- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -

MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.

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

Tue 31st July 2007

The Cannabis smoke signal

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General,Men's Health — Downunder @ 9:39 pm

New research suggests a single joint of cannabis damages the lungs as much as smoking five cigarettes in one go.

The study, carried out by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, found the drug forces the lungs to work harder by obstructing air flow and causes chest tightness and wheezing.

The study found that of the 339 people tested, only those who smoked tobacco suffered from the lung disease emphysema, but cannabis use still stopped the lungs working properly.


Using marijuana increases the risk of one day developing a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, according to a study that provides some of the strongest evidence yet linking the drug to a mental disorder.

Marijuana is one the most commonly used illegal substances in many countries with up to 20 percent of young people in places like Britain reporting either some use or heavy use, British researchers said, citing government statistics.

Our cheap labour government.

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General — Downunder @ 7:57 am

All women to be questioned about abuse when go to hospital


Whilst in hospital women will be asked these three questions to see if she may have been abused:

* Has anybody hurt or threatened you?
* Have you ever felt controlled or always criticised?
* Have you been asked to do anything sexual that you didn’t wat to do?

Health Minister Pete Hodgson and other ministers are expected to announce the radical move tomorrow in an attempt to clamp down on the country’s appalling record of child abuse and other domestic violence.

Health Minister Pete Hodgson, is cheap today, cheaper than yesterday. He will only let hospital staff ask women three questions. If we throw some more cash as this we could have another three questions.

– Did you get pregnant just to get the DPB.
– Did you drink alcohol or take drugs during your pregnancy.
– Did you become depressed after your abortion and get pregnant again.

What would your other three questions be from the increased funding for the health system?

Mon 30th July 2007

Free tickets for live show of Alladin

Filed under: General — Julie @ 7:24 pm

Southern Star Chariatable Trust presents a “Kids In Show Seats” benefit in aid of Radio Lollipop.

Auckland Single Parent’s Trust has received a number of free tickets for this event which we have heard are worth $30.00 each to the general public.

Date: 11th August 2007

Times: 10 am, 1 pm and 4pm.
We have tickets for all 3 shows so we need to know what time you would like to choose to go. We have many so dont be shy.

Venue: Logan Cambell Centre, ASB showgrounds, Greenlane Rd West, Auckland

Tickets are limited so please let us know ASAP.

And BTW, the tickets are for one adult and one child under 8 years of age.


Dad’s Corner on Kiwi Families

Filed under: General — JohnPotter @ 11:12 am

Here’s something worth supporting – a parenting website with a link to “Dad’s Corner” right near the top! Although there haven’t been many dads active on their discussion board so far, it could develop into a useful resource.

Hi John,

I’ve just located you through a Google search, whilst looking for men’s support groups.

I’m not sure if you’ve heard of our website, www.kiwifamilies.co.nz, but since its launch in October last year it’s become the most comprehensive parenting website in New Zealand.

Whilst we have thousands of visitors on site every month, the majority of these are mums. We would very much like to welcome more dads onto the site, and have developed Dad’s Corner with this purpose in mind.

If you follow this link, you will find a new chat room set up just for New Zealand fathers

I’m fronting Dad’s Corner, and would be most grateful if you could let the members of your group know that this online chat and support service is now available. Here Dad’s can share their experiences, joys and frustrations and find support and advice from other fathers throughout the country.

Look forward to seeing you on site.

Best wishes, Ian

Fri 27th July 2007

You absolutely pathetic people.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 12:13 am

Should the age of criminal responsibility be lowered to 12?

Stuff poll.

Yes (3890 votes, 81.1%)

No (906 votes, 18.9%)

Can’t anyone remember what you where doing when you where 12 years old, when you where in form one. You really did have an understanding of the ways of the world, in total control of ever decision you made, and every mistake you made. You weren’t relying on your teachers and parents for guidance and help.

You pathetic people. Childhood should be the abundance of your blessings, not the condemnation of your failings. What is New Zealand — a country of savagery and ignorance.

