Trish Wilson's "Not the 'F' Word" NOT Censored,
Contrary to Posts Made by Members of the Fathers' Rights Movement

By Trish Wilson, © 1998
All rights reserved by author

[This message was originally posted to the Usenet group on August 20, 1998.]

Men's and fathers' rights folk should do their homework before they start pointing fingers.

ACFC screwed up big time, again. Contrary to the notice on ACFC's listserv, my article "Not the 'F' Word" has NOT been censored by Feminista in any way. The geniuses involved in this business, including Dave Usher and George Lewndowski, who forwarded messages to ACFC to complain about the article, thought "'F' Word" was the article for the July/August, 1998 Feminista. When they went back to the main page, and saw that the article was not there, they assumed it was pulled.

It wasn't, guys. It appeared in Volume 1, Number 9 (January, 1998). It is NOT in the current article. The current one is "Viagra: A Rhapsody in Blue." It seems your crowing about my article being "censored" was very negligent detective work on your part. "Not the 'F' Word" is still available in the Feminista archive for anyone who wishes to read it.

I sent a letter to both Usher and ACFC setting the record straight. I'm sure that letter will not appear on the mailing list. By the way, I responded to Usher's "how would my 'direct forebear' [sic] Elizabeth Cady Stanton feel about this" quip on the Feminista message board with a portion of his lovely "Dave Usher's Playboy Boycott," which is located in full on my webpage.

I'm sure Ms. Stanton would NOT appreciate what was intended with that Playboy boycott.
"Not the 'F' Word"

"Viagra: A Rhapsody in Blue"

Dave Usher-Playboy Boycott and "Rape as an Ideology"

This major faux pas and the obnoxious posts that resulted from it are yet more examples of the slipshod "research" and abominable behavior of members of the fathers' rights movement.

Below is the message that Dave Usher posted to ACFC-L. The body of the message appeared on the Feminista! message board. I've also included one of the Feminista message board messages.

In anticipation of the people who will say "what the hell do we care?" I didn't start this business. Apparently, that article got under enough skins that it warranted mention TWICE on the ACFC listserv. It also incited certain folk to make derogatory comments on the Feminista message board. You started it, guys. Not me.

Now make sure you wipe ALL the egg off your faces, guys.


Trish Wilson
Editor at Large
Special Correspondent on the Fathers' Rights Movement
[my cool new title]

The Women's Network

From the Feminista message board:

Posted by Dave Usher on August 18, 1998 at 22:55:26:


I find it diagnostic that Trish Wilson's piece about the "F" word
conveniently disappeared from the front page of the current issue.

I have found that many feminist organizations do not stand behind what
they say and do -- rather -- they take unsupportable positions
on issues and make them vanish into thin air as soon as the
insincerity is revealed.

It is clear to me that radical women's organizations are in deep trouble,
when their arguments are so thin that they must be wit hdrawn so as to
cover the tracks of misandry imprinted so deeply therein.


ACFC: Response to "Not the F Word"

By acfc-X
August 18, 1998
08:00 PM PST

Thanks to Dave Usher for sending us the following.



Approved: aavdna

Subject: Response to "Not the F Word"

Thanks to Dave Usher for sending us the following.



To: Feminista


[Note: Trish Wilson's article has been censored by Feminista

as of today].

Dear Editor,

It is becoming increasingly impossible to swallow the kinds of political spins put on gender and family issues by radical women's organizations and writers. Is it not apparent that most women now are choking on "fact free" harangues such as that offered up by Trish Wilson in her piece "Not the F Word"?

It is a losing struggle with reality to believe that domestic violence is purely= a gender issue. Every major study on this issue indicates that women's advocates who ply this course of misandry are wrong. That fathers and profamily activists assert this truth in the media and discussion groups does not make us "wrong" or "angry" or "invaders".

Where women have finally achieved the majority of equality goals in the voting booth, politics, and the workplace necessarily means that there must be some rebalancing of power and function in the home as relates men and women. Work and home are the two major spheres of life, and necessarily America must ensure that all citizens have the same rights to participate and benefit from each of these important domains.

Achieving this goal, as a society, has nothing to do with returning to "victorian-style" patriarchy, which has been dead for many years. It speaks to the documented fact that women without husbands have an awful time "doing it all", that men without wives have no prosocial connections to women or society and do not fare as well in the workplace or over their life course, and that children raised in non-intact families suffer the substantial majority of troubling social and economic problems we struggle with today.

There are few individuals in or out of the men's movement who would return to the Victorian social era. That men now want to be involved in the home, and have socioeconomic rights to be fathers and husbands as participating members of the home does not in any way constitute a return to "patriarchy".

It is a fact that we must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace. Women now have equal status in the workplace, yet still have yet to give men equal status in the home. Many women have noticed this problem, and in particular, how this problem has tremendously hurt women. Those radicals, such as Trish Wilson, who fail to get a grip on this necessary rebalancing only doom women to yet another generation of divorce, poverty, and gender conflict.

Most men in the fathers and men's movement want to work alongside women, be a part of their lives, and find a more harmonious manner of living in the next century than what we suffer today. It would seem wise for Trish Wilson and her cohorts to lay down their misandry and anger such that the best interests of women be served in the future.

My direct forebear, Elizabeth Cady Stanton started this feminist movement, which I have always been a supporter of. Now I am here to bring about a fruitful, productive resolution that will benefit everyone and give more women what they need and want. Many women of egalitarian, progressive mindsets have joined in this mission.

I am absolutely sure that Elizabeth would be proud of me, and I am absolutely sure that were she here today that she would approve of what I am doing. That we are all working towards this goal does not make us the rejectors of feminism, but rather, the best practicers of it in the modern-day sense of the word.

Dave Usher

Missouri ACFC Coalition


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:

Additional information is located at:

To subscribe/unsubscribe: To:
Message: subscribe/unsubsribe acfc
To temporarily suspend email: To:
Message: set acfc nomail

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 contributers, which have been provided only as a service to our list serve subscribers. Collaborative Lawyers Southeast Florida


Except as otherwise noted, all contents in this collection are copyright 1996-2009 the liz library. All rights reserved.
This site is hosted and maintained by ar Send queries to: