Are American Men Leaving Money in Their Wills to Men’s Rights Causes?

mr. Peterson…Again,..a solid call fort action!!

And I also agree on your’e assertion that Mr. Usher Is currently doing a great job getting out our message in the propper forum…The US. congress!!
And that yes, we should start to send Usher into congress with a more complete supply line!!

For men not in a situation where they can fight directly for mens/fathers rights!! Give a few bucks to the men who are willing to fight for you!!…but make sure you are seeing tangeable action from whoever youre donateing to!!

I would also like to add that many more men might donate to the cause of the father,…But many men do not know mens/fathers activists even exist!!

In case one hasn,t noticed…their is what warren Farrel has termed “THE LACE CURTAIN”…which is similar to an Iron curtain as far as media is concerned when the media only publishes accounts of women-as-victim..

With the internet we can circumvent media “LACE CURTAIN”…So reach out to all your’e friends and get them the mens/fathers rights information!!

Facts and truth are what is going to diffuse the Feminist Klan’s anti-male hysteria!!

Leaving money in your will to “mens rights” organizaitions is great, but why not do something while your still alive and kickin’. Money is great, it can do a lot of things in this corrupt old world, but it is dedicated people, no, not just men, who make the difference. Those willing to stand up to tyranny, even if that means personal sacrifice.
What needs to be done to get the mens rights movement truelly up and running is a concerted campaign to get all the various groups out there, to get behind a single idea. I beleive that “single idea” is to make a national law making physical/legal custody the norm. It will take all of the organizations to make this happen. It will take bringing massive political, legal and economic pressure to bear. It will take doing this for years, to root out and replace the current trends, ie steal his kids, steal his home, steal his property and steal his money, with a new attitude that both parents are equal and the bias and hatred against fathers and men will not be tolerated any more!
Make women share “ownership” ( I hate that word) of children. Make it to where men have as many rights and priveledges as women do. The women won’t like it, since this will counteract and remove some of the glaring and unfair advantages they have enjoyed for almost 40 years. They will have to be made to do it and it will take some very severe and long lasting sanctions on them,get it across to them, the women, that their little ” free ride” is over! That they will be required to obey it, like it or not and that they will be held to the same standard of conduct.
No matter how “Pretty and Politically Correct” it is , if it is wrong, they will be held accountable. This will cause women to “grow up ” socially,legally and morally. After a while , the very serious social,economic and legal problems our society has,will improve measureably. It’s not a cure all , but it will help!
I need not say it , but our society is in serious trouble. I believe, no…. I know that if we don’t tackle some of the very serious problems and soon! Our society may collapse. Then it will get ugly, then men with guns will have to handle matters. God help us all, if that happens!

I plan to leave my 1M+ estate to the cause.

Anyone could put liquid assets into something they just created with 501c3 status that claims to support men’s rights or the rights of women not to be oppressed (by feminists who think they represent them). Then hire an up-and-coming activist who is available on the job market to do a project for a few months. The performance on the project would determine if the hire is right for a more long-term assignment.

Specific objectives would be something like “Force another federal judge to either uphold or reject the premise stated last year by Judge Clarence Cooper that online dating is like buying a gun in that both should require background checks”.

Or “force a federal judge to clarify the remarks of Judge Thomas Rose last year when he said that the Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental libety interest in an American contacting a foreigner”.

My favorite objective: “Force a federal judge to declare that domestic violence is not a federal issue, but a states rights issue”. That would kill VAWA instantly.

Admittedly, the most urgent need for money is for federal court action.

We might want to list specific objectives in these comments…so men willing their money will know exactly what it is that only funding can bring about.

Men can do much with very little money also!!!

Depending on how bold one is!!

…For a more modest approach one could get a bumper sticker off mensactivism.org!! Thats fairly benign, even if youre office is full of those Feminist klan lynchemobbsters..

Or for the much bolder approach…One might pull a Ray blumhorst…and make a sign for the back of his truck!!

I’m trying to steele myself for that one!!Park my truck insde the city, pay the meter, and sit there all day!!! One may expect road frontage to bring about 500…readers per hour…Depending on the city!!

While MND is ostensibly a “for profit” organization (covered under my S-corporation, Java King, Inc.), I have operated it ON MY OWN for nearly six years on a shoestring budget. I have put FAR more into this site than it has ever returned.

But the dangers of converting MND into a non-profit are too great, so the site will remain a “for-profit” concern – even if in name only.

Given MND’s UNPARALLELED historical success in elevating the concerns of Men’s Rights issues in the public square, I can only guess what I would have been able to do if I had any real resources.

Anyone wishing to include MND in their Will should contact me (editor@mensnewsdaily.com) for specific information.

one problem is that most men willing to leave money to appropiate causes would probably be single or divorced and not predisposed to leave largess to women anyway.

married men wil be a more difficult target with all the feminine input and control that by default, goes along with marriage contracts of today.

thats my opinion.

Well, yes, but that is the single greatest danger to American freedom: feminine control over $trillions in assets of their husbands. American men must stipulate which men’s rights organizations will get what money BEFORE they die. Otherwise the woman will control everything and I don’t see many widows saying “Here is a few million for MND. My husband loved that site so much.”

Speaking of MND, MND needs to be a TV station, not just a website. Actually, technology is quickly converging so that all websites can be TV stations, but only the funded ones are going to be able to get the better content. For MND to be “watched” will require constant video productions and news anchoring, none of which is as cheap as monitoring a server and code.

