From: The Honor Network
After 6 months of serious and heavy work, added on to the participants already busy schedules, the men & fathers who took part in the first think tank run over the Internet could be rightly considered tired. On top of it being the first one run over the Internet it seems to have been the first men & fathers rights think tank period.
The next major discussion is set 2008 with the men who participated in the first think tank not eligible for the next full discussion. It is hoped that others will come to the table as equal partners from new organizations, and of course, have new input and perspectives.
With at least one man from the UK, the US, Canada, New Zealand & Australia having taken part in this years T3, and none coming from one same organization, a good cross section seems to at least have been attempted to encourage more organizations and countries to take part from the very inception of this attempt at any kind of cooperating arrangement. Attempts have been made to Irish citizens and someone has already come forth for a serious 2008 seat at the table. With this cross references system, which included both religious & non-religious, moderate & radical, and progressive & conservative men taking part, it was believed that issues that separate men could be started to be bridged.
Much has been agreed to and voted on in the final work (of which over 90% was unanimous) and is open to the public, but there is of course much more to do in acting upon these ideas. Strategy, tactics, creative steps and calls of support for moves aren’t open to the public at large for obvious reasons of success.
Some ideas that need not be hidden from view, for they are underway and operating, are the Priority News Exchange Program (PNEP) where major men’s & father’s rights forums pass news items more freely between themselves (where the Honor Network has acted as the facilitator in transferring stories between the participating forums, with their encouragement).
This has now been added to by a secondary complimentary program called the Promotion & Distribution in Exchange for Coverage Plan (PDECP). This secondary plan will add coverage by regions/countries and specialty to the forums and the HN site for the immediate promoting of the men & fathers rights blogger’s sites, and possibly future links with other sites when agreements are reached in the future for closer cooperation between participating organizations.
In 2008 the Grand Consensus will be built to a second level and the calls for action gauged and measured to see how effective they have been, and then very likely reformed or abandon depending on what has materialized in real terms of success.
All the discussions can be read by all visiting the Honor Network site, with the already stated exception of strategy, tactics and the creation & calls of support initiatives proposed by the participants.
To see this please click: http://www.honornetwork.com/page/page/3756403.htm
After reading this I would advise anyone to finish with the Grand Consensus. For here one can see a glimpse of the ground that will bring those who prize real honest unity
(though total unity in beyond all our grasps) that can only be accomplished by time, serious hard work, a thick skin, constructiveness and a equal place at the table for all taking part (under whatever banner they have for this cause of our time).
Critics & the Undermining Establishment
It would be easy to dismiss what has been accomplished and for some that were overwhelmed by the workload and never truly gave it there all there is much to regret if these efforts do materialize into something greater. All participants have made an effort to keep criticism in house, where we encourage any whistle-blowing or frank assessments of any aspect of the procedures, when these issues come up for discussion. Yet it is hoped that outside attacks be left to the establishment in their never ending and often successful attempts at undermining unity in the men & fathers rights movement. We welcome all criticism from any quarter from true men’s movement activists, and we will reply in due course to anyone putting forth input, once your background in the movement is confirmed.
The best place for this kind of input though is at the cyber table, though we understand some may wish to see how their criticism in taken before truly investing time in any future enterprise with other groups or men. This is understandable and expected. Yet the preference to complain from a far under cover of concerned activist, with no ability to answer your criticism, or even worse to do so with the preference of the public venue (like that done by those who oppose any unity of our cause) will place you in bad company and should deem you to some soul searching if you wish for these injustices to be dealt with in any prompt effect way. In other words bitch or rant on something else someplace else, and save our efforts for those who are truly serious for this cause in a long-term way and are genuine in their sincere wish for an exchange of give & take.
Men from different regions & countries, different organizations, different experiences, different religions and beliefs all inputted long papers for the goal of this consensus over a period over 6 months. To cynically dismiss it without reading the work says much about such a person, more than what such a person may put forth as reasonable, when it is mere cover of reasonableness one wishes to use.
If you could do better we will do more than tip our hats, as we will abandon ours for the your better one. The ACFC in the U.S. has had conventions, with surely masses of many more men than any other, but they only put forth Christian ideas for men, added to messages of only men who have been left by their wives and then remixed with answers as only those based on Christian teachings.
We want large Christian input too, but with churches reformed to the point of being non-male friendly (a complaint put forth by Christian men in some numbers) we see this as less inviting to all men to sit at the table as equals, since some would feel they are closer to truth at all times. This also shows quite dramatically why things can’t grow from the local up through provincial to federal and on to the international (or bottom up style). As a populist my sympathies lay here in politics generally, but one system doesn’t work for all things. With women outnumbering men in almost all states, and many men being in the ranks of pro-feminist males we see many confused on this subject trying despretly to sell or mate these issues to feminists for their approval and those of the state, who both are the cause of these terrible injustices in the first place.
As for the ACFC it will be hard sailing to turn men who are not Christian, who left their bad wives, or who aren’t American patriots on to this numerically & financially best of the organizations. Since most men in the movement are fathers they undoubtedly aren’t breeding themselves out of participants in the cause in the future. The most serious activists are those who have children and therefore do have a stake in the future. As gay men label us straight types Breeders we in fact wear this name with pride and to dismiss so many is fundamentally flawed mere because roughly only half of our numbers call themselves Christian followers.
What all the participants have seen is that unity is there to be had. Not local unity, provincial or a national unity first, but international unity with all the flexibility that this implies.
In the UK organizations are plentiful and experienced, but divided still by issues like class & local animosities.
In the New Zealand the men are ahead of us all in that they are unified much more than any other region or country. Their cooperation and action, of the most serious kind, is fully admirable in its entirety, yet lack money and the international scope of the problem (which brings with it tales of successes & failures that allow others to avoid wasted actions, time and funds) is a must.
The US & Canada
In Canada we are all very international, but have some in our ranks who wish to fight conspiracies, or have politics first policies and are anti-US before all other issues of concern. How can any reasonable gathering force of groups exclude the largest country in numbers and wealth from their rightful place at the table? Or exclude those who make up the majority of that country by trying to gather all those who are the opposite of ACFC. This will not do for any serious activist. This isn’t pragmatic on our part, it is only plainly just.
The US system is built for healthy competition in sport, business, views and more, but competition between men’s rights groups, which has even involved the stealing of others members lists is total dysfunctional. The men’s movement in the US must learn from their New Zealanders brothers and save competition for the enemy.
In Australia the consensus seems somewhat agreed to by most, matching their me mates nature, but most seem slow or late to action, even if it is their own plan or agenda. How can this be? The reason for this is beyond me, unless some feel badly beaten in spirit. They seem less in the nazi-feminist world in OZ and may be lay back, but won’t an election change that?
All nations and men have something to add, and all have some advantages and disadvantages. If you see how each country has its own large group of appeasement advocates, that feel the urge to prove they aren’t really scary to women, instead of getting down to the business of helping men before another million die from suicide, you would see things are clearer.
If you could see how the knowledge base could be gathered with such efforts (which we have supported in the form of a new MGTOW/HN supported men & fathers rights library, being organized as we speak by someone not in our group and didn’t take part in the think tank). We don’t need to think of something to support it strongly.
If you could see how men come to the table in a more humble mood (with no man from any region or country seeming to let on he knows all about all the countries and there situations).
If you could see how the similarities in no access given to fathers, media generalizations about men (but none allowed of women), the total appalling dismissal of suicides rates and the false concerns of equality that allows women to take the best of both worlds. Then you would see how much room there is to be made in the future at this international level.
Individual governments are unable to throw their preferred indirect weight around at men in other nations, as they can & do at men within their own boarders. Sometimes the game is fixed at some level in one nation, so why not move on this in another nation and move on other issues that have fertile soil in one’s country. This way we adapt to the situation instead of trying to will our way over fixed games. The UN is the attempt of the establishment to remedy this “men’s rights problem”, and why would they make such efforts if it weren’t in fear of our growth and the room we have to maneuver at this highest of levels?
In 2008 it is hoped that new organizations, or just serious men rights activists from all regions, will take part in discussions in both increasing numbers with constructive new views and add weight to the gathering momentum.
Greater numbers, of the already stated cross references, with an equal place at the table will bring on the allusive unity of purpose, as far as it can be taken, for if more place the cause before their tree to pee on we can win sooner (this tree is base, but so is the nature that stops unity for ego).
As mentioned past participants will be sideline only to read the discussions, for the most part, and will assure that new participants will have just as an effective voice as anyone in the past in these future think tanks. Seriously past participants will only be able to add to the discussions when reforms of the consensus as discussed, yet these past participants will still have only a single ballot which is equal to those participating in 2008 or 2010 etc. It has been envisioned that this could lead to a men’s & fathers’ world congress, but this will only be moved upon when enough major organizations have taken part, and just as important the trust earned from give & take over long periods is assured.
Without trust, earned over time with give & take, we will be easy pickings as we find fault with another father for his directness and our thin skin. Impatience, short-term targets and Hail Mary Legal Moves have failed in leading us to Martin Luther’s promised land.
In the future surely false accusation will be spread to undermine our cause, as has already been done in an attempt to undermine local groups in every nation. If this is met by men that let such things roll off their backs, or go directly to one another to find out that the gossip is a lie, they will indeed find that the years of trust & directness established have dealt a death blow to such effeminate attempts at undermining the cause. We will have succeed at a level those in power can not function at for they have not earned male trust (one of the strongest forces in history). When we have this it will be time to gather part-time supporters, fly-by-night supporters and the Johnny-come-lately supporters for the final push to real reform.
Gathering these forces now, too early, increases your numbers but is not what is needed in the meeting of the minds of those who are at this full time. We need 100 hardcore men throughout the world, 1000 part-time men, 10,000 fly-by-night supporters to gather a 1,000,000-man march or interested but isolated men. Find the 100 and the rest will come later when the systems are in place to maximize there levels of time and short attentions spans. Short cut these issues to try to inflate your numbers to trump other positions means a failure to deal with the men you say you call brothers, and is a recipe for endless indirect infighting and jammed efforts in all directions and or actions.
We welcome all to serious discussion and find others give up on long email discussions before we do. Anyone interested in taking part in the HN think tank for 2008 (T308) please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Please tell us what you feel comfortable in disclosing and how we may ascertain your background without prying into any unnecessary aspects of your background. We are more interested in what you do, than what your true name or address is.
Thank you for your time and our apologies in advance in our getting back to any interested activists, and please bear with us for we have steps that must be taken before replying to any interested parties,