graves are covered (attorgyny? :). Maybe
    what's required is a Children's Ombudsman (Ombudsperson) who could
    really investigate the facts, get to know the parties, and work out a
    solution which is in the *children's* best interest. I optimistically
    presume that such a decision-maker would generate a lot more justice
    for the adult parties involved, too.
    
    - Hoyt

    re .105, Mark-
    
    > The way things are now, it is the height of stupidity for a man to
    > marry...
    
    OK.  From the stories I've seen, here and in lots of other places (did
    I ever mention the first office I worked in, where *every* other person
    but me had been divorced at least once?) I have to agree with this.  I
    mean, Mrs Simpson and Berry may not feel that their marriages were big
    mistakes, I won't second-guess them.  They're the only ones entitled to
    say how they feel.  But surely, learning from their example and all the
    others we see, I agree with your assessment.  Marriage is a fools
    choice if you're a man in this day and age.
    
    So, when Erik questions traditional gender roles, isn't he challenging
    the status quo, implicitly questioning the traditional roles (including
    that of spouse) just as you are?  Certainly I see why he got so much
    venom directed at him, his initial responses to Dwight's and Dave's
    notes were not sympathetic, as would have been more appropriate.  His
    'agenda' that everyone seems so hot against, is just as valid a
    response as yours, though.  You don't see value in traditional
    marriage, Mark?  Erik doesn't see value in many such gender role
    traditions, either.  You guys are not so far apart.
    
    I don't think our society prepares people to make the kind of
    committment it takes to sustain such relationships, myself.  I don't
    find that I'm prepared for it, certainly; and the divorce statistics
    provide me all the direct evidence I need (read that to mean, I'm not
    gonna bother to try to convince anybody else, I won't argue it.)  So
    I'm opting out of the possibility of visiting divorce court and its
    horrors by opting out of marriage in the first place.  Now, some folks
    might not think my solution is appropriate.  In some religions,
    marriage is a sacrament.  In american mythology, its supposedly the
    basis for a stable society.  Well, my bubble's been burst, and I don't
    believe that particular myth nor subscribe to that religious opinion
    anymore.  This society has made too many changes to sustain that
    convenient fiction any more (need I add that these are all just my
    opinions, and anyone who is actually making a marriage work has my
    deepest respect?  I think you're literally one in a thousand.)  
    
    So I guess I'm rambling a little bit, but even at his most
    insensitive, I didn't get the impression that Erik was defending the
    system that screws people.  I got the impression that he knows it came
    about because of how many women have been victims over their whole
    lives because of gender roles, and the courts are just trying to visit
    justice back upon that situation (in terribly inappropriate fashion.)
    Are there awful women taking advantage of the current system (in the
    courts)?  Are there awful men taking advantage of the current system
    (in the workplace, in education, in government, in industry, etc)?
    And are these two obviously corollary situations related?  Erik and I
    think so, think they're both sadly related to foolish, traditional,
    boundaries established in a society that no longer truly exists, and to
    which we're still so unfortunately tied.  Will the inequitable
    treatments in the courts be solved when gender roles are less and less
    used to imprison people?  Again, I think so, and I'll bet Erik does
    too.  So while his tactics weren't calculated to win him any friends, I
    don't see him as opposing Dwight's outraged sense of injustice.  His
    analysis of how to solve it will require some new understandings from
    people who'd prefer to continue enforcing traditional gender roles,
    though.  Or we'll continue to endure this war of misunderstandings,
    instead of establishing a society that has a healthy respect for all of
    its members, without regard to their genders.
    
    DougO

    In reply to .106
    
    The chances of a sucessful marriage going on past 7 years grows in the
    percentage game more and more each year. As I hinted earlier, do we cut
    of the ears of the dead? And if the man knows theses sad stats, and
    decides not to marry his lovely SO is still called a rasputin type and
    is scorned again. A no win game with poverty and alienation to look
    forward to.
    
    I had a conversation with a couple of men who are working on trying to
    survive the divorce last night. One of them has had two pocket picken
    lawyers that tried to trash him. Like playing a video game with you as
    the hero, execpt real bullets, and boogiemen waiting. This gentleman
    is Pro-sae, has gotten custody of his 11 year old daughter. Is doing a
    real great job of caring for her. Infact has helped her get out of a
    situation where she was doing all kinds of mental abuse games with the
    daugther. The 11 year old, I have watch come out of a shell that no one
    could crack. She was very much drawn into herself to the point that I
    thought he might be dealing with a retarted child. But she is fine.
    The part that also shows the bias of the courts is that he cannot get
    suport from his ex. I thought this was a 50/50 game? It has been 6
    months and he is still paying for past bills of the ex. And is rearing
    a child. He is getting close to filing chapter 13. 
    
    I have a differnt situation. I have today instalment 3 of child suport
    from my ex. But I am still paying on the marrital bills, managing two
    apartment units which she is entitled to one. But, the oposing camp
    wants it listed for sale. And the mortgage value is greater than the 
    market value. There has been a lot of out of pocket loss in my behalf
    to keep things on the tracks. My ex is voluntered under employment,
    meaning she works less than an 40 hour week. I have a second job, work
    the 40 and bust tail on the apartments. She has contributed nothing to
    managing, or book keeping, or shoveling or painting. She will be
    entitled to the profits, not the losses. In fact that was one of the
    first line items in the temp orders, was to provide the the ex with
    half of the proffits. She is educated, holds an Assoc degree, living
    with another man. Wounder if I will see half of the losses that I have
    incured. 
    
    Mean time, my friends wife, also is volinteered unemployment. She had
    a $50,000 a year job. Yes, a CEO type. She has a job someplace, refuses
    to pay him a farthing. And is dealing with her attorney, a woman would
    thing nothing of castration of him, if he pulled her clients game, 
    is backing up her client to the hilt! This lawyer suports child abuse, 
    non payment of a minor child. The shoes are on the other foot, and 
    the system still screws the men in the pants. 
    
    Dwight, this guy slept in a celar until the court ordered him out into
    the streets. 'No place to run bay-bee, No place to hide". Got to hold
    his job, pay the bills, or go to jail. Rasputins rastuses. And the car
    he was issued did not intercoursing work! Pushed it out into the street
    and had a friend from work help him get it going to get his tush into
    someplace warm and dry. 
    

 Holding his head in his hands he says "I'm SOOOO confused!"

    Herb, if dwelling on past hurts is what seems relevant to you about
    Erik's contributions, go wallow in it.  I find it counterproductive.
    There is a real, honestly-arrived-at position behind his words, and I
    find it worth an effort to get past the hurt.  So you don't like the
    fact that I find Mark's position very easily understandable in Erik's
    terms?  Sorry about that.  I'm sure Mark can sort it out, though.
    
    DougO

 Ok- I'm not running out to pick up the baby so I can think now. :-)

 re: .109

 Herb-

 I am a little bothered by your attempts to frame the discussion in your terms.
It strikes me as being very similar to one of my chief objections to erik's
entries in this string. Sorry if you didn't like the specifics in .105.
And too bad, I'm going to answer .107.

 re: Doug

 It's not that I don't see any value in marriage, Doug. It's that right now the 
law is set up to punish men whose marriages fail and reward their partners, 
and that's stupid and discriminatory. I think marriage is actually a good idea
for people who choose to reproduce, inasmuch as it provides a level of 
stability. Of course, by encouraging people to get divorced, we undermine this,
but I digress.

>    So I guess I'm rambling a little bit, but even at his most
>    insensitive, I didn't get the impression that Erik was defending the
>    system that screws people. 

 He said that men deserve the screwing they are getting. You might as well
say that someone who blames a rape victim for their attire isn't defending
the rapist; it's on that level.

>Will the inequitable
>    treatments in the courts be solved when gender roles are less and less
>    used to imprison people?  Again, I think so, and I'll bet Erik does
>    too.

 I agree as well however making this the issue here is precisely the problem.

 However it happened, this note evolved into a string in which some men related
their stories about their divorces. These may not be exactly what erik had in 
mind when he wrote the basenote, but that's neither here nor there. The notes
were written, and Erik responded in an extremely callous manner. He put his
agenda above the communication that was taking place. For a self-proclaimed
"sensitive new-age guy," he was every bit the jerk that the clowns with the
blow up dolls at the ball game are. THAT'S what got me going here. The blatant
hypocrisy between the "real man" who attends rallies against Andrew Dice Clay
and the guy who tells men who got crewed, blued and tattoed in a divorce that
their burden is "the price we pay for being men." Of course, it's easy for him 
to say- he isn't paying it!

 Erik's utter failure to show even the most rudimentary human compassion to 
these men calls into immediate question his committment to equality in my mind.
It seems like he'll attack men hammer and tong when they are wrong, but will
ignore them when they are wronged. That's hardly equality. That's crap. That's
where the charges of political correctness come from. It's not a leftist
agenda to support men's rights. So he ignores the very real hurts that men
experience. He minimizes their trauma in the same way that other men minimize
the trauma of rape victims (whom he chastizes without bound.)

 Erik seems to be so tied to politics that his opinions do not give me the
sense that he is genuine in his alleged belief in equality. His actions and
his words do not fill me with the sense that he gives a rat's buttocks
about equality, quite frankly. No doubt these criticisms will appear to Erik
to be a personal attack. They aren't meant to be. But he is the lightning
rod for my comments since he inspired them. As I told him before; I think
he is a good person. But he has to put his ideology into perspective before
I will believe his claims about being for equality. His incessant minimization
of the suffering of other men raises red flag after red flag in my mind. I
don't understand all of Erik's motivations, but I see things that I don't like,
and I'm not going to sit idly by while he rakes victims across the coals
anymore than you are willing to let people blame Lisa Olson for her troubles
(for example.)

 the Doctah

	OK, I AM SO TIRED OF THIS!!

	ESPECIALLY FROM YOU MARK (doctah)!!!

	YOU and  others  are ATTACKING the person to avoid the conversation.  I
	am  tired  of  seeing  my  name  in  here,  being  personally attacked.
	Attacking  THE  PERSON instead of THE CONCEPT.  (Your last post used my
	personal name NINE times!)

	I am  tired  of  it!  I was going to remain quiet but this post and the
	ones  people  launched  against  Gerry in 'movies' broke my last straw.
	You  want  to  talk  about  being sensitive - try not attacking someone
	personally.   I'm  tired  of  every time Gerry writes a note, I wrote a
	note,  other people write a note you do not agree with - you men attack
	them  personally.  Attack the person.  It's not "I have had a different
	experience"  or  "I  disagree  with that concept" - you TAKE APART THAT
	PERSON! PERSONALLY.  [Moderators: isn't it your job to prevent this?]

	I am  sooooo  tired  of  people  speaking FOR me (especially you Mark).
	ASSUMING  things  I never said.  Assuming secret AGENDAS you will hate.
	Being  in a rush to attack someone personally without bothering to read
	what was actually said.  YOU DO NOT KNOW ME, DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME! As in
	Gerry's note, it is so obvious that you want to avoid the conversation.
	So  you  declare that there are SECRET AGENDAS and attack the person so
	the  discussion  never  takes  place.  I'm sick of it.  Who do you guys
	think you are anyway?  Your hatred is showing. Shame!

	I share  my  experience  - you share yours.  I have not attacked anyone
	here  in  the  file  -  including  Dwight.   Have  not addressed anyone
	personally  unless  they address a note to me asking for input.  I have
	not  'picked apart' anyone in the file, including Dwight.  Stop forcing
	me to have to 'bash back' like I feel I have to here.

	I am   so  tired  of  it!  Say  you  disagree.   Share  YOUR  different
	experience.  Let it flow from there.  And STOP attacking the person for 
    	sharing theirs! 

	-Erik

 No. We are not attacking the person. We are attacking the methodology. We are
attacking the flagrant insensitivity. We are attacking attitude. We are
attacking the belligerence. We are questioning the motives. We are NOT attacking
the person. If we were attacking the person, someone else could enter your
notes with a different header and they would not be attacked. That wouldn't
happen. Believe it. That you choose to believe that we are attacking the person
apparently blinds you to the realities of the arguments you are seeing. 

 Don't you realize that there are things YOU can do to change the tone of
the notes directed at the things you've written?

 The Doctah

    
    	So using someone's name nine times doesn't hint to you that perhaps
    	you were going after one person? C'mon.
    
> Don't you realize that there are things YOU can do to change the tone of
>the notes directed at the things you've written?
    
 	Stop trying to teach me. I have not asked you to be my writing
    	style teacher, and I think it is arrogant for you to dictate 
    	your feelings on other people's writing 'attitude'.
    
    	If you feel you have some writing improvement instructions for me,
    	send me mail. But fwiw, I don't feel you have such a perfect style
    	either and should perhaps refrain from passing such strong judgements 
    	on people as if you did.
    
    	Write with whatever attitude or style you want Mark. I reserve the
    	same freedom for myself. I'm just asking you to stop attacking
    	people. Using someone's personal name is usually a good key to when
    	this is happening. (I'll try to do the same).
    
    	-Erik
    

>    	So using someone's name nine times doesn't hint to you that perhaps
>    	you were going after one person? C'mon.

 When only one person is exhibiting the behavior, what do you suggest?

>Stop trying to teach me.

 I'm not trying to teach you. I'm just reinforcing the presumably obvious
notion that the notes that you feel are attacking you are not occurring in 
a vacuum.

>I don't feel you have such a perfect style either

 I don't claim to have anything that even approaches a perfect style. But when
someone yells "ouch!" I have the common decency to apologize, sit back, shut up,
and LISTEN.

 At this point, I'll have to agree with the authors of the personal mail I
got this morning. I'll cool it.

 The Doctah

    
    	Maybe that's the probelm... I'm not after any decorum here.
    
    	But still, I never said I was an expert noter who can reach through
    	to a medium of vastly different people and get what I want to say
    	across very accurately or even very sensitively. I'll own that. I
    	may have botched my delivery in ways I cannot even see since it is
    	my own writing. I never promised to be beyond reproach, to be an 
    	example of "what it means to be a man" or even that I have the
    	'correct' grasp on gender issues. I just have my owns views. 
    
    	Fine. I'm no saint, but I never said or pretended I was. That's
    	something other people have mapped onto me.
    
    	But that still leaves me with the problem of feeling that Gerry 
    	and others have been unfairly treated here (and even willfully 
   	attacked). That they have been attacked personally for things
    	men who disagree here map onto them instead of having the men say
    	they have had a different experience, etc. And his writing is 
    	completely different from my own...
     
    	-Erik
    

> I don't claim to have anything that even approaches a perfect style. But when
>someone yells "ouch!" I have the common decency to apologize, sit back, shut up,
>and LISTEN.

    	too bad you don't follow your own advice...
    

As moderator:

	[Speaking of giggling: I just went to write-lock this topic, 
	 but I can't.  My system just instituted a new cluster alias,
	 and....  ;-)   I suppose I will have to try to "talk" to
	 people.  Oy!]


	 Yesterday, one moderator expressed his concern that this note
	 was getting out of hand and that we should watch it 
	 carefully.  I've been re-reading a lot of the notes in here
	 for signs of straying from the topic and attacking language.
	 It's all over the place.

	 Here is my suggestion: please stop noting in this note for
	 the weekend.  Several people at several points spoke about
	 being quiet, listening, and considering the points that
	 have been made here (and there is a _lot_ here).  I recommend
	 that people not write in here for a few days (have a great 
	 weekend!), and that, during that time, you might want to just 
	 mull over the points in your mind.  I agree with those who think 
	 that the notes are coming in too fast and furious to leave much time for
	 meditation, reflection, and (from my personal experience in this
	 note) healing.  It has at times been rough, and feelings are 
	 raw.  Let's be sensitive to that and be good to each other 
	 for a little while.

	 Also, let me say that this note is a good example of "laws"
	 and "rules" and how people can get around them to hurt each 
	 other, if they want to.  (And I've been guilty of this, too.)
	 Please be aware that there are a lot of MENNOTES "legal" ways
	 of attacking people; try to avoid doing this.  Also be aware that, 
	 as soon as I get the ability back (ha!), I will delete any further 
	 replies that use name-calling.

	 Peace.  Please.  And have a really good weekend.


							--Gerry

    Peace, love, and Surandwrap!:)

    I'll tell you, I can't believe this.  There is alot of hurt and anger
    around and it seems to me, that it is being perpetuated by special
    interest groups.  I have a suggestion, and it stems from from the bible
    (I know, perish the thought)
    
    
    
     TREAT ONE ANOTHER (REGARDLESS OF RACE, CREED, GENDER, SEXUAL
    PREFERENCE, <INSERT FAVORITE WHATEVER HERE> AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM
    TREAT YOU.  (Author of this note included)
    
    Let's try and get it together everyone.  Life is too short to be at
    "war".
    