If these children do not know the difference between right and wrong its your problem – it doesn’t matter if they are your children or not you need to decide who owns them – the parents or the state. When you have decided that, then decide who you support, it is either the parents or the state.

Think carefully because you are decideing the fate of the next generation.

Thu 26th July 2007

Hell thats enough.

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General — Downunder @ 11:45 pm

Hell Pizza’s general manager Colin Mellar says he has had a combination of complaints about the magazine.

I have been watching this for a while, and I am no prude, but these guys are over the line.

These people are not on my menu any more.

I will be buying pizza elsewhere.

What do you think?

Hidden Violence Comes to Light

Filed under: General — UF @ 10:34 am

Article in the Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=322&objectid=10452857? (link option not working)

“But there are also surveys that show women and men are equally likely to be perpetrators and victims of violence in intimate relationships…

Women’s Refuge’s Henare gives a swift response to such statistics. “The question is about fear. Does she fear her husband? A woman is beaten by man for years, then one day she picks up an iron and says: ‘If you touch me one more time, I’m going to put this into your skull’. She is taking a stand the only way she knows how. Does he fear her? I suspect not.”

Unbelievable. Does she really believe that the? reports like the Dunedin longitudinal study are actually describing what she suggests?

Tue 24th July 2007

In the Bowels of change

Filed under: General,Men's Health — Downunder @ 10:40 pm

Cancer test ‘may save many lives’

link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6911677.stm

DHB Nominations open 27 July

Filed under: General,Men's Health — Scrap_The_CSA @ 9:39 pm

Hi All,

For those with an interest in Mens Health it could well be worth your while considering standing for the DHB elections.

District Health Boards (DHBs) provide (or fund the provision of) health and disability services to 21 districts covering New Zealand. DHBs are governed by boards, which consist of up to 11 members: seven elected by the public every three years, and up to four appointed by the Minister of Health.

The next DHB elections will be held in October 2007, at the same time as local authority elections. DHB elections are conducted by independent electoral officers who are appointed by the boards. The DHB’s electoral officer must be the electoral officer for one of the territorial authorities in the DHB’s district.

Check out the Ministry of Health DHB election page for further details.



Sat 21st July 2007

Utilising our Resources

Filed under: General — Rob Case @ 12:16 pm

I have for some time been thinking about a couple of software projects that could help the Men’s Rights Movement.

They are:

1) A website that allows you to nominate Advertising, TV Drama, News presentation that is anti-male, or conversely, male-friendly. Visitors to the site could vote for whichever they found most offensive, or most agreeable. The net result would be a poll, ranked from worst offender down, and another poll ranked from most supportive down. The aim would be to then promote the site so that companies and media are well aware of how half the population perceives them.

2) A web-site that allows you to nominate a specific action you plan to take for fund-raising purposes. (more…)

Thu 19th July 2007

Men’s Rights on the Political Table

Filed under: General — Rob Case @ 2:21 pm

I read the following voting strategy recently on an American forum (full text here):

“…you take out a target (offending legislator) in the next election by financially backing his opponent. Legislators are like sheep. Their behavior is flock-like and is governed by fear. They are virtually all in it for the status — if you can call it that — and are usually achieving more status and even income than they are worth (esp. at the state level). Ergo, they respond to negative incentives — i.e., fear of loss. That is fear of loss of their cushy, silly little job. So as I have advised before, all you need to do is cause the highly-visible de-electing of an anti-father legislator, and make it clear to all the other sheep that this is why it happened. The flock with come to you.”

Nominations anyone?

Women Face Sexist Backlash

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 10:06 am

Women face sexist backlash

By PATRICK CREWDSON – The Dominion Post
Women may have claimed some top jobs but worsening domestic violence and a sexist backlash show they still face discrimination, a New Zealand delegation will tell the United Nations.

Please take the oppurtunity to send feedback to Stuff and The Dompost on this article



Wed 18th July 2007

Bloody Hell

Filed under: General — Julie @ 3:20 pm

There always has to be hickups when holding a meeting but one would not expect such a big muck up from the newspaper. Damn it, Stephen owes me. He rushed through our write up on the meeting and put the wrong place for the meeting.

