|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:02 AM June 24th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Kingsley, I hope you're not going there to talk about C4M. C4M is pretty well nigh the laughing stock of men's politics at this point. If they're inviting you, it's probably for the sake of making the men's movement out to be a bunch of kooks. I hope you spend more time trying to get better funding for the male pill, RISUG, or equal parent rights for unmarried fathers than you spend talking about C4M. Just an opinion.
- a men's activist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:41 PM June 25th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I know at least two men who were not tricked into fatherhood but who nonetheless, before even hearing about a men's rights movement, thought of the choice-for-men principle on their own. I wouldn't judge it wacky so quickly. Will it ever happen? Who knows. But, regardless, it's a good thing that it's being addressed, because (among other reasons) it brings give the public another glimpse of the inequities men face. And Kingsley is right: when you're the one who was tricked, choice for men is a whole other story. The guy who will be on the show is also the latest member of NCFM-LA, and I wish him luck.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jim4146 on 08:10 PM June 26th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Good Luck to you on this show...above all stay unapologetic..whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If you argue with passion it will reach if not a few women but many a men. Right now its the seeds that need the planting.
Sincerely,
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 08:30 PM June 26th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Not only is choice for men a good idea, but it's also nothing new. Believe it or not, some of the first people to come up with the idea was the executive board of N.O.W.!!!
According to Warren Farrell after the Roe v. Wade decision, a few of the women mentioned that it should logically lead to C4M in order to be fair. Obviously, they didn't put a great deal of effort into that idea. Looking back in retrospect, he was surprised they even addressed it.
Of course, that was before child support became a female windfall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 08:01 AM June 24th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
They are going to rip you apart. it will be a gang fest using the audience to shut you up from making a valid point. its like going into a lions den to discuss vegetarianism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:54 PM June 25th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Is that the show where a bunch of goofy women sit around talking over each other and making absolutly no sence...?
I have seen that show a few times and had to turn it off. Man, was it ANNOYING!
And, yeah, They are no friends of men. They usually have some snide, arrogant and sexist anti-male remarks to make.
Star Jones is probably the ONLY woman on that show that MIGHT give you a fair shake. The rest of them, NO WAY.
My advise; PROCEED WITH EXREAM CAUTION...!
Especialy watch out for Babwa Wawa. (Barbra Walters)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:54 PM June 25th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I think this was on the View;
Actress Jessica Alba said; "Guys are easy to manipulate. All you have to do is dress in a skimpy outfit and they're in your controll. Guys are sort of stupid like that..."
Alba is a fox. Too bad she's such an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:15 PM June 25th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
No. I think that was on David Letterman's show, when Alba said that. And that's been about four years ago.
Jinx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:53 AM June 26th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
The worst thing you can do to Jessica Alba is ignore her.
Also try to remember that it isn't completely Alba's fault that she thinks that way.
She's still a kid and she has been brought up in a culture that encourages that sort of mentality about males.
If you want you can probably Email her and tell her what you think, but I still think it's best just to ignore her.
And I agree, she is cute, but she's a Bozo.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:43 PM June 25th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
We know it could get ugly and have booked our media expert: Mel Feit. Mel has been on Oprah, Larry King, Crossfire, Phil Donahue, Montel Williams, Howard Stern, Maury Povich, Court TV, etc...
Even if Mel takes flack, there will be some sympathetic listeners in the audience, and they'll join us. For example, when we did the same topic on Oprah, at the end of the show, a woman in the audience stood up
and said that seeing it persuaded her to become pro Choice for Men. Someone
who worked on the Oprah show later said that for each member of the
audience who changes his or her mind and says so on camera, about a MILLION TV viewers change minds too!
Thanks,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
Reproductive Rights Chairman
National Center for Men
Protect Voluntary Fatherhood
http://www.choiceformen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 06:23 PM June 25th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Be prepared, as in armed to the teeth with statistics and anecdotes and bring your sources with you, you'll need them.
Also, you might want to consider analogizing child services to breaking a neighbors window while playing baseball. As in, ask the women if they think the following is justice...
1. They accidentally break their neighbors window.
2. The neighbor decides not to fix or replace the window, but to buy a new house.
3. The judge then rules that they are required to give the neighbor 1/3rd of their paychecks for the next 20 years, based on supposed "best interest of the lender" laws.
4. The judge never even looks at the cost of the mortgage, nor is the neighbor obligated to actually use the money to pay the mortgage.
Of course, this is the same thing that men go through without C4M. Any justification for one is justification for the other, and obviously charging you for a new house because you broke your neighbor's window is not justice. Eventually you'll get the argument of "but the child's needs must be met", in which case I'd have prepared something to the effect of "and the mortgage must be paid, In the child's case by the one who decided not to abort or adopt it away, and in the mortgage's case by the one who decided to buy the house. Whoever made the decision is responsible for their decisions."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:35 PM June 25th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"but the child's best interests must be met"
Is it in the child's interest to be raised in poverty, in a rat infested, crime-ridden neighborhood where the child will probably be inducted into a gang by middle school? Forcing men to pay for the woman's unilateral choice financially enables women to make extremely selfish decisions. No woman who has a child out of wedlock is legally required to raise the child. No man should be forced to pay for her selfish, unilateral choice to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:11 PM June 25th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
...and also, I truly believe that choice for men would REDUCE unwanted births because it would remove the incentive for having children just to trap a man, which is indeed very common and I've seen it many times and have had women admit they do it or know women who do it.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:53 PM June 25th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc:
Right on.
A survey by "That's Life" magazine found that 42% of women would lie about birth control, up from 24% in 2001.
Another survey found that nothing was more important to women contemplating having a child than money, and national statistics show that the out of wedlock birthrate has increased ten fold while federal laws that reward it were passed since 1950.
