"THE FAMILY OF MAN?"

FIRST IT GIVES NO POWER TO WOMEN SINCE IT IS THE WOMAN THAT MUST TAKE THE NAME OF THE MAN, SECONDLY, I ALLEGE THAT IT IS A PHRASE USED FOR THE UNDESERVING TO GET WHAT DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM. TAKING FROM AN ARTIST SUCH AS I, AN AUTHOR, ACTRESS AND SOME TIME STAND UP COMMEDIENNE AND, OF COURSE THE CREATOR OF THE GLOBAL PLAN. THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DEVIANTS WHO BY THE STROKE OF A PEN, OR WITH A NAME CHANGE HAVE SNATCHED WHAT DIDN'T BELONG TO THEM. AND IF YOU ATTEMPT TO APPLY THIS TO MY USING ALIASES IN ORDER TO REMAIN INDEPENDENT AND PAY MY OWN WAY WHILE I WAS BEING SABOTAGED BY THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, ETC. IT IS CLEARLY NOT THE SAME. LAZY GOOD FOR NOTHINGS THAT WANTED TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP WHAT NEVER BELONGED TO THEM SUCH AS MY REAL ESTATE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES ETC. SUDDENLY COME UP WITH THE NOTION, "THE FAMILY OF MAN" FIRST HEARD WHILE I WAS ATTENDING THE AMERICAN FILM INSTITITUTE AND PROMULGATED BY MY THEN INSTRUCTOR NINA FOSCH IN 1975. COULD THIS POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN A RUSE IN PREPARATION FOR PILFERING ALL MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES THAT I HAD CREATED AT THE TIME, SETTING UP FOR THE DEVIOUS APPLICATION OF CLAIMING OWNERSHIP BY ETHNICITY OR IMPOSING THE NAME GAME? WE'VE ALREADY PROVEN THAT HYPOTHESIS, HAVE WE NOT? (C)COPYRIGHTED BY GWENDOLYN L MITCHELL ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 1ST, 2015 AT 9:32AM, LA CA 90093.