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

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.

For some this might be off topic re MRA, believe me it encapsulates the tyrannic oppression we face,� hence� my reiteration upon this site and others� ;

Dear Recipients,

I� apologize for any inclusion that would have the recipient unwarranted� by way of� locality and / or � ideology which would preclude them participation of� this “appeal”.

The “Appeal” is that you attend the “High Court of Auckland” tomorrow at 3.00 pm to give support, report or otherwise represent a viewpoint in the matter of � Siemer vs. Stiassny http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=120760�

Vince has and is still being shafted, well and truly if you refer to his enlightening of the masses.� http://kiwisfirst.co.nz/

Money, Power and Judicial impropriety are more than evident� in this case as evinced� on the basis of the websites which� have been� subject to a Judicial� clampdown and for which Vince is now facing these preposterous charges of contempt.

I would advocate that all who can attend, do so.

Whilst my time at the High Court tomorrow may be split (seeking a timetabling matter of precedent proceedings for matters of IRD Child Support and COCA - Child Abduction) I am fully behind and will partake in actions of activism to redress any imbalance and perceived corruption by Vince.

Whistles, balloons and clowns, are supposedly ready on hand should bureaucracy try to� avail this to date a closed but circus type performance.

With now, an appeal of � public and proper media participation into this Judicial� hearing, perhaps truth, rather than an alleged biased� advocacy may prevail.

I look forward to your participation and meeting you tomorrow.

Kindest Regards

Paul Catton

East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families

(09) 940 6236

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…

whatmenthinkofwomen

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?

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.

Background

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.

Regards

Scrap

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.”

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:

http://www.standyourground.com/boyc.php

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.

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