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

Here’s a link to a booklet put out by the National Men’s Equality Congress to take place soon –
July 13-14, 2007 in Washington, DC.

I believe it will be of interest to many of MENZ readers.

It’s entitled – Boys and the Boy Crisis, but it quite comprehensively addresses men’s issues.

Please disseminate this far and wide.

Thanks.

We have to accept that dads are important, it does take two to tango, after all. They should be encouraged to take more responsibility for child-raising. A survey by the Ministry of Social Development showed that around 30,000 children have no other parent contributing towards their development. Fathers must be responsible for their children and we will require liable parents to meet their financial obligations.

Recognising all Kiwis’ potential
Address to Auckland Rotary Club
Judith Collins – 26 March

What’s up with Helen Clark these days? Before she announces yet another of her personal opinions, she’s taken to first saying “Any reasonable person would agree that …” (insert personal opinion here).

The implication is that:

a) reasonable people don’t differ

b) she is a reasonable person.

In the real world, someone who suggests that reasonable people don’t have differing views is not a reasonable person.

It’s clear she thinks group sex is disgusting. There will be plenty who agree. I suspect that most reasonable people find all sorts of sexual behaviour disgusting, particularly if they don’t practise it themselves. And most reasonable people probably don’t much care what other consenting adults get up to, so long as they keep it private.

But now that Helen is speaking on behalf of all of us, and has the profile to pressure the police, I’d apprecate it if she would make clear all sexual practises that she thinks are ok. A list published in the Herald would do fine.
In the meantime, maybe we should all just desist altogether.

FYI

Wellington peaceful protest march details

MARCH ON PARLIAMENT

Against Anti Smacking Bill

Then do something about it BEFORE it’s too late!

Join us in a PEACEFUL protest

Wednesday 28th March 2007

Beginning at Civic Square at 12pm then

advancing to Parliament

*This march will be peaceful, and children will be present. If anyone turns violent, we will be helping the police cart you off to jail.

Â

For more information, see

http://smackingback.blogspot.com/ or e-mail
antiantismacking@gmail.com

Mitch Lees
Representative
Phone: 027 243 1676

Â

Â

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00226.htmÂ

March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill
Monday, 19 March 2007, 12:39 pm
Press Release: Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Anti Smacking Bill

Public March on Parliament To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of politicians in a free society. Yet with polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders in opposition to Sue Bradford’s proposed anti-smacking bill, it is clear that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of a free society, freedom of speech and freedom to dissent, Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law (CANSAL) will be staging a peaceful march on Parliament to remind our politicians just whom they are elected to serve.

Sue Bradford’s bill, proposing to remove the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, will turn loving parents into criminals. The bill strikes at the very foundations of the family structure. Will parents who choose to smack be ‘ratted out,’ Soviet-style, by teachers or neighbours? The proposed law would compel the police to get involved in cases where they have no place – wasting valuable time and resources – and give them no discretion, as they themselves have said, as to whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of MPs when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger – hardly what they need.

I, like many other New Zealanders, was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me for their actions in correcting me is incomprehensible. What we have now is government of the people, by the Politically Correct, for the Politically Correct. The bureaucrats have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It’s time to push back. The present law allowing “reasonable force” should be left intact.

The protest march will start at Civic Square at noon on Wednesday 28 March.

ENDS

Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law
http://smackingback.blogspot.com/

Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Like all Aunties know what’s best for you!
So remember at the end of the Day
It’s the Aunties who have all the power and say

Aunties always know what’s best;
You can’t smack a child in the family nest!
Because Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Want power and control of your parenting too.

Aunties are a dangerous breed,
For them logic and reason are not a need,
When they speak their views are clear
Reason and logic not required here!
Its arrogance that only aunties display,
Maybe it because their friends are gay?

Aunties always know what’s best
You can’t smack a child in the family nest!
Because Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Want power and control of your parenting too.

Aunties are always telling you
What they demand you will do.
Political Aunties are the worst
It’s like New Zealand has been cursed!
Aunties always miss root cause,
Because they can they tinker making un-required laws
That strip away your parenting rights
It’s a worry being in the Aunties sights.

Aunties always know what’s best
You can’t smack a child in the family nest!
Because Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
Want power and control of your parenting too.

And when the Aunties have had their day,
It the kids that suffer from what they do and say,
So when you vote in 2008
You have the choice to change their fate.
Remember Aunty Helen and Aunty Sue
And what they have done to you.

With all due empathy towards those unfortunate women diagnosed with breast cancer, the process of feminist pressure on Pharmac, the health system, and on (and from) the feminist government keen to promote female interests has been selfish and callous towards men. Pharmac has already recommended a short course of Herceptin therapy for early breast cancer, and the $6 million cost of this to District Health Boards will result in resources being unavailable to treat diseases affecting both genders. However, breast cancer spokeswoman Libby Burgess expresses her gratitude for this contribution from our society by complaining that it is “cheap, unethical and throwing NZ women a few crumbs”. She and feminist lobbyists continue to demand that a long course of this expensive drug be approved, amounting to over $70,000 per breast cancer patient in order to “reduce the chance of breast cancer returning”, in addition to existing, expensive treatments and in addition to the expensive programme to make screening free for women and to encourage them to use screening.