Instead of GLen Eden Community House he put Glen Eden Community Centre. Now people are upset because an event is happening in their centre and people will turn up for it.

So should I write and complain to the local paper as to what a bad boy Stephen is?

Highly unlikely, because it wasn’t his fault. It was mine. I didn’t know that we have a centre and a house.

This is so depressing that it is funny. I guess now I should find out where Glen Eden Community Centre is and put signage up on Friday Night.

Tue 17th July 2007

Error of Judgement.

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — Downunder @ 1:26 pm

I know little of the Vince Siemer case, but went to the High Court out of curiosity and the possibility that something was not right. If this case is indicative of the operation of our High Court we have a serious problem. The deliberate obstruction of self representation is an oppression of our freedom. In the same manner the refusal of legal agents to represent a position or defend a client allows prejudicial determinations that defeat the very essence of a justice system.

There were many disturbing features in what I saw, but one aspect that took my interest. It was a reference in Justice Potters Judgement to Eichelbaum’s precedent:

“It is justice itself that is flouted by contempt of court”

His precedent is an error, perhaps that of an honest man, to assume that any other Judge would be of equal integrity. He might have concluded that the administration of justice is flouted by contempt of court.

Justice is a virtue but it does not stand alone. The more isolated it becomes from surrounding virtue the greater it distances itself from what is right. Justice defeats itself when it stands alone. It is wrong to suggest that justice is flouted by contempt of court when that jurisdiction exists in the public interest to ensure court orders are obeyed. That is the administration of justice.

When Mr Siemer received what I understand is the harshest sentence yet given in New Zealand for contempt of court, I was left asking myself was justice alone in New Zealand on Friday the 13th July 2007.

Mon 16th July 2007

News from World Father’s Union

Filed under: General — Julie @ 3:09 pm

From: director@paternityfraud.com
Subject: 7-13-07: URGENT- I need Florida paternity fraud victims for another TV news story …
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:15:54 -0700

URGENT – FL paternity fraud victims needed for TV news story before Thu. July 19, 2007 . IMMEDIATE NEWS ALERT – NEED SOUTH FLORIDA PATERNITY FRAUD victims for another big TV story on the paternity fraud victims. Are you a paternity fraud victim in Southwest Florida, especially in Ft. Myers, Naples, LaBelle or Punta Gorda?
We have a short deadline to get FL victims to a TV executive producer for a special feature by July 19, 2007.This is another media opportunity from PaternityFraud.com / Carnell Smith. Be a part of the solution, tell a friend!
CALL TO ACTION: The new FL law contains a way to get a legal DNA test by court order. So, do you want to fight back or complain?
Send me your name, phone number and type of Florida case (marital or non-marital) to director@paternityfraud.com . Please put “FL-PFV for TV” (means Florida paternity fraud victim) on the email subject line. Tell others about this story, get their information to me immediately. Thanks, Carnell Smith aka “Man4Justice”


I know this is not for NZ but it is motivating to know that someone found a way around or should I say a way in!

Sun 15th July 2007

Misandry on National Radio

Filed under: General — Rob Case @ 11:05 am

I was listening to Jim Mora’s program on National Radio on Friday afternoon, where he featured guest speakers Michelle Boag, Lianne Dalziel and a third woman whose name I don’t recollect.

Dalziel was rather warm about news that had come to her attention recently: apparently women appointed to run large companies statistically show poorer performance in terms of delivering value to shareholders. A more recent ‘study’ (I immediately switch to high-alert mode when I hear this term) suggested the reason for this was due to the fact that companies in peril were more likely to hire a woman to head the company than a man, ie women CEOs were getting served hospital passes.

Rather than consider such an assertion with the scepticism that it merits, Dalziel leapt on it with the enthusiasm of the desperate. She seriously suggested that directors imperil their companies so that when collapse occurs, they can resort to the defense “Well what do you expect? It was run by a woman.” The 3rd woman on the show was even more vehement in faulting men’s complicity in women’s failure in business. She went further to say that it was always businessmen, not businesswomen, who responded to business collapse by withholding payment to creditors while hiding their own considerable assets, thereby demonstrating their inability to understand the suffering they inflict on others (shades of the fabled wealthy deadbeat dad here?).

