- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -

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

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

Wed 30th April 2008

Finally… but can I win?

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — Forgotten Father @ 2:00 pm

I am a week away from what will hopefully be the conclusion of a 5 year process for shared care of my children. Due to the time it has taken to get this far two of my four children are now over 16 and have lost the extra time they could have spent with me if the Family Court had been more attentive to me case. I am representing myself and have made numerous complaints about the time it has taken from two bouts of counselling to two bouts of mediation to two psychologists reports to the delay of the final hearing due to the unavailability of the lawyer for child and the psychologist. Apparently according to various people the delays are unavoidable and due in part to my refusals to certain requests i.e. psychologist reports. I have tried every avenue to try and amicably come to an agreement but have been knocked back at every stage. I currently have the two children under 16, 5 days a fortnight and I was willing prior to a full hearing to accept one extra day but in her wisdom my ex decided she wants what she has and is not willing to accept anything less. So my original application at the full hearing will be for 50/50 shared care. I have had a protection order against me strongly dismissed for wasting the courts time and there are no reasons as to why I should be denied 50/50 except that my ex maintains that this is what my children want. However they are telling me something completely different and have told the psychologist and their lawyer the same thing. Why then do a have this knot in my stomach like I know the result will not go my way. From what I have read on this site and others the Family Court remains heavily in favour of the mother and I am afraid the same will apply to me despite the fact that I offer my children so much more than their mother can. I do not wish to have more time than 50/50 nor discourage the children’s relationship with their mother but I am fully aware that I will somehow be portrayed in a bad light by my ex’s lawyer who by the way is being paid for by legal aid. I am trying to put everything together to make my case as strong as I can. I do feel a little underprepared in relation to precedents for shared care and non-removal (ex has discussed with the children about moving) as well as not knowing how to make submissions at the end of the hearing. Any advice, contributions, references to material I can use would be very helpful at this stage. Also does anyone know what my chances of having my current wife approved as a Lay Assistant. Up until now I have felt reasonably confident of success but as I get closer nervousness prevails. What are my chances of actually getting a judgement at the hearing or will my case drag on for longer and put in jeopardy the extra time I could be spending with my youngest children? I am disgusted about how long it has taken to get this far and just want it to end.

Mon 28th April 2008

Boys and education

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General — Julie @ 6:20 pm

As a mother and as a woman who has had the privilege to live in the great time of feminist rulership I thought that since feminism was about equality my concerns for our sons would have been accepted, which they have been; and work would be done to give our sons fair treatment, which unfortunately is a whole other matter.

Never did I realise that being for equal rights as a female was to be non equal rights for my sons. I had no idea that I had signed up for an opposite rulership that I had been opposed of.

I find in the women’s groups that there is an attitude that men must fight as hard as women if not harder to gain equality to women. I find that in the funding sector male is not even an option. You don’t have a box to ask for funding that says male. But you have one that says female. Or disability or gay/lesbian or elderly or even child which is up to the age of 12 for a male.

You see, a male child is not considered a child after the age of 12. He is then considered a man because he has testosterone. Testosterone is the enemy of feminism. Gosh, throw that by me again. hehehe. But seriously, I am not joking you.

I was shocked to learn that under the human Rights Commission, men do not have rights. So every male child over 12 does not have rights. You see, men never did have rights. Only responsibilities. Us females started rights. But our own female leaders do not want to give rights to men nor our sons.

Girls risk falling behind in the classroom’

Girls risk falling behind in the classroom because government policies focus on the education standards of boys, a report claims. A “significant proportion” of girls are struggling to read but many are not getting enough help, it is claimed.

About a quarter define themselves as “non-readers” because they find books boring and fear being labelled a “geek”. They are also less likely to get encouragement from family members to pick up a novel at home.

A study by the National Literacy Trust, a reading charity, says many young girls were “in danger of being overlooked by current policy drives”.

At the moment, girls continue to out-perform boys at every age in the classroom. They pull ahead in tests taken at the age of seven and extend their lead at 11, 14 and 16. More young women now go to university and are more likely to get a good degree.

A series of reforms have been aimed at boys to address the imbalance. This includes additional cash to buy books for boys. But the National Literacy Trust warns that the achievements of girls may suffer as millions of pounds of government funding focuses on gender-specific initiatives.


