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

So I’ve been bit quiet lately. Been a bit busy, I have. Caring for a couple of girls on weekends. Two of them. In my care. Unattended. Unsupervised. And they’re happy!

For those that don’t know me, I’ve been Family Courtised: Accused; Trialed; Convicted; Sentenced and Hung. No evidence necessary; Allegations in essence that I “may” have done something unspecified against my own daughter. Supervised Access only permitted.

Except now I have a temporary parenting order in favour of these other two girls; not mine. No relation. Eating, sleeping, bathing etc all under my roof. And they trust me explicitly. These girls are aware - even attend with me - my supervised access to my own daughter. They can’t figure it. I talk openly and frankly with them, and about what, how and why I ensure their safety - physical and sexual.

You read right. Even the Court has agreed that they be in my care. Legally signed, sealed and delivered, for as long as required, with leave to apply for a permanent Parenting Order, if need be.

These girls have NO relationship with their mother, who last week sought without notice custody of one of them. Didn’t give a toss about the other one. So we, ever prepared, fought straight back and sent mother packing.
When I say no relationship, these girls have not lived with their mother for years; have no birthday or christmas contact, do not want to live with her, and have been assaulted by her husband. I would actually like to see some contact develop.

Their father is currently gravely ill in hospital, in a coma, although the prognosis is a little better just today. Should he be permanent incapacitated, (or worse), I will seek full guardianship and permanent parenting order. To be fair - I have kept my other case completely out of the arena of this one - but their dad knows ALL the details.

So where does leave my own children - barred from seeing me for more than a handful of supervised minutes, should i suddenly decide that I want to do the unmentionables?

Good question. Logic might dictate that I pose a far greater risk to the other unrelated girls - statistically, at least.

One day - and soon, the Court will have to answer a very simple litle set of questions: why does one FC rule me safe? And another not? Why are two (unrealted) girls safe? And another (related) not?

The story below is a rare glimpse into the way power and control is exercised by radical feminist gatekeepers.

It is interesting to compare their behaviour with other feminist groups such as the National Network of Stopping Violence Services, and Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care.

Wanganui Chronicle: Refuge wrangle goes on

Wanganui agencies are again questioning why it’s taken so long to open another refuge when $70,000 is sitting in the Wanganui account held by the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuge Inc (NCIWR).

They’re also questioning why the NCWIR is paying $230 a week for a safe house in Wanganui that’s not being used. The former Women’s and Children’s Shelter was affiliated to the NCIWR, but it was closed in March 2005 when CYF, its main funding provider, withdrew its funding after an audit found faults with the way it was run.

For that reason, Wanganui women who supported victims of domestic violence don’t want a refuge affiliated to the NCIWR.

They believe an independent refuge run by a local charitable trust would provide far better services to abused women and children in Wanganui.

In September 2005, an interim governance group, the Wanganui Women’s Refuge (WWR), was formed.

City Missioner Shirley-Joy Barrow last month resigned from the WWR governance group citing the behaviour of the NCIWR as the reason.

Ms Barrow said she agreed to be a member of the current group but found as time went on that the NCIWR bullied people through their control of meetings and processes.

Published by Finch: Online purchase details for ‘Shared Parenting - raising your children cooperatively after separation’

I’ve just finished reading this new book by Australian psychologist Jill Burrett and lawyer / mediator Michael Green. From the very first page it’s clear that the authors are in tune with modern times - this book is presumably a reflection of the positive changes which are taking place in the Australian family law arena.

The authors say in their introduction:

For far too long there’s been a misplaced belief that children, especially those under 10, are better off with mothers - and this has helped spawn another (hotly debated) the belief: that the legal system disadvantages fathers.

We believe that the situation has seriously disadvantaged children, and that fathers should be more engaged with their children than they have been.
…
We also believe that, for a very long time, gender stereotypes, the system and other complex prejudices have discouraged some fathers and caused others to participate little in parenting, especially after separating.

