Why are (MGTOW) men going thier own way?
One pertinent reason it’s happening
Scroll down to the first comment, grip yourself and read.
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 24th July 2007
46 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Posts RSS 2.0
You like this MTGOW don’t you Stephen. I wish I had of met you before you left NZ. Even as a female friend I would have given some balance to your thinking.
I personal hate it, and I don’t use hate very often. But I HAVE to promote it for the safety of young men. But at the same time I am worried about it’s consequenses.
I am really, really, really worried of what this is going to do to our young. Have you seriously giving this thought about them?
I know that sounds silly when I am going to put a pager on our booklet for the males and females at Univeraity but do you actually understand the consequenses?
Comment by julie — Tue 24th July 2007 @ 4:24 pm
It’s not really a question of liking MGTOW Julie. It’s more an acceptance of it as the most rational response to a widespread social problem.
Many men now believe Law has effectively created a situation where they are treated as prey, and women as hunters. MGTOW is telling men that it is better to avoid the hunt if they don’t want to end up homeless, blahblahblah (I’m sure you’ve heard this all before).
I know what it can lead to. Sarajevo comes to mind: a city that was home to 3 different communities who all got along well. Then something came along that made everyone there peculiarly conscious of what group they belonged to, and that safety could only be found amongst those in the same group. That’s what fear does to people. It drives them away from people they formerly trusted, and into a state of mind where only the worst can be expected from the other group.
It’s a recurring human pattern, amongst all people, regardless of race, nation or place in time.
But then again, the same potential exists between Maori and Pakeha, and we seem to have negotiated our way around the worst of that.
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 24th July 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Stephen,
Here’s a link to a blogger I just discovered who calls himself MGTOW student. He’s in his early 20’s and writes with a freshness, thoughtfulness and positivism that I found refreshing.
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 24th July 2007 @ 8:45 pm
To any readers who may be new to the term, MGTOW (Men Going their Own Way), here’s a summary from a commenter at cfmboards:
My own definition of MGTOW would be “A Personal Declaration of Independence”. (And now I must be going my way).
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 24th July 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Julie,
I doubt you could have given me more balance prior to my departing nz. On the contrary it’s me who has given you a much more balanced male friendly perspective.
I’m happy to be considered a MGTOW these days.
Rob,
thanks for the link.
It’s good to see a young man realising that MGTOW is a rational, peaceful and effective response to widespread misandry.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 24th July 2007 @ 9:32 pm
I must remember to plead; I was only a “MGTOW” man your honourable judge in court after the next jacked up feminazi influenced police raid and arrest- that regularly sees the blue gun thugs fill my house with their armed presence. No doubt the judge will think I am a certified nutbar, not a MGTOW man and order another compulsory mental health treatment order where I will be forcibly injected with psychotropic medication in the round cell again! I think some people in the men’s movement live on different planets?
Comment by dad4justice — Wed 25th July 2007 @ 8:14 am
Stphen,
Comment 5, you may be right. lol
I will look more into MTGOW and the links Rob has given.
I am just afraid of telling young males at University to not get married nor have children. But I am sure there is more to it than that. I did a few papers at Unitec some years back and I had made a group for studying prior to exams. I know how vunerable and impressionable these young men are. I just don’t want for us to do this without looking at the possible consequenses because I believe we will make change. Look how easily the feminists took females down paths they didn’t really want to go.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th July 2007 @ 10:36 am
Julie,
it isn’t a case of telling young men simply not to marry and have kids. Thinking that way misses the point entirely about MGTOW UNTIL such time as equal rights are attained.
That means rights in relationships, family, education and health.
Getting those overdue rights enshrined not just in the letter of the law, but in the spirit of how the law is interpretted will at this rate take many years.
Realize there’s such a thing to overcome as feminist judicial activism as well as feminist law. So it may even take decades depending upon how long feminist women and thier mangina consorts resist men getting fair treatment.
The alternative is to invite another generation of men to sacrifice themselves.
The beauty of MGTOW is it’s classic passive resistance.
Some things you can do to be a MGTOW are -
Don’t marry.
Don’t stay in the ratrace to ‘win’ or maintain female approval.
Withdraw support from current mainstream misandric culture - TV, websites, magazines, clubs, airlines, anything which gives privelige to women
and treats men as second class.
Spread the word to other men.
and encourage them to do likewise.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 25th July 2007 @ 8:59 pm
To counter the brainwashing in the colleges especially Women’s Studies courses, here’s recommended/compulsary reading for all young men going to college.
Feminism For Male College Students - A Short Guide to the Truth [www.AngryHarry.com]
Let all young men(and women) read it. And let them make up their mind about feminism - whether they agree with it or they don’t.
