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

This shocking and very alarming comment from the United nations website -

The United Nations defines domestic violence as: “the use of force or threats of force by a husband or boyfriend for the purpose of coercing and intimidating a woman into submission.

Notice what’s missing? Yeah, Of course you do.
It’s the other half of domestic violence – that perpetrated by women on men globally.

Look for yourself. I scoured the whole site and could find nowhere ANY acknowledgement that women also commit domestic violence.

So there it is people – YOUR TAX MONEY IS BEING USED TO DEMONISE MEN, and concrete evidence the UN has been captured by a bunch of feminazzi zealeots.

Class action lawsuit on behalf of the injured party (males) against the NZ Gov’t and UN anyone?
Or will the blokes there roll over and get shafted again?

Scottish survey finds male abuse approval
Source: BBC
More than half of women questioned at a Glasgow university said they approved of wives hitting their husbands. The Glasgow Caledonian students were among 6,500 women surveyed from 36 universities for an international study into attitudes on domestic violence. Of the 200 women, 60% said it was acceptable for women to hit their husbands while 35% admitted assaulting their partner. A total of 8% admitted injuring them – the highest rate in the study.

HEY NEV, HOW ABOUT CONDUCTING A SIMILAR STUDY AT WAIKATO UNI?

Judge speaks up on Family Court criticisms

Saturday June 10, 2006
By Chris Barton

Graeme MacCormick retired as Family Court judge in December after serving 15 years on the bench. Here are his views on men’s groups’ protests.

Will judges be intimidated by the men’s groups’ protests?

I do not perceive the judges of the court will be in the least influenced in their decision-making by any protest outside their homes. They have a job to do on behalf of the community. The children whose lives are affected are the children of their birth parents and also children of the community.

What often seems to get overlooked in criticisms of the Family Court is that the originating problems brought to it are not of the court’s making. There are frequently power and control issues between the birth parents or between them and subsequent caregivers.

Many in the men’s groups vent a lot of anger. What’s behind this?

Anger is a natural emotion which shows other people our boundaries. It is precisely where our boundaries lie and the way we deal with our anger that counts. Anger that is not properly dealt with too often leads to physical outbursts and assaults and is, quite frequently, a feature of the more difficult Family Court cases.

Where I think men – as a broad generalisation – find themselves disadvantaged is when women have been the primary caregivers before separation and men have been the primary providers.

When the relationship breaks down and the woman tries to hold on to her role to the substantial exclusion of her former husband or partner, then the father is left with resort to the Family Court, which is not always resourced to be able to respond as quickly as the father – or indeed the court – would like. Nor might the outcome be exactly what either partner wants, depending on the circumstances and the perceived welfare and best interests – and views – of the child or children. Those are the determining factors with the law as it stands.

The protesters want equal parenting as the default position of the court in decisions about the care of children. What’s your view of that?

I question whether they are going about that in the right way. They need to convince a majority of members of parliament of the need for a law change and that it will be best for children. Men’s groups would need good research to back their position.

In the meantime, the judges of the court will try to apply the law, as it stands. It seems to me there is little point in attacking judges as a body for doing that.

I doubt that you are likely to achieve change by targeting the wrong people. Good, positive time with both birth parents, subject to issues of physical and emotional safety, is clearly the ideal. In an increasing number of cases that is equal time.

But sometimes extreme, ongoing conflict between birth parents, both locked in a battle over their children that they become ever more determined to win, makes this impossible to achieve.

Sometimes children have had so much conflict in their lives, without being able to see an end to it, that very occasionally and as a last resort a choice may need to be made for care by one birth parent to the exclusion of the other, hopefully temporary.

Men’s groups say the court grants protection orders against men too easily.

There have also been complaints, on behalf of women, that “without notice” applications for protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act were not being granted readily enough and that too many were being placed “on notice”, with significant physical risk to women and children. This demonstrates the difficulty of satisfying everybody. When temporary protection orders are made without notice, in perceived situations of a threat to safety, and when children are involved, the court is increasingly scheduling a review of the temporary order within one or two weeks.

Men’s groups also complain about mothers making false testimony to the court.

