What’s really happening in New Zealand?
We have a Family Court for broken up families to mediate (whether through mediation, counselling or judges decisions) the access of children, day-to-day care etc, etc. We have child support payers and receivers which the go through IRD and follow a formula the Governmet set. Some people pay small amounts, not enough to cover child expenses while others are paying well over the costs to rear a child. Thus giving the receiver money for new boobs, tummy tucks, etc, etc.
Either way you look at there is unfairness in both the family court and regarding child support.
So we all get together and bitch about the systems we are unlucky to have become involved in.
But what about men, in general, in NZ?
We have many different cultures here and beliefs of men and women’s roles as people and parents. We have some men that are happy to raise their children as “Super Nanny tell’s us” and we have some men that “use the rod to extremes.” What we consider (me and Angela) extreme does come under “Family Violence” and it is physical. Using a belt, slapping their heads hard and picking them up and throwing them across a room is violent behaviour. In saying that many men who raise their children this way, do love their children but think they should raise them how they were raised. Unfortunately , the new generation are not as thick skinned to take this as they had. “Once were warriors” type families exist here in Auckland, west and south as in many other towns.
Talking to thinking Maori men, we are hearing that they believe it is the mentality of their men that is bringing down their families. We concur, from experiencing this first hand. They consider their women are becoming liberated and think the DPB is a tool to help their women. Now the men need to realise what is happening and change. And by human rights laws, they do need to change. (Before anyone lynch mobs us, we want to say we are generalising and realise there are heaps of Maori men that are not the typical stereotype) And also this is not just Maori men for this is in all ethnic groups.
In conclusion, New Zealand still hasn’t given full rights to women and children. There are still issues with the gender equality and family violence is a very real issue. So we are wondering how do we give males more power if we haven’t even sorted out female’s power?
If we were to give male’s more power then wouldn’t we be telling the men that treat their women and children as less than them, that their behaviour is OK and is accepted.
At the moment it seems that we have two clashing “human rights” issues. One for the men that suffer and one for the women that suffer. And on top of it we are giving children rights so that makes three all clashing in opposite directions. We think we should all combine, men, women and chidren to sort out the flaws and the unfairness and compromise.
Julie and Angela (B1 and B2)
Ladies,
I got into serious trouble for suggesting that men held partial responsibility for their situation on this site. Before the lynch mob gets here, I thought I’d add that I agree with what you say.
Julie,
I read your post, but it got lost in the thread somewhere. Yes, HB is staunchly conservative but there are a lot of males who are voluntarily changing.
Comment by Kent (New Zeal) — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 11:50 am
Hi New Zeal,
Checked your website out. Pretty cool and we are wanting to promote your 9-3 thoery for single parents. We tried to contact you on website but couldn’t find your contact details.
You are not wrong in what you say but neither are the males challenging you. It is just looking at things from different angles and challenging different angles.
These men are right in saying that the feminist movement has created chaos and that the FC is against males more that females. These male judges you talk of still have the mentality that the women take day-to-day care of the chidren. Things are slowly changing with women becoming judges and younger men.
But we agree with you also in that there does still need to be changes in attitudes from alot of men in NZ and around the world.
This site is giving us all a chance to get together. Many of us e-mail seperately each other and meet up at different times to discuss ideas etc.
Don’t stop commenting for there are many people who read all our comments without commenting themselves.
You are heard as are we and as are everyone else. All food for thought.
Comment by julie — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 12:05 pm
Thanks, Julie
I will fix that up when I finish it. 9 to 3 jobs are for both men and women and for single parents and couples. I think a lot of stress could be relieved from families with two parents if one parent was more easily able to work 9 to 3 and be with the kids. It might help reduce marital separation and improve prospects for children. Putting kids into childcare so parents can work 9 to 5 is not a good option, or at least is not everyone’s choice.
If you want to contact me, then go to the root page http://www.passingphase.co.nz, login/register and send a message using the form. Although I have tested this myself I have yet to have anyone else do a test run. If you do it then I hope it works. If it doesn’t then let me know. We can then swap addresses. I am wary of putting my e-mail address, even in this post because of spam.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Julie states –
In conclusion, New Zealand still hasn’t given full rights to women and children.
My response –
Julie,
That’s an outrageous, frightful thing to say.
I disagree with the idea that nz women don’t have human rights and I’m afraid the way you state it seems very offensive and inflamatory.
Your statement as it stands seems like the same old tired victim feminist mentality that’s been demonising nz men for decades now.
You could (but curiously don’t) point out there is a whole raft of legislation that has been in place for many years supporting women’s equal rights. Indeed nz was the first western democracy to grant women the vote, and that’s only one example.
That a few men flout the law and commit DV appears I fear to be used by you here as a stick to beat ALL men. Then I afraid Kent/New Zeal appears to chime in chivalrously to bolster your outrageousness.
Interestingly this is happening on a site supposedly for the purpose of promoting an experience of MEN’S experience.
Yet what I see has evolved is that you, a woman, are posting much more than anyone and often not reporting men’s experience at all but merely giving your female interpretation of men’s experience. That’s not to say I wish women not to post here.
I’m disappointed that your post appears to be your own brand of feminist polemic rather than as other women have posted here reportage of men’s experience which quotes men, gives statistics gathered from asking men about thier experience and so forth.
I really don’t want to see this site, which I greatly value reduced to a platform dominated by feminists swamping it with unsubstantiated inflamatory polemic against men.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 3:41 pm
Stephen,
Funny how I have learn’t so much about you from your comments over the last few days. What is mostly of interest is that you were a probation officer.
And also that you studied ‘Psychology or something like that.’
Now it is either time for you to get real or for me to tell you, “F*** you”
If you want real change you HAVE TO COMPROMISE.
You and your group have been well known for years. Yes, you are right in saying you have been known for ‘anti-women’ because that is what you are known by.
We don’t live in the 70’s or 80’s or even the 90’s anymore. We are here today and unless you, yourself change then we will change it for you and you will still be miserable yourself. I know I will never please you nor most people on this site. (I am so pissed off with you)
I like you alot, I respect you alot but you have to understand, we are not you, we never lived through what you lived through. We are just people that have nothing to do with what happened to you.
I saw the faces on people last night listening to the passion of Jim Bagnall and I can tell you, they have no f***** idea of what he is talking about. Things are changing all the time, people change daily.
God damn it, Stephen, give us a chance to help.
Things are different today than than they were yesterday.
Teach me, don’t put me down. Do you think I like hearing the shite I am hearing? Do you not think it doesn’t affect me? Do you think I don’t give a damn or that I don’t want to bomb the residences of the people that are responsible? I pay for these meetings out of my own pocket, and am willing to give petrol vouchers to those that assist me.
Comment by julie — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 4:15 pm
B1 and B2,
WOW!
How badly informed are you? Get out of your pyjamas, open your eyes and smell the roses!
The FEMINAZI fascist brigade led by the ANTI-Clark and her QUEER worshippers have successfully completed MARGINALISING DAD and FRAGMENTING the cornerstone of New Zealand society: THE BIOLOGICAL, INTER-GENERATIONAL FAMILY!
THEY HAVE RELIGOUSLY AND REPEATEDLY ABUSED EVERY RIGHT OF EVERY CHILD IN NEW ZEALAND IN A COLDLY CALCULATED AND SYSTEMIC MANNER. This even in the face of the fact that they signed on to UNCROC…a real case of “Do as I say not as I do…”
THE RESULT: a country in ANGUISH! Families destroyed! Children bereft of their right to have TWO parents!
WOMEN have been given 99.999999999999% of the power in EVERY situation. For example, had Don Brash HARANGUED and VERBALLY ASSAULTED the ANTI-Clark on public television as she did to him during the last election, he would certainly be in jail right now for domestic violence.
What is needed here is a SIGNIFICANT REFORM starting with the reinstatement of the DPB solely as a 3 month EMERGENCY benefit (as Sir Robert Muldoon intended), a complete CLEANSING of the FEMILY CAUGHT and the WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER of child tax in NZ.
Then we need to calmly re-affirm the value of THE family (there is only one) as the corner stone of NZ society.
End FEMINAZI FASCISM now! Bring back the BALANCE and the VALUES that, in the past, have made New Zealand such a wonderful place to live, be a family and raise children.
And, in closing, many thanks to Stephen for pointing out the many obvious flaws in your preposterous treatise.
Comment by Sparkz — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 4:41 pm
Hi Sparkz,
Good for you.
Comment by julie — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 5:24 pm
Whether or not it is worth it, but I am going to chime in as a male to say that what I have expressed in this site is a male understanding of men’s experience and is backed up by govt. policy makers both male and female.
Rather than bollocking the DPB and FC with invectives you would be better served to acknowledge the reality of the situation and find a way to a solution that, as Julie says, is a compromise between what women want and what you want.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 8:00 pm
Julie & Kent,
I would expect to see you both at Geoffs on Sunday at 12.30 re Coalition Protest.
Either walk the walk or perhaps take the talk elsewhere.
Kind Regards
Paul
Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Julie, referring to your post I think you are just recycling what the media, the government and feminists have been saying for some time now.
You are basically stating that Men are greatest threat to society in thier roles as Fathers because some can get physically violent.
We continually have this tripe shoved down our throats day after day, usually after some feminist has carried out some sort of study, and tweaked the results to fit their beliefs, then publish those results, and gain undeserved respect for one another.
What I don’t see is anyone studying the CAUSE of family violence and trying to get to the root of the problem instead of ‘band-aiding’ the problem by labelling Men as the root cause and to use us as scapegoats.
What I’m saying is that it takes more than one Adult to CAUSE family violence. Cause and effect. Does the word provoke mean anything ?
Forcing Men into ‘anger managment’ programmes ( which, if I had to go to one I’m sure I would come out angrier for being forced to go ) and taking thier kids away is not the solution. It makes the situation worse.
I’ve stated this many times before on these forums – Men respond physically, Women respond emotionally – most of the time anyway.
It just so happens that Mens natural responses have been outlawed.
What a load of horses#it
Women are the most priveledged people in society! And children are not too far behind.
How much more ‘power’ do females need to feel satisfied ? Do you all want your own personal prisons where you can put Men you choose to hate in ?
It should not be about ‘Giving power’ It should be about ‘Having respect’
I fully disagree with
How do children clash with this ? They have no power as to how thier parents behave in front of them. They absorb everything around them – thier designed to do that.
In conclusion – I really don’t think Men in NZ are demanding any sort of power. Just some understanding and some Natural Justice.
Comment by Moose — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 10:35 pm
Julie,
when you come out with cliched feminist male bashing lines like –
“New Zealand still hasn’t given full rights to women and children”
then I don’t get the impression your pro-male, but to the contrary reckon you could be a closet feminist worming her way into the Men’s movement perhaps in order to wreak some havock therein. I may be totally wrong about that for you appear to me to be instead a recovering feminist who’s gradually getting educated about men’s real experience and gradually debunking herself of the culturally instilled man bashing.
But I must say you do have some allarming relapses!
And I’ll keep challenging you to grow beyond the crap you’ve obviously at some time been fed about men in nz.
I’m completely unabashed to say this –
You are on probation.
You must keep proving yourself with actions and words of integrity to be pro-male.
And lest you be tempted to throw another e-postal hissy thinking it shouldn’t be that way (how typical of a nz woman in my experience to expect privelige) be mindful of this dear sister –
I’M ON THE SAME PROBATION TOO.
That means I expect to be held accountable for my words and actions and from time to time challenged by those within the Men’s movement
FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE,
perhaps by you yourself in time to come.
That’s how it is when you line up shoulder to shoulder to battle a longstanding foe.
Men have been doing this kind of stuff for millenia – Challenging each other to bring out the best in each other.
Now look around you at all the incredible marvels men have created for us to enjoy – democracy, roading, buildings, banking systems, medicines, the computer your using right now, symphonies, satelites.
This is how we do such amazing things.
Yes it hurts to be challenged sometimes, but I encourage you –
Toughen up, you’ll need to if you want to make the journey. It’s going to be a long slog and I fear there will be much danger, trickery and pain involved in getting equal rights for men.
Kind regards Stephen.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 12:28 am
Having met Julie on a couple of occasions, I don’t believe she is what I would consider a radical feminist trying to stir up trouble. Feminists don’t engage in rational debate, it is not how they work.
As I have said previously, genuine change will only happen when we succeed in gaining the support of normal women like Julie who are not man-haters.
Comment by JohnP — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 1:38 am
JP,
I haven’t met Julie in person as you have.
However I’m still perplexed, iritated and provoked seeing her write such apparent nonesense as –
“New Zealand still hasn’t given full rights to women and children”
For that stated on it’s own infers that only Men have due rights in nz – which is both plain stupid and standard demonising-men radical feminist rhetoric 101 IMO.
