Are their any Family Rights Groups that actually have enough organizationto make something happen?

[Steve Carroll]

Hi, this is Steve Carroll, I posted a while back, having problems
getting access to School records, current status, etc. for my Son in
Texas. My Son is 19, I went round and round, getting told by each
office that I had to call someone else, and that someone else referred
me back to the one that referred me to them. The Attorney General
closed my case, and I stopped paying, so my child support payments to my
ex are done, and I am happy with that. My Son stopped contacting me, I
am not happy with that.

Child Support has become such big business, that the government
organizations in general are ignoring the purpose of why they are in
existence. It seems that it is all about justifying jobs, and nothing
about the family. I would like to know if there are groups that are
well organized, and where those groups are, that can actually make
changes happen. If not, what would it take?

I realize that it is an uphill battle, and that elected officials are
being puppets in order to keep their jobs. It would actually take
changing voters perceptions about the family to make any real changes.
Society has reached the point to where divorce and child support money
is so normal that most children can tell you how it works, even those in
intact families.

I actually believe that fathers are people too.

Steve Carroll

[Kenneth S.]

"Steve Carroll" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, this is Steve Carroll, I posted a while back, having problems
> getting access to School records, current status, etc. for my Son in
> Texas. My Son is 19, I went round and round, getting told by each
> office that I had to call someone else, and that someone else referred
> me back to the one that referred me to them. The Attorney General
> closed my case, and I stopped paying, so my child support payments to my
> ex are done, and I am happy with that. My Son stopped contacting me, I
> am not happy with that.
>
> Child Support has become such big business, that the government
> organizations in general are ignoring the purpose of why they are in
> existence. It seems that it is all about justifying jobs, and nothing
> about the family. I would like to know if there are groups that are
> well organized, and where those groups are, that can actually make
> changes happen. If not, what would it take?
>
> I realize that it is an uphill battle, and that elected officials are
> being puppets in order to keep their jobs. It would actually take
> changing voters perceptions about the family to make any real changes.
> Society has reached the point to where divorce and child support money
> is so normal that most children can tell you how it works, even those in
> intact families.
>
> I actually believe that fathers are people too.
>
> Steve Carroll

I believe that, in the U.S., there are groups in some states, e.g. Texas
and Washington, that have achieved some political clout -- or at least that
was my impression a few years ago, when I was more active in political
activities on behalf of fathers' rights. (In this field, I think groups in
the U.K. have begun to make some impact on the political process, for
example the well-established Families Need Fathers group appears to be
consulted by government agencies in a way that agencies in the U.S. would
never dream of doing. More recently formed British groups, such as the one
that has carried out several stunts to publicize current problems, have
helped things along.)

In general, however, in the U.S., pro-father groups have in my view made
little headway. Local groups are good at providing support to fathers in
crisis situations, but they have little impact on politicians or bureaucrats
in regard to the policies that create the crises. One reason is that there
is little or no national coordination. In the past, leaders of effective
local groups have been unable to agree on terms for coordinating their
efforts, although I have some hope that the American Coalition for Fathers
and Children may now be getting somewhere.

My own view is that it is of crucial importance for fathers to promote
the message that -- as fathers -- they have legitimate rights. They must
get acceptance of the idea that those rights must be recognized even where
recognition entails removing from mothers unjustifiable advantages that they
have been given over the last few decades. I recognize that most men are
extremely reluctant to support any policies that appear to be anti-women.
Some fathers' rights activists think they can approach the issue in terms of
the rights of children to two parents, and that may sometimes be helpful.
However, I think there has to be a clear recognition of the fact that the
father's position within the U.S. family is very insecure, and that
mothers -- not fathers -- make most of the decisions to set up single parent
families. Correspondingly, divorced fathers have been reduced to nothing
more than suppliers of money to their ex-wives. I don't see how much can be
changed until public consciousness has been shifted from the "women as
victims" mentality.

I also think that politicians and the public need to be firmly reminded
of what an utter disaster fatherless families are for children and for
society as a whole. To a large extent, current rules on "child support" and
on other domestic relations matters amount to subsidizing mothers to create
precisely the kind of families that everyone knows are catastrophic for
individual children, and that generate huge problems in the next generation.
What on earth is the point of making it as easy as possible for mothers to
establish the kinds of family situations that sow the seeds of future social
problems?