For “false testimony” one can often substitute “a different perspective or perception”. If there is genuinely false testimony before the court and it is not acknowledged or corrected and it is material provided with intent to deceive the court, this can clearly ground a prosecution for perjury. On occasion, the Family Court will refer a matter of perceived perjury to the police for consideration of prosecution. Anything in the nature of deliberately false evidence or misleading testimony will almost inevitably be counter-productive to the position of the person on whose behalf it is provided.

The protesters say they are targeting lawyers because they lie to the court. Why would they make such claims?

This probably refers to the lawyer for the children, with whom dissatisfied litigants of both genders will frequently take issue. Their job is to represent the child or children independently of the parents or caregivers.

Their client is the child. But they are not meant to give evidence to the court – as opposed to making submissions based on the evidence.

It is, however, normal for the lawyer for the child to advise a child’s views and the child’s instructions, if the child is able to provide them. That may not be exactly what the child has said to his or her parents.

What do you think of the men’s groups’ tactics?

Men’s groups can frequently be helpful in providing a “McKenzie friend” or support person for a father acting on his own behalf. Likewise they fulfil a useful purpose in keeping before the public the importance of birth parents to children.

But Family Court judges are well aware of this and need no reminding. Men’s groups need to be carefully focused if they are not to be counter-productive.

I suspect that the protests may, in their targeting, say more about the protesters than about the operation of the court. If their intention is to embarrass, harass or intimidate might not similar traits and tactics have been factors in the breakdown of their marriage or relationship?

Author
• More by Chris Barton
• Email Chris Barton

What level of inhumanity must a person descend to that enables him/her to in any way just upset or deprive a child?

But what level of disgusting inhuman descent must one reach before seriously hitting a child is acceptable?

What level of inhumanity could enable any person to hit, with such ferocity as to kill and seriously injure, a three month old infant?

Cru Kahui is dead after just three months of life. His brother Chris is critically injured…three months old.

The perpetrator of this vile crime deserves to die, very slowly and painfully. If not for Cru and Chris, then for me and the billions, world-wide, who need to know justice for these little boys.

I don’t care for their reasons or excuses. The perpetrator’s act in this case is well beyond even normal revulsion levels.

You can bet CYFS will get pilloried for this. In this instance I wish to extend my support to CYFS. When the rocks begin to be thrown. How could you possibly have known that such an animal as the killer of this child existed, or could even begin to predict he/she would kill and seriously injure.

No. CYFS make a lot of bad mistakes, but this time they deserve our support in the event they attract blame; which they most assuredly will.

We know this pig will end up in prison. Let us hope the other prisoners do that which our society, in such extreme cases, should be doing, lawfully.

David.

And now the Police want the power to issue ‘instant’ DVOs. It seems to me that this is yet another smoke-screen the police are using to ‘ease’ their work-load.

The concept being, Herbert The Violent (that’s the Herbert who has just beaten the tripes out his spouse or children) can be slung out on his ear and forced to stay away.

The concept appears, at first assessment, to have merit. But on second thoughts, the police already have a wide range of charges which they can use to contain a truly violent partner. For a proven assault, as opposed to, ‘My partner just said something man to me and I actually need him out of here before my ‘new’ partner arrives,’ the police can arrest and detain the perp…And so they should.

But now they want the job of judge and or jury by making instant assessments of a ‘situation’ and handing out instant DVOs. That is NOT their task. Their task is to enforce laws, take appropriate actions in the circumstances, then leave matters to the court to decide an appropriate solution.

We must not allow this initiative to progress beyond the media.

Cheers
David.

This from Men’s rights activist Stephen Baskerville –

For the full text go to –

mensnewsdaily.com: Innocence is no excuse

“It is not difficult to see where this is going. In Britain, “special domestic violence courts” allow third parties such as civil servants and pressure groups to use “relaxed rules of evidence and the lower burden of proof” to bring actions against those they identify as batterers, even if no alleged “victim” comes forward (or even exists). “Victim support groups,” who say women “should be spared having to take legal action,” can now act in the name of an anonymous or purported plaintiff to seize the children, homes, and other property of men who have not been convicted of any crime. Similar “domestic violence courts” are being created in the United States and Canada, where “conviction rates have risen” and “guilty pleas are way up,” Mother Jones magazine enthuses. In other words, rigged trials and the certainty of conviction allow prosecutors to extort guilty pleas”.

Here’s an excerpt from Kathleen Parker’s recent column.
Obviously there are still some women left who value fathering and don’t reckon it can be supplanted by the sisterhood.

“The even greater mystery is that men continue to sign up for the job, to sublimate themselves to the higher charge of being a father even in the face of a culture that belittles them. That’s what fathers do, of course: take the grief and keep on keeping on.

Which is why we love them”.

For the entire article go here.

This recently from comedian / racaunteur Chris Rock -

Everybody takes Daddy for granted. Everything’s Mama. Dear Mama. Always loved my Mama. What’s the Daddy song? “Papa was a Rollin’ Stone.” Nobody appreciates Daddy.

Now, Mama’s got the roughest job. l ain’t gonna front. But at least people appreciate Mama. Every time Mama do something right, Mama gets a compliment… ’cause women need to hear compliments all the time.

Women need food, water, and compliments. That’s right. And an occasional pair of shoes. That’s right. Women got to hear it all the time, or they lose their minds.

And get Daddy to make sure you thank your Mama for everything. Tell your Mama how good the food is. Tell her how nice the house looks. Tell your Mama how nice her hair looks.

‘’Did you tell your Mama? You better go in there and tell your Mama!” That’s right. Tell your Mama! Tell your Mama! Tell your Mama!

Nobody ever tells Daddy sh*t.

I’m talking about the real daddies that handle their f**king business. Nobody ever says, ‘’Hey, Daddy, thanks for knocking out this rent! Hey, Daddy, l sure love this hot water! Hey, Daddy, this is easy to read with all this light!”

Nobody gives a f**k about Daddy. I’m talking about a daddy that handles his business. Think about everything that the real daddy does: pay the bills, buy the food, put a f**king roof over your head. Everything you could ever ask for. Make your world a better, safer place.

And what does Daddy get for all his work?

The big piece of chicken. That’s all Daddy gets.”

Happy Father’s Day!

I have said it before and I will say it again. The government is pooling the funding. This means that for groups to receive funding they have to work together to get more funding.

Maybe Jim’s opinion on this, just maybe will back me up. (But then maybe he doesn’t see how I see things)

For example a group meeting of all interesested groups on youth was called to get the Waitakere Community together to deal with the youth problem. (Friday 16th June)

This is not the first for the doctors and dentists etc are doing the same. The government is finding a solution that is. “Instead of individually paying out funding, all work together and you will get more as a group.”

I reckon personally that a group like SKIP who got 10+ million dollars funding over the next 4 years will be the main provider and all the others will have to support and be a part else they are out of luck for money.

It makes sense for groups to get together, agree with issues and plan goals together. Not only will you make a bigger impact but you will get tax payers money. Where would men prefer to pay there taxes? For DV or mens issues?

I am still happy to find where our group belongs in all this. Shared parenting is the right thing to do but it is also a good business choice if one wants to get funding.

This is my opinion but I tell you, you will see it come to be.

Women have spent the last 20 years trying to solve this problem and it is only getting worse they say. Common sense needs to prevail.

OK, so we know that biologically males and females are different but we don’t want to listen to that or take it into account, do we?

So let’s combine the psychology and philisophy. Let’s look to what we are raising. I was asked the question myself last night, “Am I raising men or boys?” And I have seen the light.
This is my problem for I have been raising my boys to be men and not an equal to a female being raised into a woman.

We have been doing it wrong, I agree. So here is the solution.

From this day forth we will start from the birth of our children. Our boys we will dress in pretty dressess and pink ribbons. When they fall over as toddlers we will remind them how weak they are. We will pamper them in cotton wool and shower them in bracelets and jewels. We will make them emotional human beings and teach them to cry.

Our girls we will dress in pants, shirts and ties. We will teach them to harden up when they fall over as toddlers. We will work them so their hands are rough and continually explain it is their responsibility as females to protect the weak.

When they are teenagers we will send them off to the armed forces where they will learn strictness, discipline and combat.

Our teenage boys we will be patient with, forever encouraging them to keep themselves clean and pretty.

And for the males that exist today, for we have just raised them wrong, we will round them up and ……… (imagination please).