----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>

To: Robert Whiston <rwhiston@rwhiston.demon.co.uk>

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 1:07 AM

Subject: Fw: ACFC: Who are really the child abusers?


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kutusov <
Kutusov@email.msn.com>
> To: Ivor Catt <
ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>; <acfclist@usa.net>;
> <
acfclist@svr2.marketrends.net>
> Cc: john arnison <
johnarnison@whiteashhouse.freeserve.co.uk>; Stephen
> Baskerville <
Baskers@email.msn.com>; James Bogle
> <
bogles@bogletowers.fsnet.co.uk>; <burgesscochrane@easynet.co.uk>; John
> Campion <
campion@ssd-ltd.demon.co.uk>; Jane Chattell
> <
chattellvillhouse@talk21.com>; <cscatt@hunterlink.net.au>;
> <
dave@year2000.co.uk>; Malcolm Davidson <malcolm_davidson@sonymusic.com>;
> Jan Deichmohle <
deichmohle@hotmail.com>; <Dralphne@aol.com>; Paul Duddy
> <
vivazapata@tesco.net>; <Fameduc@aol.com>; Wayne Farrell
> <
wfarrell@home.com>; <fathersmanifesto@yahoo.com>; Steve Fitzgerald
> <
stephen.fitzgerald@lineone.net>; Kathryn Holderness
> <
a.holderness@dtn.ntl.com>; David Hughes <maleview@tesco.net>;
> <
JohnCharville@aol.com>; Ian Kelly <i.kel@lds.co.uk>;
> <
KthrynDutton@aol.com>; george mcaulay <robin.hood@lineone.net>; Betty Moxon
> <
sex_offences_review.ho@gtnet.gov.uk>; Sen O'Kelly <
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 9:25 AM
> Subject: Re: ACFC: Who are really the child abusers?
>
>
> > Ivor,
> >
> > If you really want to take on the much-needed task of demolishing
> > the credibility of that pathetic creature, Andrea Dworkin, you might
> > take a hard look at her own account of her family background and
> > childhood. One might imagine that such a flaming man-hater had
> > some kind of sexual abuse in her background that would justify her
> > all-consuming hatred of men. But oddly, what one discovers is
> > quite the opposite - except for self-inflicted abuse during her brief
> > career as a prositute, she had a fairly normal childhood.
> >
> > Raised in a middle-class family in New Jersey, her father worked
> > three jobs to provide medical care for her sickly mother. Even so,
> > her father took time to introduce Andrea to the world of ideas by
> > watching and discussing Sunday morning news shows with her,
> > which she still credits as leading to her career as a writer. But as
> > Andrea reached puperty, she got into a long-running conflict with
> > her mother (fairly typical of mother/daughter relationships). But in
> > Andrea's case, when she tried to enlist her father on her side in
> > this conflict with her mother, and he made clear that if he had to
> > choose between them, his choice would be her mother, Andrea
> > ran away from home and became a prostitute in New York. In her
> > case it appears that the motivation that underlies her bizarre ideas
> > about "breaking down the incest taboo", is unwillingness to accept
> > that her father was just a normal decent man, but instead she sees
> > an "incest taboo" as the source of her frustration in replacing her
> > mother in her father's primary loyalty. What you really have here
> > appears to be a "Lolita complex" of normal emotional maturity
> > stunted at puberty, leading to development of a person committed
> > to unbounded ego aggrandisment, including what is probably a
> > subliminal desire to destroy her mother and effectively "marry"
> > her father. What is amazing is that contemporary society would
> > make a media darling of a person like Andrea Dworkin.
> >
> > Instead of seeing her for the basket-case of arrested emotional
> > development that she is, and getting her the psychiatric help
> > that she desperately needs if she if ever going to make peace
> > with herself, she is invited to lecture at Harvard and further
> > spread her utterly dysfunctional concepts of desirable family
> > structure. I used to think Harvard was a pretty good school,
> > but am increasingly sceptical of that, given some of the utterly
> > crackpot nonsense that Harvard now sometimes promotes.