This is what we are up against to give our sons a fair go in education. It is a mountain that few of us even realised. But it exists because women gained power and through women studies at University level and millions of dollars in funding, we grew a movement of hate for our own sons without even knowing it.

Worthwhile link to read

Thu 24th April 2008

Open Letter to the Public

Filed under: General — sonnyking @ 9:50 pm

I wanted the local newspaper to publish the following letter. I was hoping that some of the public in the small town we live in would come forward for the sake of X (child), but unfortunately the newspaper would not publish; their excuse, the public would have trouble understanding the letter.

Open Letter to the Public
I would like to commend a member of our valued community.

She deserves an Oscar for a most outstanding seven year performance. One I have been privileged to view and experience for six years. (more…)

Wed 23rd April 2008

Gay pride bans mum and dad in classroom

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General — Julie @ 5:25 am

Daily Telegraph (Australia) April 17, 2008
Teachers are being urged to stop using terms such as husband and wife when addressing students or families under a major anti-homophobia push in schools. The terms boyfriend, girlfriend and spouse are also on the banned list – to be replaced by the generic “partner” – in changes sought by the gay lobby aimed at reducing discrimination in classrooms. (more…)

Tue 22nd April 2008

Anti-Smacking Law Tragic Failure as Child Abuse Death Rate Continues

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,General — Julie @ 9:50 pm

Family First NZ says that the announcement of the death of three-year-old Auckland toddler Dylan Rimoni being treated as a homicide means that the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the flawed anti-smacking law.

“While good families are being investigated and thrown under suspicion because of the extremist anti-smacking law pushed by the Prime Minister and Sue Bradford, child abuse has continued at the same rate and the same old underlying issues of drug and alcohol abuse and family breakdown and dysfunction continue to be ignored,”? says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. (more…)

brain-washed kids, crazy exes, and fc.

Filed under: General — mother love @ 1:21 am

I am 35yrs old ive seen alot in my time booze,drugs,gangs etc. I’d crossed paths with some of the most notorious gang members and the most hardened criminals done some things im ashamed to admit but i faced those demons and turned my life around i met my husband 6yrs ago had 2 more children and continued to raise my 4 we have 6 kiddies living with us my husband has contact with his two, 9yrs and 12yrs. When my husband and i met, his partner had left him for the third time, taking their children, alcohol was a contributing factor to the breakdown in their relationship on both parts, from that day she has taunted him, power tripping in knowing she had something he wanted but could not have, she stated in numerous emails “you will never see these children unless i say so”. (more…)

Mon 21st April 2008

Women have a law unto their own which the Family Court supports!

Filed under: General — sonnyking @ 11:18 pm

Judge Boshier stated in his presentation in Washington DC at the Capitol Hilton on June 1 2007:

…. It is a criminal offence to take a child from New Zealand knowing that there is an order giving day-to-day care or contact to another person, or knowing proceedings are pending or about to be commenced in respect of the child. There is a maximum fine of $2500 or a term of imprisonment of up to three months.[18] It is also a criminal offence to breach a parenting order.[19] Because these offences carry the possibility of imprisonment, Police can arrest any person committing such as offence without a warrant.[20] A person can thus be physically stopped from boarding a plane, for example, where there is no order preventing removal but leaving the country would breach a parenting order.

It is no defence that the person removing the child has rights of day-to-day care or contact, for parental responsibility is to be jointly exercised, and one parent cannot deprive the other parent their parental rights and responsibilities. This section applies to any person who takes a child. It is not specific to parents.

Apparently this only applies to men, fathers. Women can take their child out of the country, even if they state it is for a holiday, while court proceedings are pending, while their absence stops the person, i.e. the father, having contact with the child. Women are allowed to breach a parenting order. So what is the point of a parenting order in the first place and why aren’t the courts following what the Family Court Judge is stating. Are women above the Family Court? (more…)

Sun 20th April 2008

Academics and Lawyers attack changes to Aussie Child Support System

Filed under: Child Support,General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 9:19 pm

Divorced from wealth – The Sydney Morning Herald – 19 April 2008.

The attack on the Australian Child Support changes continues:

“For the next generation of single women, it is about to get worse. Lawyers and social researchers believe changes to the child support scheme which come into force midyear will leave about 60 per cent of single mothers worse off than before. Fathers, in particular wealthy fathers, they say, will pocket the windfall.”

This is another example of a coordinated and orchestrated attack on the Australian changes to the Child Support Act.