What I fear is that some feminist-friendly billionaire is going to fund a GQ TV Station and call it TV for Men…and maybe use the politically castrated “The Man Show” and some erotic shows as the sole indication that they are on the side of men.

Obviously, that kind of fare will get viewers, but it will cost big bucks and there is an extreme danger that the message will be controlled by people loyal to one of the two anti-male political parties that dominate American politics today. Their message will be “nothing to see her folks. Men still run the country. See…look at the “Girls on Trampolines”. Never mind that there will be new laws saying that you have to have a background check to actually say hello to such a cutie online. The patriarchy is safe. Go back to sleep.”

Very soon, whatever political party wins the White House will be saying that “no American man with a clean record is going to mind being background checked before saying hello to a woman online. Only the men with something to hide will feel that way.”

That is not just a theoretical prediction. When IMBRA was upheld at the district level this past March the judge Clarence Cooper said just that. The judge did not make a distinction that this reasoning should only apply to men meeting foreign women. He, or more likely his young female legal aide, was taking orders from Hillary who promised him a Supreme Court nomination.

So WILL lose all rights to say hello to women online very soon without getting major firepower into place.

After losing the right to say hello to women online, bars and other commerce locations will be so regulated because of Congress’ supposed right to “regulate” commerce…which was really the right to “keep commerce regular” which had a different meaning 220 years ago than the corrupt courts now hold it to be.

There will be background checks (sex offender checks) for men to be allowed into nightclubs and discos and bars…probably within the next 10 years if we do not get the support of at least one billionaire.

Mr. LaSAlle, you said:

But the dangers of converting MND into a non-profit are too great, so the site will remain a “for-profit” concern – even if in name only.

Please explain how you see the “dangers” of turning into non-profit.

John Maguire,
managing editor,
The Liberator

If anyone doubts that the federal courts would really go so far as to background check men who want to go into bars, read the following two “decisions” by federal judges that indicate that, if Congress passed such a law, they would uphold it:

http://www.veteransabroad.com/Decision.pdf

http://www.veteransabroad.com/denied.pdf

The Brownback Christian evangelicals are fully onboard with the feminists on this kind of man-control and so is the Vatican now that the great patriarch John Paul is dead and his Marxist followers put the old senile guy in for a few years.

All of these people believe that men should only speak when they are spoken to.

Great discussion. Let’s keep talking about money, treasure, and war chests for social change. If Winston Churchill were around today and in this movement, he’d be thinking, “Where’s the first ten million coming from?”

I’m certainly thinking that, every day. I’ll confess my current question is, “Where’s the first two million coming from?”

Mike said: But the dangers of converting MND into a non-profit are too great, so the site will remain a “for-profit” concern – even if in name only.

Mike–would you explain the dangers you see? I don’t understand what you mean.

John Maguire
Managing Editor
The Liberator

I assume the posters know that one strongly pro-father shared-parenting group, Fathers and Families of Massachusetts, is a non-profit run in a very businesslike way by Dr. Ned Holstein and has a roughly $300,000 annual budget. If not, look ‘em up on the web.

John Maguire said,

“Please explain how you see the “dangers” of turning into non-profit.”

John, six years ago I created MND on my own.

I built the site on my own, I evangelized the site on my own, I organized and posted content on my own. I contacted major newspapers, columnists, Internet writers, and fellow MRAers all on my own. On a daily basis for the past six years I have lifted this massive beast ON MY OWN. After six years, the site now hosts well over 100,000 unique articles and nearly 50 thousand comments – and I organized and enabled all of this on my own.

And I think it’s fair to say that MND is the single most visible outpost for the Men’s Rights community in the country – if not the world (with all due respect to F4J).

The only time I ever called on someone from the MRA community to help with the software and server technology, it ended up costing me some $40,000 in hard cash – and my return was almost negligible. (Just so you know – $40,000 is VERY serious money for me. In general, this is as much as I have ever made in annual income from any job I have held. Most of this was paid out from the proceeds I reaped from the sale of my home in 2005 – I would never have been able to pay for it otherwise.)

Aside from this particularly bitter experience with a “fellow” MRA activist, I have many other reasons to mistrust the idea of converting MND into a non-profit organization.

On my own – and with NO MONEY – I have accomplish undeniably great things in raising the profile of Men’s Issues both nationally and globally.

On the other hand, over these years, I have watched in amazement as non-profit MRA groups have consumed themselves in bloody internecine battles that have accomplished NOTHING except self-destruction.

Sad to say, many MRAs are notoriously self-aggrandizing and singularly devoted to gaining power and attention for themselves rather than cooperating together as a unit for the purpose of a greater goal.

(I had a recent conversation with David Usher about this very issue. He’s been an MRA for nearly 20 years, and he has some amazing stories to tell of non-profit MRA groups biting and clawing and scratching each other into bloody useless pulps.)

I will NEVER take MND down that road.

Anyone who has observed MND over the years – or who know me even a little – knows that I am NOT motivated by power or self-aggrandizement. Indeed, I have made it a point to keep my distance from the public eye and to let the Movement speak for itself. The best rise, and my job is simply to enable them.

Could anyone imagine what MND would be like if this site were in the hands of a circular firing squad of ambitious MRAs?

No thanks. If I’m going to starve, I’ll do it with a clean conscience.

“I assume the posters know that one strongly pro-father shared-parenting group, Fathers and Families of Massachusetts, is a non-profit run in a very businesslike way by Dr. Ned Holstein and has a roughly $300,000 annual budget. If not, look ‘em up on the web.”