Yes, extending protection from forced parenthood to men would reduce out of wedlock births, their social ills and sex discrimination.
All the best,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
Reproductive Rights Chairman
National Center for Men
Protect Voluntary Fatherhood
www.choiceformen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 10:18 AM June 26th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
No woman who has a child out of wedlock is legally required to raise the child.
Very good point! I know of no legal statute that requires a woman to support/raise a bastard offspring.
She has the option to decline the responsibilities of post natal parenthood in most states by simply dropping the little bundle of joy off at a fire or police station; no questions asked. Or she can turn to adoption agencies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl on 10:54 AM June 28th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I say the appearance & didn't think they did too bad considering they got talked over more than 3/4 of the time they were trying to say anything. Just like calling a talk radio show with a hostile host, same rules apply. I think the main one being you have exactly 30 seconds to make your case before they start trying to talk over you.
A better forum would let you have 1-2 minutes to state your case and it would be a lot harder to argue with, as it was if you didn't know about choice for men and your only exposure to it was the View you wouldn't know if they were asking for men to be able to force people to have abortions, or force kids into adoption or what they are really about.
So break out the stop watch and figure out the fastest way to get the complete idea across in 30-35 seconds or less because that is all you are going to get aired in a hostile venue.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 06:03 PM June 28th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the show. The subject wasn't addressed as "Choice for Men" but "Male Abortion" which is ridiculous, in my opinion. I wonder if the show was responsible for requiring the subject be framed in this way.
I can't say the two guys on the show were bad, but they sure weren't as good as they could/should have been. The guy Mark Felt used his index finger in a threatening manner when he got angry enough to raise his voice a little and that was definitely put-off-ish. The camerman definitely honed in on this overbearing-type gesture.
I was pleasantly surprised to see Meredeth Viera arguing the side of the men a large part of the time.
All in all, not bad, but not anywhere near as good as I would have liked. So many important points not made. We need some much smarter debaters on our side for these shows.
The show sure kept the argument very, very short also.
Dittohd
P.S. Male abortion??!! Cheeesch!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl on 02:35 AM June 29th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
It all goes with a hostile territory. Part of that was the direction to the guy who was the example first, so that the discussion would be turned immediately to him and not to the core ideas. That was the only opportunity to get those 30 seconds in, and going into a hostile environment those are generally the only seconds you get. If you hit a home run with them, you can knock hosts off balance. What should have happened with that introduction as "male abortion" should have been an interuption by the other person with him who was the spokesmen and an immediate correction and *bam throw that 30-35 second explanation out* before they start talking over you, and before the other person spoke... Then you have framed the discussion so most of the replies will be unreasonable, and even better if they let him tell his story immediately after which is a double punch of flow. Live & learn.
If you think learing to deal with that environment is easy, I'm here to tell you it isn't. I used to work with another cause that was very unpopular at the time (and still is in many circles) of drug law reform. Dealing with the media is hard, and they have a whole bag of dirty tricks to play upon. One of the oldest is at a protest to pick several people to interview and use the worst one, and there is always one person who isn't very articulate, he or she may firmly believe in your cause, their reason may be as simple as "This is the way I feel it should be", but that is the person they will air. If they do let your spokesmen speak, if you give them more than 30-45 seconds to work with, they will use the most out of context part of it edited. Avoid statements that their meaning can be changed easily by removing or adding one word, else you can fall to the cutting room floor trick(BTW, this is the reason the NRA tapes any interview they give with their own camera man as well as the one the networks bring).
What we ended up doing was rehersing being interupted, talked over, even physically pushed (and loud bangs and other tricks), and we ran over that 30-40 seconds again and again and again till you can recite it backwards and forwards. If its a soundbite, you give them nothing else. If its an interview, that is what you lead off with, if they do a lead in that frames it wrong, you immediately start off and reframe it with your 30 seconds. You do not stop if they interupt you, you do not stop if they try to talk over you, and you don't get angry if they physically push you or try some other tactic a really hostile person will do.
Let them speak when you are finished, and when they start to interupt you (as they will surely do in a hostile interview) you answer "I let you speak & have you say, give me the same." Do not pause for an acknowledgement of this, say what you came to say. Its a tactic to break your line of thought, or radio to simply drown you out. Or throw in the straw man and then drown you out.
A sympathetic interviewer is a different matter, or a host that is genuinely fair to reasonable debate (Phil Donahue is an example of this kind of host back when he had a talk show on regular network TV, though there were still often framing issues. Charlie Rose...)
Even people you reasonably associate with that can play a good hostile game, eg. Ted Koppel can put on a good hostile game when he wants to. Chris Matthews is nothing but that, and probably the person I would least want to deal with as you know you wont get a word heard over being talked over.
Think about how you would fair with anything where the details matter with him.
Hopefully they learn from it, and are much better prepared for that kind of environment the next time around.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM June 29th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
For one thing we have to stop thinking that we are being brought on these shows as sirious guests. Secondly we need to be aware that we are being brought on these types of shows to be attacked, not listened to.
And third, we MUST realize that when we are "allowed" on these kinds of shows we are literaly GOING INTO ENEMY TERRITORY. It is like the crocodile dragging it's prey into the water.
We are not being brought in to be given a sympathetic ear we are brought in to be attacked for the entertainment of the (mostly female) viewers.
Lastly. We must never forget that this is the reason we are brought on to these shows. Go in to them prepaired for that!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jname967 on 02:34 PM July 3rd, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
I was so hot and bothered by my male brothers on the View fighting for the rest of us Bearers of the great Y chromosome, that I jerked off and came for all of us male humanity! MEN UNITE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
