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


Where's the facts, Ben?

A letter to the editor, by Dave Usher from ACFC 

Subject: ACFC: Where's the facts, Ben?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:40:32 -0600 (MDT)
From: acfc-l@usa.net
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)

Thanks to Dave Usher for his reply to the Worcester Telegram article on Ben Zeman.  For those who missed it, Zeman has been going on "walks" around Massachusetts claiming to be a spokesman for men, while spouting all the absurdities of radical feminist [more accurately called redfem —WHS] propaganda that women are the only victims of domestic violence.



To The Editor,
Worcester Telegram & Gazette

It is apparent to this spokesman for the men's movement that Ben Zeman is a well-placed, orchestrated radical feminist plant. Zeman pretends that the male perspective on domestic violence exists solely through the eyes of women - an act of sexism in itself.  He then pretends to officiate as a men's advocate.  By Zeman's standard, the civil rights movement could also blame itself for the acts of its oppressors and then ask for more racism.

Every major study on domestic violence tells us that women and men initiate serious spousal altercations, in roughly equal proportion.  Yet only the female perspective is discussed in the media and politics.  This, is "sexism".

From these studies, we know that divorce drives remarkable increases in serious domestic violence.  But politicians and media pretend that we must grant divorces to somehow prevent domestic violence.  A thorough factual analysis about common misrepresentation of these issues is on the internet at http://www.acfc.org/vawa/vawa2.htm.

By definition, it is sexist to view anything solely through the eyes of one sex.  No subject in America bears such sexist synergy as do family issues - long held to be solely a "women's realm".    It is sexist for Zeman to suggest that men see women as their "property" - a long dead Victorian concept - when in fact about half the fathers in America have been casually driven from their homes while their property, savings, and future income is seized to finance more sexism. [1]

Today's men are far different than their Victorian counterparts. We wish to have the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace - certainly not a "patriarchal" power grab.  Where a young boy must grow up expecting not to have the right to be a husband and father, how can we call this America?  Where millions of men are commonly driven from their homes and families, is it surprising that some men go off the deep end?

Today's women are far different too.  Many of them found that being a single mother does not mean "having it all".  It means "having to do it all".  They discovered that life without an invested helpmate husband is difficult and stressful - leading to astonishing increases in women's domestic violence, child neglect, and child abuse.

During the divorce revolution, every social and economic indicator measuring the well-being of women and children has declined significantly - with poverty for women and children predicted by absence of a husband and father in the home.  Women are coming around to realize that social progress depends decisively on cooperation of the sexes in working through the normal processes and problems of marriage and aging, within the whole cloth of the intact two-parent family.

Powerful antifamily business and political profiteers continue to back the likes of Zeman.  Lawyers' and politicians' bank accounts and careers are built on sexist beliefs that continue to divide and conquer the family.

This system of predatory sexism is heading for the hard wall of reality.  Just like Bill Clinton, it will suffer the same fate as America finally comes to realize that one good husband is worth more than a 5.3-trillion deficit and all the lawyers and jails in America.

David R. Usher
Chairman, Missouri ACFC Coalition
118 Oakwood
St. Louis, MO 63119
314 504-4684

Children Need BOTH Parents!

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children

For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS or see ACFC's homepages at: http://www.acfc.org

Additional information is located at: http://www.secondwives.org

Listserver:  acfc@majordomo.esosoft.com
Listowner:  Owner-acfc@majordomo.esosoft.com

To subscribe/unsubscribe:       To: majordomo@majordomo.esosoft.com
Message:  subscribe/unsubsribe acfc

To temporarily suspend email:   To:  majordomo@majordomo.esosoft.com
Message:  set acfc nomail <Email address>

The ACFC List Serve provides timely information to fathers, second wives, and others seeking restoration of fatherhood in America and the world.  ACFC does not endorse or approve the views or opinions expressed by contributors, which have
been provided only as a service to our list serve subscribers.


  1. Dave Usher stated that "It is sexist for Zeman to suggest that men see women as their "property" - a long dead Victorian concept - when in fact about half the fathers in America have been casually driven from their homes while their property, savings, and future income is seized to finance more sexism."  He is right about criticizing Ben Zeman's false view, but he is not right to concede that men viewing women as their property is a long-dead Victorian concept.  Any man of the Victorian age who considered his wife to be his property would soon have had his eyes opened.
       The Victorian age had many journalists like Ben Zeman who tried their best to aid and abet chivalrous "men" (politicians, judges, lawyers, writers and journalists) who did their best to give women in the name of liberating them from male oppression more and more privileges at the expense of common men.  In that fashion The Fraud of Feminism (1913, by Belfort Bax) has been at work already for hundreds of years  to bring about The Legal Subjection of Men (1908, by Belfort Bax).  As Belfort Bax illustrates in those two essays, Dave Usher's assertion that "Today's men are far different than their Victorian counterparts" is quite clearly wrong, a figment of feminist imagination and a consequence of feminist-driven indoctrination.

    Note: The Internet Archive does not always produce results for those two preceding links. However, the two pieces by Belfort Bax can be found and accessed in other locations on the Net. You can use, for example, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men

2001 01 30 (format changes)