[Dusty]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
>
> I believe that, in the U.S., there are groups in some states, e.g.
Texas
> and Washington, that have achieved some political clout -- or at least
that
> was my impression a few years ago, when I was more active in political
> activities on behalf of fathers' rights. (In this field, I think groups
in
> the U.K. have begun to make some impact on the political process, for
> example the well-established Families Need Fathers group appears to be
> consulted by government agencies in a way that agencies in the U.S. would
> never dream of doing. More recently formed British groups, such as the
one
> that has carried out several stunts to publicize current problems, have
> helped things along.)
>
> In general, however, in the U.S., pro-father groups have in my view
made
> little headway. Local groups are good at providing support to fathers in
> crisis situations, but they have little impact on politicians or
bureaucrats
> in regard to the policies that create the crises. One reason is that
there
> is little or no national coordination. In the past, leaders of effective
> local groups have been unable to agree on terms for coordinating their
> efforts, although I have some hope that the American Coalition for Fathers
> and Children may now be getting somewhere.
>
> My own view is that it is of crucial importance for fathers to promote
> the message that -- as fathers -- they have legitimate rights. They must
> get acceptance of the idea that those rights must be recognized even where
> recognition entails removing from mothers unjustifiable advantages that
they
> have been given over the last few decades. I recognize that most men are
> extremely reluctant to support any policies that appear to be anti-women.
> Some fathers' rights activists think they can approach the issue in terms
of
> the rights of children to two parents, and that may sometimes be helpful.
> However, I think there has to be a clear recognition of the fact that the
> father's position within the U.S. family is very insecure, and that
> mothers -- not fathers -- make most of the decisions to set up single
parent
> families. Correspondingly, divorced fathers have been reduced to nothing
> more than suppliers of money to their ex-wives. I don't see how much can
be
> changed until public consciousness has been shifted from the "women as
> victims" mentality.
>
> I also think that politicians and the public need to be firmly
reminded
> of what an utter disaster fatherless families are for children and for
> society as a whole. To a large extent, current rules on "child support"
and
> on other domestic relations matters amount to subsidizing mothers to
create
> precisely the kind of families that everyone knows are catastrophic for
> individual children, and that generate huge problems in the next
generation.
> What on earth is the point of making it as easy as possible for mothers to
> establish the kinds of family situations that sow the seeds of future
social
> problems?
>

The answer is quite simple - to create a need for government to "solve" the
problem. When government sticks it's grubby little mitts into the lives of
families, it does so knowing full well that if it removes the weakest link
in the family - fathers. It then can step in and take over the role as
father for the family. In so doing government sets up a cash cow for itself
by plundering the father's assets, property, money, livelihood, et all. If
Dad objects to being made a slave, he can be thrown in jail, loose his
drivers license, professional license, passport, and anything else that
would make him able to see his children or hire legal counsel to defend
himself - until he changes his mind and learns to love his new yoke and
Master.

By having government remove Dad from the family picture, they remove the
only obstacle to prevent government from taking over the raising of his
children. It's a classic ploy from Nazi Germany. By removing Dad from the
family, the state thereby "owns" the children, can indoctrinate them in any
manner they see fit. An example of this is the way the school systems in MA
work to indoctrinate children into the mind set that it's OK to have sex
with adults, animals, younger children, experiment with drugs, homosexual
sex, etc. And if parents object to these new "teaching" methods, the
parents can find themselves ostracized in their communities, sued for
so-called "civil rights violations", and subjected to any number of heinous
and despicable hounding by homosexual groups and judges with purely
political aims, that claim that the parents are not "allowing" their
children to be themselves.

The only way to stop government from doing this gross injustice is to remove
the feminist language from the law; remove the "Woman good, Man bad"
mentality from judges and political leaders by removing them from office;
put an end to hate groups such as N.O.W., A.C.E.S. and others and stop their
anti-family, anti-father, anti-children agenda; adopt ways to see that
little to no money is passed through government's hands from one parent to
another in the form of so-called "Child Support" by making 50-50 custody the
starting point for all divorcing couples (and in so doing, you also remove
the incentive for women to castigate and cuckold their husbands by
preventing them from not only taking away the father's children, but by
keeping vindictive ex-wives [including anti-male biased, feminist appointed
judges and politicians] from taking custody of his wallet as well).

Let's not mince words here folks, this is war. Plain and simple. A war on
families, fathers and their children. If this where happening to women,
people would be up in arms! There would be marching in the streets,
protests of the like not seen since the 1960's Vietnam protests and civil
rights marches. But since it's happening to men, the media ignores it;
politicians and their feminazi puppet-masters, continue to look for new ways
to create more "law" so they can tighten the yoke to bleed more money from
men; judges enforce these draconian, unconstitutional, immoral laws and even
create new ways to apply them to anyone that has the cash to be bled.

The reason there isn't an uprising by men just yet is also simple - men want
equality for all, not just for themselves. And since there isn't any single
leader with the guts to stand up to the status quo, men will be continue to
be taken down, one family at a time.

[Kenneth S.]