> >
> > How any human society could survive if daughters routinely
> > destroyed their mothers and married their fathers is beyond
> > rational comprehension (quite aside from the chaos that would
> > result if sons murdered their fathers and married their mothers
> > in the classic Oedipus complex). The lunacy of murderous
> > mahem that would be unleashed would destroy every family
> > that adopted such values. But with the destruction of normal
> > family structure an avowed goal of radical feminism, one can
> > begin to see why confused people like Andrea Dworkin might
> > become darlings of that movement. Hopefully even ivory tower
> > space-cadets at Harvard will eventually see that what is called
> > the "incest taboo", is actually just the collective common sense
> > and decency of ordinary people, as well as the accumulated
> > wisdom of every society that has survived over the millenia
> > of human existance on this planet. Ordinary people don't even
> > need to be told that what Dworkin is proposing is crackpot
> > nonsense - the "taboo" exists if anything, only to try to control
> > emotional cripples like Dworkin, although it might not be a bad
> > idea if this "taboo" were also applied to some of the wacky
> > eggheads now on the loose at Harvard, who appear to have
> > lost almost all contact with ordinary reality. Hopefully the madness
> > of this human comedy will soon pass, but in the meantime . . .
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > David A. Roberts,
> > President, ACFC
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ivor Catt <
ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
> > Date: Sunday, July 02, 2000 7:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: ACFC: Who are really the child abusers?
> >
> >
> > >From Ivor Catt 2july00
> > >
ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk
> > >
www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/
> > >
> > >The link between Radical Feminists and Paedophiles.
> > >
> > >The email below has major significance, and even more if you add the
> > >material I have to hand. Because this will become lengthy, I would ask
> you
> > >to go to my website and on the home page find the search engine and
> search
> > >for "1july00". Alternatively, search for a string of words in this email,
> > >which will be included at that site on my website.I trust that this will
> > >give you only one hit, to the document which develops the thesis I begin
> > >here. I have not yet set it up, but intend to do so within two weeks. It
> > >will be added to periodically. Much can be said about the
> radfem-paedophile
> > >link. It may well lead to the final denouement.
> > >(I acknowledge that Erin Pizzey and Lynette Burrows (see her 1974 book
> "The
> > >Fight for the Family", 1998, from
fameduc@aol.com) and others know some
> or
> > >all of the picture developing here, but I am endeavouring to set it in
> > >stone.)
> > >
> > >We begin with Dworkin, see below, arguing in favour of woman-child sexual
> > >relations, (that is, classing herself as supporting paedophilia
> {according
> > >to today+-'s meaning of the word},) and arguing that the incest taboo is
> > part
> > >of male patriarchal oppression. (However, that depends on the veracity of
> > >the extraordinary 1974 Dworkin quotes below. Please would the source
> supply
> > >further evidence that Dworkin really wrote these things (and correct
> > typos).
> > >I do not have her book.) Then we split down two paths.
> > >1. The first path is that recently Dworkin had full page articles in
> three
> > >major London newspapers. (Details to be added later. One is London Independent on Sunday - Sunday Review, 21mar99, pp4/5/6. I quote; "My brother's analysis of Dworkin's invisibility on the American political scene was succinct, and nothing to do with her nocturnal working habits. "It's the First Amendment," he told me - not without a slight smirk. "This legislation she and Catherine MacKinnon have tried to get passed has been struck down because it infringes a perceived right of free speech. …." So Dwirkin was squeezed out of the very middle of the political spectrum; while in Europe her books are in print, in the USA only the last is in circulation…..") Also, she had a one
> > >hour BBC programme at peak viewing time a couple of years ago. Thus, she
> is
> > >a major player in the media, and well received.
> > >2. The second path is to establish her very close links with Catharine A
> > >MacKinnon. Then we go to Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools saying that
> > >MacKinnon had a major part in the drafting of recent Canadian
> legislation.
> > >(From my Home Page, go to Index, then in the C's, to "Cools in March
> > 1999".)
> > >
> > >The weak link in this process, showing that paedophiles had a major part
> in
> > >the drafting of recent Canadian legislation, (thus, that the intention of
> > >the legislation is to separate a child from its father-protector, leaving
> > >the way open for paedophiles,) is Cools saying that MacKinnon played a
> > major
> > >part in the legislation process, see her speech below. I know that Erin
> > >Pizzey toured Canada with her friend Cools, so I ask Erin to get Cools to
> > >firm up that link. I only have Cools' assertion in her Senate speech. I
> > need
> > >more. Then we are home and dry.
> > >.....................
> > >"Kent Harvey and Andrea Dworkin have been my colleagues and friends. They
> > >contributed to this work on every level. My thanks to them, finally,
> cannot
> > >be expressed but can only be lived." - End of Preface, page xvii, from
> > >Catharine A MacKinnon, "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State", pub.
> > Harvard
> > >Univ. Press 1989. MacKinnon quotes the 1970 Firestone book (also see
> > below).
> > >(1989, MacKinnon is Professor of Law at the University of Michigan.)
> > >(I have a copy of this book - I Catt)
> > >.....................
> > >
> > >[Speech by] Cools in March 1999
> > >
> > >"Catharine MacKinnon's book, The Theory of the Feminist State, has to do
> > >with law and jurisprudence in Canada. What does a raw, gender feminist,
> > >ideological diatribe that seeks to criminalize man-woman sexual relations
> > >have to do with the Supreme Court of Canada, or with an Alberta Superior
> > >Court judge, the grandson of Nellie McClung? Catharine MacKinnon, a
> > >gyno-centric feminist, postulates that man-woman sexual relations are
> > >abhorrent because they violate women, and that in a patriarchal society
> all
> > >heterosexual intercourse is rape. MacKinnon helped to craft sexual
> assault
> > >laws in Canada. This gender feminist ideology has driven much law in
> > Canada,
> > >and consequently has driven much injustice. It has ravaged law, justice,
> > >many careers, and many human lives. It worked for many years. It was even
> > >lucrative. It resulted in positions, jobs, grants, and even appointments
> to
> > >the bench. It created a terrible silence as it inflicted obvious
> injustices
> > >on many. It was buttressed by feminist terrorism and aggression, ready to
> > >pursue to destruction anyone who gets in its way, while chanting its
> mantra
> > >that all evil and violence are men's, and that all goodness, virtue, and
> > >truth are women's. This week, it is driving an attack on Mr. Justice John
> > >Wesley McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal.
> > >
> > >.....................
> > >So as not to forget it, I mention in passing as further evidence a
> bizarre
> > >article by Tatchell on p14 in the 23/29mar00 issue of the magazine
> > >"Community Care", also perhaps at
www.community-care.co.uk/, quoted in
> the
> > >june00 issue of the monthly bulletin "Ill Eagle", which I edit.
> > >For him, the denial of sexual choices to juveniles is oppression.
> > >....................
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: ACFC Website <
acfclist@usa.net>
> > >To: <
acfclist@svr2.marketrends.net>
> > >Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 11:22 PM
> > >Subject: ACFC: Who are really the child abusers?
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thanks to Bill wood for sending us the following.
> > >>
> > >> ACFC
> > >>
> > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Radical feminists often attempt to paint the father;'s rights movement
> > >> as being a collection of wife beaters and child sexual abusers. In all
> > >> major studies on the issues, husbands in the non-separatied family
> > >> represent the lowest risk for domestic violence, and fathers in the
> > >> non-separated family represent the lowest risk for all forms of child
> > >> abuse by males. These radical activists have been quite effective in
> > the
> > >past
> > >> at generating riotous fear of husbands and fathers as a "power play"
> > >> to take over the family -- hence we have VAWA II.
> > >>
> > >> So who are the child abusers? The bulk of the literature which
> approves
> > >> of adult child sex comes from radical feminists. In their minds, there
> > is
> > >> a major difference between woman-child sex and man-child sex -- which
> > >> is why NOW came to the legal and media rescue of Mary Kay LeTourneau.
> > >> We have not yet seen a notable case in which any father's rights group
> > >> even attempted to defend a known, proven child sexual abuser, yet
> > >> we know of a number of such cases where radical feminists actively
> > >> fought to make woman-child sex a nonpunishable, non-taboo activity
> > >>
> > >> Here's a quote I [name withheld] came across while auditing a course on
> > >> violence against women through Harvard Law School. It was recommended
> > >reading!
> > >>
> > >> From "Woman Hating"by Andrea Dworkin, Penguin Books, 1974
> > >>
> > >> p. 189, Chapter entitled "Androgyny, Androgyny F.....ng and Community"
> > >> Subheading: Incest
> > >>
> > >> "The parent-child relationship is primarily erotic because all
> human
> > >> relationships are primarily erotic. The incest taboo is a
> particularized
> > >> form of repression, one which functions as the bulwark of all the other
> > >> repressions. The incest taboo ensures that however free we become, we
> > >never
> > >> become genuinely free. The incest taboo, because it denies us essential
> > >> fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy,
> forces
> > >> us to internalize those parents and constantly seek them, or seek to
> > >negate
> > >> them, in the minds, bodies and hearts of other humans who are not our
> > >> parents and never will be.