The ease with which these women accepted this nonsense surprised me .Not because open misandry is unusual, but because a woman of such high office would resort to it on such a public forum with no real thought of the consequences. I would suggest that she’s used to the company of people who talk in this way, without challenging each other and safe in the knowledge that there will be no real public response. Did it not occur to them that no-one is ever forced to accept a position as CEO? That perhaps women eagerly compete for the leadership role of a company in trouble because for the last 30 years they have been told girls can do anything and men are incompetent? That the consequences of failure are not visited upon women with the same harshness as it is with men? That a man would never expect a panel of other men to explain away his failure on National Radio – one of whom is a cabinet minister?

Don’t these women realise that in rushing to the aid of others simply because they are women, and readily accepting anything that makes them feel better about themselves, it is they, not we men, who reinforce the image of women not being equally capable?

And to answer the ridiculous assertion that it is only men who suffer from a lack of ethics in business, I read today of the prohibition order against Robyn Case (no connection). I leave you to decide if we men have no female company in the realm of deceit, chicanery, denial and unrepentance.

Thu 12th July 2007

Domestic Violence – a man’s side

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General — Julie @ 2:01 pm

This was an interesting tale on another MRA site that i couldn’t resist.

Once again I will share my story of what happens in the Ventura county jail system:

Once arrested you are given a 8 day top (I served 9 and droped community service). During this time the male will be on suicide watch for the first 2-3. Day 4 they will take the male to a line to fill out forms for the public pretender. The line ends at a TV screen with a judges face on the other side. The male by this time is worn out and knows all he has to do to go home is take the plea-bargain. In total shame most bow down to the mighty judge behind the TV and go home after processing out for the next 2-3 days. The other option is stay in jail and risk 6mo-year jail, lose youh home, job, car ect. The sentence is:

DV classes 52 weeks $30 a pop miss 2 and go to jail exit and entrance fee of $30 = 1620
Fine of about $1450 payable in payments along with probation maintance fees (forget how much this is). 3 years formal probation. If a child was present when you were arrested then parenting classes are issued (I dont know the costs). Comunity service is normaly Cal-Trans 40 hours.

Now you have to remember that it’s not a communist country and your rights have been shot to hell. No, it’s a democracy that swears it will uphold the law as long as your a female ofcourse and only then…


So you might be thinking to yourself that you are lucky New Zealand isn’t this bad. But you are wrong.

Men’s suicide is an issue that New Zealand has and you are under suicide watch in instances. What you don’t know is how unclean these cells are and how the blood of the last victims are on the mattress you sleep on and the walls you stare at and you don’t know how you can walk out of there with life threatening diseases.

Also you have to remember that accusations for Domestic Violence towards a female is the same for here and now you have to realise that if a child is present you will be attending father classes at a place like Man Alive. As well as classes for anger management.

We have yet to have the judges on TV screens but the way things are going with the amount of cases in the Justice court system we will be looking at the same as what other countries do. They are looking at judges sitting at their desk and judging cases from forms lawyers send them. It won’t be long until men are convicted from a TV screen.

But notice how the male in this story pleads guilty so he can go home. Is that justice?

Tue 10th July 2007

Retrospective Departure Orders an Update

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 9:02 am

The previous post The Wrath of IRDrequires an update.

First the good news. After years of parental alienation and tens of thousands of dollars in court costs this Dad is finally beginning to rebuild the relationship with his children. The message here is never give up.

The Dad has secured legal representation and while he bears up well this action by IRD is placing a severe strain on his personal life.


This case is going to see an attack made,with the full force of Crown Law and the IRD, on the the long established principle that a departure order cannot be retrospective.

In plain English : If you are subject to an administrative review you are part of the departure order process. Departure order is the legal term for the mechanism used by an administrative review to create a variation to the formula assessment.In most cases the order is upward and you are required to pay more Child Support.

