MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

It is often said on these boards that New Zealand is a highly feminist society. After doing a little research online I have to disagree.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of feminism is:

1 The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women EQUAL to those of men.

2 An organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3 Feminine character.

Wikipedia has a similar definition:

“The term feminism can be used to describe a political, cultural, or economic movement aimed at establishing equal rights and legal protection for women. Feminism involves political, cultural and sociological theories, as well as philosophies concerned with issues of gender difference. It is also a movement that advocates gender equality for women and campaigns for women’s rights and interests.”

The question is simple. Is feminism in New Zealand advocating EQUAL rights for men and women? It would certainly appear that this is not the case, with various experiences on this site indicating that anti-male attitudes and policies are well and truly entrenched throughout New Zealand. Man hating is not part of feminism; feminism is about equality.

Now it could be argued that the New Zealand government and other governments around the world are giving extra help to females because of gender inequalities, thereby equalizing the gaps between the sexes in traditionally male areas, (pay rates and such like.) But this doesn’t make any sense either, after all, how can women have equal rights to men, if men don’t have equal rights to women; it’s a two edged sword.

Or is feminism truly just about women? This certainly seems to be the case in New Zealand, where the “equal“ rights of women seem to dominate our society. If feminism is about equality, then this can hardly be called a “victory” for the feminists; unless their agenda was not equality in the first place. In reality a search for equal rights would result in the feminists being just as concerned for the rights of men, and this would give rise to extra help in order to equalize human rights in the areas that men are not equal to women, for example in relation to family and children. Men were just as oppressed by the old sex roles as women, and although it is now considered acceptable for a man to play a more active part in the family, we are a long way from gender equality when it comes to other matters of the family, as is shown by the experiences of men during family breakdown.

The only conclusion is that what is called feminism is not about equal rights at all, both in New Zealand and throughout western countries. Men are actively discriminated against right throughout western society. It is considered fine in western society for women to display open misandry, to insult men in public, or thorough advertising; political policies are brought in that are anti male in their agenda; examples abound throughout this site in every area of anti-male behaviour and policy that we can imagine.

So with all this anti male behaviour from supposedly equality seeking feminists perhaps it’s time to find a new word whose definition matches the reality of the “feminists” in western society.

We know that “feminists” are no longer concerned about reaching equality with men. Two groups of people are either equal or in-equal and this brings us to the inescapable conclusion that the agenda of “feminism” is superiority of women over men. This certainly seems to match the facts of New Zealand’s treatment of men and brings us to a completely different word to describe these “feminists” A word that feminists themselves touted in the 1960s. Chauvinism.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of chauvinism is:

1 Zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory.

2 Militant devotion to and glorification of one’s country; fanatical patriotism.

3 Biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause.

4 PREJUDICED BELIEF IN THE SUPERIORITY OF ONE’S OWN GENDER, GROUP, OR KIND.

It is this fourth definition that was applied to men in the late 1960s thereby giving rise to the term, “Male Chauvinist” this was based on an entrenched attitude in the past that men were superior to women. I might add that this attitude still exists in certain places in the world where feminism didn’t reach, such as Central Asia.

This definition, when applied to women seems to match the reality of modern western society very accurately. There is an increasingly disturbing trend of women seeing themselves as superior to men, therefore deserving rights that men do not have. This is seen right throughout western society, and is becoming more deeply entrenched as time passes. It seems that western society is becoming full of female chauvinists masquerading as feminists and pretending to be victims.

My challenge to all men and women is to call these “feminists” what they really are.

They are FEMALE CHAUVINISTS!!!

United Future, (New Zealand political party) President and gender affairs spokesperson Judy Turner has told the media that her party stands for men’s rights when it comes to family violence. The Families Commission was set up by the Labour Government in a deal with United Future party after the 2002 election because United Future believed that the family is the core unit of our society and is the place where all values and skills for living harmoniously in a modern society emanate from. As we know, feminism (Labour) is about destroying the traditional family unit as it is a radical movement insisting on changing societal norms. So the Families Commission was set up to remove the conflict between the two party’s policies.