I agree with many of your comments below, Dusty. However, there's one
element in what you say that I do NOT agree with. That's your suggestion
that the current situation resulted from some deliberate conspiracy to
create work for bureaucrats and power for politicians.

It may be that bureaucrats and politicians have more power because of
what has happened. It may also be that the power now in government hands is
one reason why it is difficult to get any changes -- on the general
principle that it's always much more difficult to change a situation once
the bone is in the dog's mouth. However, there's a problem about
approaching the current situation as if it were the result of a deliberate
conspiracy. The problem is that, once you talk in terms of a deliberate
conspiracy, you immediately alienate most of the people who could be allies
in seeking reform. They'll think this is a far-fetched view of how
government works.

The truth is that the current situation is a result of the iron law of
unintended consequences, which applies to so many situations where
government intervenes. The road to reform lies first in an honest
recognition of the fact that the current situation -- along with the
creation of all the various interest groups that benefit from the status
quo -- is largely accidental.

Fathers have to point out that, without anyone (except for a few crazed
feminists) intending it, mothers in the U.S. now are offered substantial
incentives to create fatherless families -- via the combination of no-fault
divorce laws, generous and predictable "child support," community property
laws, and the continued glass ceiling on paternal custody.

Of course, in your message, you correctly identify the people who will
resist reform. However, just as welfare reform took place some years back
in the teeth of opposition from the usual suspects, so family law reform is
possible, once the current situation has been correctly diagnosed.


"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I believe that, in the U.S., there are groups in some states, e.g.
> Texas
> > and Washington, that have achieved some political clout -- or at least
> that
> > was my impression a few years ago, when I was more active in political
> > activities on behalf of fathers' rights. (In this field, I think groups
> in
> > the U.K. have begun to make some impact on the political process, for
> > example the well-established Families Need Fathers group appears to be
> > consulted by government agencies in a way that agencies in the U.S.
would
> > never dream of doing. More recently formed British groups, such as the
> one
> > that has carried out several stunts to publicize current problems, have
> > helped things along.)
> >
> > In general, however, in the U.S., pro-father groups have in my view
> made
> > little headway. Local groups are good at providing support to fathers
in
> > crisis situations, but they have little impact on politicians or
> bureaucrats
> > in regard to the policies that create the crises. One reason is that
> there
> > is little or no national coordination. In the past, leaders of
effective
> > local groups have been unable to agree on terms for coordinating their
> > efforts, although I have some hope that the American Coalition for
Fathers
> > and Children may now be getting somewhere.
> >
> > My own view is that it is of crucial importance for fathers to
promote
> > the message that -- as fathers -- they have legitimate rights. They
must
> > get acceptance of the idea that those rights must be recognized even
where
> > recognition entails removing from mothers unjustifiable advantages that
> they
> > have been given over the last few decades. I recognize that most men
are
> > extremely reluctant to support any policies that appear to be
anti-women.
> > Some fathers' rights activists think they can approach the issue in
terms
> of
> > the rights of children to two parents, and that may sometimes be
helpful.
> > However, I think there has to be a clear recognition of the fact that
the
> > father's position within the U.S. family is very insecure, and that
> > mothers -- not fathers -- make most of the decisions to set up single
> parent
> > families. Correspondingly, divorced fathers have been reduced to
nothing
> > more than suppliers of money to their ex-wives. I don't see how much
can
> be
> > changed until public consciousness has been shifted from the "women as
> > victims" mentality.
> >
> > I also think that politicians and the public need to be firmly
> reminded
> > of what an utter disaster fatherless families are for children and for
> > society as a whole. To a large extent, current rules on "child support"
> and
> > on other domestic relations matters amount to subsidizing mothers to
> create
> > precisely the kind of families that everyone knows are catastrophic for
> > individual children, and that generate huge problems in the next
> generation.
> > What on earth is the point of making it as easy as possible for mothers
to
> > establish the kinds of family situations that sow the seeds of future
> social
> > problems?
> >
>
> The answer is quite simple - to create a need for government to "solve"
the
> problem. When government sticks it's grubby little mitts into the lives
of
> families, it does so knowing full well that if it removes the weakest link
> in the family - fathers. It then can step in and take over the role as
> father for the family. In so doing government sets up a cash cow for
itself
> by plundering the father's assets, property, money, livelihood, et all.
If
> Dad objects to being made a slave, he can be thrown in jail, loose his
> drivers license, professional license, passport, and anything else that
> would make him able to see his children or hire legal counsel to defend
> himself - until he changes his mind and learns to love his new yoke and
> Master.
>
> By having government remove Dad from the family picture, they remove the
> only obstacle to prevent government from taking over the raising of his
> children. It's a classic ploy from Nazi Germany. By removing Dad from
the
> family, the state thereby "owns" the children, can indoctrinate them in
any
> manner they see fit. An example of this is the way the school systems in
MA
> work to indoctrinate children into the mind set that it's OK to have sex
> with adults, animals, younger children, experiment with drugs, homosexual
> sex, etc. And if parents object to these new "teaching" methods, the
> parents can find themselves ostracized in their communities, sued for
> so-called "civil rights violations", and subjected to any number of
heinous
> and despicable hounding by homosexual groups and judges with purely
> political aims, that claim that the parents are not "allowing" their
> children to be themselves.
>
> The only way to stop government from doing this gross injustice is to
remove
> the feminist language from the law; remove the "Woman good, Man bad"
> mentality from judges and political leaders by removing them from office;
> put an end to hate groups such as N.O.W., A.C.E.S. and others and stop
their
> anti-family, anti-father, anti-children agenda; adopt ways to see that
> little to no money is passed through government's hands from one parent to
> another in the form of so-called "Child Support" by making 50-50 custody
the
> starting point for all divorcing couples (and in so doing, you also remove
> the incentive for women to castigate and cuckold their husbands by
> preventing them from not only taking away the father's children, but by
> keeping vindictive ex-wives [including anti-male biased, feminist
appointed
> judges and politicians] from taking custody of his wallet as well).
>
> Let's not mince words here folks, this is war. Plain and simple. A war
on
> families, fathers and their children. If this where happening to women,
> people would be up in arms! There would be marching in the streets,
> protests of the like not seen since the 1960's Vietnam protests and civil
> rights marches. But since it's happening to men, the media ignores it;
> politicians and their feminazi puppet-masters, continue to look for new
ways
> to create more "law" so they can tighten the yoke to bleed more money from
> men; judges enforce these draconian, unconstitutional, immoral laws and
even
> create new ways to apply them to anyone that has the cash to be bled.
>
> The reason there isn't an uprising by men just yet is also simple - men
want
> equality for all, not just for themselves. And since there isn't any
single
> leader with the guts to stand up to the status quo, men will be continue
to
> be taken down, one family at a time.
>
>