The departure order cannot (except in very limited circumstances) be retrospective. This means that IRD cannot reopen and vary assessments from previous years. If IRD could, via a departure order, open up previous years to reassessment then any custodial or liable parent could suddenly find themselves reassessed for any year they paid or received child support(TAX).

The likely effect of retrospective departure orders on anyone who is or who has been a paying or a receiving parent

I want this to be very clear.

The law on administrative reviews has changed. Before only a liable or custodial parent could initiate an administrative review. The law that Peter Dunne, Minister Responsible for Child Support and United Future Leader, pushed through Parliament gave IRD the power to initiate administrative reviews. To quote IRD

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue may decide to review an assessment if an investigation into a paying parent’s financial affairs shows that their assessment doesn’t accurately reflect their ability to provide financial support to their children. This is called a Commissioner review.

If you are a liable parent it opens you up to having a child support income plucked out of the air.General accounting principles do not apply when creating Child Support Income.

Some examples of where this may be applied for an upward departure order
*You are self employed
*You have an investment property
*You have an employer who matches your contribution to Kiwi Saver or a superannuation scheme.
*You receive tax credits form the Kiwi Saver
*Any situation where IRD believes that formula assessment does not reelect your perceived ability to pay.
*You are father of a child that you have no knowledge of you child until IRD demand child support(Tax).

If IRD are successful in achieving their goal of retrospective departure orders and this is then combined with their ability to seek a departure order will cause many parents extreme financial and personal hardship.

If IRD, with all the resources of the Crown backing, them are successful in achieving their goal of retrospective departure order then it allows any liable or custodial parent license play havoc with a parents life. A custodial or liable parents financial position will be extremely insecure if they cannot rely upon the protection of previous years child support assessments being correct and unalterable.

Yes its a two edged sword as TR V The Commissioner of Inland Revenue shows but it is my view that retrospective departure orders will only be allowed to be upward and the chances of liable parent “recovering overpayment of child support” via a downward departure would be slim.

It will be open season on reopening previous years assessments to collect more revenue if IRD’s challenge is successful.

The Case Law and IRD Administration
There are two published and one unpublished decision from the High Court that deal with the question of retrospective departure orders.Two cases clearly come out against retrospective departures one allows retrospective departure in very limited circumstances.

IRD have for a number of years not issued retrospective departures via administrative review.Their view of the law has been that retrospective departure orders should not be granted.

There has been a direction to change this position and they see their best chance at collecting an increased amount of Child Support (TAX).

What Next ?

The hearing of this case is likely to occur in Wellington at the High Court. I will keep you posted on planned activity as soon as the date is confirmed.

Please note that the issue here is should retrospective departure orders be allowed and what the effect will be on parents if they cannot be guaranteed that previous years child support (TAX) assessments are correct and reliable.



Mon 9th July 2007

Key to marital happiness? Let the wife have her way

Filed under: General — Darryl Ward @ 10:21 pm

We all know what the reaction would be if there was ever a story published that suggested letting a husband have his way….

From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4120795a19716.html

Key to marital happiness? Let the wife have her way

“YES DEAR: Men might still dominate most workplaces but a study has proven what many happy couples know – the wife runs the roost at home and the husband is happy to let her.”

Men might still dominate most workplaces but a study has proven what many happy couples know – the wife runs the roost at home and the husband is happy to let her.

A team of researchers from Iowa State University studied 72 couples and found that the wife’s view on how to solve problems within the marriage or the home took precedence over the husband’s opinion and he was happy to accept that.

“The women were communicating more powerful messages and men were responding to those messages by agreeing or giving in,” Associate Professor of Psychology David Vogel, one of the leaders of the study, said in a statement.

The study was conducted by questioning the 72 couples who had on average been married for seven years with all the couples in the sample relatively happy in their marriages.

Each spouse was asked to independently complete a questionnaire on relationship satisfaction and an assessment of overall decision-making ability in the relationship.

Each spouse was also asked to identify a problem in their relationship then brought together to discuss the problem topics for 10 minutes with their discussions videotaped after the researchers left the room.