One of the things the Families Commission deals with is family violence and the rights of each individual in the family where women are a class, gay and lesbians are a class, children are a class, elderly are a class and minority groups are a class. The only class that doesn’t exist are young men over the age of thirteen to grown men who are not yet elderly. Judy Turner is aware this is discrimination and wants to see this changed.

Her statement comes after the release of the 2010 family violence death report which states 12 men, 16 children and 13 women were abused so badly they died at the hands of the people they should have been able to trust – their own family members.
(more…)

Dear Angela and Ors,

Many continue to provide distracting and alternative opinions from the many issues and realities expierenced by the significant majority of users of this website, it thus diminishes to a bun-fighting merry-go-round contest, thus with denigration of the valuable resource /advice available to men and families that this site is able to provide.

This Post would require reply from Angela as it has been previously requested under this forum under occassion

1.Why are you here?
2.What do you wish to achieve?
3.And why?

We always remain in
Kindest Regards
Paul & Opal Catton
(09) 271 3020

At the salon, I overheard the receptionist admit to another woman, “I haven’t taken my vitamins today. I’m walking around unprotected.”

The woman commiserated with her. “I haven’t taken my Prozac today—everyone’s walking around unprotected.”

The DVA and and the essence of its implementation and the industry around it are the main reason for the deaths statistics cited in the article below. Most of the deaths are a consequence of the brutish and violent Family Court intervention. I call the review panel to poke its nose inside the Family Court dodgy practices and money hungry lawyers.

Numerous analysis and comments here in this website point the finger at the Family Court and the domestic violence industry.

Note that suicides among kiwi dads did not make it into the reports stats.

Article read from here

By KATIE CHAPMAN – The Dominion Post

Figures that show at least 41 New Zealanders died at the hands of family members in 2009 have been labelled “staggering” by some working to stop family violence.

The Family Violence Death Review Committee issued the figures in its annual report to Parliament. But it says the number could still get higher, as some deaths at the end of the year have not yet been included.

The figure is made up of 16 children, 13 women and 12 men – 10 deaths above the national average of 14 women, six men and 10 children killed each year.

A family violence death is defined as “the unnatural death of a person (adult or child) where the suspected perpetrator is a family or extended family member, caregiver, intimate partner, previous partner of the victim, or previous partner of the victim’s current partner”.

Committee chairwoman Wendy Davis said this was the first year the committee, which was established by the Health Ministry in 2008, had formally provided an official toll.

It was a shocking, yet unsurprising, result, she said.

“Nobody in New Zealand who works in the family violence area is surprised by these.”

The committee planned to analyse each death to highlight “crisis points” where intervention may have been possible, she said. The more information, the better equipped they would be to address the problem, she said.

“As a group we are very aware of the complexity of the problem we are helping to try and solve.”

Family violence researcher and campaigner Ruth Herbert, who is a member of the Round Table for Violence Against Women, labelled the figure “staggering”. “To actually hear it as an official number kind of makes me a bit weak at the knees.”

Now the information was public it had to be used to make a difference, she said.

“This country has to stand up, open its eyes, and realise what’s going on behind closed doors.

“We need to take a concerted approach to this. We need to base what we’re doing on evidence. It really needs a family violence programme. It’s all been rather ad hoc to date.”

The Family Violence Death Review Committee’s report says it aims to review each death and make recommendations by the end of 2010.

Have you ever wondered why we don’t have men’s rights and yet we have women’s rights, children’s rights, animal’s rights, even rights for plants? You might say it’s because of feminism and you would be right to a large degree. It’s not helpful for men when there exists a man-hate movement. But could there be a bit more to it?

If you’ve ever wondered, like I have, you’ll enjoy this interesting 10 minute presentation by manwomanmyth.com with guest speakers Angry Harry, a well known and well respected Men’s Rights Advocate and Activist alongside Erin Pizzy, author and international speaker of domestic violence who made the world’s first women’s refuge and Stephen Fitzgerald, director of Mankind Men’s charity.

Parents Inc. holds a number of one off events throughout the year, the largest being the Auckland Mayoral Fathers’ Breakfast. This event was first launched in 1994 by the then Mayor of Auckland, Les Mills. Over the last 15 years thousands of fathers have attended this hugely popular annual breakfast.

“Being a Dad is the most important job a man can do, so we’re offering advice and support to fathers so they can do their job better. The breakfast is also really good fun and a great feed,” says Ian Grant.

Each breakfast has a star line-up of speakers, such as Nick Farr-Jones, Todd Blackadder, Sean Fitzpatrick, Stephen Tindall and Neil Finn. “The speakers we’ve had at the breakfasts over the years have been from all sorts of professions – sports, business, medicine, entertainment – but they all have one thing in common,” says Ian, “They’re all outstanding fathers.”

Speakers present their personal experience of fatherhood, sharing the things that have worked and the things that haven’t. The practical nature of the speakers’ advice, combined with the atmosphere generated by more than 700 fathers in a room, makes for a powerful event.

Cost: Single Ticket Price: $55.00 (Admits one person)
Table Of 10 Price: $550.00 (Admits 10 people)

Phone Janet Hird, Parents Inc. on 09 524 1388 or 0800 53 56 59
Email: fathers.breakfast@parentsinc.org.nz

The Fathers Breakfast are planned for the following dates in 2010

Christchurch – Tuesday 16 March @ AMI Stadium
Address: Deloitte Lounge, Deans Stand, AMI Stadium, Christchurch
Region: Canterbury

Speakers:
* Sir Gil Simpson KNZN, QSM – technology entrepreneur
* David McPhail ONZM, QSM – actor/writer
* Ruben Wiki ONZM – rugby league legend
* Ian Grant QSO – founder and director of Parents Inc.
* Zane Scarborough – Attitude presenter for Parents Inc.

Booking Form

Wellington – Tuesday 1 June @ Wellington Town Hall Auditorium

Auckland – Tuesday 24 August @ Sky City Conference Centre

Family First NZ says that violence in our community and towards people of authority such as the police will increase as long as we downplay the significance and benefits of strong marriages and committed fathers.

“The response of governments, even today, has been more money and more laws. Yet this fails to deal with the root causes of what is happening. Fatherlessness is a major contributor to increasing rates of juvenile violence,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Scientific research is unanimous on a number of conclusions regarding family structure – that strong marriages increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children and lowers the risk of alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and child abuse,”

“Conversely, parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of delinquent and criminal behaviour, amongst other factors. One only needs to observe proceedings at the Youth Court to see the effect of fatherlessness.”

“According to The Heritage Foundation, an influential US research institute, an analysis of social science literature over 30 years shows that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. A state-bystate analysis indicated that a 10% increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes lead typically to a 17% increase in juvenile crime. The research found that criminal behaviour has its roots in habitual deprivation of parental love and affection going back to early infancy.”
(more…)

French men who seem likely to be violent towards their wives and female partners will be tagged and monitored under new feminist law.

The proposed measure means men who have received court orders to stay away from their partners will wear an electronic bracelet and if they break the order, police are alerted.

Parliament is also considering outlawing psychological violence. This new creation of crime has many outside parliament worried on how this will work. Supporters of the law say psychological violence turns into physical violence while lawyers and professionals in the field are nervous saying it will be impossible to say at what point verbal abuse – for instance in an argument – suddenly becomes a criminal offence.

Critics argue the psychological violence clause is unlikely to make any practical improvement to the lives of women who suffer domestic violence.

(more…)

Craig writes:

I’m looking for a standard form prenuptual agreement.
One that I can fill in two names and a date, after reviewing the wording.

I’ve never heard of one, Craig.

I would imagine that they usually contain details of specific assets which are intended to be excluded from jointly owned Relationship Property.

I’m not an expert though, so I’m making your request public in the hope that other men will add useful information. (more…)