Sadly I have to say many thousands of alienated children and thier Dads disprove such theoretical femmie crap.
Also for the record I wouldn’t agree with your assessment of her as rational either.
Her last post addressing me looked a long way from being rational debate. For being told “F**** you” by her doesn’t put her in the category of rational debaters.
Come to think of it why are you supporting such an openly abusive woman JP?
And you claim she doesn’t appear to be stirring up trouble – Crap JP.
Take a look at the posts following hers. Not stirring up trouble. Yeah right bro!
So despite your endorsement of her my challenge to Julie still stands.
Julie,
here’s a perfect example of the challenging each other I referred to in my last previous post on this thread.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 3:00 am
Stephen,
You have every right to be upset with me and challenge me for being unrational. (Yesterday) Today, I will try to do better. I can’t help but listen to other people also. Your group is for men in the FC while there are other men who want something different for their gender as well.
The reality is that both the men’s movements and the women’s movements are for the same thing when you get down to it. And there are other groups for men’s rights that involve them changing for the better for their children.
This is West Auckland where a men’s group is starting. West Auckland has an overly high amount of family violence cases going on. Higher than other areas. We have just recently had police attacked by males. Also this is ‘P’ capital.
Having a men’s group here and comments made in the local paper will and has stirred up trouble.
The police are divided on all this too with some stuanchly against anything male here while others that get called out for family violence are aware of the unfairness for men. But their hands are tied by laws and popular beliefs.
Through my unrational thinking came an idea to approach community groups here to gain their support so as to work alongside. How difficult it is going to be for a male on our side to have a female in Women’s refuge. Yes, it is going to be tough. But there is support from West auckland men here out west (who are rational)
I also think it is best to leave South Auckland out for a while. It has a worse reputation than West.
If ‘New Zeal’ decides to set a group up in HB, then he will also come across alot of the same thing.
In all 3 areas we have to look at men (some, not all) being responsible for their actions alongside the FC being set up against males.
From things I have read on this site, you didn’t have an easy time setting up the North shore’s men centre either.
Comment by julie — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 9:50 am
Good stuff, Julie
Stephen,
As I said before, I have been through the FC wringer. My lawyer joked about having to use a wheelbarrow to bring out my file. It was five years between my first and my last contact with the court. I have been where you have been and felt what you have felt. I have had allegations made, and access thwarted. I have been in your head space and been through anger management. I was quite unhinged for at least a year. Although I could easily imagine the FC being somehow ‘anti-male’ my actual experience was that my father did not think I should have the children and focus on my career, and the ex’s father definitely did not want me to have the children and was quite actively supporting her using all his social connections. Many times I came to the brink of a full hearing, but the situation changed and it was never needed.
Rather than run away from the situation which I feel that you are doing, I stayed and faced up to it. My career and estimation in my father’s eyes crashed, and I am all the more materially poorer for it, but I felt it was for the best of the children and I believed in what I was doing.
I know plenty of so called broken marriages. The DPB had nothing to do with any of them. In each case the wife waited until the kids were old enough and they had a full time job before splitting the unit.
This is a male experience. Not all males experience it the way you do.
Comment by New Zeal — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 10:05 am
New Zeal,
You’re plainly wrong about me.
Again you patronize and jump to shallow conclusions.
I didn’t run away from the situation as you assert. I’m still here as I have been for the past 2 years loggging on to a site that I know is viewed by between 500 and 1000 folks daily. And I don’t spend workdays until lunchtime working to pay taxes to support my brothers getting systemically shafted.
I reckon that’s pretty smart.
That’s despite suffering the on-line slings and arrows of abuse, unempathic patronising ‘advice’ and I suspect despite the fact that being so open and acountable will make me something of a social pariah with some folks in nz.
However, don’t get confused here.
Just because I don’t physically live in nz doesn’t mean I’m not part of the nz diaspora, nor does it discount me as an active agent in nz culture.
As for having been in my headspace – recent posts from you give me ample proof that could never have occured.
Julie,
I’m glad to see you say you’ll try better in future. I didn’t appreciate the ‘F***k you’ comment. I felt dissapointed, shocked and abused seeing that.
Good luck in addresing male violence in Auckland. I was running anger management groups there for 2 years a few years ago. Careful. I met some folks there who I fear seem hellbent on unfairly blanketing the majority of nz men as violent (including our sons and many others they have never met).
Thier theoretical model goes something like – some men are violent, and ALL men get to benefit from the womenfolk being in perpetual fear that the men they’re in proximity to may be one of those some men. It’s barmy femmie 101 stuff I know. But I suspect it’s the kind of warped logic that will drive some of your adversaries.
Another thing I suggest you watch out for is working too long in an area like that (West Auckland and Anger Management). It can give a person a badly scewed view of life which isn’t really reflective of the bigger picture where the vast majority of men are not violent.
Some folks I’ve met in the counselling / therapy professions seem stuck in a headspace like that. It’s an occupational hazard. The trick is to recognise it, then move out of it.
Incidentally that was another reason I left nz. I didn’t want to stick around and grow bitter and twisted. I sensed (correctly as it turned out) that the world is a much much bigger place than Auckland nz. I’m much happier now, and have a much clearer picture of how things can be socially different than in the small ‘cage’ I got myself stuck in.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 2:27 pm
I don’t think that feminist and men’s rights objectives have to be seen as mutually exclusive or an attempt to take power at the expense of the other gender. The transformation of one gender role unavoidably impacts on the other gender but this doesn’t have to be a negative.
My example is this, feminism has enabled women to participate more fully in the work force, which has been good for women because they are more financially independent and because studies have shown that women who work are happier. I see this as having a benefit for men because it means that men are not shouldering the burden of being the sole breadwinner. Both partners are responsible for supporting the family.
But something that hasn’t changed is stereotypical gender roles. Women generally take time off from work to raise the babies and, even if they resume working, often continue to do most of the childcare. So when it comes to relationship breakups the family court often awards custody to the mother because she has done most of the child rearing (and may now have limited employment opportunities as a result of absence from the workforce) and the father has been the major breadwinner. In this sense the court is reflecting the division of gender roles in society (clearly I am making a generalisation about relationships here – not all couples have this arrangement but I think most do).