That’s the point – it sounds as though Holstein runs the show all on his own without a host of ambitious backbiters intent on influencing policy.

MND is a different animal. This is the highest profile MRA site in the country by far. If MND were to become open to ambitious and self-serving MRAs across the 50 states, the potential for self-destruction would be quite great – in my opinion.

A 501c3 non-profit needs a board of directors, but it can have one director who directs all policy. Witness the Tahirih Injustice Center, run by Layli Miller-Muro. Her organization is having a fundraiser in 4 weeks in Washington where they will pull in a cool $2Million from the likes of Exxon-Mobil…simply because it is tax-free to the big corporation, the executives like the Miller family and the social, black-tie comradery.

I was part of the NYC black-tie scene until recently (I realized that the Moscow and St. Petersburg black tie scene was better).

It is not hard to work that scene as a fundraiser. I have names of men in New York who could invite the right people if someone were able to form a “Charity” that people would donate to by attending a $200 per plate black tie ball. We could even get a West Point Honor Guard.

Over at Online Dating Rights dot com, where we are fighting the new law requiring background checks for men in order to say hello to women, we are starting to get a number of American women professors who are backing us up with their “expertise” for instance on a television show recently. They could be available to be key note speakers at fundraisers.

I could do all this if I were still a resident of New York City or any part of the US where the money is. But I live in Scandinavia now (which is, contrary to popular belief, less obnoxiously feminist than the US and Canada).

Any reading this live in DC or NYC where you can do fundraisers?

Very good idea!

The problem however seems to me that the Mens Rights Movement as a whole may seem a little controversial and incoherent at this moment in order to be a trusted receiver of a individual rich guy’s will.
After all this is usually his money that he worked all his life for and not something inherited from a rich wife…
So maybe we should work on the trust issue.
just my 2 cents.

Most financial contributors—and probably especially those with the capacity to be `major’ donators—don’t want to just piss their funds into a black hole. They usually want to seed an avalanche: they hope to see a ball start rolling, and will take on a reasonable amount of risk and throw in even more if they detect even an infinitesimal advance. However, when _none_ of this materializes, they back out and withdraw their further support.

Fathers and Families has become a big disappointment: initially very promising, they seem to have peaked several years ago and appear currently to be essentially on the way out.

[edited for inappropriate content]…the aggrieved fathers’ community also has not rallied to the cause—on the level of participation more importantly than financing—to the extent necessary to build a viable, accomplishing organization.

Unfortunately, their experience in Massachusetts in the new millennium closely mirrors California’s in the 1990s.

With all respect to WLS, he’s mistaken. I don’t know where he gets the idea that FAF is “essentially on the way out.” FAF has a five-room downtown office in a good office building, a fulltime paid staff of two and a half or three people, regular monthly public meetings, representation at the statehouse by a lobbying firm on monthly retainer, and so on, and a regular and structured fund-raising plan. Perhaps WLS is thinking of some other group? Holstein has has flaws as do all of us, but calling him something of a con-man is silly and divisive. Holstein is the most focused force for progress in this state, I would say. “Divided we fail” should be our motto here.

Holstein has made the progress he has made in the last 10 years–which is how long FAF has been in existence–by running FAF as an orderly, businesslike non-profit.
WLS’ phrase “aggrieved fathers’ community” needs a critique.

Our problem in this movement is that many of the aggrieved fathers are so traumatized (understandably of course) they cannot form a community. They are PTSD sufferers; they are freaked out with emotional and financial strain; their cognitive abilities are distorted. Put them in front of a news camera and they are so enraged that’s all that comes across. Men who are hyper-distressed victims (and I have been there, in the past) cannot form a community. They alternate between outbursts and withdrawal. Holstein’s success is due in part to his consciously facing this fact. He controls who gets in front of the cameras, and makes sure his team is composed of people who are well past their initial emergency. He is trying to make changes in the law–parading in public the men who are suffering so badly their behavior is disturbed is just handing a weapon to our enemies.

John Maguire said, “He controls who gets in front of the cameras, and makes sure his team is composed of people who are well past their initial emergency. He is trying to make changes in the law–parading in public the men who are suffering so badly their behavior is disturbed is just handing a weapon to our enemies.”

Exactly. This is problem I have been having with MND from the beginning. Given its profile as the most visible Men’s Rights website in the country, MND naturally attracts people who are in a perpetual state of anger. Until recently, MND’s policy of open-discourse has enabled these folks to find each other and to vent their concerns here. When I de-emphasized the commenting features a few months ago, these angry posters disbanded en masse and returned to the woodwork.

But I have seen this sort of thing before. Back in 2002-2003, I had a forum wherein “aggrieved” men and fathers were given a blank tablet upon which to voice their concerns. Over time, the forum grew in use and popularity… and in attracting the most angry members of the community. It got so bad that I had to derail the whole project and remove the forum from the home page of MND.

The immediate effect at that time was a loss of traffic to MND. But, again, this was a short term effect, and within another year MND traffic was back to “normal”.

Last year, I reintroduced the commenting function through WordPress. Long-term MND observers will note that the same kind of thing has happened again: I have de-emphasized commenting, and the “community of the angry” has responded by leaving in a huff.

The problem is, as long as there is open commenting on MND, these folks are liable to return. Eventually I may have to turn commenting off all together.

I must say, in light of my personal efforts and financial sacrifice to raise the national profile of MRA issues, it is actually pretty painful to hear how well funded some of these backwater MRA groups appear to be.

If MND had that kind of money and organization behind it, without doubt this site could start the “avalanche” everyone seems to want.

Meanwhile, trying to raise $415 per month to pay for my server fees is like pulling teeth from an alligator’s mouth.

*sigh*

The government regulates/limits the political activity of non profits. This is why any serious political action can not be based on that business organization. There could be a nonprofit foundation that functions in an educational/research role, but hard ass political action – the gov will shut you down.

Mike :- “The problem is, as long as there is open commenting on MND, these folks are liable to return. Eventually I may have to turn commenting off all together.”

The 10 or so people who have made 25 comments here, show the usefulness of cross-fertilised ideas. It would not help any of us in the MRM to ‘turn commenting off’. MND is known for the positives of its commentaries as well as its (your) sensible dealing with the trouble-makers. The very ability to add to the milieux of articles by exchanging ideas generated and spreading them around (I post MND articles, links and comments everwhere I can) is what is building the MRM.

We have to put up with some negativity and nuttiness, IMHO, just as we put up with fart-producing bacteria in our guts.

I also applaude your stance on staying independant. There are structures enabled by ‘charity’ status but the major advances in the MRM have not been by committee. Individual leadership is the male way. People – men – follow leaders and are pleased to contribute when a good leader directs.

It is common for MRAs to decry the MSM. I think this is an oppoortunity rather than a problem. MND could (should) have TV and radio arms. Radio is probably less expensive. In Oz the DOTA has made some good inroads into the public psyche through its weekly radio broadcasts, uniting contributors through its web-based forum. Video streaming is fine for those with the kit that supports it. Perhaps some positive connections with DOTA and Knights Radio are in order to spread the messages and build cooperation.

Also, and this may seem a little contentious, there needs to be a lot more internationalism in the MRM. MND made a good start some years ago by including ‘foreign’ news reports. It could be a two-way flow. MND could become the AP or Reuters of the MRM. The strong and parochial focus of many American writers here is a good model for all but does tend to ingore the nature of the Beast and locate it only in America.

Jim Peterson, Sir. Your call for Wills to include the MRM is timely and useful. The anger that drives many in the movement is usually accompanied by dispossession, unfortunately. But some are able to build again if young enough.

“The strong and parochial focus of many American writers here is a good model for all but does tend to ingore the nature of the Beast and locate it only in America.”

Amfortas – as usual, I agree with what you say. And in fact I have been giving this idea of internationalizing MND some real consideration over the past few months.

MND SHOULD be more international, and have more connectivity with our people around the world. Maybe it’s time to replace the RED with the PURPLE….

Australia, Ireland, Britain…. these are our natural allies and brothers indeed.

“The last time I looked the Fathers and Families website was a ruin”

Wrong as usual, WLS:

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/site/index.php

This looks like a vibrant, up-to-date website and a buttoned up organization.

FAF is allowed to educate legislators, but not to enter electoral contests. That’s what it does.

Mr. WLS seems to be in another part of the country. I’m here in the Boston region, and I assure everyone that Ned Holstein’s FAF is a solid group. If only we had 50 more groups like FAF. I assume we are heading that way–and the faster the better. It’s easy to criticize Ned Holstein, but he has a a stable group, with businesslike cash flow, a 10-year history, downtown offices, several full-time employees who are no dummies, and about 3,500 members. Name me another state group that solid. I hope there is one, and I look forward to hearing about it.

Mr. LaSalle–a question–how come no PAYPAL on MND? If it’s there, it’s not visible. If your readers gave you $2/month, you’d be more secure.

Fathers & Families is coming in for some debate here, so let me clarify a couple of things.

First, we are a non-profit because people will give much more money if they can deduct the gift from their taxes, and also because it gives them confidence that their money is not just going to build another person’s wealth.

Second, yes, non-profits are legally allowed to lobby, up to 20% of their expenditures.

Third, yes we did raise $300,000 in 2006.

Fourth, it is not a one-man show. For starters, Dan Hogan, not me, was the Executive Director for the past 18 months until I stepped back into the job on August 1.

Fifth, it is not a one-man show because you cannot raise money if it is. We have a Board of Directors who ultimately call the shots, as well as dozens of members whom we consult regularly. It is only by inspiring the confidence and respect of thousands of people that you can succeed in raising money.

Lastly, why all this talk about money? Because there is not a single effective reform organization of any kind in America that does not raise money. Even Martin Luther King’s famous demonstrations worked only because, as his people were jailed by the thousands, celebrity singer Harry Belafonte was raising big bucks in New York City among the glitterati of the time to bail them out so they could demonstrate again.

You can take a good cut at some early-innning fastballs without money, but you will not be there at the playoffs without it.

Here’s the Fathers & Families vision: We believe that to win we need to implement five major activities: 1) public relations/media visibility; 2) lobbying; 3) research — to be sure all our positions are grounded in facts (F&F maintains an extensive library); 4) legal offense fund, to bring lawsuits and appeal important cases to higher courts; 5) services to members. We’ve done some of these better than others, and there are plenty of smarter people who could do them better — we just do our best.

All of this has to rest on a foundation of paid staff, complemented by volunteers, if it is to succeed, which means there must be a plan for membership growth and fundraising. I’ve seen too many fulltime voluteers with hearts of gold burn out and disappear. Paid staff means being on your feet in the last round.

If you look at Greenpeace, or Sierra Club, animal rights people, or any other succesful reform organizations, they incorporate most of these elements.

