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 soc.men 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.
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 @usa.net
August 18, 1998
08:00 PM PST
Thanks to Dave Usher for sending us the following.
Subject: Response to "Not the F Word"
Thanks to Dave Usher for sending us the following.
[Note: Trish Wilson's article has been censored by Feminista
as of today].
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
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.
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: majordomX@majordomo.esosoft.com
Message: subscribe/unsubsribe acfc
To temporarily suspend email: To: majordomX@majordomo.esosoft.com
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.