We don’t think fortnightly weekend parenting is meaningful shared parenting. We think that shared parenting means having real chunks of time engaged with your children for a flexible 35 to 50% or more of their available time.

The book outlines the advantages of working cooperatively to develop a suitable parenting plan instead of wasting money and creating stress by fighting in the Family Court. The focus is relentlessly on what is actually best for the children, although it is pretty clear that adults following this advice are much more likely to have a better life as well! There is plenty of research drawn upon, but it as it is referenced in the author’s notes at the back, the book remains an easy read, using language which the reader will not need a university education to understand.
(more…)

Lianne Dalziel is meeting her aussie equivalents today in Adelaide to discuss women’s issues. This is an annual meeting. United release below. Government release link on Scoop

______________

Turner backs blokes

United Future deputy leader Judy Turner says the Government should be
putting as much effort into men’s needs as it does for women’s.

“I question the fairness of having a Ministry that looks only at women’s
issues, without any advocate for men, or that fails to acknowledge gender
issues are inter-related, not isolated from each other,” she said.

“As the Minister of Women’s Affairs meets with her Australian counterparts
to look at issues that affect women today, it is timely to remind the

Government of the thousands of New Zealand men who are affected by issues
that receive neither the concern nor the attention they deserve from
Government.

“I think it’s great that we continue to encourage better outcomes for
women, both here and abroad ? but why do we not do the same for the blokes?

“For example, while women dominate many lower paid carer professions, men
dominate dangerous professions and subsequently have far more accidents and
deaths in the workplace.

“Women are more likely to leave the workforce for a period to take
responsibility for child-rearing, and may therefore ease back in lower paid
part-time work ? a concern looked at by the Ministry.

“But the flip-side is that men often feel that they don’t see enough of
their families and are forced to work longer and longer hours, faced with
the stress of being the sole provider for their families on one income.

“With men suffering disproportionately in areas of suicide, substance
abuse, homelessness, mortality, education, workplace injuries, many health
problems, lack of male teachers and with family court issues, there are
many areas that deserve acknowledgment and attention from the Government.

“My point is that this Government’s ideology and policies, ignore the
concerns of half the population. It’s a good thing to look at how to
improve the lot for women, but we should also be looking at whether we can
improve problem areas for men,” said Mrs Turner.

ENDS

If you look past the Peter Davis editorial……

It certainly is The Smoking Gun Issue.

There is an interesting article by Miranda Devine, entitiled women pulling the plug.

“Some discussion at the forum revolved around a six year US study of 65 married couples that found that the secret to a lasting marriage was a husband that did what his wife says.”

The above extract highlighted in the article is out of context.

Professor William Dohertys other comments.

“Best, says Doherty, to base the “marriage movement” on common language of research which shows that children raised in an intact marriage do better in general in all scales than those who aren’t.
A new generation burnt by the experience of their parents’ failures, yet longing for love because of it, are on the threshold of embracing marriage or rejecting it. This makes more urgent the task of “selling” the institution as the foremost protector of children and ultimately the best vehicle for human fulfilment.”

Another article How the west was lost: questions the future of countries who simply give up breeding, perhaps something we should seriously consider ourselves.

Authors: F4J (Assisted: Dave Ellison)
From: Hands on Equal Parenting
Via: The Honor Network

Here are 9 motivational tapes of actions & marches taken to encourage everyone in all movements to bring about justice for men & fathers.

Click: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWW7wQPVm7I

Stuff Link:

The New Zealand Mental Health Survey, released by Health Minister Pete Hodgson yesterday, found that by the age of 75, 46 per cent of people would have experienced a mental health disorder.
Dr Wilson believed these figures would help people be happier to talk about these kind of issues in everyday forums.
“Things like depressive episodes and anxiety episodes are contributing primarily to that large figure of 46 per cent.”

Well I’m happy to share; that I am anxious about what the Family Court does to NZ children and depressed about our failing socialist state.

Anyone else want to share, and be happy too?

4.00pm Tuesday September 19, 2006
By Lindy Laird

New Zealand women won the right to vote in New Zealand 113 years ago today - but that didn’t mean equality issues were all over bar the shouting.

“It took another 70 years of nagging” before women could sit on juries, be Justices of the Peace or work as police officers, says longtime women’s lobbyist Audrey Trimmer.

…

Equal pay and parity in employment was one of the more high-profile ongoing battles, along with the campaign to reduce violence in society.

…

“Everybody is amazed when I tell them that there is still an an ongoing struggle on behalf of women,” Mrs Trimmer says.

“There are so many things we take for granted now that wouldn’t have happened if the National Council for Women hadn’t lobbied hard for and made submissions to parliament.”

Mrs Trimmer fears that, although lobby groups will continue to work on rights and quality of life issues, younger generations had become blase about the events of 1893 which saw New Zealand lead the world in allowing women to vote.

“I think it’s a shame that New Zealand history isn’t taught to the level it should be in schools.”

Christine Low, national president of the group that represents up to 250,000 women belonging to a wide variety of affiliated groups, said it was ironic that women’s groups were still fighting for some of the same issues fought for by the suffragettes.

“We have made some gains but it’s far from over. There’s still an awful lot of work to do not only for women but to benefit all of New Zealand society.

“Freedom from violence, in particular,” Ms Low said. “Calling it domestic violence just pigeonholes it. It’s much broader than that. And pay equity is still but a distant dream for many.”

…

* Women in Mongolia had the vote (1924) before women in Britain (1928). In Spain women lost the vote in 1936 under the Franco regime and didn’t get it back until 1976. In Australia the end of legislative discrimination against Aboriginal peoples gave native women the vote in 1962. Swiss women were allowed to vote after 1971, and in Bahrain women gained the vote in 2001.

- NZPA

NOTE: The comments expressed in these articles may not reflect that of the post author

1.00pm Tuesday September 19, 2006
By Maggie Fox

Women are being filtered out of high-level science, maths and engineering jobs in the United States, and there is no good reason for it, according to a National Academies report released today.

A committee of experts looked at all the possible excuses — biological differences in ability, hormonal influences, childrearing demands, and even differences in ambition — and found no good explanation for why women are being locked out.

“Compared with men, women faculty members are generally paid less and promoted more slowly, receive fewer honours, and hold fewer leadership positions,” the Academies said in a statement.

“These discrepancies do not appear to be based on productivity, the significance of their work, or any other performance measures.”

…

“We found no significant biological differences between men and women in science, engineering and mathematics that could account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and scientific leadership positions,” said Donna Shalala, president of the University of Miami and head of the committee that wrote the report.

The study was compiled by all the National Academies — the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine — which advise Congress, the federal government, and various institutions.

…

Many arguments have been made to explain why women do not excel in maths and science — that they are not as good as men in mathematical ability, that female brain structures are different or that hormones affect performance.

Lawrence Summers resigned as Harvard University president after he made widely disparaged remarks in 2005 suggesting that women were biologically less able in maths and science, and that women chose to pay more attention to their families and thus failed to put in enough effort to succeed at work.

The experts looked at many different studies on the issue.

“The committee found no sound evidence to support these myths and often good evidence to the contrary,” said Ana Mari Cauce, Executive Vice Provost at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“In fact, female performance in high school mathematics now matches that of males. If biology were the basis of that, we’ve seen some major evolution in the past decades.”

Urgent change is needed, said Cauce, if the United States wants to compete internationally in science.

“This is about more excellence. This is not about changing the bar or lowering the bar,” Cauce said.

…

- REUTERS

NOTE: The comments expressed in these articles may not reflect that of the post author

Scoop Link: Lock em up says Judith

From the National Website.

Revenue - Dr Hon Lockwood Smith
Associate Revenue - Pansy Wong.

Look who has got plenty to say for herself when it is not even her portfolio. Looks like Pansy Wong is going to be the National Patsie set up for the Hospital Pass.