Men continue to die more than women from most of the leading causes of death and they continue to live about five years fewer than women. These facts don’t seem to merit a mention by the feminist state. Men continue to provide the majority of our nation’s economic wealth through their industry and initiative, and in the process they continue to suffer around 100% of workplace deaths and the vast majority of serious workplace injuries and maimings, not to mention the long-term health damage inevitable in many male occupations. Surely they are entitled to a fair share of the health budget? Surely the impact of expensive initiatives for women’s health should consider the impact on men’s death rates? Surely at least we can expect some gratitude from women who disproportionately benefit already from the health budget?

Note that Pharmac seeks feedback from the public concerning this matter by April 12. They are one body I think that would take into account people’s submissions, unlike most parliamentary select committees that are shams to push through predetermined policy. Most of us males are chivalrous and would be reluctant to argue against help for suffering women, but I think it important to remind the health authorities that men are here, are dying and that any new funding exclusive to women’s needs will remove resources for men’s needs.

Hans

See Herceptin article

This woman was yesterday convicted of murder. She manipulated her two male boarders to throw the molotov cocktails that killed 71-year-old Joan Betti, through which she also hoped to murder the woman’s daughter and granddaughter out of jealousy. Aside from this being another case of a violent femme, it’s notable as an example of that proportion of violent crimes committed by men but caused by women. I have come across quite a few cases where a male is the one who actually assaults someone in domestic or general community violence, but the action was out of misguided chivalry resulting from a woman’s claims to him about the victim and encouragement that he defend the woman’s honour or exact retribution on her behalf. The Clayton case is unusual only in that the woman was held accountable on this occasion for her role. Usually that doesn’t happen and the offences merely contribute to statistics of male violence. Although the men who commit such violence need to be responsible for their own actions (and foolishness), we also need to acknowledge women’s violence in manipulating of age-old male social instincts to protect women, and the frequency with which this and other male instincts provides women with abusive power over men.

(Similar instincts I think are at play in police reactions to domestic violence by women against men. The police are inclined to protect the woman from the consequences of her actions and the woman encourages this in various ways.)

Hans

From: www.stuff.co.nz

Tuesday, 20 Mar 2007

Woman guilty of killing great-grandmother
A woman has been found guilty of murdering an Upper Hutt
great-grandmother in an arson attack while the two men who
threw the molotov cocktails for her were found guilty only
of manslaughter.

A High Court jury in Wellington yesterday found Carol May
Clayton, 57, guilty of murdering Joan Betti, 71, while
Richard Steven Pearce, 21, and Nicholas Andrew Edgarton, 19,
were found guilty of manslaughter, but not guilty of murder.
…

Clayton was also found guilty of attempting to kill Mrs
Betti’s daughter and granddaughter , Judith Betti and
Latisha Owens, both of whom she suspected of having sexual
relationships with her boyfriend, David Betti.
…

The Crown alleged Clayton orchestrated the attack out of
jealousy, and that the two young men, who were boarders at
her house, threw a molotov cocktail each, in the early hours
of that Saturday morning…

I heard an interview the other day about NCEA, how schools were increasingly losing faith in this qualifications system and increasingly paying to bring in the Cambridge examination system based on external standards, i.e. able to measure objectively one student’s performance against others of the same age in the wider population (… basically the system we used to have that was thrown out at great expense). Although I’m not an expert in this area, my understanding is that the changes resulted in large measure from beliefs that competition was simply another male evil that should largely be removed from education and replaced by a warmer, fuzzier, “standards” system complying better with feminist ideas. Science, statistics and objective grading of performance were seen as male ideology and therefore undesirable, by an education system that had already squeezed out most men. NCEA stands as another failure resulting from feminist ideology.

Even at 80 – 90 percent opinion is no defence to subjugation, you actually have to fight, not for freedom, but for that part of freedom you are not willing to sacrifice.

Will nzers takes to the streets or have they been snzers (snoozers) for too long.

From Saturdays Herald, it looks like Bob McCoskrie from family first and other like minded people are about to wake the sleeping giant. I see a date for a nationwide march of 28th March being proposed.

Maybe parliamentary services will provide a big screen in house so MP’s can watch the public march in centres all over NZ, while they debate how they intend to ignore us.

To get to the thinking behind the anti-smacking legislation, it’s useful to look back at the last census, in particular three questions. The questions asked if you cooked your own meals, gardened or cared for children. There may be many reasons why the state wants to know this, but what these three occupations have in common is that, done by you, they are untaxed, and probably not done in “an expert and safe” manner. Answering these questions truthfully gives a measure of the last significant freedoms we have that are not yet subject to supervision and regulation. An active progressive government, like ours and all other western administrations, is distinctly uncomfortable with such omissions of control. The state’s intrusion upon citizens isn’t driven by an Orwellian craving for power for its own sake, however, but by a sincere belief that it is acting in a reasoned and compassionate way to benefit a significant majority. The method is to deliver a steady flow of legislative changes that deprive individuals of influence in all but their chosen field of expertise. A beautiful future for humanity is one in which every decison of consequence to any person is made by experts for the benefit of all. Nothing could be more unsurprising after a century of political rivalry between capitalists and socialists than an orthodoxy that owes as much to Adam Smith as to Marx.
(more…)