What about other groups and organizations? God bless ‘em! Nobody has to follow our vision — let each person pursue justice in his/her own way!

Well, the radical feminist Tahirih Justice Center is one of those non-profits and they were totally involved in getting IMBRA passed in Congress. They then appeared on Vatican Radio with Sam Brownback on 1/29/07 to slander all American businessmen who might date foreign women while on business trips (this violated their tax free status as well as the Hatch Act)…

But NOBODY IS COMPLAINING.

I agree with WLS (if this is the gist of what WLS is saying) that, if this Fathers organization is supposed to be vibrant, why do we not see any FEDERAL court action from them? VAWA is waiting to be overturned. I know there are plenty of federal judges who hate feminists and they are just WAITING for something to come at them…but MRA types are their own worst enemy: they simply will NOT fight at the federal level while the feminists are getting great jobs at Homeland Security.

Look what just happened: The 501c4 organization Tahirih Justice Center just got one of their own, Colleen Renk Zengotitabengoa, into a high level position at the Department of Homeland Security.

Who is the corrupt traitor at Homeland Security that hired her?

Are any MRA’s suing for Freedom of Information material on who hires these feminists?

This Fathers organization: are they not focused on VAWA?

I’ve always wondered why there wasn’t a forum option here. I suppose now I know.

I’ve said it before, having a solid national organization is something this country needs. I will soon be graduating with a masters in Sociology and I’ve been looking for a Men’s Right’s Organization to work for. I simply can’t find an opportunity like that which I find disappointing.

It occurred to me another way someone might donate through the National Science Foundation. This organization provides grants for various scientific research projects. I would assume you could stipulate what projects you wanted funded though, admittedly,there is the chance that a feminist could get it by claiming he or she is studying a issue that is of interest to our cause.

I too haven’t seen a pay pal option Mike.

Thom: Please get in touch with me via veterans at veteransabroad dot com or via skype at veteransabroad. More than a forum, we should be all talking verbally and meeting. I am in Scandinavia, but I get to London, Paris, Zurich and Munich quite often.

WLS burns with envy over anybody else’s success, and this is (yawn) another example. His previous targets include Mike LaSalle (who is incredibly generous to allow WLS to continue to post here), Marc Angelucci, Mike Robinson, Glenn Sacks, Marc Rudov, and others. I’ve never seen him utter one positive word about anybody in the movement who is successful–if they succeed, WLS becomes envious and angry. Apparently now WLS is jealous of Ned Holstein, thus the comments above.

Thom, Mike or College Activist: Could you do an Excel spreadsheet listing who you think the major players are in the MRM and what their career status is etc?

Off the top of my head, I can think of:

1) Mike LaSalle – Hosts MND
2) Glenn Sacks Hosts http://www.glennsacks.com and a radio show
3) Marc Rudov (San Francisco Bay Area) http://www.thenononsenseman.com and appearing on CNN on September 5th to do battle with a mangina named Peter Pollard who thinks it was OK that the state of Virginia asked people to report men who held hands with children. Marc also appeared on Steve Forbes program and he regularly appears on Fox News to do battle with a feminist, usually about topics like “Abolish Alimony”.
4) Dave Usher (Missouri) and Company at http://www.mediaradar.org. But Dave has a day job. Why can’t somone offer him enough to run an MRM org and sue VAWA?
5) Ned Holstein (Boston) of Fathers and Families at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/site/index.php
6) Tristan Laurent (Colorado) – Hosts http://www.online-dating-rights.com and looking for plaintiffs and PRO BONO attorneys to overthrow the IMBRA law that requires American men to undergo sex offender checks and deep background checks before being allowed to say hello to foreign women online or via dating agencies.
7) Jim Peterson (myself- Helsinki) who posts at ODR above but runs a business in Europe that consumes 14 hour days. I don’t have the time to even update http://www.veteransabroad.com which I host. I cannot go back to the US to challenge IMBRA and VAWA myself although I would otherwise do it without a lawyer (pro se). I don’t think most lawyers have it in them to fight feminists because they create so much “liability” for lawyers to make money off of.
Dave Root (Maryland) has a full-time job but knows how to dog fake Republican Senator Sam Brownback on the online campaign trail.

This is just what I see from afar, having a narrow perspective and not much experience with the MRM until 2007.

Let’s flesh out a more comprehensive list of players and circulate a spreadsheet. It is not as if we are subversives: we are American men including veterans who want the feminists removed from government (especially Homeland Security) and who want the Supreme Court to finally put a lid on all the misandry going on at the state and district federal levels of the “justice” system.

Whom can we get on our side with fame and money? Paul McCartney after Heather Mills taught him a lesson? Bruce Willis who regularly goes to Moscow to meet Russian women? Rupert Murdoch whose ex-wife took him for $300Million?

What about foreign nations who don’t like feminism? It certainly would not be treason to get them talking. Swedish and Finnish men have gotten at least some odious aspects of feminism curtailed despite female majorities in their parliaments.

We need more dialogues being opened up…but first we need to categorize and do inventory on just what our human assets are.

I don’t think WLS was doing the circular firing squad thing. If someone has not updated their website since 2003, a man has a right to wonder what is going on. That sounded like constructive criticism. I haven’t seen the site in question however.

I just checked Fathers and Families. Website looks very professional and they are up-to-date as of August 2007. Not bad.

They just got a Virginia Wellington Cabot Grant. I do not know how much that was, but it sounds good.

Harvard Law students wanting to be interns? Do I detect a possible pro-bono lawsuit against VAWA here?

But I do not understand the following…is this referring to the Massachusetts legislature or the US Congress:

Shared-Parenting: With the help of our lobbyists, The Suffolk Group, we enlisted 53 House and Senate co-sponsors for our Shared Parenting Bills (House Bill 1460 and Senate Bill 994) — over 25% of the Legislature. Our leading Senate sponsor is the Chair of Ways and Means.

Who is the chair? What is the Suffolk Group?

How much is the Suffolok Group paid? Will they lobby for changes in VAWA so women cannot shack up with men for 2 months and then claim abuse and steal his house? Will they lobby for men not to be sex offender checked to say hello to others online?

I am impressed with this organization so far. We will need more and those with different focus points. Frankly, Fathers4Justice and Fathers and Families are dealing with a subset of the misandry that is ruining England and the USA.

It sounds like their sites are not on getting the US Supreme Court to crush feminism completely.

That is the organization I want to see.

We have 5 conservative justices there. They only need remember what conservatism and the patriarchy once was.

MoreMoore on WLS: “I’ve never seen him utter one positive word about anybody in the movement who is successful–if they succeed, WLS becomes envious and angry.”

Yup. Exactly. He posts to this site constantly, always purposefully with distortions, half-truths and outright lies. He has NEVER said anything positive or constructive.

I believe he is a paid feminist plant.

He is a walking poison and his words should be disregarded perfunctorily.

“I too haven’t seen a pay pal option Mike.”

Shucks, guys. It’s right on the home page of MND, big as life. How could you miss it?

WLS..is a “has been” in the mens action arena from what i’ve read!! Instead of picking himself back up, he chooses to pull others down!! He’s a textbook case of …..”has been-ism”!!

All,

I would like to thank everyone for the words of support. I have been doing fundraising about as long as I have been in the movement. While some monies have been raised for targeted things, the tonnage needed is simply not there. The F&F $300k budget is awesome for this movement. It is but a drop in the bucket compared to what feminist organizations, who are attached to United Way and who get millions in corporate funding in addition to having perches within corporations to expound their agenda on domestic violence and “diversity”, and who are often additionally left very large sums of money in estates.

We are faced with the same problems all conservative orgs face (liberals do not give money to men’s or marriage-based groups because feminism is part of liberalism). There are many thousands of small conservative organizations consisting of one or two people in a family-run organization targeting one special interest. Conservatives grassroots people rarely organize to form larger organizations committed to team effort to achieve collective goals. I believe these modi operandi (proper latin declension) are largely a function of the normal conservative instinct.

Folks must recognize that size and funding matter. No organization can achieve national impact without significant resources. Those who truly wish to reverse the trend of creeping liberalism, and to essentially prevent the collapse of this country, should make substantial donations to talented, professional organizations devoted towards ending the war on marriage.

Philantrhopists do not need to wait until death to do this. Given the urgency of America’s socioeconomic predicament, waiting is not a good idea. Most wealthy individuals have family trusts which can establish a permanent sub-trust providing dividend income or cash trust distributions. I believe most individuals would opt for the former, because it keeps the trust intact, provides major long-term sustenace, and permits requiring the recipient organization to meet certain minimal requirements in order to remain eligible for the interest distributions.

Here is a challenge to those with substantial financial means. We have the policy ideas to put America back on track. If you are sick and tired of getting nothing for your philanthropic donations; if you are sick and tired of making contributions to political candidates who always end up doing the wrong things, then help us accomplish these changes.

Some of us in this movement are connected in very high places now. We are being heard. But we need more mass. We need a major policy-based organization that can focus the issues, develop and focus the scientific papers, write the pro-forma code, and organize the entire grassroots base to put it over the top. I have the people in place to accomplish this task. I need just one major philanthropist to step up to the plate in founding this organization — which will be a full-blown nonprofit and foundation. I can be contacted at drusher@swbell.net

Jim Peterson, you have definitly raised the bar in this discussion with #35.

I would add Ray Blomhorst and his chaps in California, not only for the infrastructure they have put in place (offices for several groups, the CRISPE motor-home cum travelling roadshow, regular roadside protests which anyone can emulate and which are essential).

Also Ross Mitchell in Australia with his Dads on the Air Radio programme and forum.

In the UK, Angry Harry who has been a tower of strength operating on a shoestring, encouraging the flow of information (if ever thare was a UK one man band equivalent to MND, it would be Harry).

And the special talents for being noticed by the F4J leaders.

Not only money is needed (and is it ever needed) but leadership and mentoring is needed too. I have had several digs at Sir Paul MacCartney for his failure to see where his wealth could be directed. Maybe a successful businessman would have better luck at getting his attention. Bob Geldorf and Pierce Brosnan have also expressed interest in men’s issues. They need someone serious to whom they can attach their efforts. Personal expsoure is not an essential however. It can be useful to have ‘Celebrity’ fronting a cause, but frankly, a well heeled celebrity behind the scenes is better. There is help and direction needed by that actor chap, Baldwin, who had the publicised spat on the phone with his daughter recently who is writing a book. Who is influencing him? Guiding him?

We are constantly assailed by white-ants like WLS (and other mealy mouthed nutters). By golly, Mike has a wealth of patience and manages to keep them in the tent providing roadblock alerts if nothing else. Its an issue in any organisation or gathering.

But maybe some additional effort could also be directed at encouraging the few women who see the light. I know who I would prefer in the tent if it were a choice between Teri and The Biscuit Queen and WLS. For this MRM to succeed at reforming the truckloads of legislation aimed at destroying the family, men, children’s hope for a future, our society, we NEED women on board.

A note on discourse. You raised the bar, business and organisation-wise, Jim. Our discourse, even here on MND, is riven with anger and sneer. Anger is a needed emotional driver and motivator but cannot be allowed to hold the centre. It must be a resource to be deployed, rather than and ‘end’. The sneers must be met with quick rebuff. Our disagreements and critiques must become more mature. Our focus must become more objective-directed.

In some parts of the MRM this could be focussed on the legislature (as much of this discussion has tended) and lobbying. But for that to have any effect there needs to be a substantial increase in public awareness of the evil in our society. It may be the American Way to go to one’s Rep of Congressman. In other parts of the world, politics is different.

The methods used by Glenn Sacks in the past few years – mass emails to specific targets – needs to be refined and turned into a weapon of substance. The organisation for that needs to be refined too. The ‘memberships’ of all MRA and MRM groups should have a common obligation – to email on requirement. RADAR has made some sound efforts to encourage emailing but what is needed is for ‘subscribers’ and ‘members’ to undertake, as part of their involvement, emailing suggested texts to suggested addresses on specified topics.

There are far too many passengers in the MRM who read but don’t DO anything. Because they are rarely asked to do anything. No one is leading.

Jim, I hope to see more of your words on MND.

Someone gave me a good book recently: Fund Raising for Dummies. It taught me a lot I needed to know. I recommend it.

Ned Holstein is right–and has been for a while. We have to think of our movement as like the Sierra Club. Fund-raising really matters. Holstein’s Belefonte story rings true.

I think some instruction in the basics of fund-raising makes sense. Perhaps a by-invitation retreat and educational session twice a year with the whole subject being fund-raising. There’s a lot to fund-raising. Even the Dummies book has dozens of things the layman doesn’t think of. Maybe the first thing to do is have groups and individuals and some generous donors throw cash in the pot for a twice-a-year Fund-Raising “college.” It would be a way of building relationships across the country as well.

[...] at Feministing rightly mocks this piece in “Men’s News Daily” (the e-zine for those who think WND is too [...]

[...] other news, a mad article that’s been linked by Feministing, encouraging men to cut their wives out of their wills so [...]

Trackbacks # 45 and 46 above… Oh, but we hit a nerve: the feminists are fit to be tied… LOL! You gotta love it…..

This is precious… they think we’re “righter” than WND because stand we have the temerity to stand for equal rights for men…. Ah, the Feminist Left: Where would we get our laughs without them? ROTFLOL!!!

Good Morning,

It is interesting to wake up and suddenly find oneself famous.

I am traveling for the next month and don’t have the time to defend myself over at Feministing.

Some other clear-thinking person, please sign on to Feministing and explain to the children over there what I was talking about.

1) It never occured to me that the “hit by a truck” line was supposed to constitute a Mafia style threat.

2) They are saying that our fighting for the right not to have background checks in order to date online…constitutes “fighting for the right to harrass women online”.

THAT IS A NEW ONE. Someone please enlighten them by pointing to http://www.online-dating-rights.com.

I just wish I had more time to respond.

Readers…if you have a half hour…spread this around the blogosphere some more.

My original article will be appearing on 5 other blogs in the next few days.

Here is the Feministing article about me:

http://feministing.com/archives/007670.html

Let Jessica know that I would like to comment there but I do not have time.

But I would like to debate Jessica publicly at a European university or via an American TV or radio station.

Feministing readers: Debate me here or at Online Dating Rights dot com because each extra forum that a person has to check, greatly increases the spare time he has to find to comment at all on anything.

Nothing said at feministing makes sense because it is an echo chamber where Jessica deletes the accounts of dissenters.

Feminists do control both political parties in the US. Example: Karen Czarnecki of the Labor Dept may pretend to hate feminists…but she is one all the same. She thinks that men need to be background checked just to say hello to women onlne. Same is true of the president of the supposedly anti-feminist Independent Womens Forum, Michelle Bernard. She thinks “it is frightening what the potential for abuse is when men meet women online”.

Larry Craig wanted to keep his head low because of his bathroom fetish. As a result, we did not have a Republican maverick in his office, but someone who would do as he was told by others and not rock any boat.

The Republican Party is filled with Larry Craigs…hypocrites who know they cannot live up to the asexual ideal the Heritage Foundation pushes…so they are all trying to keep their head low.

A few comments:

1. This conversation has enlightened me about MND and Mike LaSalle, who I plan to contact.

2. I am the admin of http://www.onlinedatingrights.com. This website is growing in influence as we try to dismantle the most recent overreaching of kneejerk feminsts: IMBRA, a law that requires criminal background checks of American men before they merely send an email to a foreign woman for any reason.

3. We have been contacted by two men willing to file suit to bring down this law as it is a gross violation of the US Constitution. We have interviewed law firms for a battle that will surely go to the US Supreme Court.

4. We have approached the ACLU and naturally they will not consider helping us because the board of directors of the ACLU are largely kneejerk feminists. Meanwhile, we are evaluating our budget needs for the lawsuit of the century and soon will be soliticing funds for it. If any of you want to contact me to discuss an offer to support this cause, please go to the website and write me or write to onlinedatingrights (yahoo address).

5. Another goal of ours is to create a 501c3 for educational purposes and to provide accurate information to journalists, lawmakers and the public about international dating and marriage, to combat the lies based on anecdotes passed around by the kneejerk feminists who have absolutely no support from social scientists who have studied these relationships. (The anthropologist studies all support us!) Those interested in this cause should contact me, too.

Lastly, I have had 20 years of experience in law, politics and media so I have some ideas how to conduct this battle, which I do entirely as a volunteer as apparently does Mike LaSalle. I am married to a chemiical engineer and international energy consultant from Central Asia who is ten years my junior. She thinks that American kneejerk feminists are nuts.

Continuing on funding. Among fatherhood asserters who have some funding, there is the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC), which just co-sponsored the August 18th Family Preservation Day rally in DC. Stephen Baskerville is the President. It has a paid executive director in DC, Mike McCormick, and a national newspaper, The Liberator, which goes out quarterly to 12,000 people. I’m the editor and am interested in professionally written op-ed pieces, which can be sent to theliberator AT comcast.net. ACFC is supported by a philanthropist and by individual contributions. ACFC is an umbrella organization which has state affiliates, the most active of which are currently in Michigan, Boston and West Virginia.

That is really great. Let’s remember, hoewver, that Misandry or “Prejudice Against Men” is a much greater problem than just “Prejudice Against Fathers”.

The Fatherhood Movement might fight and fight and then be given a few concessions, while the noose of misandry tightens around all of or necks.

They can murder us and go scott free after a month in jail, they can put up billboards in Virginia with the blessing of manginas like John Walsh of “America’s Most Wanted” which depict a man holding hands with a child and saying “Stop It Now”, they can pass laws stating that men MUST have background checks before they are allowed to say hello to women online (IMBRA).

The Republicans (evangelists) are behind this even more than the Democrats (feminists). Meanwhile, pathetic cowards like Ron Paul ignore their chance to fill in the breach.

In the USA, there is an unholy alliance between Dems and Bush Republicans that cannot be broken via “negotiation” at a low level between local father’s rights groups and state legislatures.

Giuliani is showing signs that he is coming under their influence and not ours.

Meanwhile, Marc Rudov of http://www.thenononsenseman.com is the only American man who is regularly getting on national TV (CNN and Fox News) and telling it like it really is (“Ban alimony” was the message 3 days ago on Fox News and “It is unconstittutional to prejudge the subset of males” was the message on CNN 2 days ago).

We need to think big. We need multimillionaires. We need the patriarchy and the “old boys network” to wake up and/or spring back to life.

If the MRM movement remains only at the level of the recent “Fathers 4 Justice” film with the British man crying on camera about joyous it was to have a weekend with his kids…the enemy is going to throw a few concessions, but we are not going to get any respect overall.

I repeat: We are not going to win this by showing grown men cry with real tears on camera. When men do stuff like that, you know the enemy is just playing cat and mouse.

Awesome article. Thanks for the challenge.

[...] would appear that I’ve struck a nerve with the author of that atrocious bit of misogyny over at Men’s News Daily. In comments, he writes: That is funny. I am the original author of [...]

Jabbering Stooge:

It is not treating foreign women as “human beings” if you take away their rights to broadcast their anonymous email addresses and/or cell phone numbers or postal addresses to the world at large.

No American woman has to be protected by federal law in terms of having to sign her personal approval for every man who wants to contact her.

I do not think you understand the IMBRA law Jabbering Stooge. I really don’t.

Go to http://www.veteransabroad.com and http://www.onlinedatingrights.com and read the libraries.

Here is a feminist opinion that says the law goes too far:

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=36775

I am still quite shocked that Jabbering Stooge and the Feministing Vanessa would take such offense to my article.

How could wanting a men’s rights movement financed be misogynistic?

How could wanting foreign women to be treated as equals by the feminists…somehow seen as wanting them not to be treated as human beings?

Foreign women have the right to decide their own level of security. If a woman wants her new Yahoo email address broadcast to the world, that is her right.

The US Congress and the feminists do NOT have a right to tell a foreign woman that she cannot contact an American without first signing his background check.

In addition, you cannot imply that American women are superior to foreign women which is exactly what you are saying when you say that men are losers for dating them:

Here is a video of some foreign women remarking about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihW4P8Bcrxc

When your (rather small) army faces the army of your enemy, it seems unwise to allow even a few enemy soldiers to infiltrate your ranks constantly.

I would say that the same applies psychologically as much as militarily.

Which is why I would not give Jabbering Stooge any space to comment.

I’ve looked at his/her blog and he/she has nothing of interest to say. His/her blog is just full of sneering/snide assertions backed up by nothing. He/she seems like precious little more than a big mouth with an empty head.

Why give him/her the space?

Because the unthinking knee-jerk feminists hang themselves with their ignorance.

When an American citizen finally challenges IMBRA, it is going to be a turkey shoot.

There is nothing logical or fair about the law.

I am still looking for a millionaire to fund http://www.online-dating-rights.com and/or an American citizen to challenge the law in federal court.

It would not take much time to do this. One can file on one’s lunch hour if one lives in a city with a federal courthouse if one is doing it pro se, meaning without a lawyer (we don’t have the money to afford a lawyer but there are several reasons why lawyers might help one lose a case, with the need to be politically correct a big reason).

Then there will be a trial 2 weeks later which would last 2 or 3 days at the most. Others would do the organizing of the expert witnesses, etc.

After that….well….it would probably be best to file a brief once per month. Others can write the brief for you..,.but the pro se plaintiff would, of course, have to actually file it, etc.

Some Men are leaving the country, that is whats happening.