The next wave of feminism
Here it comes - the wave of underparented kids with poor behaviour many of us were predicting would arise out of the quagmire of feminist destruction of the family.
Hang on folks, we’re in for a bumpy ride. This didn’t exist when I was a school pupil, but then in those days the nation hadn’t been institutionally defathered.
Don’t get me wrong folks. I’m not saying there aren’t other factors - kids loaded with junk food, peer pressure etc. But I am saying I reckon that the hollowing out of fathering is the primary factor here.
As a probation officer I saw lots of young men who’d grown up fatherless and without firm paternal guidance had turned to crime.
Now here’s my next prediction - Big Sista Guvmints will go for increased social power and control and criminalise 12 year old boys en masse.
A career in the prison service looks a pretty secure option.
Posts RSS 2.0
I suspect you’re right Stephen.
Even without the feminist/traditionalist divide, the simple fact is children of my generation had two parents, one dedicated full-time and personally to our upbringing, the other dedicated to providing materially and protecting against a sometimes harsh,but largely indifferent world.
We were well ‘invested-in’, to put it in business-speak, if one counts natural concern, attention, role models and time as investment.
Today’s children are typically raised on less than half the resources we were, and it’s seriously starting to show.
Comment by Rob Case — Sat 28th July 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Investment in children is not measured just in dollars or hours. More important is the quality of those hours,
was the parent(s) listening carefully to the child?
did the parent(s) respond appropriately to the child
were the parent’s responses appropriate, as seen by the other children in the family?
>
What concerns me about the familycaught’s response to family problems. is that they seem to empower the parent who REFUSES to provide sensible discipline and guidance to the child. Its not just that they lack the skill, as I am sure this parent could respond appropriately to the child, if they saw some motivation.
Why would a familycaught judge go out on a limb, to support obviously the less capable parent?
Is it because the judge lacks the skills to assess parenting skills?
Is it because supporting this parent is more Politically Correct?
Is it because supporting the less disciplined parent is more likely to force the more financial parent to pay for an appeal?
I am scared of the answers!
We owe it to our children and grandchildren, to face these issues and drive through the obvious solutions.
Best regards,
MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 28th July 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Let us start with a critique of socialism in NZ :
Clark’s praise of Sweden misplaced
Sinking like the Swedes: Helen’s plans for failure
Stay the course? I think not!
Is Helen Clark the worst Prime minister we have ever had?
And the consequences of the socialist welfare state - more autonomy, weaker families, fatherless children. Since the State intervenes to perform the duties of the father, fathers are marginalized, and the traditional family grows weaker. The family has slowly been reduced to the mother and children - and the husband/father’s role to provide and protect is performed by the government. Moreover, in socialism, since reward is not commensurate with ability and effort(instead irresponsible behaviour is subsidized), incentive for workers is lower and soon more and more people start depending on benefits - and they fall deeper into socialism.
Facts about Fathers
[PDF File] New Zealand - The Fatherless Generation
NZ - Teenage Birthrate Climbs Again
Having Kids On Welfare A Growing Trend
Benefit Rises Lead To More Single Mums
NZ - Highest Rate Of Lone Parents On Welfare
Comment by mikeray — Sun 29th July 2007 @ 12:14 am
Murray, you know the answers. Your asking the obvious questions of their condition - and missing the determination of your own commitment. The familycaught as you call it is an exploitation established and maintained as an instiution to protect capitalism and its vast expanse of exploitation. Forget about challenging socialism you would just be adding furnace to a fire that requires chaos in order to remedy a practical remedy demanding that the existing authority only need adjust the top end of their corruption. Concentrate on the family for its function as you energetically progress. We need to rebuild from the family as the base and not look to inadequately spend our energy concentrating on the sociatal operative. That will fall down where it is corrupt and its foundations cannot withstand the force of the challenge. Concentrate on how to support families through their difficult times rather than questioning the operativew methods that demand their punishment.
The questions you raise will not need to be answered. They will be abandoned as if a waste in energy.
The weekend protests went well. I met Noelle and her energy filming what is being done is extraordinary - as is yours. If the stuff you do gets up onto a website you will be going directly into the injustice for your other and most useful skill.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 29th July 2007 @ 10:28 am
Stephen,
I cannot read and thereby answer for this infuriating limit to the site by whatever en specific masse software modification has caused it, but will later on a different machine.
Day 2 of the hunger strike, and no reply about Vince Seimer and what he has done and what he is doing. No reply either from Scrap and no reply on Child Support having been seriously - SERIOUSLY ripping off every absent parent. So I’ll talk to myself.
The interesting thing about the child tax argument is that it is a direct theft from the parent’s income. The money in full, (I believe but do not know), is transferred to the custodial parent. That means that the theft is only indirectly from the child. That the use of children in this way is an outright extortion is quite a demanding argument but for the purpose of logistics should only be recognised as a beacon. Much in the same way that the menz.movement should recognise Vince Seimer as our official “Whistle Blower” of the judicial corruption (that which we constantly complain about) but seem collectively little inclined to pursue.
So the direct theft by governments and I imagine this stretches across the western world is from the parents nett earnings. I imagine this is going to turn out to be quite a handsom sum for every child support paying parent. Enough I imagine to bankrupt New Zealand anyway.
I was listening to Radio NZ National this morning and a case before the HRC where discrimination against the disabled is to go before the Tribunal. The discrimination threshhold has been met against the Crown’s first defence.
The next stage, which is in the relativity of the complaint against the ordinary conditions to the HRA will bring it to the place where Allan Harvey, Bevan and I took our discussion with the Commission on any challenge to the Domestic Violence Act: although listening to the broadcast there would be some conjecture if the argument, as it was presented, would have gone past this first hurdle. On the face of the debate I think there is some likelehood that the argument will progress toward a recommendation before the House of Representatives, yet who the host of that recommendation will be is unclear. Money is a critical issue in this argument. Can the justification of the argument be afforded by government?
So, besides the unresolved issue I introduce on the Domestic Violence Act, we are left with two relevant outstanding points on the Child Support issue.
Is the theft of money from the non custodial parent a discrimination. The answer under s.21 of the HRA is quite clearly YES. It is improper to discriminate against parents on the basis of having or not having the care of their children. So taking the money in the first place is considered unlawful discrimination.
Is this money required for any particular purpose that is specific to any other enactment? You tell me. I cannot think for the life of me what gives any acting authority a right just to take money from any other party just because it figures it has the authority so to do. Tax requires justification.
Can the government pay it back? Not likely. Will the government stop taking what it isn’t due and that which is extorted under the condition that it is used for the care, maintenance and protection of one’s child? Ask Peter Dunne.
So here we come to the point. Bugger all of you were at Viv Roberts protest. Bugger all of you have made any comment about Vince Seimer’s situation. Bugger all of you have considered that Margaret Wilson has made a huge breach against the security of fatherhood manipulating the law in order to try and cover up what is an extraordinarilly embarrassing affair. These breaches that I describe are unprecedented. And that is the way they will stay while those men that Viv and Vince and me - and those few others of us who have taken to the streets and argued directly - are left to stand alone.
We need more than words and the theories that come after them. There are facts that need to be dealt with and dealt with by numbers if you any really want any change. If you want to be justified, get busy.
Write to Vince Seimer. Send him an email and copy it to the Supreme Court. I will give you their address in mmy next post along with the link to his site. Stop sitting on your warhead and get off your bums boys.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 30th July 2007 @ 10:54 am
speaking of tax… how come NZ is not giving tax returns to the income earner like the rest of the world does??
Comment by starr — Mon 30th July 2007 @ 1:12 pm
I rang IRD yesterday,
it took me an age to get through, redialing and redialing, until eventually I spoke to a telephonist. I have rung IRD on a number of occassions dating over several years primarily to discuss the same inconsistency. The main problem I have had with the system is that when someone is on the unemployment benefit, they are marginalised and discriminated against. This is inconsistent with the HRA legislation in itself - yet as is testament for Scrap not returning to declare that I am wrong for the probative equation of his argument; HRA legislation does not embody the confidence of the populace that it has any significant baring on day to day life - All to my great frustration. The problem is on taking a benefit being the amount removed is ot immediately the lowest possible amount which I argue should so be given the financial circumstances of teh individual. The money they are given on which to live should be used solely for that purpose because it is the money on which the individual is set to live. If there should be any variation from this juncture it would be because the efficient IRD have every access to the individuals cash savings, if in fact that in itself should constitute a reason to take more than the minimum. Yet they do not do this and they demand another form be filled out giving them the information that Work & Income and IRD already have all over again. I have internally objected to this through to a tribunal stage, where I didn’t turn up to the hearing - grumpy, preoccupied with parliament and virtually exhausted. This time around the circumstances were altered by trickery on the part of the telephonist. I informed her as I had ascertained from another IRD telephonist that the phone calls were taped. This technological use is of extraordinary value in fixing problems and I have been able to use it to some effect where it has recently been instituted into the CYFS system, as along within the private sector. While Kiwibank for example use this system it can be used to their detriment if I so pursued where they haven’t followed up on a formal complaint I made as consistent with the information on the tape - instead they just gave me a refund of the improperly removed money, cut the reduction they remove automatically from their customers accounts and I imagine ignored the direct complaint I made about the time that they automatically remove funds from accounts - because - it would cost them millions to repay agaisnt that particular impropriety. I haven’t got the time to follow it up.
Interestingly though, another company that uses the recorded phone system is Genisis. You can ring them and within the day they can change the amount of money you pay in relationship to the money they take from your account.
And this was the problem with the IRD telephonist and the IRD system. They demanded I was to fill out their form oif I wanted a variation in my weekly outgoing and I told them to get stuffed, they were manipulating the Child Support payers situation to better their system rather than having any consideration of and for the perople involved. We arrived at an interesting place - this telephonist and I - where she had concluded that the telephone conversation was being recorded and I asked her to have me sent a letter that said the department would not alter the amount I was paying over the phone, even with all knowledge that I only had $30 on which to live because I would not fill out a form. We had a long and arduous debate which ended with her supervisor agreeing to write the letter. I had won. A precedent was set and I could use it to change the way the system wa sdiscriminating against parents who did not have the care of their children as well as discriminating against the individual for being unemployed. I was the victor. I received the letter. It said: Thank you for agreeing with your payment plan of $10 per week. I rang a supervisor to complain and he replied that there were no recordings kept - never had been (that’s two liars at least on the end of those phones) I went through the details of the complaint but again exhausted let it go. For the moment anyway. So while I was right - had proved a point and created a new precedent the department cheated in order to cover itself up and just get on with the extortion I have written about here…
… and eventually, eventually, eventually someone replied. I asked her if she comprehended the problem of double dipping into the nett earnings of the payer and she said yes. I was genuinely excited. They had an answer! Fantastic I thought, at last I can get straight into the nitty gritty of the discrimination. There was a silence on the end of the phone. She had hung up.
What has this got to do with feminism? Everything. What has it got to do with complacency and discrimination? Everything. What are we doing about it?
Well - how about this? Why doesn’t every reader ring up the IRD and ask them that same questin that apparently they have an answer, and someone else write back here and tell us all what the pronblem is. Ask them how they are able to justify taking out two lots of tax from the same gross amount and how that removal does not mean that they are removing two equal components from the same valued equivelant. Please.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 10:44 am
mikeray, that is an excellent post and useful resource. Thank you.
Comment by Dave — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Julie,
Explain away s’il vous plait.
Comment by Stephen — Sun 5th August 2007 @ 3:02 am
My comment was hard to comprehend even for me. Done too much this week. lol
But I made a plan. Long term, Intermediate and short term.
And it is just a plan so to tick off things so that you end up with a National Men’s Collective. Someone will get there at some stage but I will keep it on the plan.
Strange enough (probably not to you) there are so many, many males who are interested and they are very smart. I don’t know why things hadn’t got off the ground so well in the past but it is a new generation now and they are different males than was before. Nothing wrong with older for they have the wisdom and the knowledge nor younger. It is just a different day.
I don’t know why people like Warwick need to be involved any more. I don’t know why we can’t just find the leaders who haven’t even been discovered and just do it ourselves.
Men out there are full of great ideas and being small NZ, I have met up with people who know all sorts of people.
I think the leaders in NZ are going to be replaced with other leaders. And that is normal in life. If something starts at the grass roots, then won’t it just escalate by itself and eventually take a mind of it’s own? There are so many creative ways for fathers who have lost rights to their children to express themselves. So many different things that they can do to make a difference.
But I think today, (being Sunday) that I should just take one small step at a time. And just keep business cards for future use. And that with everyone doing something small of their own, things will change step by step.
It is easy to want to fly before you can walk. lol
And I don’t know whether you can help with this. Your part is on the net and that is a very important part also.
Comment by julie — Sun 5th August 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Presently Julie,
I suspect you live in hope for the recognition of your want and its infintisimal existance of what we see to be the practical realities by function of our day to day existence.
While you talk, children in Darfur starve. While I write America does deals with India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Winston Peters, eventually relative to how the institutions of such demanded as democratised authorities by management will respond to a growing post communist modern Muslim strong based productivity against a declining will for the ordinary sheep to bleat in order of genetic heritage and its disposition in whatever part of the processing line it should have the unfortunate right by which to fall.
Again I am being cynical.
And again I need to answer exercising Jim Bailey’s style in passion standing male and straight against the oppression of calamatous design where an inch from its breath is infectious and consuming.
This, if you read it again till you figure what I have said, will sound as if you are targeted; where you as has Rob and Stephen missed the focus of its truth. Warwick Pudney too is male. He has a very good comprehension of life from within the realm of oppressive behaviour. He is as necessary for men to function in health and spirit as any other male, be he genetically transgendered or pretend, thinking that submission against the demand for his functionality appeals, no matter its consequence on others of his kind.
This culminates into what others are telling you, before you laugh out loud: and should reverberate to the Maori women presently shouting at their male folk, presently caught to the bottom of the economic heap and being kicked hard, hard and harder.
Sort out your own.
But you are good at what you do and for what you have done and surely what you should be encouraged on and on to do and on and on to champion, as these problems we face where our societal damage is the wound on our young belongs to us all - each and everyone.
Assist us sure - but don’t judge us as if your view is superior to ours when we are given the task to challenge ourselves. Keep your aspirations and goals for us to yourself where they do not meld, and one of us does not reach the height in your sense of self.
That’s waht you are being told Julie when you come under criticism. Ant to challenge us: to say we are not doing enough! Bloody right your right. As are Maori women to challenge their men. But look in the mirror first. You say you are fair. But should you be the fairest?
Once your lot are organised to work with us lot and that lot over there, then we lot all can figure out the lot of the whole lot and define the plot instead of drawing from the lottery.
Cheers
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 5th August 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Benjamin,
I don’t know what is going on here. I am not judging you. And if I was; I would say and think something positive.
Yes, my time is wasted talking or writing here for I could be doing instead of speaking. I get that.
I don’t know what to do about all this so I am saying nothing.
What you and Jim B do is great. Sorry that I am not so interested in that.
Comment by julie — Sun 5th August 2007 @ 5:55 pm
In the earliest days where you responded you suggested you could help, as bold even to ask me what needed to be done. I told you to write to Mark Burton. You abandoned the event because you knew him. Fair enough. You have dedication and stamina. You want to achieve and your prepared to wrok hard. You didn’t judge me, you judged Warwick Pudney who rests now as an example.
What I am asking you to do is to retain and further energise your tenacity - yet focus on where you should be most siuccesful if you are behind the cause as you justifiably demand. Focus directly on women that are abandoning the necessity of cohabitation and proactive positive communication with each men. This will lead you into the line of thinking that needs to be challenged and exploted if ever the battles we face are to be overcome.
While you are on teh way - from teh single parenting perspective think about why you should lay a complaint with the HRC on teh recent preventing violence programme that directly unlawfully discriminates against men.
Then we get into teamwork. You take care of teh wahine and we folk start to take care of tane. You don’t have to get off site, nor do you have to stop writing. It just means that before you make the challenge on anyhting make sure it is in the right place and at the right folk.
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 11:03 am
Benjamin,
You are now becoming Jim Bailey. It seems that you both want me to do what you want me to do. It is nice to have had me writing on this site and learning because then you got to teach others who were reading through me. But then you must have known all along from day one that I was not going to conform to what you or Jim or some of his mates consider a woman to be. So just as Jim, you want to push me away and tell me to go elsewhere to work. Jim had sites that I should go to and get involved in. And you tell me to go and help the females.
Well, listen here you. I can do that. In fact I was asked last year to help organise the walk for women on rape. I said, “No” because I was listening to the men’s side.
The way I see it is that if I step up to help the women you will be in bigger trouble. And it is not me bragging but I can do these things because that is my talent.
If you push me away then I will lose my empathy for you because then you are bringing all this on yourself. You are creating your own position as a second class citizen.
I do follow up on the women who comment here. Not all but most. It is hard because guys here are challenging them when in fact they should be welcoming them. Whose fault is it that the support stays small?
I do write to the politicians when you ask. I also write when Family First asks. But it is going nowhere just as all the letters from others. You have all played this type of game before. It doesn’t F%^$en work. And I don’t see why I should waste my precious time doing something that doesn’t work.
Comment by julie — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 11:53 am
Benjamin,
Asking me to talk women into loving their men while they are broken up is a bad move. I did that and one is pregnant to her ex. And it is a really difficult pregnancy and now she is not putting the fathers name on the birth certificate because he doesn’t want to pay child support.
Most women do not dislike males. (full stop)
I promote shared parenting and I promote the importance of a father and a mother but I cannot lead women into being anti feminists until the whole movement is in place. That is unfair.
I am aware that most women do think males are getting a bad deal and do speak to women as men. But it is not my call to help men. That is yours.
Except you don’t want to help fathers as such. You stubbornly want to fight one piece of legislation. I am not here to help you do that. And I not here to help Jim Bailey change the world to go back. he says it will take 3 generations to do his work. That is too long term for me.
Comment by julie — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Fair enough Julie.
Yet your observation as is reasonable compared to the replies of others is entirely off the mark about what you are trying to do.
By disagreeing with people on their take of the circumstances where they miss the functionality of legislation on their lives embedded in the wants of secularism and subjective condition, I as has been clearly identified alienate myself. Have to. I have no choice given this kind of resistence, labled here as “stubborn”. Stubborn means “will not vary”.
It isn’t me who is stubborn Julie. Nor is it Jim.
The principles of law and constiution are being wwritten over you and those with whom you concur on people like my attitude. Without us you will be wilted as if male and as impregable vulnerable by existence to the adversity of change.
What I present and describe clearly for you all to ercognise as demand for your security is black and white: or otherwise called the “objective”. What you are saying is “purple”. The colour of bruising.
I mean no disrespect yet ask that before you have a go at someone with teh experience and man of Warwick Pudney, you respect him for who he is and what he has done.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 12:49 pm
I can’t believe this Benjamin. You say you and Jim are not stubborn. Give me a break here. Even your mother says you are stubborn. Do you think I came down in the last shower or something?