> > >>
> > >> "The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture: it teaches us
> > the
> > >> mechanisms of repressing and internalizing erotic feelingit forces us
> to
> > >> develop those mechanisms in the first place; it forces us to
> > particularize
> > >> sexual feeling, so that it congeals into a need for a particular sexual
> > >> "object"; it demands that we place the nuclear family above the human
> > >> family. The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the
> > >> development of cooperative human community based on free-flow of
> > >> natural and androgynous eroticism.
> > >>
> > >> The Family
> > >>
> > >> "For if we grant that the sexual drive is at birth diffuse and
> > >> undifferentiated from the total personality (Freud's "polymorphous
> > >> perversity") and ... becomes differentiated only in response to the
> > incest
> > >> taboo; and that... the incest taboo is now necessarily only in order to
> > >> preserve the family; and if we did away with the family we would in
> > effect
> > >> be doing away with repressions that mold sexuality into specific
> > >> formations.
> > >>
> > >> Shulamith Firestone
> > >> The Dialectics of Sex
> > >[added by I Catt. "The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist
> > >Revolution"
> > >New York: Bantam Books, 1970]
> > >>
> > >> "The incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear
> family
> > >as
> > >> the primary institution of the culture. The nuclear family is the
> school
> > >of
> > >> values in a sexist, sexually repressed society... The alternative to
> the
> > >> nuclear family at the moment is the extended family or the tribe. The
> > >> growth of tribe is part of the process of destroying particularized
> roles
> > >and
> > >> fixed erotic identity. As people develop fluid androgynous identity,
> they
> > >will
> > >> also develop the forms of community appropriate to it. We cannot really
> > >> imagine what those forms will be."
> > >>
> > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >> To subscribe send a message to:
acfclist@usa.net
> > >> Message in subject line: subscribe acfc
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe send a message to:
acfclist@usa.net
> > >> Message in subject line: unsubscribe acfc
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > >Further comment by Ivor Catt, 3july00.
> > >When we get to officials in the Home Office, including Betty Moxon, Jay,
> > >Boateng, Straw, we probably have a combination of ignorant stooges who
> are
> > >being manipulated, and evil paedophiles. Stooges and villains can unite
> > >under the banner of fabricated inflated figures for violence and sexual
> > >abuse by fathers, for instance those fabricated by Professor Stinko at
> > Royal
> > >Holloway College, with the help of 3,500,000 pounds of Home Office public
> > >money. Once the objective, of replacing the truth, that the main defender
> > of
> > >a child is its father, by the myth, that the main threat to a child is
> its
> > >father, is achieved, then the rest follows. This fabrication is probably
> > >believed by most of the female staff in the Home Office, the Department
> of
> > >Social Security, and in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
> > >It is quite extraordinary to stumble on the idea that there is a link
> > >between radical feminism(, children's organisations) and paedophilia, via
> > >Dworkin and MacKinnon. I resisted the suggestion when I first came across
> > it
> > >two years ago, via Lynette Burrows. However, it seems to be firming up.
> (In
> > >her recent speech to FYC AGM
fameduc@aol.com , I heard Life Peer Baroness
> > >Young (made a life peer for outstanding services to the community) say
> that
> > >all children's organisations including Barnardo's, NSPCC (see below),
> Nat.
> > >Children's Homes, UNICEF, were anti-family. She had established this by
> > >correspondence with them. She said that if they allowed themselves to be
> > >seen to be pro-family, they would lose their government grants.)
> > >It is remarkable that following the alleged attack on the incest taboo by
> > >Dworkin in 1974 (see quotes above), we now have, in the 10sep99 Home
> Office
> > >conference "Sex Offences Review: Abuse in Family Units" at the NSPCC HQ
> > (see
> > >above) in Leicester to which I was invited by Betty Moxon of the Home
> > >Office, the launching of a further attempt to undermine the historic
> incest
> > >taboo, supported by NSPCC staff present at the conference. Also, another
> > >source told me that it was the policy of Nat. Children's Homes to
> > >preferentially employ homosexuals, who, although (K Wellings et al.,
> 1994)
> > >representing only 2% of the population, make up 35% of paedophiles (see
> > >Lynette Burrows book and also Dr. Stammers at
fameduc@aol.com .)
> > >
> > >Ivor Catt, 3june00
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>