“Dr Baldry also points to regime changes under the Howard government that are now starting to bite: welfare-to-work policies that penalised single mothers, and changes to child custody laws that introduced a presumption of shared care – even where there had been a history of violence.

She says it is not surprising that more middle-class women are relying on charities to supplement their weekly food bill.”

Peter Rabbit (Dunne) is living in a fairytale land. He has not delivered and that failure to deliver shows how much United Future cares about separated families!

Peter needs to ensure that stake holders are engaged as he promised. Relying on focus groups to create a child support position is inherently likely to produce a worse result for kiwi kids and parents .

Peter Rabbit has let loose officials to create a child support position and proposed methodology. I call it letting the loonies run the asylum

This approach to child tax collection , let the officials (Inland Revenue and Families Commission ) decide does not adress the fundemental flaws found in % of income model.

The child support Act 1991 is fundamentally flawed and no amount of tinkering is going to fix it.


Fri 18th April 2008

Inviting Media to report on Family court Case’s

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — nzleagle @ 4:18 am

Just looking on google news, searching for “Family Court” and all I can find, is regarding the parental tests that was announced last month, and a thing on a family of 15 living in the bush.

 has anyone tried to invite the media to their family court hearing? 

What would be the process of doing this?

The family court definatly needs more media attention in the smaller cases, that don’t inparticualry mean anything to anyone, but without this attention, their will continue to be a gender bias, and secrecy in court.

Thu 17th April 2008

Avoid Relationship Services

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 3:54 pm

I issue a general warning to avoid Relationship Services. I had an unpleasant experience with a fat feminasty counsellor there who would or could not answer clearly my questions about the circumstances in which she would breach confidentiality. She then accused me of being a controlling male abuser (although no assessment or information about me had even taken place) and refused to work further with me and my ex. This was in counselling funded by the Family Court.

Since then I have had several clients who approached Relationship Services in good faith but had confidentiality breached even though there was no imminent danger to anyone. The Tauranga branch seems more interested in being social police aiming to prosecute men for anything they might ever have done wrong, than in helping their clients.

Tue 15th April 2008

Advocate asks Govt to register ‘wife-bashers’

Filed under: General — UF @ 11:21 am

Auckland’s domestic violence victim support agency wants a national register of the most violent offenders to be set up so new partners can be warned about dangerous men.

Preventing Violence in the Home director Jane Drumm told a child abuse conference in Manukau yesterday that the safety of women and children should override the privacy of offenders.

Bank of NZ “Get Organized” Campaign

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:36 am

My letter today to the “Get Organized” Campaign. I will direct the letter to all of the sponsors of this campaign.

“While I congratulate your efforts to reduce domestic violence, I note that your information entitled “The Numbers” is biased and sexist. You give information about how many women are killed by their (ex) partners but no information about violence against men. You will find that, although the number of murdered men by intimate partners is lower at about one quarter of the female rate, it is still significant. Further, men are much more often than women the victims of murder and other violence in society generally. To ignore the victimization of men either at the hands of women or the small proportion of other men who would commit such violence, is typical of male-denigration in the feminist era.

Would you publish information only about pakeha victimization by Maori violent offenders? No, because that would be blatantely racist. However, the imbalance between Maori and Pakeha violent crime is greater than the imbalance between male and female domestic violence.

When state-sanctioned forms of domestic violence are counted (e.g. evicting men from their homes in only the clothes on their back purely on the basis of a woman’s unsubstantiated allegations under the DVA, denying children adequate relationships with their fathers), then the imbalance between male and female domestic violence becomes even smaller.

It is time for domestic violence campaigns and services to become honest and to stop ignoring almost half the problem.”

Mon 14th April 2008

Prostitution in the PC (politically conformist) era

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 2:26 pm

FYI, my other email today:

Dear Morning Report Team

Your article this morning entitled “Campaign to Legalize Prostitution in the UK” was disappointing. The interviewer blithely accepted everything the interviewees claimed and treated an important issue as if covering a light-hearted school play.

When interviewee “Shirley” referred to a Nevada brothel she had visited as a “prison”, no challenging question ensued such as “Were the prostitutes there free to stay or leave?”.