[Dusty]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree with many of your comments below, Dusty. However, there's one
> element in what you say that I do NOT agree with. That's your suggestion
> that the current situation resulted from some deliberate conspiracy to
> create work for bureaucrats and power for politicians.

I did not say anything about there being a conspiracy. Though, what is
happening to fathers everywhere, does smack of one. If that is what you got
from my previous post, then I appoligize for your thinking that. It was not
my intention to infer that there is, or ever was, a government conspiracy
that involved fathers and families.

But I will say this.. the only reason government is involving itself in it's
citizens family life is because for years GovCo has been drooling over the
fact that there was so much money passing hands and that they (until
recently) where not getting any of the action.

And now that GovCo is in on the party, they will do anything to keep their
dirty little fingers in the cookie jar.

[Patrick Lee]

The United States of Welfare---LOL

[Patrick Lee]

Dear Nimrod,

I don't believe in Santa Claus and the Easter-
bunny anymore. It is a conspiracy. The rich
don't want to pay for welfare and so the anti-thesis dead-beat
dads(usually the poorest
of the poor), don't want to either---simply as that!! The former
President Clinton hammered
the "Stone Tablets" which have become "Gospel" according to Government
which we
have now and for the forseeable future-----
No Virginia, Unfortunately there is NO Santa
Claus!!!

[Patrick Lee]

GovCo-----gotta love it!!! This ******* government is a disaster!!

[sobitthen]

I see one of the FemiNazis speaking up and tossing the name plaguing
deadbeat dad slogan.
Because of the job market and the lack of American jobs, you would call a
man unable to give support to his children deadbeat?
If the only job available to me was a 7.00/hr job, I would have to decline
it.
28% to uncle Sam and 40% to the feminazis only leaves 32% to live off of.
Minimum wage should be 15.00 an hour to be able to live in a ratty
apartment, drive an oil burner and pay insurance and eat dog food just to
pay his obligation.
You believe this is just?
What happened to this vow the woman broke upon her marriage to the man? to
love honor and obey to death due her part?
What happened is she can get almost 1/2 of his income without him and make
any amount she see is able to make, then go out and lure another man to
impregnate her and get another 40% from another.
Definitely something has gone wrong here.


"Patrick Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Dear Nimrod,
>
> I don't believe in Santa Claus and the Easter-
> bunny anymore. It is a conspiracy. The rich
> don't want to pay for welfare and so the anti-thesis dead-beat
> dads(usually the poorest
> of the poor), don't want to either---simply as that!! The former
> President Clinton hammered
> the "Stone Tablets" which have become "Gospel" according to Government
> which we
> have now and for the forseeable future-----
> No Virginia, Unfortunately there is NO Santa
> Claus!!!
>