UKMEN speak

This is some really information, I just finished up my paper for school and wish i would had found this article sooner. You may have just made me a regular

The reference to Martin Luther King is right on, but the reason the bus strike worked is it was something anyone affected could do on their own. Rosa Parks was an activist. She had been arrested before. The boycot was a plan everyone could join in, and bring it to the nations attention. I don’t think we can or should encourage men to stop paying child support and sit in jail. We don’t need to.

Our Martin Luther will surface when enough men get on the same page with a grass roots plan that will cripple the family law courts across the country.

Chief Judge Blatz was responsible for the Holmberg decision that ruled our administrative law judge system used at the time was unconstitutional, and the construction of the much worse magistrate system we enjoy today. She admitted enough pro se actions could bring the system to it’s knees.

This can be done, if enough men file pro se motions asking the same question that is really at the heart of any “deadbeat’s” attempted defense. People throw around the term “due process” as if they don’t need to also explain where it was required. Also, most people have no understanding of administrative law, including most attorneys “practicing” family law.

These are all “special proceedings” predicated on administrative agency jurisdiction of some cause that must be shown on the record. This “evidence” is now assumed, and rarely recorded. In the case of child support actions, an estranged wife or girlfreind makes the claim that you are an absent parent of dependent children (now using the term of art “non-custodial parent”). It does not mean what you think it does. Due process compels the agency, and the court to verify this necessary fact on the record. Where is the documentation of any such investigation? It is mearly a claim on an application.

Are there enough “deadbeats” with the balls to mount a coordinated attack? The foundation has been established in a case brought by David Witte, and several others are ready to join in. There are plenty of organizations available to get the word out. I hope some of them will see the logic in this plan and ask some reasonable questions about it.

Denis, you wrote some truly eloquent and articulate posts pertaining to this particular issue, and regretfully I cannot even give them the benefit of a thorough critique at this time.

I will write this much, though: you seem to be “spot-on”, and to anyone familiar with your posts on MND, that ought to come as no great surprise.

“Men have been on the losing side for so long that many have lost that hope. The men today need their own Martin Luther King.”

And given that men have been on the losing side in what has increasingly become a state of gender apartheid, no intelligent, fair-minded individual ought to be surprised with that particular need that you mention!

Great work Denis, Richard, and David…….

Accompanied by a humbling respect for reality and
a sportman-like sense of fair play, ego is certainly
positive and necessary.

However I’ve been shocked at how often in the
present context what’s been called `leadership’
is purely showmanship, or sometimes a manifest
talent for bullying, and repeatedly disappointed in
individuals whom I at first sight took to be quite
promising. These people need to be by-passed.

There have been organizations already that for a
while did sustain a respectable dues-paying
membership, but which rather than grow, petered
out because they lacked a large enough core of
people willing to involve themselves with
governmental power and the actual process of
making policy. Some complained the time wasn’t
ripe, and many that direct engagement is too
slow, and appeared to begin to wait for a silver
bullet to materialize on its own; a few went over
to the crackpot fringe that takes its cues from
the folks who say no one `really’ has to pay
income tax.

I think that there is a huge segment of the male population and probably a significant segment of the female population hungering for a men’s organization that will “get it right” in addressing what is happening to marriage, and to many other areas within the culture (they are the fuel)

I meant to say:

I think that there is a huge segment of the male population and probably a significant segment of the female population hungering for a men’s organization that will “get it right” in addressing what is happening to marriage, and to many other areas within the culture (THEY are the FOUNDATION and the fuel)

wls says: “The critical problem that none of the remarks here
about how to organize addresses, is how to recruit
a membership that’s willing to engage the enemy”

David Usher says: “Most folks out there know what it going on, they just don’t see answers worth promoting.”

Richard Doyle says: “That is — build the foundation BEFORE building the upper storeys. We have to unify the movement FIRST.”

Actually I did address how to recruit membership (see below). And I believe the foundation already exists. And people DO know what is going on. I think that there is a huge segment of the male population and probably a significant segment of the female population hungering for a men’s organization that will “get it right” in addressing what is happening to marriage, and to many other areas within the culture (they are the fuel). Not all may see the same interrelations between the war on men and fathers and the myriad of social problems but people sense strongly that things are a mess. The Organization will by it’s actions drive recruitment and membership as long as the media is used effectively. That is why a wealthy “angel” is needed first. This will allow The Organization to get started and for the leaders within it to light the match. Men have been beaten down in this society for 40+ years. Their due process rights have been systematically eliminated. Political Correctness has silenced them for a long time and has kept them from speaking out against these injustices. Something is necessary to motivate them into believing change can happen. Men have been on the losing side for so long that many have lost that hope. The men today need their own Martin Luther King.

Yes, the big boys need to agree to cooperate. Then they need to define their roles. Then they need to get the ball rolling. If they manage to do these things I believe that recruitment and membership will be the smallest issue they will be dealing with.

To wls: Big guys may be ego-driven, perhaps (which can be a positive quality) but not phony. More importantly, they hold the keys to success. We need them.

There are no “big guys” that aren’t phonies, and
there’s already been far too much talk.

It’s not perfect and probably shouldn’t be, but
there’s enough unity on the main issues to begin
_now_.

The problem is to convince enough people to end
the fantasy game playing and actually act in the
real world.

Good suggestions, David (and others); but we must keep our priorities straight. That is — build the foundation BEFORE building the upper storeys. We have to unify the movement FIRST. Otherwise, we will never attain the clout political and PR-wise, to employ these neat suggestions. That’s been our problem for over 30 years. We must convince the big guys that it’s also in their own interest to commence talking to each other.

F4J’s campaigns were NOT _direct action_ in the
original sense of the term.

`Direct action’ is something that has an immediate,
impossible to ignore, effect, tending in itself to
force some real change. The famous `Rosa Parks’
Montgomery Alabama bus boycott is an example: the
bus company was economically dependent on black
patronage, and eventually had to change its
invidious seating policy, or else face financial
bankruptcy.

The critical problem that none of the remarks here
about how to organize addresses, is how to recruit
a membership that’s willing to engage the enemy.

All,

My 19 years of experience indicate the following prerequisites must be in place in order to win.

1. The organization must be properly financed (more on this below).

2. The organization must be run professionally. Those with professional credentials must organize and serve the street-level activists, and street-level activists must follow the guidance of the leaders of the organization.

3. The organization must have at least one charismatic individual capable of leading the direction of the organization … one with debate and media experience … who can relate the work of activists in the mainstream sense.

4. Those who may have perverse incentives or who could lose their livilhoods by association with activism cannot be leaders of the organization. Attorneys, psychologists, and other professionals who support the cause must advise and serve in their professional capacity only to further the cause.

5. Leaders must be those who people naturally follow. A self-appointed leader who has nothing worth following will cause failure of the organization. All leaders should teach everything they know to their cohorts. If a person with better or equal skills comes along, they should expand the power of the organization by allowing that person to do public work, and even to assume leadership of the organization. If we want to win the war, the best strategists and generals available must be moved to the top.

More on item #1:

Every rights organization in the past has failed because it was financed out of the pockets of its own financially-stripped activists. One cannot achieve critical mass in publicity, in promotion of truthful science, in filing and winning court cases, and in public relations, without substantial financial resources. F4J did quite well given its limited resources. But, we will not see real success without significant major involvement by major private and/or corporate help.

Corporations and private donors have many great reasons to stop giving to traditional beneficiaries of social giving, all of which destroy families. The United Way gives a lot of money to radical feminist organizations. Banks and other corporations give much money to all sorts of anti-family causes. I frankly find this astonishing, because it hurts their businesses greatly.

When families break down, businesses suffer from poor productivity. Women can’t work as much because they have to do it all (businesses have thought the reverse is true for years). Employees have to take much more time off. They get fired more because they simply are unable to focus on work.

Family breakdown is tremendously expensive. In the U.S., this amounts to half a trillion dollars annually attempting to take care of all those “families of the people”. Government simply can’t afford it, so it keeps trying to pass these costs off by moving them into the board room. National Health Care would have taken over the medical industry. The fact is, married families are much more likely to have health insurace. It is single mothers who are not eligible. Marriage will end most of this problem.

Banks are especially at risk. Divorce is one of the primary predictors of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy reforms, which made it difficult to write off credit card expenses in bankruptcy, has not fixed anything. The money simply is not there.

There is much concern now about how we will pay for retirement of the baby boomers. These problems would abate substantially if so many boomers weren’t divorced and living alone. Elder poverty is also predominantly a function of non-marriage. If we don’t fix this, we will see laws being passed that permit boomers to sue their children for elder support (this style of litigation just began within the past five years). And, government will have to turn to business (which has lots of cash), to make up the difference.

Last, our half-trillion in annual social expenditures compete with federal outlays for infrastructure and other things governments must do so we can be competitive in the world economy. American businesses who want to win must back the pro-marriage movement if they want to see America becoming more competitive with China (which spends everything on infrastructure and nothing on the welfare state).

Therefore: Corporations and philanthropists must wisely support pro-marriage organizatiuons that will encourage marital responsiblity, help spouses work through the normal problems and processes of marriage and aging, and address the actual causes of domestic violence and child abuse.

I do strongly encourage all FR advocates to do more than complain about abuses of men. The bad will not be replaced unless we have an answer in place that legislators will find palatable and politically-safe to support.

I strongly recommend that much of the work of the “legacy” fathers rights movement be in the area of pro-family reforms. Most folks out there know what it going on, they just don’t see answers worth promoting. The responsibility is squarely on our shoulders to promote positive answers. Protesting will get attention (as F4J discovered). When everyone is looking, thats exactly the time we must be talking about the answers.

In the end, even if F4J didn’t have other internal problems, it would have hit the wall anyway and burned out, just like every other FR group that never promoted pro-marriage policy that nobody can object to without looking really bad.

That is why I have written a few articles declaring the men’s movement to be the beginnings of the “Legitimate Marriage Movement”. If we want to move to the next step, we now know what to do.

Excellent suggestions, Dennis.
But, again, we must 1st get the big guns to agree to start cooperating.
Fraternally
Rich Doyle

One more thing (per previous posts):

I think it is very important that The Organization actively seek out wealthy “angels” for donation very early in it’s existance. This person may have been burned in Family Court or in some other way and is aware of some of the men’s issues firsthand. They may wish to remain annonymous. Once The Organization gets wide exposure in the media we may see chapters being created and membership growing rather quickly. F4J got attention, particularly for fathers, but their scope was limited (not a criticism). They had an impact. I’m talking about running weekly full page ads in the NY Time, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, etc. all over the country to bullet point ALL the important key issues for men and fathers. I’m talking about traveling for popular talk radio and televison appearances. I’m talking about lobbying members of Congress. etc. etc.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Richard, some thoughts per previous posts:

In my humble opinion The Organization needs:

A CEO

A person with scholarly credentials. Perhaps a Ph.D. but not necessarily, and someone published rather extensively in the issues affecting men and fathers. A person with a strict problem-solving personality such that their public demeanor is as an intelligent, analytical, forever calm, lucid, concise communicator with integrity. This person will be the “public face” of The Organization.

VP of Strategy

This is a creative person with strong problem solving skills. This position will be important because this person is a key leader involved in launching the men’s rights movement. They will ask and answer: How do we break into the public space? How do we launch a media campaign? How do we deal with the media and keep it going? How do we get the attention of Congress and the Executive Branch? How do we address the myriad of legal issues for men and fathers in the courts? This would be the men’s rights version of “The Brain”.

VP of Marketing & Chapter Development

Another key position. This indiviual has a marketing/advertising backgound. They will keep men’s and father’s issue always in the spotlight. They will work with the VP of Strategy to implement these tasks. This individual will also market the cause in creative ways to build up local chapters, across the nation and in schools, the military etc. All chapters will be bound by the The Organization’s Articles of Incorporation, Charter, Mission Statement.

VP of Legal Affairs

Another key position. They will keep The Organization’s legal status current (e.g. corporation, LLC, etc.), protect the groups legal interests, and work with the VP of Strategy and VP of Marketing & Chapter Development to get the Legal Establishment working for the rights of men and fathers, and to keep the cases in the public consciousness.

As things grow a VP of Media may need to be added to address the growing presence of the men’s movement in the public space. This will allow the VP of Strategy to strategise “the big picture” to behind the scenes.

Most employees will be contractors who can be hired and fired at will to protect the legal exposure of he Organization.