Somehow, MRAs must change this state of affairs; and, basically, there are two ways of doing this.

1. MRAs must come up with a way of ensuring that politicians who do *not* take up men’s issues will LOSE votes.

and/or

2. MRAs must come up with a way of ensuring that politicians who **do** take up men’s issues will GAIN votes.

And BOTH of the above strategies NECESSARILY involve swaying the public’s attitudes in the appropriate direction.

Thus, the solution to our problems really boils down to swaying the public’s attitudes in the appropriate direction.

Indeed, what other way is there?

There is no other way!

So, how does the MM sway the public’s attitude toward or away from a particular politician? – especially given its limited resources?

Well, I want to make two points that, in my view, would help to address this question.

1. 80+% of political activists/writers are ***men***. These ***men*** sway public opinion. As such, if the MM can persuade these political activist/writers – these MEN – to take on board their issues, then the MM can more effectively sway public opinion.

And, surely, the MM should be able to persuade many of these MEN political activists of their views.

Furthermore, of course, political activists are ACTIVE! They are not sheeple. And so getting the issues into their heads is particularly worthwhile.

2. The MM should make politicians aware that they will be attacked (or supported) on many OTHER ISSUES if they do not (or do) support men’s rights. In other words, they will not just be attacked (or supported) on the basis of the men’s rights issues alone.

And so, for example, if a politician does not support men’s rights, then MRAs should be attacking them on ANY sensitive issue that they can legitimately come up with.

Let me put it another way.

Telling a right-wing politician that you will stand outside his office with a large banner accusing him of failing to be concerned about father’s rights will not trouble him a jot. In fact, he might reckon that you will actually bring him more female votes! And so he will laugh at your pitiful attempts to discredit him.

However, if you told this same politician that because he has failed to support fathers’ rights then you will stand outside his office with a large banner accusing him of being a RACIST, he will feel threatened.

In other words, we need to use the same kind of tactics that the feminists have used for decades.

Good afternoon.

I observe that you have no position on stopping the destruction of family by divorce court.

That America has one of the highest divorce rates in the world of about 220 countries. That, among other things, about 1.3 million men and over 2 million children per year are adversely affected by divorce. For example, though the men are legally innocent, without due process, he will lose his kids, 18 years of income, property, and certain liberties by court order.

The consequence is injustice and a weakened America, and I do not want that.

I want you to fight against injustice of divorce court against fathers and children.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=ContactUs.Home
http://obama.senate.gov/contact
http://www.mittromney.com/ContactUs
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/contact

and more

Ron Paul therefore can be distinguished from all the other Republican candidates and that is part of the reason I am supporting his bid for president.

I pledge not to support or vote for a candidate that does not openly promise to fight for effective policy changes for restoring the institution of family and individual rights. We are – or at least have been in ways that matter – a nation of laws under constitutional rule. I pledge not to waste my vote on anyone who I do not believe will lead the positive change back to constitutional rule.

Look at great movements, look at great organizations, it starts with a cause, then builds with great leadership and followship.

Before December 1773 though the national and local papers did not write about taxation without representation (Stamp Act of 1765 and Townshend Acts of 1767), on Thursday, December 16, 1773, Samuel Adams said to a few men, “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country”. With small hatchets and clubs, the men headed toward Griffin’s Wharf.

Casks were opened and tea dumped overboard; the work, lasting well into the night, was quick, thorough, and efficient. By dawn, over 342 casks or 90,000 lbs (45 tons) of tea worth an estimated £10,000 had been consigned to waters of Boston harbor. Nothing else had been damaged or stolen, except a single padlock accidentally broken and anonymously replaced not long thereafter.

Benjamin Franklin stated that the destroyed tea must be repaid, and he offered to repay with his own money. However, a number of colonists were inspired to carry out similar acts, such as the burning of the Peggy Stewart.

The Boston Tea Party eventually proved to be one of the many catalysts which led to the American Revolutionary War. At the very least, the Boston Tea Party and the reaction that followed served to rally support for revolutionaries in the thirteen colonies who were eventually successful in their fight for independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm

There are similarities with divorced dad’s divorce tax (child support and add on support; loss of property) and loss of freedom/rights (unilateral and no-fault divorce; incarceration without due process or legal representation – Violence Against Women’s Act and Child Support Recovery Act; secrete and powerful family court, women’s right to kill men’s children – abortion; paternity fraud against men).

The criminlization of divorced dads, who are legally innocent, is unjust and common. Feminism, while opportunistic for women, is cruel, unfair, and destructive against divorced dads, children, and family. Today men do not get repersentation from legislators.

I too tire of just talk, but acting individually will not spark a revolution. A coordinated well plan of action has a better chance of success.

I observe that F4J of the UK, a small group of men with strong leadership and clear mission, has been effective to create awareness. Based on national media coverage of their message, I sense that they’re doing a better job there, than we are here.

This Marc is a save it article…one of the best ones, and though I already knew this, can show those in the margins that you are bloody serious….we here as said know that.

What a mess to watch elections come and go with candidates less informed than say your neighbor across the friggin fence.

“Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in a suicide attack on Thursday, just two months after the former premier returned from exile for a political comeback.

Bhutto, educated at Oxford and Harvard, became the first female prime minister of a Muslim country when she took the helm in Pakistan in 1988.”

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/071227143327.ehma07ne.html

“Pakistan is a notably patriarchal society.”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/07/18/story_18-7-2007_pg7_22

TMOTS

I participated in a “Boston Tea Party for Men” by joining a Fathers-4-Justice Rally.

http://www.berkshirefatherhood.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=77&cntnt01returnid=69

To Marc and anyone else that would care to listen:

I have not had much time to write but in 2002 I supported Massachusetts Democrat Shannon O’Brien when she supported shared parenting legislation and then candidate Mitt Romney refused to take a stand on the issue. I personally met Mr. Romney at one of his campaign celebrations after a debate, and he said that the issue would have to wait “until after the election.” He gave me the car of one of his aids. In 2004, I was part of an effort that put on non-binding public policy question on the ballot in about 25% of all jurisdictions. We learned that 86% of the population supported shared parenting legislation. Despite this, Governor Romney refused to meet with Massachusetts father’s rights groups. That day “after the election” never came. Some Republican father’s rights activist foolishly supported him.

Candidate John McCain’s response to a question about shared parenting is well known and need not have further elaboration. Read David Usher’s McCain’s Tar Baby is Bigger Than Race for more information.

Today, current Democratic Governor Deval Patrick openly supports shared parenting.

For more information about Governor Romney and shared parenting, please feel free to call me.

By the way, good essay.

Rinaldo Del Gallo
BerkshireFatherhood.com
413-445-6789

Republicans have been political idiots since 1996. They keep thinking that feminists and women will vote for them if they pander to radical feminism. They think that men don’t notice. The fact is, most women and most men know that institutional feminism is a very bad thing. Republicans will continue losing elections until they have the simple courage to do the right thing. Institutional feminists don’t have the votes or the clout to do a damned thing about it. NOW’s membership isn’t even 1/2 million any more. — not remotely large enough to counter the intelligent mainstream values vote that doesn’t give a damn what radical feminists want.

I am still working with one presidential candidate. It is possible we might see some action, particularly if Romney’s recent mistake hurts him in either Iowa or NH.

“I’m spending the holiday season out of country with lovely and feminine (and non-fat) NON-American women.