When Shirley claimed NZ brothels were better for protecting the women, no question ensued about protection for the clients. A little further exploration would have highlighted the fact that although NZ legislation includes rudimentary provisions to protect the physical health of clients, to protect the reputation of particular streets or areas in the community and to limit the type of advertising brothels can undertake, there is no requirement for NZ prostitutes to operate according to a code of ethics and barely any attention is paid to the needs and safety of the consumer. That’s because the NZ legislation was based on feminist priorities and beliefs that prostitutes are exploited victims forced into their meagre $150 to $500-an-hour trade through patriarchy.

When Shirley then claimed that the NZ system was safer for the community and clients, no question ensued to require her to explain how that could be so.

In New Zealand, health and helping practitioners are legally required to observe a raft of ethical practice rules in order to protect their clients from them. However, in the case of prostitutes (who earn as much as most professionals, who become aware through their service of intimate personal information about their clients and who are unlikely to be motivated by the pro-social aims typical in most helping professionals), no such protection for clients is in place. Prostitutes were legalized (which I support) and given relatively open slather to push their particular vice in society (which I don’t support). Why did NZ not take the opportunity to impose some ethical rules on prostitutes, for example to protect marriages and families, to discourage extortion, to ensure that prostitution was made fully accountable according to consumer protection laws, to establish a user-friendly and confidential complaint process regarding inadequate or unethical services, and so forth?

It would have been interesting to hear the same good journalism on this topic evident in most other articles in your otherwise excellent show. Unfortunately, it seems that the P.C. (politically conformist) line is usually taken with any issues of relevance to feminists and their propaganda.

Hans Laven

Cervical Cancer Immunization

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 1:13 pm

FYI, my email today to the Auckland Women’s Health Council:

Dear Auckland Women’s Health Council

Your representative Linda Williams stated today in an interview on “Nine to Noon”, National Radio, that it would be “sexist” to immunize only girls against cervical cancer and that if girls were to be immunized then so should boys because they carried the virus associated with cervical cancer. She then raised many concerns about the risks of implementing vaccinations without enough knowledge about possible side effects, and the incomplete long-term follow-up data in the research used to advocate a roll-out of this vaccine.

Ms Williams acknowledged that boys do not suffer from cervical cancer, and admitted in a somewhat fudging manner that no research had been completed on the effect of the vaccine on boys. (more…)

Wed 9th April 2008

ALAC Advertisements Are Sexist

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:22 pm

FYI, my email to ALAC today. I also sent an email to National Radio expressing disappointment that in its interviews about all kinds of aspects of these ads, nothing was said about their glaring sexism.

Dear ALAC,

I am not bothered by the shocking nature of your latest television advertisements, and I commend your aims. However, I am deeply concerned about the anti-male sexism your advertisements are spreading.

In the latest series of ads, the two featuring males as leading characters both involve harm being done by the men to others, while the one featuring a woman involves her putting herself into a vulnerable position and then being violently sexually assaulted by a male. My recollection of your previous series of tv ads was that they showed males embarrassing and letting down other people, while the one featuring a woman only showed her feeling embarrassed about her own drinking. The underlying misinformation throughout your advertisements is that only men do harm to others and women are victims. (more…)

Tue 8th April 2008

“Status Quo”

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — nzleagle @ 9:09 pm

In 19th-century diplomatic Latin, the original sentence was in statu quo res erant ante bellum “in the state in which things were before the war”. This gave rise to the shorter form status quo ante bellum “the state in which (it was) before the war”, indicating the withdrawal of enemy troops and restoration of power to prewar leadership, as well as other variations, such as status quo itself.

Arguing to preserve the status quo is usually done in the context of opposing a large, often radical change. The term frequently refers to the status of a large issue, such as the current culture or social climate of an entire society or nation. Status quo can also refer to the social status in the workplace or peer group school.

Politicians sometimes refer to a status quo. Often there is a policy of deliberate ambiguity, referring to the status quo rather than formalizing the status. An example of political ambiguity is the political status of Taiwan. Clark Kerr is reported to have said, “The status quo is the only solution that cannot be vetoed,” meaning that the status quo cannot simply be decided against; action must be taken if it is to change.

Sometimes specific institutions are founded to actively maintain the status quo. The United Nations, for example, was intended to help solidify the peaceful international status quo that immediately followed World War II.

 Now how many of us fathers have been let down by the “Status Quo”?

In my particular case, I was told that because of the amount of time he has been in his Mothers Care since we seperated (about a year now, the same amount of time its been going though court….) even after his Mother illegaly took day to day care, and makes it difficult to arrange contact, and can’t afford to pay her rent every week, that my chances of getting full day to day care is next to none because of the Status Quo.

 This apears to me to be where the Court system is letting people down, especialy our Children, sure in the short term leaving the child in the “Status Quo” might be a good option, but we need to be looking at long term solutions.  One parent  (the parent with current day to day care) might be an ok parent, where the child isn’t going to be in harms way, but might not get the care and attention needed to thrive, or have the best finacial means, but the other parent, might be able to provide the care and attention and the finacial means to provide the best possible situation in life, but because of the “Status Quo” the child might be left in the ok parents care.

Govt seeks to improve child support provisions

Filed under: Child Support,General — UF @ 12:28 pm

Media statement

For immediate release

Tuesday, 8 April 2008

The government is looking at ways of improving the child support scheme to make it more responsive to factors such as the complexities of shared care, the income levels of both parents and the costs of raising children, Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said today.

“These are the most commonly identified areas of concern of the many people who write to me and to other MPs about their child support problems,” Mr Dunne said. (more…)

Sun 6th April 2008

Covert Sexism

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:16 am

FYI, below is my email to National Radio this morning regarding articles on Sunday morning news broadcasts covering the huge coolstore explosion and fire in Hamilton. I note that the Herald’s article on the web made it clear that all the injured were men and even repeatedly used the term “firemen”, but the Waikato Times failed at any point to indicate that either the injured or dead were men.

In my opinion, men deserve to be recognized and honoured for their martyrdom in many of the roles they provide in our society. Instead, National Radio’s printed web article mentioned only that the Fire Service was ensuring support for the families of the dead and injured “firefighters” (In itself this is excellent, but in the absence of any respect for the firemen‘s dangerous work, this comment merely increased the disrespect shown to those firemen.)

“…My concern is that the news article about injured firefighters did not refer to their male gender. This is part of a general tendency to refer only to “workers” when men are killed or injured, but when a woman is killed, injured or subjected to crime in almost any context her gender will be emphasized.

Men comprise around 100% of all workplace deaths and a large majority of serious workplace accidents, but such facts are rarely acknowledged. Yet National Radio seems keen to publicize every public comment bemoaning the gap between average earnings of men and women (with little analysis of the various reasons behind that gap, and rarely any mention of the high personal price men pay for their slightly higher average earnings). By using gender-nonspecific terms such as “firefighters” when it is men who are injured, National Radio is devaluing men and their contribution to society. This covertly promotes feminist anti-male mythology that has become established in our society.

Hans Laven

Fri 4th April 2008

Greens Get Gender Wobbles

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 2:42 pm

1 Co-leader and MP Jeanette Fitzsimons

2 Co-leader Russel Norman

3 MP Sue Bradford

4 MP Metira Turei

5 MP Sue Kedgley

6 MP Keith Locke

From Sturff http://www.stuff.co.nz/4463361a6160.html

Male Victims Don’t Matter

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 1:14 am

An interesting article on National Radio’s “Nine to Noon” today about dangers to tourists in Thailand. (The article will be available on internet for a week, but I have a copy if anyone is interested after that.)

Following the murder of a Swedish woman on a beach in Phuket, the Thai Tourism Ministry is giving female tourists whistles to blow in case of an emergency, among other measures. According to Kathryn Ryan of Nine to Noon, “women travellers in particular are being warned to be safety conscious” in Thailand. She went on to interview the honorary Australian consul to Phuket about the problem. He described various assaults and crimes against tourists, more of his specific examples involving male than female victims. However Ms Ryan’s interest (of course) was in sexual assaults against females, asked questions only about sexual assaults, spiking drinks and so forth, and in response to the consul’s description of a case in which a NZ man was subjected to a common form of violent extortion, she immediately replied “Sexual crime though, how widespread is that…” (more…)

Thu 3rd April 2008

Age Old Issues

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 9:35 pm

Her…What did you say Dear,
Winston’s going Grey?
Him…No dear, I said he is in a state of slow decay!
Her….Oh goodness gracious me.
Him…Oh, do pay attention Dear,
So I don’t have to repeat everything I say.

Her…Did I hear you right Dear,
Something about an erection coming up?
Him…No dear, I said we have an election coming up.
Her….Oh goodness gracious me.
Him…Oh, do pay attention Dear,
It’s not the bedroom we are discussing here. (more…)

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar