Conference quark::mennotes

    
    
    Bubba,
    
      I and others have just started a N.O.M group in Colorado Springs. 
    
    
    David

    David,
    
    Is N.O.M. an organization *of* men, or is it an organization *for* men,
    as NOW is an organization *for* women that welcomes men to its
    membership?
    
    -dick

    
    
    Dick,
    
     I don't know. I guess we would be open to almost anyone that is
    sympathetic to the cause, although it is officially a heterosexual
    mens organization. I must confer with headquarters for policy..
    
    
    David

    Aren't the Benovolent and Protective Order of Elks lodges an exclusive
    men's clubs?  
    
    I used to work at the Lexington B.P.O.E. and they are most definitely
    a "all male" club.  They allowed women to join the "Women's Lodge". But
    they were relegated to mostly food service and Bingo functions for the
    men.
    
    IMO definitely not an atmosphere that I personally enjoyed. But, the
    members enjoyed it and they did a lot of good for people in the area so
    to each their own.

    I don't belong to very many organizations. None of them are men only.
    I have long though that it would be nice to belong to a men only
    club though. Sometimes I'd just rather be with men. Of course there
    are other times when I'd rather there not be any men around but it
    would be nice to have women around. :-)

    		Alfred

    re:.0
    
    Nope.
    
    
    (Not unless you count the white male patriarchy's oppressor club.)

    I think its good for men to participate in  some activities that only men 
    are allowed. This doesn't mean that women are not as good as men or
    anything, but I think its good to get away from each other once in a
    while. You appreciate each other more. I've gone on men only religious 
    retreats for the past eleven years. I enjoy it and the guys on the 
    week-end would probably never have continued to go if women were there. The 
    conversations and atmosphere are more comfortable for them  then if women 
    were around. My wife goes on the women's retreats and says about the same
    thing for women only week-ends. Its women oriented and more conducive
    for them.

     Jim

I go to a small, men only therapy group, and I want it to stay that way.  

I have never gone on a men's weekend or workshop, but I often read the 
announcements.  Some day I may go.  Anyway, I am glad they are there, and
I want them to stay men only.

Why?  Because men can have a different kind of talk when there are no 
women around.  In an ideal world, the previous sentence may be false, 
but I don't live in an ideal world.

We can let go of defences, habits and aggression more easily when there 
are no women to impress, win or defend ourselves from.  We can get deeper 
into our thinking, our feeling and our selves, when we are not playing 
the games that the presence of women seems to induce.

Of course, mixed groups and women-only groups have their own value.  

At the moment, I am most comfortable in groups where I am the only man.  I
suspect that this is just a temporary thing.

    
    I applaud "men only" things that give men an opportunity for
    non-business related ANYTHING. All I ask is that women have a parallel
    opportunity. No men's retreats without women's retreats, that kinda
    thing. I think one of the problems comes in when there's no parallel
    for women. Such as in Scouting where Girl Scouts de-emphasizes camping
    and survival, and military schools, when women in the military are
    still frowned on. Things have changed though, and now there are
    explorer scouts which are co-ed, and there are women cadets, etc.
    
    I think that's where the problem comes in. If men are getting together
    to bond, and they admit it, most women have enough sense to leave them
    alone. But if men don't say, "we're bonding" but instead they're doing
    something, like hunting or playing basketball, and there's no women's
    group that hunts or plays basketball, then women will often try to
    enter in.  What's the answer? I think the men who want to keep their
    bonding experience should work with the women who want to come in to
    start a fledgling women's group that does the exact same thing. Do it
    once together, and then LAUNCH. If the women TRULY want a hunting
    group, etc., they'll hold it together. If they don't, then it will become
    evident...

    	Until recently I was Co-commissioner of the Southern New Hampshire
    Fantasy Football League. 8 men who owner fantasy football teams based
    on the NFL. One guy's wife demanded that she be a half owner of his
    team. She's a knowledgeable football person but he hasn't made a trade
    since she entered into the picture. We had an expansion meeting where
    we increased the ownership by two teams. We had 10 men and one woman
    discussing football but her husband was extremely withdrawn and he'd
    previously been pretty brazen. The atmosphere was very subdued, very
    little heckling, no swearing......not much fun. Sunday, prior to the
    Super Bowl, we have an expansion draft and party....it's a mandatory
    meeting, then a Superbowl Party......the wife is a Bills fan and takes
    real exception to any demeaning talk about the Bills. This could be the
    demise of the league after 5 years.
    
    	I belong to a fantasy baseball league also that is male only. Not
    to say that women wouldn't be allowed, but it's comfortable with them.
    
    	I'm inthe process of starting another league that my dentist and
    doctor want to form. It will be doctors and dentists only...all male
    so far. 
    
    	Maybe because it's sports oriented but a bonding does occur and the
    presence of a female seems to interfere with that bond.
    
    Ken

    Bubba, you hit a note on me with this one.  Womens' Libbers have
    appropriately worked at making the sexes equal in rights and personal
    value, but, in some cases have gone too far.  For example, the attempts
    to eliminate any organization which is exclusive to one sex only.
    
    Why shouldn't EVERY organization include both males and females?
    Because no matter how loudly and repeatedly the Womens Libbers scream
    that the sexes are the same and that the only perceived difference
    (other than physical) is a result of Socialization doesn't change that
    males and females ARE different in some important psychological ways.
    
    Because there are inate psychological differences there are some
    situations where it is appropriate to have one sex only organizations.
    
    Why?
    
    Because (speaking for myself) sometimes I do want to become involved
    in an activity which I can count on being exclusively male.  I don't
    ALWAYS want to have to have women around just because 'its their right
    and you can't keep us out'.
    
    The Boy and Girl Scouts is an example of organizations which I think
    have appropriately reserved for the respective sexes.
    
    Yes, men and women, boys and girls do need to interact, but not ALWAYS
    as 'defined by law'.
    
    Jeff

>    (other than physical) is a result of Socialization doesn't change that
>    males and females ARE different in some important psychological ways.
>    
>    Because there are inate psychological differences there are some
>    situations where it is appropriate to have one sex only organizations.

Jeff,

Mostly I agree with your reply 11, but I don't know about these innate 
psychological differences.  Until somebody actually raises some men and 
women in a bell jar, we won't know how much of our psychology is innate 
and how much comes from our culture.

Anthropology can give us a few hints, but nothing definite.

Anyway, we know the differences are there in boys and men.  One reason I
favor single sex groups is that we won't learn much about these differences
as long as we only experience mixed sex groups.

Wally

    Wally,  "we know there differences are there in men and boys".
    
    I don't understand what you mean.  Differences between men/boys vs.
    women/girls, or differences between men and boys?
    
    What difference does it make whether the differences are the result
    of socialization, innate brain 'wiring', chemistry or whatever?
    
    The end result is difference between the sexes.  Actually I believe
    the differences are the result of ALL of the above.  Socialization, and
    brain wiring, both play their role in creating real differences.
    
    I have read any number of articles supporting brain differences between
    men and women, such as the number of cross connections between brain
    halves.  Male brains are 'dewired' in the number of cross connections
    between brain halves as the fetus develops to cite just one example.
    
    Also, logic suggests to me that since there are observable physical
    differences between men and women that common sense suggests there
    are brain (personality) differences too. If that isn't enough the
    different hormone levels (testosterone for one) creates even more
    differences in behavior.
    
    To me, the question of whether men and women are inately different is
    a moot point, its a given as far as I am concerned.  The questions
    for me now revolve around how to understand the opposite sex better
    and knowing 'how women think' can help me enhance my relationship
    with my wife.
    
    Viva la difference!
    
    Jeff

.13> Differences between men/boys vs. women/girls

That's what I was talking about in .12.

>    What difference does it make whether the differences are the result
>    of socialization, innate brain 'wiring', chemistry or whatever?

Not a lot, probably, but some.  If we can show that some trait is based 
mainly on culture, then we can decide whether to accept or reject that aspect 
of our culture.  We can consider changing the culture (it changes all 
the time anyway) to encourage or discourage that trait.  Also, if we can
understand the origins of a given trait, that will give us one less thing to
argue about.  Finally, I like to know the truth, even when it doesn't make
any real difference (I've heard that that is a guy trait).

>    Actually I believe
>    the differences are the result of ALL of the above

Then I guess we agree on the essentials.  Readers with no taste for 
hair-splitting can stop here.

>    I have read any number of articles supporting brain differences between

I have read some of these articles too, but they make me uncomfortable for
several reasons.

First, it is easier to see the differences than to evaluate their significance.
Are these a mere side effect of hormonal differences?  An effect which once 
had an evolutionary significance, but now has no effect on behavior?  Or
does it now contribute to differences in behavior?

Second, in popular science, many articles can share the same small base of a 
few papers of original scientific research.  For example, you could find 
hundreds of books and articles stating that DDT threatens pelicans because it 
makes their shells thinner.  All these articles are based on just two or three
actual scientific studies.  So popular science is not a field where the
truth is established by majority vote.  Any guesses on how many original 
scientific studies are behind the articles on 'dewiring' of men's brains?

Third, popular science often reflects the demands of culture more than the 
supply of scientific truth.  A century or so ago you could find a lot of 
writing on the brain of the Negro Race, showing that their inferiority
to the White Race was 'wired in'.  Some of this was outright bad science, 
anything good was severely misinterpreted, and the culturally acceptable 
results were widely popularized.  Any guesses on how much of this is going
on today?

>    To me, the question of whether men and women are inately different is
>    a moot point, its a given as far as I am concerned.  The questions

To me it's moot because I don't know the extent to which any difference is
innate or cultural, and I don't expect we will learn much more in my lifetime.

    Wally, I can't disagree with your points regarding the souce(s) of
    information.  I would guess the dewiring info results from one or
    two studies.
    
    I think that we essentally agree, but choose to use the information
    differently. 
    
    And your point about cultural differences being potentially changable
    is well taken, in that way it certainly does matter. 
    
    
    How does a noter take a quote from another note and move it to ones own
    reply in order to provide context for the reply?  Could/would you 
    explain the steps 1, 2, 3, etc. for me please or point me toward help?
    
    Thanks
    
    
    Jeff

    It is now souting policy that the movement is for both sexes, although
    the decision is up to each seperate group. 
    
    Personally, I think girls would get more out of the scouting movement
    than the guiding movement (in my own experience) as there is a lot more 
    they are allowed to do although both have their advantages and
    disadvantages.
    
    From an ex-guide cum Cub leader
    

They should have left it as it was. Boys need time to be boys - and they do 
that best without girls.

Lord Powell has probably just turned in his grave.

- Paul.

    Paul, someone is going to say 'why can't boys be boys WITH girls?'
    
    Of course they can... but thats not the point.  IMO the point is that
    boys need SOME time to be with just other boys.  Why?  For the same
    reason men need some time with just other men, and women with just
    other women.  Of course there are some exceptions, that is, people
    who need NO time with just the same sex. I am talking in generalities.
    There are usually exceptions to the rule.
    
    Most boys need some time with just other boys, and Scouting is one
    place they have been able to get that, until recently apparently.
    
    Jeff
    

Thanks Jeff - but I don't think boys CAN be boys with girls around. Having
girls around inhibits boys - they don't let go - they're always conscious that
girls will judge them. Don't you think ?

- Paul.

    Paul, I think its all in the definition of the word boys.  I suppose
    one can substitute the word himself for the word boy in the context
    of which your speaking.  BUT, a person is different, depending on
    the circumstances they are in.  As you said a boy will act differently
    around girls then around other boys.  An individual is being judged 
    anytime he is around other people anyway.
    
    I think we are struggling for the definition here. I believe people
    (in this discussion, boys) need to be around 'their own kind' (peers
    MOST like them) some of the time in order to grow in CERTAIN WAYS
    emotionally.  For example, a mother can't teach a boy how to be 
    'one of the boys', another boy can teach him that.  Another boy (or
    group of boys) has the DEEPEST perspective on what its like to be a boy
    and thus can relate to him in ways adults or girls can't.
    
    I think the above is what we are struggling to define.
    
    Also, girls or boys need to discuss the opposite sex at times WITHOUT the
    opposite sex present.
    
    I think time with other boys is part of the balance of experiences a
    boy should have.  
    
    I resent it when typically 'feminists' imply or say that boys don't
    need organizations such as the Boy Scouts.
    
    I do think that boys need time with other boys in group settings more
    than girls need time with other girls in group settings.
    
    I have done no studies on this, I may be wrong.  My observations over
    the years (having worked as the Assistant Director of a Boys Club, and
    in the Boy Scouts have led me to believe this.  Boys seem more like a
    'pack animal' to me than girls.
    
                                                        Jeff
    

 	"For example, a mother can't teach a boy how to be 'one of the boys', 
	another boy can teach him that."

Bly argues that boys cannot complete the developmental phase to men by 
learning or from the guidance of other boys. Bly argues that this phase 
requires men. Bly goes further and claims that gangs (and many of societys
problems surrounding gangs) are a result of boys being guided by other boys 
through this phase.

If Bly is correct a possible solution would be men-boy or father-son type
organisations. Of course women are excluded. This goes further than men only 
orgs. - has anybody ever heard of one ?

- Paul.

    
    I don't begin to argue that boys don't need Boy Scouts. I just know
    that some girls want to be in a scouting organization as well...
    instead of a namby-pamby cooky-baking group. Its very awkward when an
    organization gets big and has a reputation for doing something fun, but
    its an exclusive organization which some people aren't allowed to join.
    I think that having 3 organizations is the best way to go. One for
    girls who want to do exclusive "girl" things, one for boys who want to
    do exclusive "boy" things, and one that's coed for boys and girls who
    want to do both.
    
    I think its also important that the parents not work at keeping their
    children out of the middle organization if that's where those kids want
    to be.
    
    The thing that always concerns me is that we have more and more girls
    standing up and saying that they want to do the boy things... there
    still is little room in our society for boys to stand up and say that
    they like "girl" things, without a LOT of criticism. If a boy likes
    sewing, cooking, etc., there seems to be a lot of work in making sure
    that he's not a "sissy". But there shouldn't really be anything wrong
    with the idea that he likes these pursuits. Perhaps a mixed-sex
    organization would let both sexes cross over into the areas they like
    without giving anyone any grief.
    
    I think all people, male and female, need to learn self-sufficiency and
    responsibility as part of their path to adulthood. But to steer their
    interests toward strict sex-categories should be something we let go of
    soon. We're beginning, slowly, to outgrow it.

    I've been working with the local Girl Scouts to add more outdoor
    activites to their programs. Thats the way to fix a problem....
    
    
    Leave the Boy Scouts alone.
    
    Marc H.

    Re .22: Actually, 'ren, I think it might be easier (for some kids, at
    certain ages, etc. - I just love to qualify my statements) to try
    "non-traditional skills" in a same-sex environment. [Another
    qualification: it is NOT true that a same-sex environment is always a
    safe one, as evidenced by the awe-inspiring cruelty that kids can
    inflict on each other; seems there's nearly always some "outcast" or
    "scapegoat" consistently picked on by the other kids, even - or perhaps
    especially - among same-sex groups. But that's another problem.] Back
    to train-of-thought #1: there does seem to be a period during early
    adolescence when it's hard for kids to "be themselves" in the presence
    of the other sex. (How much of this is cultural, I can't say.) But it
    might well be less distracting, when trying to acquire new skills, if
    the initial stumbling-and-falling bits could be done without that extra
    distraction. [Ideally, those who were really interested in a particular
    activity could then develop their skills to the point where they were
    comfortable practicing them in any group.]
    
    I guess I'd like to see these organizations try to be more flexible
    about things; space for same-sex activities is fine, but co-ed
    activities should be provided for as well (especially if an area
    doesn't have the population or the resources to maintain separate
    same-sex groups), and _all_ groups should be prepared to investigate
    all sorts of skills and activities, crossing traditional gender _and_
    cultural lines...
    
    -b

    My daughter was so bored with Brownies after the first year she never
    went back.  I agree with 'ren that a third co-ed group would be good,
    especially for girls who would rather be able to do the things that
    boys do in the Scouts, as opposed to the types of things that girls
    traditionally do in Brownies and Girl Scouts.
    
    I'm not bothered by all male or all female groups as long as the people
    involved *chose* to be in that environment.  What bothers me about
    scouting and other childrens activities is that the kids never chose it
    to begin with.  Adults choose for the kids, and the kids take it for
    granted that boys and girls do some things differently.  I think this
    encourages males and females to grow up differently.  Boys are taught
    leadership skills and girls are taught domestic skills that will never
    be truly appreciated, in any way, by the society they live in.  To my
    mind, this helps perpetuate the patriarchal society we live in, and I
    would like to see it stopped.
    
    Lorna
     

Actually, Bly doesn't just say a boy needs a father.  Other men can do instead
if father isn't available.

Bly says a boy needs a *mentor*.  It might be a teacher the boy has a good
learning relationship with.  Or a priest.  Or an uncle.  Just some adult male
figure that can teach the boy healthy things.

Bly describes an indian tribe where the boys are taken away at around age
12 to be in the woods with the older men.  They learn how to hunt, how to cook,
and how to live adults.

In that tribe, the mothers wail as the boys are taken away.  But the mothers
are proud simultaneously.

(perhaps someone has the details of this story more accurate and can report,
I heard it on Bly's TV program)


/Eric

re. -1 (or the note from Lorna if somebody beat me to it)

	"I think this encourages males and females to grow up differently."

But boys and girls are different so why shouldn't they grow up differently ?
Sure they should learn to understand and value those differences but I don't 
believe we (men) can develop further until we re-welcome, re-embrace and enjoy 
being different. It's my opinion that many people shun gender labels fearing 
stereotyping or for not holding the politically correct view.

	"Boys are taught leadership skills and girls are taught domestic 
	skills that will never be truly appreciated, in any way, by the 
	society they live in."

Not true - not where I come from anyway - and I'm not sure it applies to where
you are either. Boys and girls were taught pretty much the same at school and
my mother taught me and my brother all the household chores too. I appreciate
what my wife does for me, what my sisters have done for me, and what my mother
taught me. I think in general that's true if you ask any man.

In my house my wife has NEVER done the washing - she doesn't even know how to 
use the washing machine or the tumble dryer - I do my Ironing, she does her 
own - I cook, so does she and we share the other household and car chores 
(yes, she changes the oil, spark plugs, washes, polishes etc, no problem) - and
I really don't believe we're the only couple.

I enjoyed the Scouts - without girls. It was sheer bliss going to camp - two 
weeks without my sisters and any girls hanging around - and now I enjoy time
with my friends without women around.

Having Coed orgs. are ok - but the Scouts are for the boys - and I think other
men only or men/boy orgs. should be encouraged.

- Paul.

re.26.

You're right Eric - but I did say men/boy and father/son. There's a German author
who has studied and written an excellent book about the father/son relationship -
and like Bly is concerned about the 'lack of father' in a boys development. But
you're right, essentially any man, but it does need to be a man, can help a boy
through the process.

I  have Blys' book and can type the passage in if it's of interest. Anybody
interested ?

- Paul.

    "Men have to teach boys to be men, not other boys"  I can't argue with
    that.
    
    Other organizations.  Big Brothers and Sisters are just the type of
    organization you are thinking of.  Big Brothers and Big Sisters
    match a boy up with a man (non relative) and Big Sisters match a
    girl up with a woman to act as mentor/teacher etc. in a one on one
    relationship.  To be eligible to be Little Brother the boy must
    have been abandoned by his father due to CHOICE of the father, death
    doesn't qualify (except perhaps suicide) because the father did not
    choose to leave the kid.  The distincition is the difference in
    the emotional message sent to the boy:  "I don't want you" so I choose
    to leave.  Also the boy must be exhibiting signs that he is not 
    adjusting well to the Dads' absence.
    
    I was active in Big Brothers from about 1968 until about 1978 when
    my 'Little Brother' grew up and went out on his own.  
    
    Its interesting. The different philosphies of organizions. Boy Scouts
    discourages/prohibits one on one relationships with boys because of
    concerns of child abuse.  Big Brothers/Sisters REQUIRES one on one
    relationships.  As far as I know abuse hasn't been a problem I have
    heard about in Big Brothers/Sisters, although statistically it must
    have occured.
    
    I think the idea of a third organization for co-ed 'Scouts' is a good
    one in theory.  I do wonder given the recruting difficulties in Boy
    Scouts if there are enough interested kids to support THREE
    organizations?
    
    Jeff

	"Boy Scouts discourages/prohibits one on one relationships with 
	boys because of concerns of child abuse."

Does it ? It's been a long time since I was a Scout but this was never a 
problem. Has this been a problem in America ?

- Paul.

    Paul, society does not pay people who are good at domestic skills -
    child care workers, cooks, seamstresses - anywhere near the amount that
    men who become good leaders - Corporate VP's, middle management, etc. -
    are paid.  If value is equated to dollars then the typical chores that
    women are traditionally taught are not valued anywhere near as much as
    the leadership skills that are encouraged in boys.  I'm 43, but when I
    was in school in the 50's and 60's, in Massachusetts, girls took home
    ec and boys took shop.  Also, boys in the scouts were taught all sorts
    of survival skills while girls were taught knitting or something.  And,
    this with the scouts had not changed when my 19 yr old daughter went in
    the late 70's, early 80's.  So, I guess my experiences differ from
    yours.
    
    Lorna
    

>	"Boy Scouts discourages/prohibits one on one relationships with 
>	boys because of concerns of child abuse."

>Does it ? It's been a long time since I was a Scout but this was never a 
>problem. Has this been a problem in America ?
    
    Has it?  I'll say. Virtually every time I pick up the paper or watch
    the news on TV I hear or read about another case.  Incidents in the
    Scouts are not particularly frequent, but among 'Civilians' it seems
    rampant.
    
    According to Scout Policy, boys are not allowed alone with a single
    adult, there must always be at least two adults present for any
    sanctioned Scout activity.  The damage from abuse has been extensive,
    both for abused kids and innocent adults caught in the backwash.  Its
    gotten to the point where you wouldn't/shouldn't DARE be alone with a
    boy lest you get accused of improper behavior.
    
    While many of the cases ARE legitimate, the general feel in this 
    country, IMO is that of a witch hunt. 
    
    I have answered your question and gotten off the topic.
    
    So, back to the subject.
    
    Jeff

    
    The amount of background checking that is done in the Big Brother/Big
    Sister organizations is so astounding that I've frankly avoided them.
    They said it would take 6 months to "check me out", then ~6 months to
    match me, and then they wanted a 2 year commitment. Because I hadn't
    planned on being in Mass 3 years from now, I declined.
    
    I think the program is VERY scared of the possibility of abuse. I can
    respect that. After all, there are other volunteer orgs where my
    limited time is valued. So, I applaud them, even though I'm not a Big
    Sister.

Re.31

If we base our value system solely around dollars you're right but then
we'd loose so much if we did. 

- Paul.

    re .33 Big Brothers/Sisters.
    
    Wow!  It wasn't that rigorous when I signed up back in 1968.  Well
    of course it woudln't have been as rigourous back then.  I had a
    few interviews and then they assigned me to a boy.  The relationship
    lasted actively (weekly visits) for about nine years, then he developed
    competing events in his life and I got married and we went our seperate
    ways.  I still contact him every year or so to say hi, but rarely see
    him.
    
    For me, it was a worth while experience.  It gave me somebody to
    'father' and it gave him an older guy to do things with and relate to.
    It got him out of the projects of South Boston on a regular basis and
    gave him some perspective on how others live.  We both improved the
    quality of life for one another... which is how it should have been.
    
    I suppose if I wanted to get back into it it would be more streamlined
    since I have a history in the organization.
    
    No regrets,
    
    Jeff

    re .34, in case you haven't noticed "our value system" - meaning
    civilization today *is* based around dollars, and, yes, many women have
    lost much because of it.
    
    Lorna
    

RE: .36

Men have lost a lot, too!

    
    
     -1
    
     How so?
    
    
    David

	How so?

	- High blood pressure

	- Self-esteem problems due to "low-paying" job

	- Women judging a man by his paycheck

	- lack of recreation time

	- neglect of family duties

	- general stress

	Should I go on?  EVERYONE pays the price (pun intended) when
	our values are based on money.  

	Jon

	Sorry about that last response.  You're right "PNEAL", that was
	a rathole, and I jumped right in!!!  ;-)

    
    
     -1
    
      Aha my trap worked:-) Thanks for the explanation. Offline would you
    please tell me what you feel a persons self-esteem should be based
    upon??
    
    
    David

    re:.36
    
    In case you haven't noticed, Lorna, us guys spend the majority of our
    money on women.  The rest of our money goes for toys to impress women.
    
    ;')

    re .42, well, thanks for pointing that out, Mike, because I really
    hadn't noticed that most men spend the majority of their money on
    women.  Maybe that's because it's only a small percentage of the women
    who are getting this money spent on them, and I haven't been one of
    them???
    
    I've had a few guys spend a little money on me, in my day, but have
    never run into anybody who was willing to spend "the majority" of their
    money on me.   (That's not my main complaint about men, though.)
    
    Lorna
    

    you haven't met the ones who are into antique jewelry?
    
    :-)
    
    ed

  

Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange

Mission Statement

The Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange (F.R.E.E.[tm]) is a
member-supported, not-for-profit organization dedicated to the
premise that parenting is a 50/50 proposition. As such, both
fathers and mothers should share equally in the parenting and
support of their children. 

While there are many highly visible interest groups advocating for
the very real plight of single mothers, few groups speak out for
the problems encountered by single fathers. As a result, society has
come to not only overlook the problems of single fathers, but to
view single fathers as the root of all evils visited upon the single
mother. To be sure, F.R.E.E.[tm] recognizes that there are indeed
some fathers who don't pay support, or who skip town. However
there are a great many fathers who want to parent their children,
who are willing and prepared to pay their fair share of
child-support, and who wish only to be treated with respect,
fairness, and dignity by the State, the Family Law System, and by
society. It is these fathers for whom F.R.E.E.[tm] stands up and
advocates. 

F.R.E.E.'s primary mission is to work to ensure that both parents
are allowed and expected to be responsible and involved parents.
For the non-custodial father this means being able to have fair
time with his children, and being able to provide for them not
just financially, but parentally as well, including being able to
provide emotional and moral support, and generally being able to
be a part of, and positive influence in, his children's lives. 

F.R.E.E.[tm] is a voice of reason, and addresses issues in that
manner. 

    F.R.E.E.[tm] is not an "angry men's" organization.
F.R.E.E.[tm] is active, and vocal, but we are not confrontational.
F.R.E.E.[tm] does not demonstrate or "court watch." 

F.R.E.E.[tm] does not get directly involved in the particulars of an
individual case. This is both because we can help far more people,
in a far shorter time, by working to correct systemic problems,
and because to weigh in on a particular case, without knowing all
of the facts and history behind a particular case, is the quickest
way to lose organizational credibility. This is different from
providing support to individuals, which we must assuredly do. 

F.R.E.E.[tm] understands and recognizes the concerns of advocates
of "choice for men," however, F.R.E.E. is an organization
dedicated to the involvement of fathers with their children, and
does not get involved in or actively support the "choice for men"
platform. 

The Three-Prong Approach:

F.R.E.E.[tm] uses a 3-prong approach to addressing the problems
and concerns of single fathers, the three prongs being: support,
education, and legislation. 

 SUPPORT:

F.R.E.E.[tm] provides support to its members through local meetings,
volunteer calls to people who call the F.R.E.E.[tm] hotline,
attorney referrals, and by maintaining resources such as document
archives. 

 EDUCATION:

F.R.E.E.[tm] is actively involved in educating all facets of society
to the problems and concerns of single fathers. We provide
speakers for various civic and institutional events, we develop
working relationships with legislators (educating legislators is very
different from lobbying them, which we do also), and we educate
the public through the media (such as writing letters and article)
and through PSAs. 

 LEGISLATION:

F.R.E.E.[tm] is actively working to change the family law system
to a more equitable one by direct legislative involvement at the
state and federal level. F.R.E.E.[tm] Legislative Liaisons both
introduce and follow proposed legislation, meet with legislators and
legislative aides, and coordinate membership writing and phone-in
campaigns. 

This 3-prong approach works! Some of our more recent
achievements include: 

   We are one of only two fathers' organizations to be invited
   to present at California Governor Pete Wilson's "Focus on
   Fathers Summit." 
   We are one of only three fathers' organizations to be
   invited to participate in the state sponsored California "Solid
   Foundations: Men in their Families and Communities"
   conference. 
   We are one of the few fathers' organizations which is
   known by legislators as a reliable source for accurate data
   and statistics, and one of the only which is actually
   contacted by legislators (instead of just vice versa) for input
   and assistance in introducing and supporting fair and
   equitable family law legislation. 
   We are the only fathers' organization to be invited to
   participate as members of the ACLU Family Rights Project
   (Northern California chapter). 

F.R.E.E.[tm] is governed by a general Board consisting of 

   F.R.E.E.[tm] Founder and Director, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 
   F.R.E.E. Associate Director and Director of Legislative
   Affairs, Brent Wellman. 
   Member of the Board Tracy Thompson. 

F.R.E.E's Advisory Board members are 

   Dr. Warren Farrell 
   Cathy Young 
   Asa Baber 
   Carol Marks, MFCC 



Return to the F.R.E.E.[tm] home page 

Join F.R.E.E.[tm] 


The Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange 
701 Welch Rd., #323 
Palo Alto, California 94304 
 (415) 853-6877 
1-500-FOR-DADS


Copyright � 1992-1996 The Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange 

This page last updated February 26, 1996 by: 
Brent Wellman [email protected]