How many marriages does it take and relationships should be included, until you realise that the common denominator is yourself.
Stop thinking about yourselves. Stop thinking in your own small world and look at the bigger picture.
BTW, you want me to challenge you. Isn’t that what you asked for. But then challenging you is a waste of time. You are not going to shift your mindset.
But then maybe there is hope for you. Stay away from Jim Bailey. All he does is make the situation worse. And that is all you are promoting yourself. My friend with me, the monkey on shoulder here and now says you should listen to Pink Floyd. But mind you he is playing up because Bob Dylan is playing on Saturday and he has tickets. And again BTW, see what I have to put up with. lol
As you can see from my response, no-one is interested in being a victim. I have spoken with men that have come to men’s groups in the past but they don’t buy into this victimhood.
Promote men’s rights and question feminism is a good move as far as I am concerned. But always be aware of the people. Always care for them. As much as you want to stop gay and lesbians having children, please understand that those children already exist. Do you want to harm them? I think not.
So, if you care for people in this day, you will consider what they want and what they need. Not what you think is best for them. You just can’t fight the system with this sort of mindset. Any change is going to be hard for people to accept. If you were to do it in small steps great. If you just expect to discriminate against a mass group of people, then you are just as bad as those who discriminate against men today.
Comment by julie — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 1:23 pm
So: at which point do the two parts get evaluated in order to determine which either holds the main as acceptable value?
Under the two court systems, the first being CIVIL it is “in the balance of probability”. In the second CRIMINAL it is “beyond reasonable doubt”.
So let’s take what I have said and your reply. I have said “it is ot me who is stubborn”. Your reply included a reference to my mother as being verbatim logic as to why your submission should be preferred. What has my mother got to do with this? And why should you introduce her? Neither question reflects on the discussion. Both are subjective irrelevancies in reply to their causal agitation.
So, so far we haven’t come very far. Next we have “stay away from Jim Bailey” Why? I’m saying he has an extraordinary perception on how to compete against influences which would, for whatever reason, wound men. Sadly, I have to stay away from him because he bacame so wounded that he had to leave the forums where we would have common access. There isn’t an influence around - however, that would preclude me from standing beside him to the best of my ability, and given as we have seen has been corruptly (Tauranga JP abandons case on request of lawyer for adjournment before evidence is called and presented calling Jim B as “guilty as charged”) used against him he is able to defend within the provisions of these CIVIL of CRIMINAL defences as according to teh principles of natural justice (there are two). This too is in the realm of irrevelancy, although the JP issue is probably among the most severe events in blatant corruption that [I] SHALL be given the opportunity to exploit. So this is the point I am making in general terms Julie that you haven’t got yet: Subject is different from Object.
So where we are now is in the substance of my position, no matter how we got here and as we are in the region of CIVIL, the lesser jurisdiction applies, which is in the balance of probability. The question I have is simple against how you ask me to reply: where you want to know how I respond to the numbers of children who are already hosted by same sex couples(or to broaden considerably) or hetrosexual relationships or (to broaden further) adoptions or (to blow out of ones mind)where the rights and inherent needs of the child to an association with their biological parent is in any way compromised for loss of access to developmental association - is; is this legal? In the balance of probabilty absolutely not.
Now we move into a new area. So can I prove this beyond reasonable doubt where we move from the CIVIL question into the CRIMINAL jurisdiction? This is what I have been talking about all of this time saying in reply to this self imposed question: absolutely! Yet how I respond to government is CHARGE ME WITH A CRIME so that I can discuss this before the courts and prove my allegations. And this is where we are. IN the balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt it is illegal for children to have had removed from their freedom’s in association a developmental access to their biological parent.
Now this dialogue hasn’t even started to reflect the similariites across the divide of law between procreation and legislative structures that have interferred with this human as inherited as legislatively protected condition of right. Yet if I am charged as I have asked since Fathers’ Day 2002 we will easily show how these bridges can be built and then for their logical construction the judges will have the jurisdiction to recommend how they are replced or removed. The Court of Appeal judge Mc Grath judging me on April Fools Day 2003 had this opportinuty yet decided to fudge all of the evidence in order not so to do.
Now His behaviour may well coroborate your replies. There are a fair few children out there growing in this condition. Now - for the first time we come to the nub of the problem. You ask “what can we possibly do about this”.
Again you have to look at how you do things. Do you follow object or subject. Law is about object our sociual precincts (improperly because of this observation and its damaging affect on those in our society for whom we are demanded of to show the greatest caution and respect) are bound to law.
Enter Dave: The child’s right is paramount. Enter Julie: The child is already damaged to this condition. Enter judges: we rule. Enter me: no you don’t because the programmes haven’t yet been developed that allow you to adjudicate either in the balance of probability or beyond reasonable doubt. Enter governemnt: Capitalism is a demonstrably justifiable limitation in a free and democratic society. Enter me (again): Not right. You haven’t honoured te Tiriti o Waitangi - same way you are not protecting sons and daughters to mothers and fathers. Everyone (usually) who doesn’t want to speak for whatever reason shuts up and we move along to the next point.
Not this time.
So, as relative to your primary reply, not the one that took advantage of the subjective in your principle as best you used to disarm the objective discussion we could have had where you would recognise I am not being stubborn: what I am telling you has been PROVED, let’s analyse what I just said in the subjective.
Sons and daughters are entitled to an association with mums and dads. (full stop)
Not to protect this is wrong. UNder CYFS s.15 it is called deprivation and warrants CYFS interest should they Ever be so inclined. You chose to overlook this principle saying “it is too hard and you would discriminate against a group”. Not unlawfully. If you can prove your view on this discrimination is unlawful against mine which is already tabled as such then we have to look at it deeper. But for the moment I reply: Objectively your subjective “opinion” does not qualify as unlawful which means that in both jurisdictions CIVIL or CRIMINAL the judgment goes my way.
So for my subjective view - the first here, in answer to your subjective question and statement among many, many, many, many many Julie - what do I want to have hapen for these children? I want us all to recognise that treating children like this has been and is a s hostile as the kind of abuse thousands upon thousands upon thousands of men go to jail for every week if not every day.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Benjamin,
First thing to you. EAT something. Your hunger strike is pointless. I am worried for your health.
Secondly,
I am shocked, Benjamin, in fact dumb founded;
What is so wrong with admitting you are stubborn? It is a gift as much as it is a liability. What is so wrong with being stubborn? It is how you use it that matters. Well I happen to think that your mother is cool. I like her. I meet heaps of men on this subject and I happen to put you as one of the best.
I have Dutch in me and we are known to be stubborn and BTW, we are also known to be be fussy in our house cleaning. But after having children, the house is second. I don’t mind marks on the window. LOL What is wrong with that. It is a heritage thing. Be proud of who you are. And what you are.
You are boring me. (sorry to say but there is no fun in promoting you) And yet that is also a European trait. Should I just be a pawn for you and write to politicians who don’t want to hear me? Or should I tell you how wonderful you are in hope that you might change things?
Or should I just walk away for this is just men speaking their voices and be happy with what I have going for me.
What is so funny is that you challenge males for being feminised and yet you are more expressive than most. it is you who is more feminine by going on about things. Your comments are a yard long (so to speak) and I have never yet heard normal men talk so much. Now do you understand that why I am wanting to get rid of all of you and start all over again? Aren’t I so mean? Sorry but I don’t think this is just your war.
Comment by julie — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 3:39 pm
Julie, surely you are not living with the assumption that men and women talk lots for the same reason, and not that I would want to second guess your response but it wouldn’t be oh ha, ha, ha.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Bevan,
Your comment is unfair. I have no problem with you. I never have. In fact I really want you to be in politics. We need people like you.
I know we come from different sides of the fence (so to speak) but I have never lost my respect from where you come from or who you are. I don’t promote many people, Ooops, sorry I don’t promote any…. yet I WILL promote you. You are a really good man Bevan. Don’t even question that. My disagreement with Jim Bailey and Benjamin has nothing to do with you as a person.
Comment by julie — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 5:57 pm
No it is not unfair, it is just a reminder to you, to retain a sense of humour and perspective, and to remember you are a leader, and not a follower….
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 11:21 pm
Fair enough Bevan,
A guy said to me on the weekend, “You can measure someone’s wisdom by the length of time it takes for them to lose their temper.”
I guess, I do not yet have much wisdom.
Comment by julie — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 7:45 am
Using your response Julie,
about how I am feminised by talking lots. By the way, you may not have read my withdrawal from the hunger strike on the third day. It would have been my third and my right eye only has one remaining skin after an infection I received after going into the Night Shelter as the only refuge after prison, which eventually will perferate and the body consumes its own organs when deprived of food starting weith the most sensitive which in my case would be my right eye and given I am involved as I am involved then I figure I have done enough and need all my health in order to maintain support for another of our leaders Vince Seimer, blah, blah, blah…
So what I just said is that I talk a lot, but what it is saying is different from just talk. It is about direct action. I complain because there are very few others who entertain the idea of direct action. Bevan who is among the direct, although as yet isn’t defining his continued push into what needs to be done - says teh same as I in response to you. Just carry on with what you are doing Julie, your active: your doing fine.
At some stage, I ask you to think back, in order to read back over what you have said in reply to me. You have missed the point to the degeree that reading what I am saying is boring. Fair enough you don’t have to read it but others will. Eventually they will have to.
I talked about the principles of the argument and how they are measured in order to be determined as sound by those any who control power. There are two principles. I said, you are working in the subjective, and I am working in the objective. The facts we are dealing with need to be assessed by any person making a decision on where to put their energy. DISCRIMINATION, is the word that defines the problem and it is the word that you used to question what I am saying.
What I have said is; in NZ discrimination is only relevant if it is unlawful. This is determined under s.21 of the HRA. My argument alleges that the acts and practices and protocols marginalising dads/fatherhood is called indirect discrimination and is unlawful. You in reply (and this is where I bore you) say I would be discriminating for my active position, against children already living without their dads, as if they are abused. I say - in my allegation, that there is an argument to say that these children are unlawfully discriminated agianst in order for their condition to occur. I say in both the balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt my position would be upheld. You have no grounds to contest what I have said because you do not comprehend the law. I say “what has my mother got to do with all of this?” I’m still dumbfounded Julie. This isn’t about you, as nor is it about me. Bevan says this in a much kinder fashion. Your passion eventually will give you to understand.
At this point, for those who also know the law, they will be agitated. They will be agitated because the law says quite clearly we are able to discriminate against children. This would wash my argument dowmn the gurler along with any sons and daughters who may get caught in its vortex.
But it doesn’t. In NZ to allow the COC bill to become an Act the authorities for whatever reason (and I allege they were forced) had to break protocol, practice and law in order to protect women to breed without men. This is proved by the variation from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC). Article 1 along with Article 9 was compromised in the draft law. This was recognised by the Attorney General but only for the more and very general condition of Article 1 which directly related to the age of discrimination against children. In NZ we say 16. In the jurisdiction of the UNCROC 18.
So while you do not feel comfortable as you reflect the views of countless New Zealanders , being drawn into the objective as claustrophobic proximity to this argument, there is nothing you can do, if you want to win your long standing battle to ignore it. This is just the same for the countless children who are damaged by the absolute vicious behaviour of those many administraters who have become efficient in the practice, and protocol as if by law of marginalising the relationships between father (particularly) and his son and or daughter.
Politically Julie, I don’t give a damn what you think about me - or even for that matter what you think. This about law and the breaking of those laws.
Emotionally, I like you a lot. I like your attitude and I like your tenacity. I admire women who are prepared to have a go because without them they will become weak and show the most disgraceful disrespect for those women through age who have given their lives and their devotion to making our world a better place. But they didn’t make that sacrifice as would the woman of today it would seem, just to make things better for themselves.
My mother - however, has nothing to do with this and nor should she be disrespected by being drawn into a very, very, very public debate - (not that she would object I am sure) thank you very much.
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 10:11 am
Here’ todays nz STUFF article relating directly to the topic of this thread.
Yes the fems and thier mangina lackies have done a terrific job of destroying the family unit. And now the handwringing about kids running feral, and children begetting children and all the attendant child abuse.
And here comes the jolly ‘ol socialist state to mop up the spoils of thier war upon the biological family. The naked take over of the family by the Helenist State and it’s modern day cadres from thier ’social(ist) services’.
Benjamin and Co,
Good on you for trying the legal pathway to getting Children’s rights to both parents and Men’s right to participatory fatherhood.
However I have no faith the ‘justice’ system will deliver you a fair outcome.
From my longstanding experience I’ve found that the human rights commission, omsbudsmen, family and district courts are perverse institutions with an inherant bias towards women and usually against men.
I’ve now reached a point with nz society of largely isolating myself from it.
I watch on with a mixture of bemusement and horror as a (MGTOW) shrugging my shoulders and saying to myself
“Ah well, give ‘em enough rope……..”
What that means is that I don’t wish for the total demise of nz society, but simply think
“Well if those idiots won’t listen then they shall reap the results of thier misguided rulings and social conventions………
Increasingly people living and working in security compounds / mini ‘Green Zones’, spiralling youth delinquency and crime, males increasingly detatched and alienated from society, widespread drug and alcohol abuse, hedonism and narcicism.
It’ll reach a point where things get so bad that like the alcoholic who’s hit rock bottom the denial will give way to realisation, grief and a drive to rebuild a better way.
I for one don’t think we’re there yet as evidenced by recent events, and I suppose whilst nz rides the world-wide commodity boom it’ll trundle on for some time to come, enjoying some economic sunshine and turning a blind eye to it’s dirty washing piling up.
Coming back to the topic of this thread I fully expect Helen Clarke will seek a position in the largely socialist modelled UN and from there seek to buttress feminist nz.
It’s a grim prospect, but perhaps there’s wisdom in that old counselling maxim……”What’s the worst thing that could happen, and how would you deal with it?”
Comment by Stephen — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 11:56 am
Stephen,
I couldn’t have said it better.
As Orwell said, eventually Nature makes us all honest.
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Thanks Rob.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 12:18 pm
I’ll read the Stuff link next. I believe it can be marked from what you say, for its unprecedented existence that it will begin to excite tinking and the vacuum of efficient and effective blokes in our society working against the oppression will be sought. They, of course, will be found from within the ranks of those presently articulate who accomodate the oppression - sort of like Julie’s complaint on Warwick Pudney.
Word for word agreement Stephen, and most especially where you emphasise what one any could expect from the present administrations as to how they respond. That’s where I come in. That is where things now are entirely different. You haven’t yet tasted the spoils of my arguments because they have never beofre been presented and their result born as reframing societal presumptions into the realm of human functionality.
Your value in this will be extraordinary where you (like Scrap et al) will be one of those individuals who has spent countless hours exploring the condition and evasive practices of an oppressive societal block. When I say block I talk about the Great Wall of Feminism. But to be valuable you have to comprehend what is happening in order effectively to compete, and MGTOW is far from competing with a wall, it is saying to the feminists - you tear it down and then come and talk to us. Yeah right - tui tui tuiau.
Thank you for your respect for our efforts. I am saying we need you. I am not really interested in how you have built your approach to the problems in the past with the application you chose of MGTOW. What I am interested in is NOW. You’ve helped to achieve change - because just like Jim Bagnall you are a fighter to the end, philisophically and practically - you will have voided your emotional secuurities in order to challenge the adverse conditions about which you complain - but you haven’t been direct. Now - for the first time you have that opportunity. You can fly that flag with confidence that teh great wall of feminism has a massive crack all through its foundation. That crack is where women have decided to abandon their natural responsibility to children in order to better life for themselves. Well fiar enough - yet they have bastardarised the child as if that is a valuable commodity. Exploit it to bring change.
cherbro -
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Nature is a commodity to be marketed only by its exploitation.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Benjamin,
I am glad you are still writing back to me. I feel sick when I am challenging you because I make it personal and it is an attack on you.
I know what Jim thinks of me. I know he likes me as a person and I like him. But I fear he waits for me to fail. And I fear that I won’t. I know that sounds silly but it will affect him. He has a lot of wisdom but I don’t listen because I have to try. It is in my nature to do this.
When you think I am not for you, then I get upset. You do not need to question me and you don’t need to fear me. I am not wanting to be a champion. If you think I am over stepping the mark into male’s territory then wait and see what the likes of the Maoris will think.
I can get myself into trouble But that is why I am just wanting to put the word out there.
Your mother isn’t being dragged into this but I do listen to mothers about their sons. Sometimes they know them better than they know themselves. lol
Sorry, if I have offended you.
Comment by julie — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Relative to a sexual union with me Julie, you are not for me, if this is in anyway to be inferred or implied.
In regards to your consistencies with getting a societal damage under control you are already streets ahead of other women, where you step beyond those elements that hurt others, for whatever reason challenging on and on. That: is a demand in humanity. If your genuine as you present then you deserve any accolade you are so awarded.
You haven’t offended me in the slightest. My mother is one of the toughest nuts around. Where do you think my “stubbornness” came from ?
Maori is the plural. Maoris don’t exist; nor should they be so judged. Your not Maori as nor are you male.
So now that’s clear, if it is indeed clear as you perceive keep doing what you are doing, you are doing a fantastic job.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Benjamin #31
I don’t blame you. lol
Comment by julie — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 6:18 pm
I think I may have gone overboard in challenging Benjamin online. I am sure there are a number of MRA’s that would look down on me or be fearful of me because I am acting like their wives or feminists may to them.
So, what can I do? Well, I can’t change what has happened but I can learn from it.
To the writer of this post…. I hope you do not stop writing on this site just because I am scary. That would be sad to loose such wisdom.
Comment by julie — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 2:26 pm
You alright there Julie? You seem to be facing the wall. Turn around
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Gosh thanx Benjamin,
I do speak about this to my male friends. I don’t live in the same world as MRA or feminists. I am sure of it. So, I find it hard to fit in.
I will kick a male and I have once (not hard and not abusively) but I WILL do it to make sure he doesn’t get into a state of, “I feel sorry for myself” because that is sooooo destructive.
Men’s lives are at stake to fall in this trap of victim hood just as females are. And I am no softer to them. There are heaps of people out here that don’t fall for this crap.
And that sort of makes us different from masculinists and feminists. I struggle to be a part of this victim shite. So I am hard. Hard is good for the hard core but not for the soft. And today we have a lot of soft people. I am not very good at relating to them. Yet I have watched them die. I am not sure what to do with them. So just like most people who are caught between PC and the real world, I am outside of the mainstream.
Comment by julie — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Now Benjamin,
I come across even meaner. I don’t mean to say that the world is all good and that it is people who bring things upon themselves. Well, not now that I know feminism is a real pain for males. I didn’t know this as many men themselves don’t know this. Anyhow. enough babbling on.
Somewhere, someday, somehow, I will change but it is just not this day. lol Maybe tomorrow.
Comment by julie — Wed 15th August 2007 @ 4:57 pm