    IMHO
    
    Mike 

re .114, Mark-

> It's not that I don't see any value in marriage, Doug. It's that right now the
> law is set up to punish men whose marriages fail and reward their partners, 
> and that's stupid and discriminatory. I think marriage is actually a good idea
> for people who choose to reproduce, inasmuch as it provides a level of 
> stability. Of course, by encouraging people to get divorced, we undermine this
> but I digress.

I'll leave the rest of your note unremarked upon 'cause I think you're venting 
flames at Erik which he's already said he didn't intend to earn.  On with the
ideas part of the discussion...

Neither of us said 'no value' in marriage.  (Please don't put words in my 
mouth.)  I said in this society, its a fool's choice.  Different.

I don't think your last sentence is so much a digression.  You say we (by
which I'm presuming you mean the society around us) encourage divorce, and
I think that's what I was saying when I mentioned in .107 that this society
plainly does not prepare people to make the committments a marriage requires
(in most cases).  But I don't see how you can separate the two, as if marriage
existed in some other context.  It exists in this context, this society.  And
now for a return to the ideas, those that claim that gender roles are to blame
for this state of affairs.  Could you please go back and address that part of 
.107?  Or, did you agree, perhaps?

DougO
    

    I've given this a lot of thought over the past few days, and I've
    concluded that the present legal morass is not simply the byproduct of
    a simplistic imposition of traditional gender roles.
    
    If, by traditional we mean Victorian, then we have seen an almost
    complete reversal of attitudes in the courts.  Then the man was
    essentially guaranteed of custody, since he worked and could afford
    care for the children.  The women was not only almost unable to get
    work, but society looked down on her if she tried.  In any event, both
    women and children were legally property (as I've documented elsewhere
    in this conference).
    
    I thought deeply about the nature of mens' anger in the divorce courts
    today.  Anger is a secondary emotion, and needs a primary emotional
    underpinning.  We can easily find commonality: feelings of betrayal,
    disgust, despite.  What is the specific, the thing that attacks men but
    not women in these cases?
    
    My answer is that the system as it currently stands is designed to make
    men helpless.
    
    TRO's without evidence?  If you're a woman - no problem.  Get your man
    thrown onto the streets, make him beg for his personal belongings, deny
    him custody, access, but screw his wallet for all he's worth.  The
    system assists all these things.  Humiliate him, degrade him - but make
    him pay through the nose for the privilege.  Deny him options.  Make
    him helpless.
    
    There's a lot of talk about irresponsible fathers who don't care and
    don't pay and how terrible it all is.  And it is.  I pay regularly
    because my children need me to, and I despise those who don't.  But,
    when you boil it all down to its essence, men don't have any weapons
    left.  They can pay, or throw away their job.  They don't have anything
    left to lose.  They're already sleeping in the car, slowly starving on
    a pittance, granted access on the vicarious and capricious whim of
    their very much ex-mate.
    
    If you want to radically increase the rate of divorced men supporting
    their families then you have to show them respect, and allow them some
    control over their lives.
    
    This feeling of helplessness can also strike in small and otherwise
    insignificant ways.  I have two sons, Kieran (6) and Brenainn (3).  One
    day, I found out that my father had bought Kieran a bike.  Hardly
    surprising, the family are interstate and he sees them more than I do. 
    This simple act broke me up for days.
    
    Why?  Because as a father you have dreams, and if you had any halfway
    decent relationship with your own father then many of your dreams are
    that you do with your sons what your father did with you.  It may be
    taking them camping, or reading them to sleep, or buying them their
    first bike.  I can't do these things with my sons.  You alternate
    between despair and rage.  The only inbetweens are the numb times. 
    It's scary to think I may be becoming, as the song says, comfortably
    numb.
    
    Take everything away, deny meaning and expect men to be angry.  In all
    honesty, I'm surprised at the rate of violence against women - I am
    surprised it's as low as it is.
    
    (PS: Sometimes the demons blink and you catch an unexpected win.  Last
    Christmas I bought a trike for Brenainn.  My brother and I took only
    three times as long as it should to assemble it, and being an odd shape
    was a bit hard to wrap.  So, I simply carried it into the room on the
    day.  Now, Brenainn's no dummy.  "My bike, Daddy!", he said, and
    promptly rode it into the wall).

Two people questioned my asking Erik his gender... and suggested it as an
attack.  It wasn't.  I truly didn't know and did receive some mail from others 
asking me if I knew.  When in doubt, ask.  I asked.  Thanks Erik for answering.

-1

I know what you're saying.  I remember about 2 or 3 years ago, I bought a ball
glove, a ball, and a bat, and took my son to the park to teach him how to hit,
throw, and catch.  When showing him how to hold the bat and he commented about
his friend's father showing him, a nerve got hit hard!  I wanted to be the one
to teach my son things like that.  I should have been the one.  But, my time
with my son is limited.  Man, it hurt like Hell.

I did get him into golf last year, taught him to ski this past winter, and now
I have him going with me on mountain bike trips.  He would be taking golf
lessons again this year, but wants to wait till next year because he's tired of
trying to get his mother to communicate and coordinate times to get him there
or have her drive him to meet me.

Man, I'll be glad when 1991 is over.  

 I believe that a significant cause of the inequitable domestic court scene
is the reliance on traditional gender related behaviors to define expectations
and allowable human behavior. Another major factor is the tendency for certain
political factions to overreact to perceived problems. I do believe that it
is more involved than just "men are expected to be providers and woman are
expected to be nurturers."

 The Doctah

    It has been tought to say things here, I have deleted much that I
    started to write. Well anyhow, there has been more stuff that has been
    going on that I really cannot talk about at the moment in my back
    ground. I can only say to the Dougs, and many other men who are having
    the time of their lives fighting the forces of evil. Is to hang tough.
    I am one who had been pushed to the limits, and fortunatly I won
    because I knew it was all over, and like Ulissi, (sp) hand to sail
    close to the islands. Glad it worked out for me. 
    
    On another foot, the stories can go on and on with men getting raped in
    courts. In fact there is a book that is out called, "The Rape of the
    Male". And althought the author sounds like a 'frustrated male with an
    ax to grind', he brings up many good points to look at. How women can
    do the 'Madona with the child act' and get away with murder. My ex
    pulled that crap, as she sat there in court with her hands clasped over
    her heart. Wow! What an act! The courts should hand out Oscars for
    some of the acts that go on in the court rooms. Problem is that no one
    in their right, or left, mind would ever believe that it is happening.
    No one will ever buy your book about it either, sounds like you have an
    ax to grind or something. Its not the ex, its the system that shafts us
    all. And the attornies that foster the bitterness. And, in my case, the
    other men of my ex's life. In the state of Maine, you can sue the
    boyfriend that is harboring your ex, as mine did. Too bad more states
    did not have this law on the books, it might make it alittle tougher
    for someone to pick up and leave like changing some dirty laundry.

    Can you elaborate on that Maine Law?  Also can you have a jury divorce
    as opposed to just a judge?
    
    
    Steve

    There exist a law on book, that says that if your wife/husband shacks
    up with another, as in adultry, they are interfering with the working
    of a marriage. Suposingly you can sue for what ever from the sheltering
    adult, and of course sue for adultry if your the party whom has been
    wronged. I did not go after the beu in Maine, I wanted to always have a
    vacation home in Maine, but, by the time I got around to working on
    him, I already had custody of my daughter and that its best to let
    things die as is.
    
    Yes, you can have a jury and a judge on LSD-25. Ask of Pam Smart and
    company. Why isn't she charged with statutory rape of a minor child? 
    
    It seems like the word 'morality' is like 'death till us part', lip
    service. 

    One of the more adventours divorces is something that I have gone thru.
    Try finding your ex game. She said, 'I don't love you anymore, and I
    don't know where I am going, but I'll tell yha when I get there hun',
    was my delema. Alittle dective work, a hunch, and a 35mm camera found
    where my ex and daughter was in Maine. Oh, I live in Nashua, N.H.
    You have to find a white mobile home, with a old Ma-Bell Telephone
    truck that I was not shure of if it was the right truck, and the final
    tip was the roof top luggage carrier from Sears. Those three items do
    not go together in the odds game very often.

>    Yes, you can have a jury and a judge on LSD-25. Ask of Pam Smart and
>    company. Why isn't she charged with statutory rape of a minor child? 
    
I do believe that he was of age (16).  Most states have statutory rape 
defined as being "under 16," and some states have lower ages (I've 
heard of 14; New Jersey???).  

							--Gerry

    Gerry,
    
    	Pam was putting ice on Bills stomach at age 14. 

    
>    	Pam was putting ice on Bills stomach at age 14. 

You sure?  I thought the paper said "seniors" when arrested.  Which 
would put them at about 16 at the time of the crime.

Also, what's the age of consent in NH?  Could it be 14?  

I'm not up on the case, so I bow to your knowledge.  My only response 
would be: we got her on Murder 1, why toss in statutory?  (I'm not 
saying this was a good idea, but maybe it was what they were 
thinking?)


							--Gerry

    I am  under the impression that the ave of consent was 21.

    ...a kid who is/was still a cherry/vergin at the time.

    re .142
    
>    As the father of two girls who have recently attained their majority,
    
    You mean they're officially adults?  Or have you confused age of
    majority with age of consent?

    Either way Herb, the message is made. Two things happen. 
    
    1. A shallow grave apears in your back yard.
    2. who ever it was will be late for dinner.

>    Another example, would be a supervisor using his position to seduce an
>    underling. I consider this example to be the least reprehensible of the
>    examples, nonetheless it certainly meets the criteria of abuse. (As
>    lots of sadder but wiser men will attest)
    
From a psychological perspective, I think this is abusive.  Legally, 
it's sexual harrassment and reason for instant dismissal.
    
>    p.s. mmmm, wonder if a male has ever filed such a claim against his
>    boss?

The instructor in the sexual-harrassment course here at Digital said 
that, yes, there have been cases of same-sex sexual harrassment taken 
to court.  She didn't describe the actual cases, so I don't have 
specifics.

							--Gerry

    Interesting, Gerry...
    
>>    p.s. mmmm, wonder if a male has ever filed such a claim against his
>>    boss?
>
>The instructor in the sexual-harrassment course here at Digital said 
>that, yes, there have been cases of same-sex sexual harrassment taken 
    
    I immediately assumed that the question meant, has a male ever filed
    such a claim against his FEMALE boss ;-)
    
    Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
    
    Dave

    
>    I immediately assumed that the question meant, has a male ever filed
>    such a claim against his FEMALE boss ;-)
    
Yes.  (Again, it wasn't one of the case studies presented in the 
class, but the instructor gave the "there are cases on the books that 
involve all combinations of men and women and hierarchical power" 
speech.)

I _did_ assume a male boss.  That was sexist of me.

							--Gerry

    Just met a man the other day whose ex had a secret affair going on at
    the time of the divorce. Within weeks after the final decree came down,
    she married one of her colections of beu's, took off to MD with his,
    now 4 year old daughter. This crushed this man totally, he made his
    child suport checks faithfully, even to this day. Has just reciently
    recieved his daughter for the summer till august, as his ex starts to
    pack to move to Fl. He found out of this via the grape vine. Why does
    this man have little to say of where his child resides? Why is it so
    openly blaintient that this man will be one of those men who will be a
    visitor in his daughers life. It was 10 hours one way to MD. Now its
    more. Fly? At the drop of whose pocket book? 

    Yesterday, I saw a video of the man in .151 using a cam-corder to take
    pictures of his ex having an adultrus affair with another man. This man
    actually moved into the apartment that he was thrown out of. His 1 year
    old daughter being fathered by a total stranger, who knows what kind
    of background this man has? A child abuser? Molester? Fellon? His
    veniet was thrown out of court because the judge did not want to see
    it. The judge did not want to know of this man living with his
    daughter, or his ex. Out witht the old, in with the new? Throw away
    society? Throw away cameras, trash, cars, dress's? Throw away
    marriages? Throw away children?
    
    To this man, any many more who are trying to see their children. My
    heart goes out to them. Imagine the guts it takes to take pictures of
    this person interfering with your marriage. Sitting in a car, an alley,
    it snows, hidding from the police to keep from going to jail for there
    maybe a false TRO agianst you because of the convience of it all. 
    My heart goes out to those who have the guts, to those who are not
    going to take the status quo decisions.

    The gentleman who was slapped off his feet, has finally filed for
    domestic violence. The out come will be interesting. As commonly viewed
    that men cannot get a TRO agianst a woman who beats, stabs, or plots
    murder agianst him. Just ask Paul Smart.