Layne Barlow wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:51:58 -0400, "Kenneth S."
wrote:

Lecher9000 wrote:

Layne - I understand what you are getting at but there is a general
frustration level from fathers everywhere with politicans ignoring input
that doesn't fit their pre-determined templates for thinking.


Exactly. In the "template for thinking", divorced dads seem to be not even a
blip on the radar screen for any pol, either Repub or Dem, or even independent.
Not one single pol ever mentions "no fault" divorce or child support, except to
mention "deadbeat dads". As long as there is no MEDIA ATTENTION to the
reality of CS and divorce laws, and as long as ALL the pols continue to
knee-jerk the same way, nothing changes. But once at least ONE pol starts
courting the "divorced dads" vote (which I have never heard mentioned), the
rest might get on the bandwagon. And the way that one first pol gets on is that
we somehow get MEDIA ATTENTION and media favor. I guess we will never get media
favor as long as the media is leftist, however..... frustrating....
And even the conservative media doesn't like us apparently.... geez....
they must have a "template for thinking too"....
Well, I suppose the grass roots stuff is still a possibility.

You're right about the conservative media, but remember that fathers
are starting from ground zero here. I have had some experience in
dealing with reporters, and you have to start with the understanding
that all of them -- be they liberal, or the tiny handful of
conservatives -- have bought into the lying feminist propaganda, which
goes virtually unchallenged because there's no "masculinist" group to
challenge it.

One of the first things to point out is that the great majority of
single parent families in the U.S. today are the result of decisions
made by mothers, not fathers. One reason why the media demonizes
fathers is because they think fathers have ditched their families,
instead of being expelled from them. And never-married mothers had
post-conception reproductive choices (abortion, abandonment, and
adoption) that were denied to the fathers.

One of the first things to do is to explode the myth of mothers as the
victims of fathers.

Not to mention you usually don't have to look too far before you find
either reporters, or people they're close to, who have discovered the
knee-in-the-groin which is our family law system.

Layne

That factor MIGHT be helpful, Layne. However, you've got to bear in
mind that there is a prevailing orthodoxy in the U.S. media about all
kinds of things, including the war between the sexes. You've also got
to bear in mind that most reporters who write about family law matters
are women -- nearly always of a distinctly feminist turn of mind.

A male reporter who writes about family law matters may feel that
fathers have a case. But this feeling is unlikely to be reflected in
his story -- any more than some other story would reflect feelings of
sympathy for white supremacists if the reporter felt them. It would be
a career-killer for a story to reflect these points of view, and any
such story wouldn't get published anyway.

Suppose you're a male reporter who's paying lots of "child support"
because he's been screwed by the system. Would you want to make your
situation worse by producing a story that is very unlikely to be
published anyway about the plight of fathers like him?