Then they can choose to fight against it - actively(FRAs) and/or passively(MGTOW) - or simply bow to the socialists/feminists.
Comment by mikeray — Wed 25th July 2007 @ 10:34 pm
The day I bow to the socialist feminazi pigs that are destroying NZ is the day I’ll put a bullet to my head !
Comment by dad4justice — Wed 25th July 2007 @ 11:30 pm
Pete you would be bowing to surrender if you ever put a bullet in your head.
I’ll openly admit that I cannot find the mortar to concretise this view of MGTOW. It is identical to wehat the feminsts want and has nothing to do with the functionality and relavent necessity to rules of humanity. Its independence is exactly identical to that of the extreme feminists who have driven our present condition. It is all about SELF.
Pete’s right to get angry about feminism in this thread. It’s damage was drawn from this map in thinking.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 26th July 2007 @ 8:28 am
Say a prayer Ben as the Judges are right now thinking about a judicial decision that could change family law as we know it in New Zealand .
Justice is coming you destructive feminazi family haters !!
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 26th July 2007 @ 8:53 am
I talked to a young fellow a couple of days ago, and I’m talking early 20’s here. He had been involved in two serious relationships with which he had a view to long term, children etc. He didn’t have any awareness of what we might for argue sake; call the men’s rights movement. He was totally devastated from the used and abused attitude that these two girls had ditched him with. The guy was no lemon. Excuse my French, but this is what I got “fuck women, they are just not worth it.” Basically I think what he was saying was, if you put up with that shit you got to be to lazy to wank. After what he told me I can’t blame the guy. How much do women think they can get away with and still have the respect of a man.?
Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 26th July 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Benjamin,
you say -
“I’ll openly admit that I cannot find the mortar to concretise this view of MGTOW. It is identical to wehat the feminsts want and has nothing to do with the functionality and relavent necessity to rules of humanity. Its independence is exactly identical to that of the extreme feminists who have driven our present condition. It is all about SELF.”
On the contrary I believe you misunderstand MGTOW.
It’s about men taking care of themselves AND others by extension.
Let me concretise it for you with an example.
One of the things I wrote in an earlier post in this thread was -
“Some things you can do to be a MGTOW are -
Don’t marry.
Don’t stay in the ratrace to ‘win’ or maintain female approval.
Withdraw support from current mainstream misandric culture - TV, websites, magazines, clubs, airlines, anything which gives privelige to women
and treats men as second class.
Spread the word to other men.
and encourage them to do likewise”.
So let’s say I come accross an instance of unfair female privilege like Air New Zealand won’t allow men to sit next to an unaccompanied child on thier airplanes, but they will allow women to sit next to unaccompanied child.
Now I can simply roll over like fido the labrador and accept this or I can be a MGTOW about it.
I can make sure I don’t use Air New Zealand and sue other airlaines that don’t have misandric policy.
Another concrete example - you don’t like the way a particular TV station portrays women as smart, independant, sexy - and portrays men as idiotic slobs. Then don’t use that TV channel.
Now, those are the acts of individuals so in that sense you’re right to see that MGTOW are about self. But in doing so you miss the point that these actions of passive resistance have social currency. These acts model for others appropriate male pride. Telling others you’re avoiding marriage because it’s too risky for you as you’re male, that you avoid sexist airline carriers and TV shows, that you don’t shop anymore at Bodyshop because they sponsor assistance programs for women but not men etc.
All these individual actions have social ramifications.
Every individual man can chip away at feminist misandry every day in a miriad of ways by following such principles. He can also feel proud in knowing that his selfish act is also creating a better fairer and more just SOCIETY FOR ALL.
Now as to the point that MGTOW creates the kind of society that feminists want. Yes it does require the seperation from feminist culture and institutions that are prevalent today. However in seperating thus one by one men and women who join them undermine feminist hegemony and create another culture entirely.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 27th July 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Sorry Benjamin (and other readers).
In the previos post I wrote -
“I can make sure I don’t use Air New Zealand and sue other airlaines that don’t have misandric policy”.
I should have typed USE insted of SUE in that sentence!
Comment by Stephen — Fri 27th July 2007 @ 1:29 pm
My point Stephen is that the act you describe is one of running away. There is nothing proactive in it at all. It is a simple form of saying it is all just too hard - so come on guys lets all do the same.
I am proud that I ghot married even if it ended in divorce. That type of relationship with a woman demands dedication, trust and commitment. I wouldn’t want to be in a committed relationship unless those grounds where established as its institution. That’s why people get married. It offers some form of acceptance of guarantee. The feminist problem as it has evolved into its and our extreme is a completely different paradigm to the institution of a relationship and its boundaries. That it has infected that institution is a dilemma to which men should respond, but blowing the institution out of its context in unity is like using a nuclear warhead to wipe your bottom.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 28th July 2007 @ 12:49 pm
My point Benjamin is not as you state to simply run away ad infinitum.
Think of it as a proactive and reasonable boycotting of something which for the time being has become noxious.
As for nuclear bombs and arse wiping that’s not a metaphor I relate to.
I understand thst marriage has been hollowed out by feminist inspires laws which mean that anyone (most usually the woman) can unilaterally on the merest of whims divorce thier spouse. Subsequent actions can lead to emotionally and economically devastating that spouse as many of us men can attest to.
I suggest there is the ‘nuclear bomb’
Still, by all means go out there and try to change the institution of marriage into something that’s actually workable and safe for men again.
I suppose you’ll have to overcome ‘no-fault’ divorce laws as part of that.
As for myself and many other men I know I’m content to be a MGTOW for I believe when enough men boycott marriage (as growing numbers are) because it’s injurious to thier wellbeing it will force societies to change marriage/De facto laws. Either that or those societies will become depopulated and eventually perish. Gone in the dust of matriarchal history.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 28th July 2007 @ 1:24 pm
The complications on fault through marriage and its impact to divorse are not justiciable (can be judged) factors if the lines between social and criminal intent if we wish to preserve freedom to be human.
So the problem, whatever it may be cannot be resolved under those conditions because so to do requires the authority of one any over one any other. So the focus can only be put on the separation before justifying the divorce and this is what we do not do. This is what we must do if we wish to achieve a better plurality as consistent to the institution. This concept expanded encompasses the difficulties preceding family court issues as the Family Court is presently operated. Mediation isn’t primary in this at all, although it does, of course, bare significance to any practice chosen or agreed to by the parties. What I am saying is that on separation, every separation at the point of its realisation, a plan is required from which to function. The reason for this state interference is to destabilise the adverse conditions that can eventuate that lead to and end in court. This condition would separate again the difference between a defacto relationship and a marriage. It would mitigate the use of lawyers on separating proceedings and better prepare each individual (as mutually exclusive) emphasising children, about to enter what may well be worst and most traumatic period of their adult lives.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 28th July 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Benjamin,
Would you put that last post of yours in plain english? Some of us don’t talk legalese.
If we could understand what you’re saying then we could respond.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 28th July 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Stephen,
it isn’t that you cannot understand or that it is confusing. It is that you have lost the ability to interpret what it says.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 29th July 2007 @ 10:10 am
Benjamin,
I’m not the only one who can’t decipher your writing sometimes. Looking back through previous threads I see others have asked you to write in plain english too.
I doubt I’ve lost the ability to interpret plain english. I’ve had no trouble interpretting other writers on this forum for years.
I’ve had three university educated buddies here look at your writing style and they ALL end up scratching thier heads and going “WTF?”
You say “it isn’t that you cannot understand or that it is confusing. It is that you have lost the ability to interpret what it says”.
There’s a contradiction there.
One either can understand or cannot.
Again my buddies and I are looking at this statement and going “WTF?”
Comment by Stephen — Sun 29th July 2007 @ 1:18 pm
It means that you too have become feminised and consistent with the practices you espouse in philisophical defiance of those one in the same principles. If you know what I mean - which I am sure now you don’t. But understand means to under stand which is my original point. This is the difficulty; and as it is compounding the chance of interpreting ones way out is lost. Comprehension too is different from interpretation.
Yet: what I said was that marriage (not de facto relationships)require a separating plan should this unfortunate situation occur. The plan should not be the bodied representation of mediation (although inclusive of) but dealt with by intervention for practices of gender equity (although I just added that bit).
The challenge I describe and why I say you have lost the ability to interpret is that your mind (and mirror) are clouded to how you would have the situation be responded to for your own circumstancial opinion against how we as a society would be best equipped to deal with its own systems to dysfunction.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 11:27 am
Benjamin, when I say I can’t understand your writing sometimes and get told it’s because in your opinion I’ve become feminised and clouded I feel insulted and alienated.
I have no trouble talking every day with PhD holders, studying complex academic texts and deciphering several languages and dialects. I’m not trained to decipher legalese though.
I’m clear that my command of the english language is high - indeed I was an english teacher for several years recently.
If you want to make yourself understood by folks I suggest you write in plain english and avoid brandishing defensive insults like ‘feminised’ and ‘clouded’ in future.
In my expeience that’s a lawyerly way of attacking someone’s personality when they don’t agree with you and they ask you to change your behaviour (in this case about an issue related to marriage and a request to excercise plain english)
The personal attack is blatant and offensive. It also just alienates others.
Play the ball and not the man and I’m sure I and others will have much more respect for you.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Stephen,
you miss my frustration and reply in the same vein. In your metaphor you suggest that the man isn’t carrying the ball where, Yes - you are right I am being rude - while not intending to alienate as this is your choice and not mine, a pair of them.