The researchers later reviewed and coded the videotapes of couples’ interactions using a rating system that calculates demand and withdraw behaviors – avoidance, discussion, blame, pressure for change, and withdraws.

Vogel said that wives didn’t just talk more than their husbands in discussions, but drew favorable responses from their husbands to what they said.

“The study at least suggests that the marriage is a place where women can exert some power,” said Vogel.

“Whether or not it’s because of changing societal roles, we don’t know. But they are, at least, taking responsibility and power in these relationships.”

Sat 7th July 2007

Blacklist of Anti-Male Companies

Filed under: General — Rob Case @ 2:17 pm

The following is a link to website ‘Stand Your Ground’ which maintains a global black-list of all companies that practice misandric (anti-male) advertising:


The reasoning for taking this issue seriously is straight-forward.

Women don’t take any kind of disrespect – they fight and complain if there’s even a hint of it in television.

On the other hand, men are trained to take crap from women from the day they’re born, and generally don’t fight back.

The net result is that TV stations carefully vet anything they show for ‘misogynistic’ (anti-female) content, but don’t show the same scrutiny for misandric content.

TV stations routinely show men as stupid, violent (especially if they’re black), expendable, sexist, sex motivated, ‘reverting to form’ whenever a sexual attack opportunity arises, dangerous to children and the majority perpetrators of domestic violence. ‘News’ broadcasts routinely parade men as criminals, and women as victims.
This carefully filtered TV image of men is actually creating a climate of hatred towards them, and is a significant factor in the hostility men face when dealing with the law and government.

TV (and other media) rely on advertising revenue to survive, and will respond far more quickly to a single high-revenue client than they will to thousands of letters of protest from viewers.

Visit ‘Stand Your Ground’ and get acquainted with the companies listed there, and why.

Let these companies know that you won’t buy their products, and why.

Thu 5th July 2007

California Supreme Court reverses dismissal of appeal in gender-discrimination suit

Filed under: General — Julie @ 9:50 am

By John X. Smith, World Fathers Union News Service

May 31, 2007, Los Angeles (USA)—The California Supreme Court today reversed the lower courts’ dismissal of a lawsuit against the Century Supper Club for charging men higher entrance fees. The plaintiffs, Marc Angelucci, Edgar Pacas, Elton Campbell, and Jeff Kent, are all members of the US advocacy group National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), except for Mr Pacas, who is described as a college history professor and supporter. Mr Angelucci is president of the Los Angeles Chapter of NCFM.

Today’s Supreme Court decision reverses a rejection of the plaintiffs’ first appeal by the California Court of Appeals. That rejection was based on a legal theory which the Supreme Court found flawed and then quashed in a lengthy and detailed analysis. The facts of the case were, according to the decision, not in dispute: Mssrs Angelucci, Pacas, Campbell, and Kent went to the Century Supper Club on several occasions and were charged higher fees to enter than were women on those same occasions. A press advisory issued by NCFM-LA stated that the issue of men (but not women) being subjected to body-searches by the club was part of the original complaint, but this issue was not specifically addressed in today’s ruling.

According to Mr Angelucci, the decision ‘makes it clear that a person who is discriminated against in California by a business establishment based on race or gender is not required to specifically demand to be treated equally in order to have a claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The decision recognizes that the lower courts’ position [that he was required to make such a demand] would have led to absurd results, because many people who are discriminated against by a business do not even know it until later, or have nobody to make the “demand for equal treatment” to, or do not want the humiliation and stigma that comes with such a demand.’

‘This is a victory for gender equality, especially in light of the growing number of hotels that are excluding men from entire floors and lounges, and other businesses excluding men in other ways,’ Mr Angelucci continued. He also said, ‘I want to personally thank attorney Al Rava of the San Diego chapter of NCFM for so skillfully and professionally handling this appeal.’

The Supreme Court returned the case to the Court of Appeals ‘for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.’ The complete text of the decision is available on the court’s official website at the following URL: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S136154.DOC

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar