- 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

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

Wed 6th June 2007

The New Domestic Violence.

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General — Downunder @ 5:02 pm

Scoop Article

You just want believe this….

8 Responses to “The New Domestic Violence.”

  1. Frank & Earnest says:

    No doubt it is only the male caregivers, few as they are in yet another female domain, when men have been forced out through fear of malicious allegation of sexual impropriety, who are the violent abusers.
    Women aren’t violent, oh no!

  2. dad4justice says:

    June 7 Ch Ch press Infanticide case; A 21 —year-old who gave birth to a baby in a toilet in a Dunedin student hostel last year pleaded guilty to a charge of infanticide when she appeared in the High Court at Dunedin yesterday. Justice Pankhurst did not enter a conviction until the student completed her exams in November. The woman has been granted continued name suppression for at least the next 10 working days while a psychologist is consulted. The judge adjourned the sentencing to November.

    Question; would a man get the same treatment? Please don’t answer as this country is a feminist sewer!!!

    The day of compromise and weak -willed men is gone and I suggest the only way we crush this radical unfairness is for men to get a hold of a manual for combat courage as this unbalance must be stopped NOW !!

    I have a disbility affecting my health , is called being man in a gender bias country fill of soft cocks and radical feminists!

  3. Bevan Berg says:

    The reason I highlighted this is because it was domestic violence by a caregiver, look past the male issue. Caregivers are guilty of DV, that would then extend to children in cyps and borstal etc etc, then a caregiver would also be a relative, not any person in place of a parent. If we can’t get rid of(section 59) in parliament, we will make you subject to the family court another way. You thought they were giving up on section 59…they didn’t get what they wanted so they will do it another way. Ofcourse attacking domestic violence is a noble cause and I’m just a cynical old bastard – yeah right.

  4. Benjamin Easton says:

    Hi Bevan,

    the naming and shaming campaign from NZ and CYFSWatch has been turned back against the alleged absent dads of the UK.

    I agree with your comments on disability and DV. We all agree, or those active in the mens’ movement with whose policies I am familiar are committed to establish that we want DV out of the homes and that this can be done with responsible parenting; or in the case of caregiving responsible adminstrations. Comprehending the constitution of violence most obviously is the first place to start.

    In another post from Judy Turner’s recent statement as posted by Paul Catton, I have challenged the movement to “step up”, likening our inability so to do over some period to the condition of being at war where our forefathers honoured the demand of politicians committing their lives for the good of the nations’ to freedom, protecting Christian values standing to any end as our human backbone for what they believed to be “right”.

    You and I are both fully aware that DV takes on wider and other deeply vicious forms than those accepted here to occur in either the house or the department of the “caregiver”. This variation in the knowledge of violence not just to be in the home is a leapfrog over admitting that power against integrity and honour can be readily abused and that manifestation is as causal of other negative events as any direct blow or reprehensible sexual impropriety.

    In my letter I challenge our group to leave their comfort zones and become more active emplying that the will to excercise power before standing on the streets and bringing the challenge directly to the public is liken to an act of cowardice. I refer in that letter to you. I refer to you where you know in specific detail all of the componenets of my allegations against the improper behaviour of the state those that breach the constitution. You know for our conversations that there is no final argument against what i say: yet you also reply that the size of the state is the problem, not that the evidence may or may not exist. You know the evidence exists.

    Our nation is small. Yet we have achieved the biggest changes with the greatest ever challenges against overwhelming odds before. In the UK those dad’s who are about to be put up on a name and shame list are going to be exposed for their contribution to a problem which is of extraordinary detrimental proportion to the families of them and their son’s and daughters without the state taking account of its culpability in any reasonable form. The same or a similar response is occurring in New Zealand.

    The men isolated are alienated without the cause being addressed and they are indeed deadbeat. Those from many who have not killed themselves are wounded emotionally to an extraordinary degree and they have no champion in their midst. They sink deeper and deeper unable to respond but to listen to their hollow echo tapping away in an eroding mind.

    Where are organised groups from where the marshals or medics can be rallied to go to their aid… within the Salvation Army? The sallies cannot provide them with what they need. The sallies cannot champion thehir cause because the sallies only have the resource as limited to concentrate on the general carnage.

    I have written to you from my other address giving you as much credibility for you aratory, perception compassion and skill as I can possibly give. Yet this is all useless if you as a general stand in a field where because that is where you are standing, the battles will never be waged.

    Most respectfully Bevan,

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers colaition.

  5. dad4justice says:

    What else would you expect as the head researcher at the bias Families Commission is a man -hating radical dyke feminist ? Talk about bang your head against a concrete wall and DV will never be seen as a problem through balanced eyes . I get locked up for two weeks after sending my daughters birthday cards and a bitch who stuffs a baby down a toilet gets a slap on the wrist by the looney nanby panby gender bias Courts . The system breeds resentment and the frustration is going to strick back with torrid vengeance .

  6. dad4justice says:

    Strike back with vengeance .

  7. Benjamin Easton says:

    There should be no reason to strike back unless the strike is of the kind associable with the Duluth wheel. For as long as those who protest recognise the mechanisms to orchestrate change as being to respond as a victim the longer this new infectious regime of oppression can and will hold its ground. In order for feminism to gain the ground it has established it is dependent on those who would react against it being controlable by the law. The law is its primary strength and the more aggressive its respondents are to its violence the greater strenght and support it commands.

    However, if you look more deeply into the evolution of democracy and in NZ our version the better you can recognise the stability in the function of law. There has been an unwritten moral code that binds this nation to principle and honour. Yet now and most recently you will find those principles being eroded. The Billof Rights is constantly breached in order to push through a liberalism that demands a break of discipline.

    The energy of a movement to challenge this should be to get itself out and about by violence where if it is succesful it is in danger of disestablishing the founding work that has been done: that which dismantles an attitude of supreme power for the mail and overt subservience by the female. If the new challenge consists of logic and law this manipulation of the present conditions glorifying violence as the justification to rid the world of alpha males will not only be arrested but dissapated.

  8. Benjamin Easton says:

    Apologies for the confusion in the second paragraph: I mean that ther eshould be no requirement for violence. The challenge on the law should be enough. To use violence is to feed the strength of extreme feminism and its sympathisers. The weapon of effect is the law. The feminists have simply gone too far.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar