Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Back to:

Advice to Men

In Memory of Allen Wells

This set of web pages for Allen Wells has been recreated from web pages archived at http://web.archive.org

Key Page for Allen Wells

Re: NOW VP wants women in combat

Path: ads.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!microsoft!allenwe
From: allenwe@microsoft.UUCP (Allen WELLS)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: NOW VP wants women in combat
Message-ID: <70512@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 6 Feb 91 21:24:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: microsof.70512
References: <70178@microsoft.UUCP> <1991Jan24.011025.24682@cbnewse.att.com> <1991Jan30.231537.8919@cbnewse.att.com> <1991Jan31.022016.14384@cbnewse.att.com>
Reply-To: allenwe@microsoft.UUCP (Allen WELLS)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 73

In article <1991Jan31.022016.14384@cbnewse.att.com> ou812@cbnewse.att.com (Old User) writes:
>Charlene, thinking over my last posting, I realize I made a mistake. Sorry.
>Getting the Equal Rights Amendment passed is a high priority for NOW.
>Hence fighting to do away with a sexist law like registration only for men
>is thus one thing they are pushing for.

The 'considered legal opinion' (wow ... what a euphemistic phrase ;)
of 'legal scholars' that I have seen in print is that the ERA would
NOT require a gender-neutral draft. I don't pretend to understand
the rationale, but apparently it would also apply to divorce,
custody and support cases. Needless to say, no-one would really know
unless the ERA were rephrased and/or implemented.

For domestic cases, there is an additional 'gotcha'. Assuming the
law has been rewritten to be gender-neutral (which it has in most
states - even though the application is unchanged), it could be
claimed that there isn't any discrimination. If one makes the
assumption that parents have no rights and domestic law is only to
protect the rights of children (which is an increasingly common
assumption that I have seen posted on the net on numerous
occasions), then men are not having their rights discriminated
against because they HAVE NO RIGHTS. Women have no rights either,
but the needs of the children require that men get crucified while
the women get the children, marital assets, and support. It's not
guaranteed that the courts would allow this reasoning, but I
wouldn't be surprised.

>Another issue, how many men here support the ERA? I have always thought
>that it would do more actual good for men than women. Men seem to be
>treated unfairly by a few laws, whereas women seem to be held back more by
>custom, tradition, and people's personal predjudices, which the ERA will
>help only indirectly. Yet NOW is the main group pushing for the ERA, kind
>of strange.

For what it's worth, most 'men's rights' organizations support the
ERA. You don't hear much about their support, but you don't hear
much about anything else they do either. They are pathetically
small and underfunded when compated to the NOW. (Not to mention the
fact that any men's rights organization is automatically assumed to
be a bunch of neo-nazis trying to oppress women, so they have no
media credibility.)

12 years ago I was an ardent supporter of the ERA. My
support has died with time, especially on seeing what the courts
have done with civil rights legislation. If it were more
specifically worded, giving the courts less latitude, I would
support it again. I support its aims, but not what I fear it would

In particular, there have been state court cases requiring the
implementation of 'comparable worth' for state jobs based on state
versions of the ERA. I have a very strong fear that comparable
worth could be rolled out nation-wide in private as well as public
jobs if the ERA is passed.

There are also lingering peripheral questions. To me, the most
serious is whether the tax exempt status of churches with male-only
clergy would be revoked. I'm not a member of such a church, and I
think the practice is rather silly - but given the extremely
explicit prohibitions against female clergy in the Bible I am loath
to make someone's legitimate religious beliefs illegal. This is not
just a hypothetical question - various organizations have threatened
this type of lawsuit if the ERA passes.

On the other hand, I don't see much potential good this would
do. I seriously doubt that (with the current wording) the ERA would
do very much to prohibit discrimination against men, and I really
don't see much in the way of discrimination against women that isn't
already being addressed by various legislation already in place.
---------- "Never seal dead flies in a closed container. Doing so
Alien | may result in hazardous explosion."
---------- - documentation for the 'Fly Sniper'

Next article by Allen Wells:  Re: Political Correctness

There is a great need  to promote IMD (International Men's Day) to raise awareness, largely even amongst men, about systemic discrimination against men: A YouTube video about discrimination against men (off-site)

Posted 2006 09 04
2011 11 21 (added link to IMD information)