You say you are not clouded reviewing the comments I make of you, insulted because I infer you are feminised and reply in competent recognition of your literal ability when I (although you could not know this) got only 33 (as I remember) for my attempt at sitting School C English. I apologise. I did not want to offend you I wanted you to and still want you to comprehend what I have said where it seems to go beyond your understanding.
I want people to get off their intellectual backsides and get onto the streets with some real protests. Stupid people like me (cannon foodder) get tired of taking all the hits where philosophers like you and your buddies figure out some kind of demonstrable stratergy that compounds the feminising condition - by running away from the issue. Don’t get married. Yes that solves it! Wonderful idea. And the extreme feminists and their ever supporting homosexual lobby group scream in all abundance “We are the Champions” Victory.
Besides that - I have the utmost respect for you. Your a dad I believe. Good for you. Nothing like it.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Benjamin,
Thanks for the apology and finally some english plain enough to comprehend.
You misconstrue though. I’m not running away, nor merely philosophising either.
I agree that not getting remarried until the relationship laws are fair for men gives feminists something they’ll think is a victory. But like many men who are also MGTOW we understand that the vast majority of women want, in fact need to form close intimate relationships with men in order to reproduce and because they rightly percieve that men’s intellectual and physical prowess can benefit them. That’s despite 40 odd years of feminist garbage propoganda about women needing men like fish need bicycles.
Holy shit, by contrast to the feminist assertion of super-independence if all men went on strike tomorrow the comfortable, modern world as we know it would grind to a great clanking, mewling, juddering halt quick sharp. And that’s just counting the stoppage of the enormous good men do outside the home, let alone in domestic situations.
So, anyway if you search the web as I have to look at women’s attitudes to MGTOW, I believe you’ll find that there are a growing number of women who not only understand and support men boycotting modern marriage as a noxious bad risk, but these women are clearly pissed off with feminists for spoiling thier chances of getting a fella because so many men are now going on marriage strike and becoming MGTOW.
Paradoxically then, going on marriage strike and being a MGTOW is WINNING a growing number of female allies, it actually IS TAKING ACTION (not just philosophising) and it’s turning what at first seems like a feminist victory into A HOLLOW SHORT TERM ‘VICTORY’ as it forces women to confront thier man-hating sistas in order to support men and have them as mates.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 31st July 2007 @ 10:16 pm
Stephen,
you really are not getting what is being said. Your advocacy is an action on hope. Your statistics in action, those that justify your thinking against more direct and combative action is based on a premise that “this is how they will react”. They won’t. Or - more to your point - what if they don’t. Then what? Under your clouded view there is no back up point. There is no remarriage and if it all goes belly up then it all goes belly up. Your statistics are built from the internet and your articulation and power is the popular thought - which in a desperate world may well be quite popular.
I am asking you to separate yourself from such subjectivity. Look at marriage as the strenght of unity between male and female where the commitment is made between gender to cohabit and procreate.
You assume in you excitement for how women will respond saying they need men yet fail to recognise the principle of what I have been saying to you all all this time. Since the COC Bill was put into place this is no longer the truth. Legally. No need for men any longer. The COC bill replaces the need for a cock. Don’t you get this?
After that all that is needed is to diminish the support and recognition of value to any who could be considered the Alpha male. The Alpha male, or the host of the warrior gene is the serious enemy of the feminist movement or more specifically the homosexual faternity. in order for these groups to be succesful they have to knock out the behaviour of direct and deliberate action by demand. They have to knock over discipline in order for the world to be able to surrender.
So you have surrendered marriage as the bastion of the heterosexual union. And from an intellectual perspective you defend this action by saying we reckon it is going to be all OK.
So when will you call off your strike: “When I’m 64″?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 10:21 am
Benjamin,
I’m enjoying your plain talk now. Refreshing.
Just a quick response as I’m busy.
I doubt that women will want to give up on marriage in favour of mass in vitro fertilisation programs, so cock is definitely necessary for pro creation for the foreseeable future.
My observations of women aren’t soley based on the internet but on my everyday life. Still I will admit I’m not in nz at present and perhaps the women over there have become even more harder and more supremacist.
I’m not sure I ever want to marry again. Let alone when your 64. At least not in the west anyway. I can count on one hand the number of attractive women I know these days and even one of those could concievable turn into a haridan at any moment and have the full weight of misandric law on her side to flatten me with. Been there, got the t shirt. Not going back again.
As for surrendering marriage a the bastion of heterosexual union. I believe it was surrendered long ago with the enshrining in law of the stupid ‘no fault’ divorce laws and the setting up of that infamous star chamber known by that double-speak misgnomer ‘the family court’.
I’ll respond more fully later.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 10:47 am
Sure -
so we arrive back in the place where I ask what are “we” going to do about it? The response from this group, with the exception of Julie’s meeting, Viv’s protest, Paul Catton’s IRD challenge and my stuff - is pretty much nothing. There is no male unity let alone any connection that the bastion of the heterosexual union collapse needs anything more than a recognition of “this is how we got here”.
Hang on - this isn’t quite right. The Republicans are doing their stuff. Yet they have not yet shown that they are taking into consideration the facts exposing corruption, sheltering themselves in the cushion of democratic process where anything is excusable so long as you have authority over the public interest. Cynical? You believe it.
BTW you are wrong. There are simply thousands of frozen gametes. And BTW you are wrong - (even if you didn’t write as much) the status quo is not inpregnable from pragmatic marketing that comprehensively disaffects gender equity…
I passed by a new advertisment on a building wall today. It was consistent with Bevan’s post about Hell Pizza. They had a picture of Russell Crow in gladiator suit and a quote from the movie (or at least it was written as if it was a quote) “On my word - open hell”.
In Wellington our youth are starting to congregate in manners Mall like I have not seen in the two years I have been living down here - and this includes living on the streets and knowing by casual aquaintance the local youth. They are more and more dressed as if they are marketing products of the Pizza.
Another example - if you can follow my drift, this morning the new provisions of teh Evidence Act 2006 have been announced which entitle more hear say evidence to hit the courts. This means that allegations hit with the identical weight ordinarily reserved for a term of due process and its eventuating end of justice as we know it. Can you not see what is happening? Principle and discipline have to be eroded to remove from practice those provisions established to conserve discipline and principle. The Evidence Act had to be released at the same time as Peter Hodgson’s actions to compete with domestic violence in the manner elected because they both employ instruments necessary to configure fact to the feminist agenda.
With a bit more marketying the excitement you herald as natural for women toward men will have been effectively eroded and women will have control over every instiution they want.
While it is us blokes are complacent then it will be all the better for women and their homosexual backbone by surrender from masculinity. Marriage is our instrument of security: yet I repeat you leave it as if it isn’t the house of your own necessity.
I don’t care if you get married again, or for that matter if I get married again, but for my son and daughter: who is required to protect them against what we as the champions in this field are the only enemy to beat.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 11:10 am
Benjamin,
Step back a bit from viewing humanity through a socially-constructed lens.
We are a species competing to survive, like any other. When we grow to numbers too large for our environment, we either have to get creative and invent a means of increasing the environment’s carrying capacity, or we die.
Guess who bears the burden of both of these outcomes? It’s no secret that men have been disproportionately responsible for growth in the environment’s capacity to support human life (aka economic growth). As for dying when there’s too many people, think wars, work-place accidents, shorter life-spans and lifeboats for the women and children.
Women use us as a buffer against population pressure, as they have always done (they also use the unborn for the same purpose - China has used abortion as a depopulation measure for decades now). It’s one of the reasons there is such a stark divide along gender lines around the abortion issue. Men are conditioned to value life, hope for the best and throw themselves thoroughly at whatever problems come their way. Women are conditioned to assure their own survival above all else. It isn’t clever politics, and it isn’t changeable. It’s behaviour written in our genes. The best we can do to stop these competing priorities turning ugly is to subject each of us to the same pressures, and yes, you are right, marriage does that when the law doesn’t meddle with it.
But no matter how disposable we men may seem to be, it isn’t in women’s interest to see our numbers reduced. If the human race became predominantly female, there would be nothing between women and peril when the next population squeeze occurs.
I don’t believe any of the things we intellectualise, like the value of marriage or the effect of MGTOW, is happening for any of the reasons we think. I do believe millions of years of evolution has ingrained in us automatic responses for dealing with over-population and under-population - our forbears have been through these scenarios thousands of times before, and they didn’t survive because of their Masters degrees in Sociology or Urban Planning.
Put simply, our species’ reproduction rates are plummeting, male fertility is in decline, women and men are separating - be it divorce, declining marriage, Women’s Lib, MGTOW - and the state’s institutions treat men with ever decreasing rights and dignity. I wonder if we have a little population pressure coming? I wonder if we’re all just slipping into that gear we occasionally slip into, where a few too many souls need to be relieved of their surplus lives - another Somme or Messines perhaps?
And, Oh, apparently our numbers are such
now that we’re actually altering the world’s weather.
Comment by Rob Case — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Sure, that started well for me Rob and I took a step back from my constructions in social manipulation if that’s what they are where by my instinct I disagree that this is what I have presented.
You recognise that our population has been traditionally manipulated in order to accomodate societal comprehension whether or not that condition is true - and you draw back to the events of nature that erode entire communities for a quick sneeze from God’s left or right nostril (should God be of such possession) and I think entertain that nature indeed has a means of running its own course, populating or destroying mountains or fields with men or mice.
Yet I point is missed in this. Sure there will be men. But what kind? You see, the kind of man who will allow women to tage the stage to control our existance in a societally acceptable way for the kind of woman who would take such control has to be manipulated to exist. Otherwise women will all wear shawls around their faces, yet if they don’t do as they are asked can get stones thrown at their heads while their bodies are embedded to sand. Or at least this is the extreme that women who wish to control men, can establish as a fear for other western influences to avoid. And, of course, today’s response by such women is to establish as legal fact that all women who could attend a hospital should be protected from an inherently violent fact that they are likely (and their children) to have been subjected to sexual or physical violence and that this warrants an intervention of extraordinary propportion. One the breaches our human rights legislation. For women to command in the workforce and to empower their particular stands agaisnt the predominant tendancy of men to adjust those circumstances better to provide for themselve they must demasculate society.
So my observations then are linked into societal cohersion in order to adjust again against this comprehension adding a bit of seasoning of my own by replying our blokes just aint bloke enough any more.
Which brings me back to my point as against the position you present which I will not contest because I seem to have talked myself into its truth. Do I want to stop extreme women from doing this? You bet your life!
I’ve just returned from the Human Rights Commission. Here, in NZ, our Ministry of Health released today a thing called “Violence Intervention Programme”. Some people are complaining. I am complaining. I want to interfere with what it does and how it is being done for the above reasons as well as a few others. So I have complained today to the Commission. This is what I wrote:
Incident: Violence Intervention Programme. 1 August: Protocol released to hospitals coordinating questions to be asked of women attending hospital, if they have been subjected to any forms of violence physicial or sexual.
(1) This event is a capitalisation of the discriminative proceedures that have been allowed and encouraged to progress as directly blaming men as the perpertrators of domestic violence (national).
(2) This act culminates in its open and flagrant disrespect for laws against discrimination Human Rights Act s.21 1 (a) by recognising the male as the perpertrator of domestic violence without having accepted, or affectively researching - or questioning - those groups who are or have been directly accused of instituting that violence. It discriminates unlawfully against sex (men).
(3) Allegation (2) should be researched as incorporated into my complaint to be presented to the Ombudsman #W57407 on the complicity of the Human Rights Commission aiding and abetting a practice of discrimination that is suitable to the purpose of that administration and its various employees. (BTW - not in my complaint - the staff board was 13 women and 4 men).
(4) Through a lack of reporting or recording or independence focused on injustices toward men from resulting judgements of the Family Court - a presumption - has been able to be exploited and manufactured to create false statistics on the male contribution to domestic violence.
(5) These statistics have established falsely the view that the Ministry of Health Violence Intervention programme is demonstrably justifiable when as discriminatory and for the absense of publicly accessible and testable information it is not.
(6) It is wrong to abuse children. It is wrong to abuse women. It is wrong to abuse men.
There are a few more pieces to the complaint but those are just me growing longer whiskers so that if the complaint get rejected I have at least something that I can yank at to keep my temper steady.
BTW: I answered you about your comment on s.4 on the Bill of Rights. s.6 and s.7 are immune to its meaning as they are not any other enactment. Scrap thinks providing such an answer to a claim he and you made to reject the structure of my argument is a waste of time (thinks I’m yanking anyway) what say you in reply?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Benjamin,
I thought I had answered it, but probably not directly.
I think the wording of the sections are such that you could get a favorable ruling if a court was so inclined. I don’t see the law as your difficulty. Finding a court willing to rule as you would want it definitely is.
Like Scrap, I’m doing nothing more than use past experience as a guide to future outcomes. Not perfect I know, but it’s not without its wisdom.
Someone always breaks the rule though, and I sincerely hope you do. But I’m not betting my energy or time on it.
Comment by Rob Case — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 4:28 pm
Further evidence for my belief that the judiciary is indisposed toward rulings in favour of men can be had here:
http://lbduk.org/Latest%20news.htm
It’s a report of legal outcomes in the Ontario Court of Appeal by gender. No surprises what it reveals - men are getting shafted in these courts, and it’s likely New Zealand’s figures follow a similar pattern. Some judges are far harder on men than others, but not one was found to be more favorable to men than women.
Ultimately, this works against women. When men begin to routinely see the courts as biased, they cease to be judgemental of those who are convicted. How can you see a convicted rapist as reprehensible when the chances of him being innocent are too high?
Comment by Rob Case — Wed 1st August 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Thank you for the reply.
And it exposes an interesting factor, based from your opinion to your objectivity. I already have the answers that you describe having already broken the rule on this topic. I took the situation into the court of appeal on my own case: The justices said that it did not have to look at the circumstances I presented as they did not create a question of law: knowing full well that my argument wasn’t about the question of law but about its constiution; and as you describe I would win; and as I pursue, and as you refer with information of value, there are many men who are the victims of the discrimination I challenge who are dead from suicide, in prison for domestic violence or incriminated and without contact with their sons and daughters who are in every fact innocent. I hope you understood what I just said.
What is being tested now as I continue to complain is why the justices allowed themselves the delusion to believe that I did not have the right to appear before them and make this complaint when so to do meant that they were forced to lie - as to keep me out of their court with my challenge, thereby exposing themselves to the breach of comity (goodwill in independence between judiciary and executive) that renders sovereignty void. And lie they did, they did, they did I tell you!
So we arrive back into this position of question about those who complain about an injustice but are not prepared to back up their words with their actions. Interestingly this condition is consistent with masculinity and the feminisation of a nation, and this is againn where I lay my challenge at your door - with respect as it can best be mustered given the conditions. I’ve already created a serious breach in the wall that you all challenge and continue to agitate its expanse. Vince Seimer, the same, has done the same and is in prison for his troubles faced with a horrendous debt and on a food strike without end attached where he seems to not want to remove the evidence that our judges and justices are potently corrupt and knocking off the whistle blowers. So where are the armies of men to say we won’t tolerate injustice? I figure that we can count them on one or two hands, if not one or two fingers.
Yet when I say this I get knocked down. It’s like saying, talk about injustice yet just don’t point any fingers. I don’t have disrespect for you - Stephen, Scrap/James or anyone else really what I want if we are not going to face the problems in strength and together is just to be honest about it - sort of like how you imply. “I am not prepared to retaliate - I will let this abuse of my gender and status get the better of me”.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 10:52 am
Rob,
interesting speculation.
2 things don’t add up in it.
1. It’s paroquially assuming humans don’t colonise other planets but are confined to only having the one constrictive environment to use - earth.
2. That humans are the cause of climate change. This has been heavily critiqued by many scientists - go to Youtube and enter great climate swindle.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 10:54 am
Benjamin,
It’s great that you’re using your legal expertise to challenge the courts.
I do indeed understand what you’re saying here -
” there are many men who are the victims of the discrimination I challenge who are dead from suicide, in prison for domestic violence or incriminated and without contact with their sons and daughters who are in every fact innocent”.
I don’t agree however with the idea of men using passive resistance being branded as feminine. I still see them as masculine just different in thier means of protest.
I think the assertive challenging of the courts through appeals and public protests to give men a fair shake AND an increasing number of MGTOW is just the right combination to move things along nicely.
You’re working at another level and using your skills there Benjamin that’s all.
In my own way I am however working tirelessly every day to overthrough misandry.
I’m so tired of female supremacist values and many women’s smug sense of entitlement that these days I assess every woman I meet. She must PROVE herself IN WORD AND DEED to be sensitive to and supportive of men’s rights. Otherwise she’s rejected and quietly ostracise. Long gone are the days when I automatically assumed the women I met were sensitive and caring towards men.
Given the prevalence of women who appear to embody cold indifference towards men and female entitlement and supremacism the list of women I’m now doing this with grows daily.
A woman only has to forgoe saying thankyou for advice I give her by using MY brain a couple of times and she’s struck out. She only has to be dressed seductively and using this disrtaction to pump men for info and she’s cut off from the moment I see her doing so from accross the room.
She only has to say something demeaning about a male relative or colleague and she’s dropped instantly. She becomes persona non grata.
I know through many conversations with men locally and internationally that this process is happening and from what I can see is quickening.
Women are increasingly getting the message that they can get things from men by virtue of misandric feminist laws, but at the personal level there’s a growing resentment and widespread MGTOW which impoverishes thier lives.
If they want to re-engage and thus benefit from the enormous cultural capital that MGTOW hold it’ll be on our terms which should be fair unlike the feminist shakedown of men we know so well.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 11:56 am
What I say Stephen doesn’t question these points of how you act in your day to day life and the philosophy you apply to competer with the adverse conditions about which we all complain.
The only area I have said anything, as I comprehend in anyway different is that MGTOW runs away from the instrument we must employ if men are to honour equity and honesty in a heterosexual union of dedication. We have already traversed this area comprehensively.
You’ve missed my points again and again and again, and really they are really quite clear. You say use the courts. I and Vince prove that the courts are and have been corrupted. You say this is a quite methodology. I say this is not so. Your miles away from changing anyhting and are living in your own centrist and safe world where you don’t have any responsibility to directly challenge the oppressor. Every time you reply you say the same thing. You - et al.
Their corrupt. We’ve proved it. Where’s the back up? Some ways over there wherever over there may ever be. Use the court? OK pay for it.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Yes Benjamin,
I get that the courts are corrupt and I think it’s great that you’re using your legal expertise to challenge them.
I disagree that I’m miles away from achieving anything however as I know from feedback that what I’m doing is also changing heart and minds who go on to persuade others of the veracity of men claiming equal rights. And like I said before it’s slow, tough house by house clearance stuff. But rest assured it’s happening.
A classic example (amongst many) would be the way I debated with and eventually educated Julie (who is conspicuously absent these days)from her formerly poor me feminist princess entitled attitudes to the point where she’s out in public rallying support for men’s rights. I don’t claim all the credit for that mind you as I know others also helped her get her head around understanding men’s issues.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 12:25 pm
Stephen,
I used the word “environment”, meaning “surrounding” or “conditions giving rise to development or growth” (my dictionary).
We could indeed colonise other planets or moons and that would be consistent with “increasing the carrying capacity of the environment”, as we would have physically increased the size of the environment available to sustain us.
Interestingly, in my experience anyway, it’s nearly always men who are excited by the idea of space colonisation - women seem to hate the idea. If the subject ever arises in conversation, it’s not long before (usually) a woman will opine that the money would be better spent on health, education and feeding the starving.
As for the global warming thing, I’m not on that band-wagon - too many vested interests contaminating the truth for my liking. But I note that all populations influence their environment in some way, whatever the species, and it stands to reason we are changing ours. I think the whole global-warming issue is polarising itself away from this underlying proposition, to a global argument that because we are all trapped in a finite lifeboat (the earth), we must accept the severe rationing of our freedoms that must follow. It is a naked power play.
I think I’m being most speculative in saying that when we can’t come up with a reasoned explanation for why something is happening, we tend to deny that it is happening at all.
Take these factors:
-plummeting birth rates
-decline in male fertility
-increasing divorce rates
-women choosing “independent” lives
-men on marriage strike, and MGTOW
-cost of raising children rising exorbitantly
All of these factors are blaring at us with the message “NO MORE CHILDREN, WE HAVE ENOUGH”.
But we just don’t seem to get it. We can’t connect these factors together with a unifying explanation, so we just ignore them. Population crisis? What crisis?
I certainly can’t provide that explanation.
Comment by Rob Case — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Incidentally, back in the real and personal world, I’m also applying the acid test to women and their attitudes.
I listen for anti-male sentiment and provide them with fairly useful feed-back. It works. I don’t often get subjected to the same invective twice, and it registers that we men are starting to get uppity.
Unmarried men can do this far more easily than others.
Comment by Rob Case — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Bevan suggested a writ of Habeous Corpeus (don’t know how to spell it) to get Vince out. We can use my argument to prove that he was justified to put up and retain his website. Judges cannot contest the facts when they are presented consistent with the truth and its demand to be explored.
I draw $40 a week out of the bank on which to live every week. I only do this because I have a submission in before the Select Committee to bring to the attention of parliament that MW is acting as invulnerable having directly manipulated her responsibility to a public protection to hide a manipulation by entitlement so that women can remove from children their inherent and as protected by the UN association with dad.
I’m getting too busy to be able to file for the case myself although would be wanting as I would have to be part, to participate in its constiution, so lawyers would be necessary.
I’m used to these blank responses: so ask instead if there is fund raising going on to challenge in court these things we want to put into effect?
Don’t men need to take better responsibility for their own marginalisation before we spend our investment either in colonising distant worlds or putting it into health? Got me beat - that’s for sure.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 1:01 pm
tephen,
You have done very well to educate me but … (there is no BS after this butt)
I think that you have just been critical of me and I am visiting the hospital tomorrow. lol
Comment by julie — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 9:34 pm
BTW,
It is all go on flyers.
They are blunt and anti feminist. Angry Harry’s site has been great to get information from. They are about MTGOW. And they are also referring to here so hopefully we will be educating a new crowd.
Comment by julie — Thu 2nd August 2007 @ 9:37 pm
Great work Julie. Where are you passing them out?
Comment by Rob Case — Fri 3rd August 2007 @ 12:52 am
Julie,
Do you mean you are going to the hospital to hand out flyers?
If so then Kia Kaha sister.
Comment by Stephen — Fri 3rd August 2007 @ 1:05 am
I am taking someone to hospital for an operation.
The flyers are specifically for the universities as planned. But it won’t happen for at least a week because I have to wait for a cheque and others have volunteered their expertise and time.
Comment by julie — Fri 3rd August 2007 @ 5:17 am
Rob,
Thank-you for what you have donen also. This wouldn’t be happening if it wasn’t for your post or donation.
Comment by julie — Fri 3rd August 2007 @ 5:19 am