But in the event of a breakup fathers want to have more contact with their children than merely financially supporting them. I think one part of the solution is for women and men to more fairly share parenting and breadwinning roles when in an intact relationship. For this to occur we need to agitate for change in the workforce – we need more flexible working hours so that both parents can work part-time or 3/4 time and have more time to parent. Men need to take a greater role in parenting – we need provisions that enable men to take ‘maternity’ leave. And – most of all – we need to shift our ideas of masculinity and femininity so that stay-at-home Dads aren’t seen as a little bit soft and career Mums aren’t seen as unmaternal and selfish.
The result of this would be that fatherhood would be more valued in society and men would not lose the children in a relationship break up. At the same time, women would be able to more fully participate in the workforce. (This is where the lower wage for women comes in – because they generally have to quit work to rear children or can only work parttime they get stuck doing jobs with low wages (cleaning, shop work etc) or fail to climbing the career ladder (and pay scale) – meaning women on average earn less than men).
Feminism and men’s rights are not diametrically opposed – they are often working for the same thing.
Comment by toni — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 3:34 pm
To be something of a man one needs to cross the Rubican and leave the world of the mother. Men who do not cross it do not become men. If the women’s world is perfect then let your boys & daughters stay with the mother, for they are undoubtedly better at the indirect utopia (as Kent suggests and worships). Yet if it isn’t perfect then one needs to counter not only its agenda, but also the men who beleive in it foramlly or in little ways(unknown to even themselves).
Kent brings up there are men in the government, so we are bi-partisan again and again.
Bravo! Bravo! There were women involved in standing against the suffergettes when they arrive on the scene, their are women in the Iranian parliament pushing for berkas and women staying in the home barefoot and pregnant. Need I go on.
Kent and Julie keep playing the effeminate game of I’m leaving this site or this is my last input, which is meant for us to say something nice to you to refill your gas tank or something. Yet you keep coming back like that cat. Why do you do this? Stand and deliver, or run away and hide, but stop moving around like frivolous ninnies for you tactics are as old as an old women.
Julie like I said about women who talk, you seem like your on our side, until you comment with another person. You may truly be 100% for us, but when push comes to shove you seem like one of those impossible cats.
Comment by Intrepid — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Hi Intrepid,
No, I don’t want you to have to say something nice to me to encourage me to stay. That wouldn’t be fair on you. and I am not being fair, I realise that and even more I am really sorry for saying “f*** you” to Stephen.
Sorry Stephen.
This site is after all for men to share their experiences. We have gone way off track by arguing our points about what we should do.
Yes, I am wanting to put effort into men’s issues and giving men power against the systems. I hear what you and others are saying and I agree. Sooner or later it will come to a time when I will have to stop taking everyone’s time up and just get on with it.
Stephen,
I don’t want to get into anger management although I am happy to refer men or women with anger management classes if they feel they need it. It is not about anger management for most parents, but how to work things out when they have gone too far and are close to splitting up or have split up.
But there are groups for that too. It will be about putting people to the right group.
I am glad you share about things you have done. That means you are aware of men’s actions too. It is going to take serious honesty from both sides to sort all this out. Hey, I am more than aware of female’s faults.
To be honest, I just want to give the tools to parents to sort it out for themselves.
At the end of the day that’s all I can really do.
The men’s group is not just mine, and it has good support by male’s who have been there and done that. I am hoping to take a step back as you can see, I will get too involved.
But the big picture is to change things dramitacally and by just seeing Wayne Prudent on the news, I can see that will be achieved.
Comment by julie — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 6:40 pm
Hi Toni,
The POSACs site is ready to go if you haven’t already checked it out. At this stage all people can do is to register and select a location, then when I publicize the site and get some businesses to put vacancies on it, then an e-mail is sent out. There are instructions on there. Although it is all set to go there are still plenty of bugs to sort out, so if you use it and find any, then let me know.
thanks,
Kent
Comment by New Zeal — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 8:24 pm
Zeal
all i can say is the only way that will work is if the shared working -at home and at work becomes compulsory. Only then will it work. But the reality is- one parent will always bludge and force the other to become in the future “non-custodial”.
I don’t see the compulsory action being accepted hence.. the problem remains…
Comment by starr — Fri 7th July 2006 @ 8:43 pm
Stephen wrote re Julie:
That’s not what I said at all, I said radical feminists don’t debate rationally. If I decide anyone’s input is mostly negative they get banned (although I am pretty tolerant).
I value Julie’s contribution because although she is somewhat naive and misinformed at times, she inspires others to hone their debating skills and provides opportunities to educate other readers. She also makes things happen such as public meetings and networking. She is has apologised for being wrong on several occasions, and is gemerally less abusive than some other writers.
If I insisted on absolute ideological purity I would probably be the only one writing, and this site would be far less popular!
When we are discussing feminism, I think it is important to distinguish between what most people think feminism stands for ie: equality between men and women, and radical feminism, which is primarily concerned with power and control (ie: women over men).
This is the same difference as between “do unto others..” and “eye for an eye”.
I think every couple should be free to choose whatever child-care arangement suits them best, whether it be two 9am – 3pm jobs, or one pursuing a full time career and the other full-time parenting. If a relationship splits, no-one deserves to be punished for their choice, and the only way to gaurantee that is to have a default of equal shared parenting.
Julie, you do need to be challenged on your statement:
This is pure radfem propoganda, and I’m not surprised you got a hostile reaction. Physical child abuse (as defined by NZ law) is mostly committed by mothers, their boyfriends in second place, and fathers the least.
Statistically, the safest place for any child is a home with the biological father present. For details, refer to Felicity’s paper: FATHERS — MYTHS AND REALITIES ABOUT CHILD MALTREATMENT [PDF].
Comment by JohnP — Sat 8th July 2006 @ 2:28 am
That’s not what I said at all, I said radical feminists don’t debate rationally.
“Julie, you do need to be challenged on your statement:
Using a belt, slapping their heads hard and picking them up and throwing them across a room is violent behaviour. In saying that many men who raise their children this way
This is pure radfem propoganda, and I’m not surprised you got a hostile reaction”.
Need I say more JP?
Comment by Stephen — Sat 8th July 2006 @ 5:13 am
I think that one of the results of feminism and women gaining power is that we realise that women are just human beings too and as capable of violence as men. This is part of the equality we all strive for. Previously only men were groomed for hard physical activity, but now women work in the police, army, compete in olympics, do body building etc etc. At this stage their physiology prevents them from bringing the same amount of force to bear as men do, but that may well change with evolution.
There is still a skewed perception in society regarding men, I will admit that. A man cannot be alone with a child, and men are fleeing from teaching and I am sure that the FC and DPB are not perfect. My position is not to blame the FC or DPB and thereby become a victim but to look inside yourselves and make the kinds of changes that you see need to be done in society there. I think that JP is a living model of exactly that and as a result is not bitter and twisted and is a voice of moderation. Good on you, JP.
Comment by New Zeal — Sat 8th July 2006 @ 9:00 am
I get the point, loud and clear.
I had gone off track myself by making that statment on my post. If we were in Australia (my experience as I have not been elsewhere, yet) we would read in the papers “mothers that put there babies in hot baths feet first, and who even kill their babies, etc,etc,etc) You have reminder me of the nurse I mentioned in another comment who works with chidren harmed and said, “You don’t hear even half of what is going on.”
The media in NZ does focus more on feminist’s agenda and I am well aware of stepdads being violent to child. They don’t have that special connection from birth or conception. Afterall, the child isn’t theirs. (Generalising here)
If it wasn’t for the challenges I get from this site, I wouldn’t be doing what I am. They are what motivates me.
(Thanks for positve remarks, John)
In saying this, I now understand why people can’t see from a first meeting why they should be worried as males.
I have spent months learning what you all know, yet I still get swayed from the outside influences such as media etc.
There is so much faith in our systems because people believe in our NZ that is so green, cleaned air and friendly could not be so unfair.
But, hey, now that I am back on track we can do the same with our next meeting and I won’t be questioning any of it, a second time.
Stephen,
I don’t want to you to stop challenging because if you changed, parts of this will fall down and we would not stand united. Sometimes in my frustration, swearing is a simple 2 words to use rather than expressing things differently.
I am just as much ‘anger management material’ as anyone else. Probably more, although I have learn’t ABOUT ME. Life is a journey of oneself afterall.
This is what makes me relate to New Zeal so well.
Comment by julie — Sat 8th July 2006 @ 9:02 am
Stephen,
I just wanted to add that I am aware that my challenging back the way I do must be tiresome as you have been doing it for so many years. And you are not a brick wall as you do have feelings which I MUST consider.
This is a saying for you.
‘Aspiration and believing in yourself with a huge dose of hard work can mean anything is possible.’
If you put the energy you put into here, into your own financial interests, you’d be a very rich man. And you will be a very rich man but in a way where others lives will be enriched because of your work.
Comment by julie — Sat 8th July 2006 @ 9:37 am
I take it Julie, that you mean we are enriched by Stephen being here and having the time to care rather than out doing more overtime and earning $$ to make himself rich.
Yes, I totally agree.
Comment by New Zeal — Sat 8th July 2006 @ 11:18 am
Hi New Zeal,
I am not very good at being ms. nice to these guys especially Stephen as I know what he will be thinking when he reads it. And I probably won’t be in discussion with him for a while.
But in saying that, yes you have the picture.
It looks as if you and I are going to have to figure this out by ourselves for a little while.
You may have seen the news last night about ‘Wayne Pruden walking from Hamilton to Wellington’ with an empty pram and sleeping in his tent if he doesn’t have a bed offered to him.
He is also collecting signatures along the way for his petition that asks the ‘Government to look into the Family Court’. He is not interested in petitioning for men only as he is aware of women this has happened to.
I also know women this has happened to with one being a best friend. She gave her baby to a female (not family or distant family) because of being terribly raped twice from the same Auckland unknown rapist who broke into her house and knifed both her arms while the children were in the house.
4 years later she still can’t get her child back because the FC considers the children’s welfare first and considers that the child is in school etc and that the new lady wants the child so the new lady gets the child.
Child is 6 and even though she really wants to go home to mum, she can’t because the lawyers and psychologists know best. The child is settled and they see no reason to up the child from the caregiver.
Being a biological parent means shit to the FC rulings.
We are all collecting signatures for this petition and so far it has been fun. Some guys just say, “You don’t have to explain to me, I know what he is about” while women are angry at women they know for refusing the men rights to see thier own children. And you get to hear alot of stories. Why don’t you give it a go and join us in collecting signatures. Even if you collected one page, it would be worth something and you wil learn from people’s experiences.
Comment by julie — Sat 8th July 2006 @ 1:56 pm
Julie,
whilst it’s a relief and somewhat gratifying to hear recalcitrant words from you, you’re also right to point out that repeatedly having to challenge becomes wearisome.
I am due a holiday in any case, so I’ll probably be dipping out for a while in order to recharge.
In the meantime I’ve sent Wayne Pruden best wishes and prayers for success. Last night I also sent Wayne’s website link to where it now features prominently – up top and centre on the front page of the mensnewsdaily.com site. This site is a USA site viewed by thousands, if not millions worldwide.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 8th July 2006 @ 2:21 pm
My impression, Julie, is that the govt is looking into the family court and there are prominent politicians, such as I think, Muriel Newman, and others who want change. I don’t know how long ago Stephen last had dealings with the court, but there are some who think that it has skewed in the opposite direction and now favours men over women. Certainly the court now prefers joint care to either parent having full care.
Since I started posting in this forum I have seen a notice on a street sign in the village for a Father’s Group. Until last week I was not interested in men’s groups, and I only came here when I followed a google search on the Kahui twins, whose mother, it appears is the main problem (she has three older children all of whom are in the care of their 2 fathers and have no contact with the mother). I think I am motivated to help the treatment of parents and families in general in society and I suppose that includes the FC as a very small part.
We have been moving over the last 100 years out of an industrial age in which industry was worked by men who gave all the time that that industry needed in order for industry to progress, while women bred and looked after children. Industry was a machine that operated regardless of the human lives that swung through its doors. Now we are in the process of realigning society so that industry can be worked by both women and men as equally as possible, while at the same time not sacrificing the needs of children. For this to work both men and women have to consider children’s needs equally and do the work required.
I remember years ago, a young couple visted from England and stayed with me for a while. They both did seasonal work, each working 40 hours a week. When they came home, would you believe it, every evening, the male sat down in front of the fire with his pipe while the female cooked his dinner and did all the housework. I’m sure that the guy soon regretted staying with us, because after a few months with me around they had gone their separate ways.
I am not convinced, from reading the posts here, that the bulk of the men on this site are much different, especially the older ones. I am really not sure what the men’s movement is trying to achieve here except to grope nostalgiacly into the past, so I would not be able to help with the petition. When I become an employer, which I hope to soon, then, if no one beats me to it, I want to be the first to post a vacancy on the POSACs site. I think that focusing on this is all the action that I want to take. But I do want to keep the discussions going, because they are helping to stimulate that action -and you’ve been on my case!!
Comment by New Zeal — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 9:47 am
Hi New Zeal,
Stephen is just one parent amonst many who are unhappy with the system.
In my girlfriend’s case it goes like this. The judge asks for the child for lawyer and psychologists to make a judgement on their expertise about the child. Their job is not to consider the mother or father but the things like, “Is the child coping well, is the home safe, is the child attending school, is she being negleted in any way.” So they bring to the court a report to says the child is doing well.
The judge reads that the child is doing well and sees no reason to uplift the child. The mother however has nothing wrong with her and can have access but only enough not to upset the child which the new caregiver (girlfriend say’s does)
My girlfriend has no rights. She gets the little access of once a fortnight and a bit during the holidays and somehow is expected to be OK with that, get on with her life. That is not reality. Her life evolves around her child, this unfairness and copes with support of her friends. Her daughter cries everytime she has to leave her mother and continuously asks, “When am I coming home?” The mother is beside herslf because she has no power to care, protect or make decisions for her child. Her girlfrined on the other hand is enjoying dropping the girl off at school and spending the rest of the day with friends because she is on the DPB. If she gives the child up she will have to work for she has no other chidren.
It is known that dealing with CYFS is pretty impossible if CYFS are against the parents. The same thing happens. The children are fine where they are so they will stay.
These politions will not be looking at changing that out of fear that they will be taking risks that may beackfire on them. Children have to be number one.
Everyone agrees on this but most parents want to have just as much rights as their children. They want to be considered as an asset to thier children, something that is of utmost importance.
This is going to be a hard fight because it means a major shift in the system. These polititions and the judges have agreed that the time for a case to be heard is to long and so they will probably put more money into the Fc and get cases moving faster. They will look to change a sentence or meaning of the Law (acts) and think they have solved the problem and show the country through their actions that they are the good guys.
These men that have fought for this over decades have seen this happen before and know how this game is played. They see the cases giving pain and more pain to families.
You and I have just got here and we are just as most of society wanting to believe in our leaders. Our leaders are not interested in you or me as individuals or as a group for they have their own agendas, that being the bills they want passed through parliament. There is no-one that i can think of in Parliament at the moment who is on the side of the parents.
Comment by julie — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 10:18 am
Hi again New Zeal,
I accidentally pressed submit before I had finished. (can see spelling mistakes too)
Anyhow, I, like you, are working with both male and female so I can understand your position. I am having my head spin a little on how i will pull off involving extremes from one side or the other.
And how all this will reflect on different types of people in different types of situations. Relationship breakups are hard on everyone, men, women and children.
For me, I will take each issue as it presents itself, unrationally at first and then rationally. I expect to get better at things, the longer I practice it.
For you, especially being a male role-model in society means that you have to understand the whole picture, add what you need to know to what you already know and conclude.
As much as everyone is challenging you, I expect they are not against you as an individual. They are more than aware what they are up against and know what you are saying, why you say it etc, etc.
There is more involved that just the FC. Here is a comment that was given to me.
http://menz.org.nz/2006/a-new-change/#comments
Comment no:12
Please read it and comment back.
Comment by julie — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 10:37 am
Hi Julie,
I read many of the comments in that thread. I think that a lot of the so called men’s problems are over stated in Stephen’s long contribution.
I continue to support the FC as a good system, and one which is open to improvement and will change with the times and changing attitudes. The people who work in it are only men and women like us with children and their own male/female, marital/separation issues.
I continue to see nothing but unresolved anger and bitterness in the comments made by most posters. This is probably a good place for them to let off steam.
I think some of the answer lies in things that these men would find quite alien and distasteful. They may suffer now, but the next generation of boys/men will be quite different in their attitudes. They, like JP will be more willing to change nappies, stay at home while the wife works, be conciliatory and non-violent in the presence of conflict and at the same time retain masculine characteristics such as:
inner strength – while women talk things out with other women, men tend to process it inwardly
material innovation and accomplishment – men are more inclined to make the achievement of something in the material world a primary aim sufficient to make the sacrifices required to succeed. Stephen has alluded to this: men are responsible for 99% of our technology. I think that will continue to be the case.
There are probably many more masculine characteristics which I could write about, but I have to go. The point is that we have to (as men) redefine masculinity (like the feminists redefined famininity -and produced Madonna) so that it is better adjusted to the reality of modern society and the modern molecular, rather than nuclear family. (I can explain ‘molecular’ at some later stage). Men have to change. Changing the FC or DPB won’ do it for them. Men, themselves have to do the work. Feminism was about women doing things to change, such as burning bras, taking the pill, wearing trousers instead of skirts, applying for a job as CEO. Masculinism should be about men doing things to change, like JP looking after the kids while his partner works.
Gotta go see you later
Comment by New Zeal — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 5:27 pm
Dear Zeal,
You have focused too much on the men on this site and not enough on the issues at hand.
It is not for me or you to redefine femininity or masculinity as that calls for us to change the molecules in the body. Imagine science finding a way to change a males hormones of testosterone and women\’s hormone\’s of estrogen and using this as a way to make the perfect people. (Of course science would not stop there)Why don\’t we radically have no such hormones and have a way to make babies seperately. This is stuff science fiction films are made of. We can all be zombies under complete control.
These hormones are present for a reason. Tampering with one thing will have a positive effect one way but negative effects in other ways.
Aren\’t we always doing this kind of stuff and have we ever found a medium.
Not a good idea.
Changing people to be what so called \’Modern Society\’? Hmmm. Whose modern society. What is law for women to act a certain way and what is law for men to act a certain way.
Which country has the right to decide. America? Has not America as many problems as the other countries they demand change from.
Each person male or female has the right to be who they are. This needs to be recognised globally. But instead we have demands for people to be unnatural to their own making.
Behaviour is learn\’t (except when it is effected by chemicals in the body)
by environments, role-models (usually parents) trial and error and knowledge, etc.
People already change this often to suit circumstances. Many males are more than happy to change nappies as many women are happy to have a career.
The point I wanted to make about that comment you read is that we have as a society giving so much in favour of the woman that we have neglected the men. This is privalent in youngsters and teens, dads and elders.
We need to have the resources shared between both sexes and we cannot expect them to both be the same. (molecules)
We have made life easier for women to have careers and the like only to find many women don\’t want that.
They just want respect. What do men want, they just want respect. Females are learning from a young age how bad men are through media and how special they are through all the treatment they can receive that the man can\’t. In generations to come, if we don\’t put the brakes on this, you will find the complete opposite from women being supressed to men being supressed. This is already well on the way to happening and in the meantime we have the leaders of the feminist movement wanting to continue with thier fight and sit high in their positions. They continue to collect new members and brainwash them to think their way which is for their own greed.
We have to find the balance.
I disagree. I don\’t think there are any men cashing in on this power. From what I have learn\’t from here and abroad is that the majority of men work for free outside their normal jobs. Also, when you attend these men\’s groups you will find they are open to helping women and they do challenge the men\’s behaviours. (I have seen this myself)
Comment by julie — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 7:14 pm
In redefining masculinity, Julie, I am only talking about behaviours not molecules. I just find the approach taken here to be more destructive than constructive. Just what changes exactly do these men want to see happen? If I was to take around a petition in support of men, what things am I petitioning for? What are the specifics. All I have heard so far on this site consists of FC and DPB bashing. If I was in a position of power listening to these men for some indications of what to do, I would be confused.
Comment by New Zeal — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 7:49 pm
Back again, Julie,
I went and read Wayne’s website. There is really nothing in it but anger and bitterness. There’s nothing constructive or respectful. The people in the court system are men and women too trying to do what is often a very difficult job. They are not evil conjurers.
I remember feeling like Wayne once. I wrote angry letters to people and generally threw muck on my own case and made a scene out of the trauma of being separated from a child that I considered myself to be the primary caregiver for. It is terrible and I concur with what Wayne must be feeling, but life goes on. Children grow up despite their parents. The child is now 16.
This is Wayne’s private pain. His situation is quite particular in that the woman is Asian, which gives her the opportunity to return to a non signatory country. Vietnam is a different society from NZ and the FC has no jurisdiction there.
The FC cannot be clear cut because life is not clear cut. Every case is different and the slow pace of court procedings encourages parents to sort things out for themselves. Only about 5% of cases require a full hearing. If a full hearing was given in the first few weeks then the ‘injustices’ would be far greater. The FC probably serves 95% of cases reasonably well, which is probably a good record. No body is perfect, nor is any institution.
I’m sorry if I sound callous in the face of someone’s pain, but I learnt my lesson and I guess Wayne will do the same, so long as he doesn’t do anything stupid.
I’m sorry, I’m not being very helpful to you here. I guess I have tired of all the bitterness expressed here. Life is shit and then you die. Sometimes it is worth pondering that when life serves you up crap.
Comment by New Zeal — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 8:25 pm
Having said that I went to the Union of Father’s website for which a billboard has just appeared in the village and got this from amongst their list of objectives:
I would totally agree with that. However, this adversarial system has only come about because of the nature of the role of the lawyer to act as agent for the client and if the client is adversarial then they will reflect that. I would say that more than 50% of the men whose posts I have read on this site are adversarial. They would want their lawyers to point out all the bad things about the ex. Their minds are so blurred by anger. They do it on this site. Maybe FC lawyers should do different training so they can act as counsellors as well as lawyers. My impression of lawyers in the FC is that their daily work consists of anger, women angry at men and men angry at women. It’s just one big anger mart and that is what makes it stressful., stressful for lawyers and stressful for clients. Changing the FC won’t change the anger.
Comment by New Zeal — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 8:47 pm
New Zeal,
I can understand that the approach here can be overwhelming at first. I have and sometimes see certain things the same way. But I have been fortunate enough to meet a dozen or so of the leading males outside of the site and I see them as really balanced people.
What I get told when I start thinking this is too hard an approach is that it is reality. And yes, unfortunately it is. If we don’t have the hardened approach we will start compromising with a strongly, protected tower of power that will not nor cannot afford to compromise.
I don’t agree with dogging the DPB totally although I see it as a means to increase the gap between men and women working together.
Yes, I can see your point of view regarding the impression of this site.
JP has been lenient on posts, even some of mine.
Right now, from my point of view, an army is being built through the men’s protesting, media and society coming together on issues relating to fatherhood and collecting women who support them along the way.
NZ hasn’t yet made a list of points for the men’s movement. It still has to iron out the differences of opinions.
But what all agree on is the FC and their children so that is the place to start.
By taking some of this power away from the feminist side, we will start making improvements and continue and continue until we get it right for both genders.
Below is the UK men’s movement site.
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/
Once you are in the page About UKMM, click ‘Objectives’
There you will find what is being asked for men’s rights to the Government.
Comment by julie — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 8:57 pm
New Zeal,
I just saw your next comment.
Why are you so into anger?
Comment by julie — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 9:01 pm
I clicked on the link you gave me and got this straight away:
The first two items are ‘outraged’ and ‘angry’.
From a relative outsiders perspective this part of the men’s movement is ridded with anger. I suppose that’s fair enough because anger is probably the primary motivator for anything to be done and I don’t feel this anger anymore, although I did once. I don’t think this particular brand of anger got me anywhere except to look more closely at my own actions and how to avoid similar situations in the future. I don’t want to deprive people of the need to feel angry about something but it’s not my trip anymore.
I suppose there was just as much anger and bitterness in the feminist movement.
Comment by New Zeal — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 9:57 pm
Kent/New Zeal.
I’m afraid you’ve gone and alienated another bunch of folks with demeaning sweeping generalisations about men.
Stereotyping them as second class and relatively inept parents.
I was a father who took turn about with my ex – 1 day of childcare – 1 day of work outide the home.
I wanted to continue to care for my son as a hands on equal parent. However the femily caught was instrumental in facilitating my ex soley getting our son, and my son subsequently getting no father. This despite me arriving in a lawyers office with facial cuts from the most ex’s violent outburst. I explained to the courts the previous nightmarish year’s history of being assaulted by my ex and how I’d taken flight with my son as she’s started to abuse him too.
All to no avail except being saddled with a fiancially crippling bill and tearstained photos of my son.
Yes I was angry at being so abused, first by my ex, then the ‘court’.
So of course I, and many other men I’ve met are adversarial.
We want this shithole called the family court replaced with an institution which doesn’t create so many underparented (most usually fatherless) kids and gives us Dad’s a fair shake at actually parenting our kids instead of being reduced to child tax wallets.
I believe that’s entirely reasonable, so I have no problem reading lots of posts from people who are adversarial.
In fact, the more the merrier.
I wish nzers would get off thier collective arses and join Wayne Pruden on his noble one man hikoi to parliament. Were I not engaged in a contract right now of caring for and educating children I’d be marching with him – or perhaps atop the Auckland Harbour Bridge in a Batman suit.
As it is I’ll do all in my power to support his cause and promote awareness of his adversarial protest.
Comment by Stephen — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 10:25 pm
Of course there was.
Anger is as important as any other feeling. I would have to look back at work I have collected over time to get into a deep discussion of anger with you but I am sure you are aware of ‘fight or flight’
We have to fight here, we cannot run away.
People on this site are passionate about what they are fighting for and so it comes across with feeling.
That does not mean they are carrying anger with them all day long and it does not make them a threat to themselves or others.
In fact expressing anger onto this site is a positive thing for people to do. How can you not be angry when you children are ripped from you? How can you not be angry when you have been falsely acused of harming your children either through violence or sexual molestation? How can you not be angry when your children are harmed? How can you not be angry when you pay child support for a child you have no access to? Or any idea if they are even alive?
Your anger has harmed you and you have dealt with that. But that does not make all our, or your anger harmful and it does not make us bad parents and it does not make us bad neighbours etc.
It is the ones that don’t show anger that I worry about? They are the one’s that instead of arguing, protesting or punching you in the nose will harm themselves. Or plan devious actions from being eaten up from the inside.
You need to see passed the anger to find the real cause? We are not here to treat the anger but the root cause.
Comment by julie — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 11:00 pm
Dear Julie,
Your said the following:
That is very good stuff Julie. It is a great thing to see a women who turns down the mystical clouds for science in a debate. We must find the ground somewhere between the clouds and the practical apologist for the earth mother in which to earn and find the ground to try and settle these issues for the better. You have certainly started to find it.
On your other work that I have of yours it too has hit the mark, but will take some time to get my share done that compliments it.
Comment by Intrepid — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 12:38 am
I commisserate with you, Stephen. I had a similar experience but probably not so exteme. It must have been a gruelling experience.
What I am trying to say is that you’ve got to get past the adversarial stuff before you can expect to make some change. It is naive to think that you can radically change the FC. In my opinion yours and many of the other men’s experiences on this site represent a tiny minority of cases that go before the court, and there are probably just as many women who get ‘shafted’ by the court as men.
I have to ask why is Wayne on a ONE man hikoi? My answer would be because this is his private pain. None of his close family or friends join him because he is doing this in the full flight of the terrible feelings of loss that he must now be experiencing. Obviously there is insufficient stuff in what he is doing for other people to get a handle on except to write a few supportive words in forums here and there which the NZ public are never going to see. He could wear a MENZ t-shirt and provide valuable promotion for men’s issues through this site, but is he? A worthwhile petition requires several hundred thousand signatures and takes advantage of marketing opportunities.
And, Julie, I didn’t want to give the impression that I don’t recognise the importance of anger. I just get so much of it from reading here that I have to put a shield up. That too, would be the reaction of powers that be. That is why it is important to process the anger and get past it. I am not suggesting that it be suppressed, but processed and channeled. Nothing was ever achieved in a fit of anger.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 8:41 am
New Zeal,
Firstly, you say,
Er, wrong. Check out his website and read his story and reasoning.
http://www.waynepruden.co.nz/
Secondly,
I say this, even though I should be the last to judge, you seem like ‘a born again Christian’ who wants to push his new found theories onto others. It is normal behaviour for people who are new in recovery but it doesn’t belong here. (generalising again)
You will however be an asset to others like yourself. You should join that mens group in your village and give what you can give. The hat does not belong to all men.
Comment by julie — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 9:12 am
Maybe this is the first time I have written or spoken about my experience with the FC and the whole parental separation gig. Once I have gotten it out of my system then there will be no need to “push my new found theories onto others”. If this site is supposed to be where men relate their experiences with the FC and other things, then I have just as much right to be here. If no one gets anything from what I say, then it doesn’t bother me. There is more than one way to shear a sheep.
As a male, I feel passionate about the issues that are at concern here, but in a different way. When I was in the middle of experiencing the pain that was the worst time to be contemplating doing anything to change the system. Now that I have been through it I feel that I am in a much better place and I have my almost adult children to support me. I am in a much stronger position than people like Wayne to do something constructive. Apart from the POSACs board, at this stage, I am not sure what.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 9:42 am
Kent / New Zeal, I don’t thimk you should be comparing yourself with Wayne. Opinionated self-importance is no substitute for courageous, compassionate action.
Comment by PaulM — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 11:38 am
from what i can see… this Kent/New Zeal is living in a world where he likes to be an ostrich… bury his head in the sand and expect the problem to go away.
Not going to happen. he will just get eaten by the lion.
Comment by starr — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 12:45 pm
yo kent/new zeal
RE: your comment 30..
have you ever been to a young family home – the husband would come home from work cook dinner, bathe the kids feed them and put them to bed. if you haven’t i can take you to several. or are you deliberately ignoring this?
Comment by starr — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 1:58 pm
PaulM,
Why aren’t you out there with Wayne on the street walking alongside him? if what he is doing is so great and so relevant to everyone, why aren’t there more people putting their feet where their mouths are?
I’m not the only one expressing opinions round here.
I totally accept that the young generation of men are quite different from the previous one. The old judges in the FC will die off and be replaced by ones who changed nappies for months on end when they were young fathers and the FC will serve men better. Men have to change from the inside. The men’s movement would be better served focusing on that than beating up on tired old institutions. I don’t know, that’s just my way of tackling problems. You do it your way. I’ll do it mine, if I haven’t already done it. Only time will tell whether or not my ideas are absolute BS or right on the ball.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Hi New Zeal,
Of course YOU belong here and of course you can help others through your experience.
You have arrived, shared your story (which is commendable) but you have been given other sides back.
I totally understand where you are coming from and there are many other men that have sorted things out in one way or another in a similar fashion.
Seriously, that’s wondeful and worthwhile getting into. Anger is real for men and women so anger management is real.
But, the system is against men and as many times as you have read about it, you focus on anger or you defend the Family Court. Look to the message beyond the anger. It is your “defending imaginary wall” that is blocking you from hearing the message.
What sort of behaviour from a person would open your mind? John P will tell you exactly the same as these other guys are except he will package it differently. (which i agree is easier to swallow)
Wayne is a whole other package of a man in that he will sleep in a tent on the side of the road in winter. I wish I was on his route, for i would help. Also if I didn’t have to work or care for my kids, I would walk. (I could lose a few pounds) and it is for a great cause.
Comment by julie — Mon 10th July 2006 @ 3:31 pm