- 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.

Sat 28th November 2009

advice reqd: fathers who have won custody of a child.

Filed under: General — mother love @ 10:42 pm

PT 2: BRAINWASHED KIDS, CRAZY MOTHER AND THE FC.
before my husband and i enter the fc AGAIN we need all the advice and support from any of the fathers out there who have won custody of their child/ren or maybe in the process of. ARE THERE ANY ??

I am the step-mother of boy 11 and girl 13, our plight started in 2005 with supervised then unsupervised day contact only, then moving into fortnight contact and half of all the school holidays.shared care is not possible being that ex lives in another town.hubby and i have had to fight all the way just to get contact and maintain it. throughout this, the mother has made it increasingly difficult (to say the least) to maintain a relationship with the kids. the ongoing brainwashing, manipulation and parental alienation is mind-boggling. as a mother of 6 (and happily going through contact with my ex for 6yrs) also raised a “whangai” and two  nephew’s  im disgusted that this female uses her own children as pawns, to voice her issues and hang-ups she has towards my husband. hubby separated from his ex in 2002 she left with the kids to another town. my husband and i met in 2003, he had not seen his children, we had a child in 2005 and 6 months later finally supervised contact took place, another battle took place in court to move into unsupervised contact “day contact” and yes! another battle, to move toward fortnight contact and half the holidays, hubby and i won them all but was it a fight! fortnight contact started in 2006.
things went along swimingly for 6 months. feb 2007 hubby and i made it legal and married ex was furious and problems occurred. ex was shacked up with partner and had been since 2006 but vigorously denied it ??? dont know why, maybe it was because she was in receipt of dpb and boyfriend had own home (of which they were living in) and own business, not to mention she has legal aid. Nov 2008 ex wants contact to cease,another court battle affidavits flying all over the show, a year passes and finally we had a date, last week, we received the judges decision “we won” yayy… contact remains!!
umm no sorry- lawyer for children has been instructed by boy 11 to appeal decision…wtf

without sounding like something out of the days of our lives i’ll leave it there. hubby and i are seriously contemplating challenging the mother for custody of boy 11 in order for us to do this we will need all the help we can get- this is unfamiliar territory to us and although we are confident our lawyer will do all she can, we feel we need to know first hand accounts of what we will be getting ourselves into.
i am thinking our main argument to be “phycological damage caused by the mother to the child” also the children have never had the chance to form a strong relationship with their father, the mother being the main hindrance for it, we believe the longer boy 11 stays in her care, runs a risk of more damage being done to him mentally.

i must send a great big thankyou to “FATHERS OF NZ” without their advice, which i followed to the letter we would not of otherwise had a favorable outcome this time around. …thanks menz issue for making the link accessible.

55 Responses to “advice reqd: fathers who have won custody of a child.”

  1. Alastair says:

    First what area of NZ are you in? Self representation is complex but can be done. I suggest you visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pauls-news/ and join. It is “Hidden” and can be accessed by members only. It is populated by people who have succeded at and presently are selfrepresenting.

  2. Ivan Zverkov says:

    HE WINS SOMETIMES

    We have cases of a man winning, on paper. Usually is’t a humoristic judge who gives him custody, knowing very well that’s up to her to give kids. And nobody can force her. Millions of men have joint custody without even knowing where their kids are. Some men get even sole custody. One man “winner” in USA went to court 70 times to ask for his kids.

    …….Generally, we have only 2 scenarios where men can really win:

    Scenario #1: You are a powerful man who helps our feminist state abuse other men. Example: The judge estimates you ruined lives of 100 men and bastardized 100 kids. Police chief gets custody 100%. A cop – maybe, if he can prove consistent shafting of many men. How many? Depends on the personal opinion of judge.

    Scenario #2: You are an upper class celebrity and your litigation would publicize feminist crimes. Their judges will not deprive a member of the royal family of his kids. Feminists need upper class as silent collaborators.
    Or kick out the President and give the White House to his wife, based on her allegations of domestic violence. As they screw millions of middle and lower class men and bastardize millions of their kids.

    ………Note: Of course, many men have custody because she agrees, and these are the cases that feminists quote as counter stats. For example, one mom wanted to go to college, and she secretly accepted money from father as a compensaton for giving him the child for a few years.

    Join equality groups in your vicinity! Fight, to bring feminsit criminals and their hired guns to justice!

  3. SicKofNZ says:

    Hi Mother Love,
    Yes, I am a father and I won custody.
    I had always been the primary caregiver of my children from birth.
    My ex had tried to kill my children multiple times during our seventeen year relationship.
    My ex had plotted to murder me.
    My ex had drugged me using God knows what.
    My ex had tried to poison me by lacing my food with Jayes Fluid.
    My ex alienated my children from me.
    My ex beat my son up multiple times for wanting to live with me.
    My ex prevented my children from having visits with me despite a Court Order.
    My ex perjured herself with every single affidavit submitted to the FC through her crooked legal aid solicitor which prompted me to ask my solicitor to complain to the Legal Aide Authority about her solicitor’s conduct.
    My ex promoted my (minor)child to participate in drug use.
    My children were poorly fed, unkempt and missed much of their schooling during our FC case.
    My ex was Ordered to undergo Drug & Alcohol counseling, Anger Management counseling and Psychiatric counseling. She completed NONE of it.
    NONE OF THAT MATTERED AT ALL TO THE FC JUDGE
    The FC Judge covered his cowardly arse after my ex threatened to kill herself in front of my children and he awarded custody to me. He dropped his nuts when he realised that my children’s blood might end up on his hands.
    That was after almost three years and me spending $10.5k and me holding most of the information back from the FC in case it prompted my ex to attempt to kill my children once more.

    So, how did I win? Either God was on my side or my children and I were just lucky I guess!
    Fathers aren’t supposed to win in the Family Court. Only lawyers and mothers win there. I don’t know of any other father who has won custody in the FC.

    My honest advice would be to turn your back on the FC process, keep your money and live your life. I know it sounds harsh. I’m just being honest with you. In my experienced opinion the FC is crooked!
    Regardless, I do wish you the best of luck.

  4. Allan says:

    Sole custody is bad for kids in most situations. Kids do best with shared care and having both parents in their lives. Thankfully our legislation recognises this even if application of theory is difficult.

  5. sonnyking says:

    Your story sounds similar to my partners and mine.
    First of all follow Alastair’s advise and look at Paul’s-news, they can provide for info.
    In regards to full day to day (custody), is the mother doing anything damaging to the child?
    The reason I ask this is because we have an 11 year old who has been physically and psychologically abused for many years, and we are still battling, and he has told L4C.
    I know this may sound ignorant, and I see you are represented by a lawyer, but has there been any mediated contact?
    The mother sounds as though she is bitter over the break up and unfortunately sounds very much like the many women about, who as you have said, use their children as tools o get what they want.

    An update for Menz. The mother signed the 11 year old over to CYF, she just gave him away, the Judge was not in the knowledge of this but L4C was.
    He is presently going through assessments, we’re keeping our fingers crossed that he talks without fear of the mother.

  6. duin my best says:

    Hi everybody

    I wanted to comment about a few things, my ex and I split just recently and things are as you can imagine really raw and painful. He had an affair for the last two years and I left taking our five children with me. I moved back to the home we bought together (which is in desperate need of renovations)n0 furniture (he refuses to send it back)and total emotional chaos in my kids and my own life. He moved on really quickly, cemented his new life with the other woman, carried on his professional career like nothing major had happened and cut all communication with me.

    I’ll admit that I have blocked one weekend visit – i had been in a bad space and did some psycho things (screaming phonecalls, psycho emails, suicide threats and involving the kids in that act). But I came out of it and realised they needed to be safe and arranged for them to go with him till I got the help i needed. Except, when we spoke he told me he was going to KEEP them for two years but would be prepared to review things after a year. Well, I hid the kids and refused to hand them over and have been forced into applying for a parenting order. He maintains minimal contact with me.

    I started surfing this site to get an insight into issues regarding the approach fathers might take with regards to custody – obviously trying to strengthen my case by knowing as much as I could about the ‘man’ position. When we were together – his kids were paramount to him, we have only been seperated for just under three months and he went from ringing daily three or four times, having them for eight days over the holidays to ringing them once or twice a week, and never on weekends (that’s his new woman time). He has cancelled a subsequent weekend with the kids – his choice. He seems to be the opposite of what I have read through this site.

    I have continued to get help (mental health help) to stop being a typical hurt reactive and destructive ex-partner (Lord knows I have the power) who uses the kids at every chance she gets and have tried to negotiate reasonable and workable parenting situations (I offered 50/50 custody though he lives in the south island, i live in the north, and I don’t make him pay child support) with the father but its going nowhere fast – it assumes a certain level of communication. Keeping it out of the courts was what I was aiming for. I have a team of mental health specialists, I am reaching out (that is pushed alot for women in these situations)I have a team of “feminazis” (notice the quotation marks) from Womens Refuge furnishing my house and a great lawyer. What I am missing is the father who wants to fight to see his kids – I can’t make him do it.

    I guess I just wanted to say that yes i can charm all the people i need to get my way, I have many more resources than most men are able to access, I have the Family Court (supposedly) in my corner and if I wanted – I could unleash the dragon and just cut his access for any number of fanciful whims that hit me at the time. But i wont. Not all mothers are the nut cases depicted through this website – and not all fathers are gallantly looking to protect their precious relationship with their children. (and yes I do work, and I’m paying for the lawyers bills – who needs christmas).

  7. SicKofNZ says:

    Good on you for being so reasonable for the sake of the kids. If only more parents would stop pretending the other parent is bad for the children. Lawyers and other family leeches rely on such rubbish.
    If any parent has valid reasons to deny their children access to their other parent, it’s me. But I won’t. They’re smart enough to make up their own minds without my influence. I support whatever they want.
    Children grow up to be adults with independent minds and their levels of respect for each parent are determined by their history.
    I wish more mothers had your insight.

  8. Gravesie says:

    Oh i have such sympathy for your plight. I am in the situation where i have 2 children in a 50/50 arrangement but who suffer the mind games and manipulation from their mother much as you experience. The children suffer mental abuse for sure at the hands of their mother but there really is little that can be done until the children choose where they would rather be. I amd my new fiancee hespecially, have been lambasted as a evil father only concerned with avoidance of paying CS. Do people not think that seperation from your children is bad enough so why should we not battle to see them as much as we can??

    I’m not a saint though and have been dragged into tit for tat games at times but seeing the bigger picture as the kids happiness i try my level best to provide a stable environment for them to live but ihave come to learn both in life and on here that bitterness runs deep with ex partners.

    Though i digress my point here is that i looked into sole custody for this same reason, psycological abuse for which i have evidence. The lawyers/barristers/councillors all said the same. Whatever her mental state, proved or not she has a right to see her children. This factor ways hard on my mind but what do you do? Go to court where you know you yourself are going to put the kids through hell or sit back with the knowledge that yes they are not in the environment you would wish but their minds are growing fast and they seek that stability and comfort when they come home to you. This is what we have done and i have noted a chage in the children and their much more relaxed and happy when the stress is lifted and they are welcomed, if only for 50%. Don’t get me wrong they have a good life with their mother but they also have guilt trips, opinions of their step mother enforced on then, told what they can and can’t do when with me, listen to their mother literally screaming down the phone at their father…i could go on for page upon page…

    Its a tough call and i wish you well “mother love”

  9. Gravesie says:

    I must point out here too, apart from my crap spelling, that i pay CS for 60% of the time, recieve the kids for 50 so am infact paying 110% for their upkeep…fair?? I think not but hey, i battled for the 50/50 so whose complaining !?!?!?

  10. Allan@uof.org.nz says:

    I know one guy who pays $1450 a month in Child support, she coulkd be liable for $65 a month in offsetting if he bothered to claim off her. They both have the kids 50:50, he meets all scholing costs and most of the clothing.
    Fair, you be the judge; it is just the way current legislation is.
    However this dad loves his kids, does what is right by them and doesn’t complain.
    Does not stop you joining lobbying efforts for change of Child Support Act which are proposed.

  11. mother love says:

    hi, wellington. we will try it, thankyou

  12. mother love says:

    hi, well we are in neither of the two catergories, but thankyou for your advice.

  13. mother love says:

    hi, well she (to my knowledge) has not done any of that, we have been in and out of fc since 2005 and at last count owe 8k in legal costs. my husband and i have very nearly given up the fight, but we took one last breathe and fought why ?? because we love these kids unconditionally and to go another fornight, year etc without them is uncomprehensible. through negotiation and fear of loosing this time around we gave up our fight for girl 13 she is now not reqd to visit and has not made any contact with us at all, we cannot sit by and allow the same to happen with boy 11, when we are capable of doing something about it.
    thankyou for your thoughts and advice.

  14. mother love says:

    hi, i hear you and would prefer this option perhaps i could juggle things around to see if that is possible.

    thankyou

  15. Allan@uof.org.nz says:

    Union of Fathers are in Welington.
    Phone them on 0508 2255 323 (0508 Call Dad)

  16. Steve says:

    Hi been in a similiar situation with step parenting and wanting full custody of children. In the end the Court ask the ‘children’ who they want to live with and so ends the story… in our case they chose the mother even though she didn’t want them only wanted the child support that came with them!

  17. SicKofNZ says:

    The mother signed the 11 year old over to CYF

    I did similarly to the mother.
    I agreed to a back-room deal, offered to me by CYFS, that meant I would sign my children over to CYFS. They in turn would ensure that my children remained in my full-time care. That meant I could get on with parenting my children without the hassle of the other parent constantly challenging me for custody in the FC. The mother would have needed to constantly challenge CYFS in the FC instead of me.
    Their (CYFS) back-room-scheme worked for me.

    CYFS offered this deal to me when I informed them that I would refuse to ever go back to the FC regardless of the stakes.

    My children denied any wrongdoing by their mother. They felt a need to protect themselves from her reactions. It is years later and they speak about her abuses freely but at the time of the FC case their lips remained sealed.

    Your post made me wonder if there is a back-room CYFS scheme in play here.

  18. gwallan says:

    …in our case they chose the mother even though she didn’t want them only wanted the child support that came with them!

    The vengeance of children can be subtle.

  19. tren Christchurch says:

    duin my best,
    I do not believe any-one here is anti female per se.
    we only protest about how institutions like FC are hijacked by the likes of women’s refuge and using women as tools. Believe me if men were in that posistion, i.e they have the favour of the family court believe me they will use the system in the same way. Check Saudi Arabia were women are second rate citizens. Oh yes. They have a justice system over there too. They have judges and lawyers etc.. But Justice is no where to be seen. Just like here in NZ.
    Behind every murder of a woman in NZ there is the Family Court behind. Sorry I meant Women’s Refuge.
    Women’ Refuge prey on vulnerable , fearful and week women. One carrots do not work they threaten removal of the children.

    I pay child support, my contact progressed from unsupervised to supervised and I do no believe my wife is malicious but she does what she is asked to do. As she is following the protection order religiously, it means she will never contact me. I want to help her to stand against the wolves of Women’ Refuge but I can’t.

    I now know the depravity of Women’s Refuge and the Family Court.
    The Family Court is a total waist of time and energy.
    If we boycott them, refuse in participating in their abuse of our children, if we stop hiring lawyers, if we spread the word about their deparavity if we unite as men and women and make them irrelevant then we will stop these thugs producing murders and strife for children. They are Anti-Child

  20. martin swash says:

    I agree that nearly all fathers here are not extreme anti-female, I have complete sympathy with women who have had their kids taken by CYFS. They have the same problems as fathers like us
    The growing power of the state is the source of the terror that most of us have been through.
    Money feeds the beast of state power and “the best interests of the child” is the battle hymn of the republic

  21. Ivan Zverkov says:

    Martin Swash said: The growing power of the state is the source of the terror.
    A very general statement, not useful for understanding whom to fight.

    We have to specify what state, always, in our words and in our minds. We are facing the FEMINIST state.

    Only when we understand that, we’ll stop being confused and we’ll get angry and want to fight.
    It’s not bad wives or bad judges or bad child protection agencies. It’s our violent feminist dictatorship which gave women licences to plunder and jail men, and kill their babies. IZ

  22. duin my best says:

    I think to some degree you are correct, I sought a lawyer at the advice of a Women’s Refuge supervisor, I was in a complete panic and totally overcome by the experiences she shared about other women in my situation. I was not in a good space to think clearly or rationally and relied totally on this woman’s advice. I had to – on top of everything else, thinking was just beyond me. Its a hard one because I am stronger now and listen to her advice but make decisions that count for the kids by myself but ultimately my ex did what she claimed he would and if she hadn’t of warned me in a general non-specific way my kids might not be here right now. I never expected him to pull a “you’ll never see them again” so going to the lawyer was far more timely than I realised.

    I understand that women are not being persecuted through this site and the stories shared here are borne of extreme frustration with the system and its lack of empathy for fathers fighting for equal rights in family matters, I hope I encourage wider debate about issues and yes I believe the balance of power rests with the wrong agencies. You’re right, we need to work together as men and women to shift the balance and move towards a more inclusive, system.

  23. Peter Bell says:

    In order to conceal the multitude and magnitude of their crimes against humanity, the femnazi’s repression of men becomes evermore bizarre, heinous and desperate.

  24. Benjamin Easton says:

    And: It is now appointed into the (#3) United Nations where such effect drills into poverty, unless it is drive to relieve humanity of the male function is curbed from within its primary source of power (NZ).

  25. Peter Bell says:

    Quite so.

  26. mother love says:

    hi, i must admit that she is not all bad (present time) by that i mean no physical abuse, kids are fed and cared for, she has in the past dragged them around the country school to school etc…..she is very bitter over the seperation she will say anything and do anything to keep contact from happening she has nothing at all positive to say about my husband and i, basically she dumps her issues on them, uses the kids to voice it and blames them when we challenge her. it breaks my heart to see the kids so miserable.

    thankyou for your advice

  27. mother love says:

    thankyou for your comment, i cannot understand sometimes why people would be so bitter, at some stage in your life there must be a point where you have to let go in order to move on. we do not hold out much hope of winning here and therefore 50/50 sounds like an option. perhaps i am living in a fantasy world where eveything should be peaceful and harmonious. lol

  28. mother love says:

    hi, yes so much of the decision and outcome is placed on the kids point of view- the mother had that base covered! our lawyer was not confident of a positive outcome for us- and that was only for contact to remain in place, luckily the judge saw through it and allowed contact to remain.

    thanks for your comment.

  29. Alastair says:

    It is well recognised that until you forgive, you cannot move on. This unforgiveness not only screws you up mentally it does it physically also. A large proportion of people (Female and male) who are perpetually sick with mysterious illnesses have unforgiveness in their life. There is a cure, this is not an appropriate forum. Contact me off list if you wish!

  30. Sam says:

    The Family Court is not always as biased as you might think – my father has 5 kids by 3 different mothers and has full custody (or had – I’m 21 now, but my younger siblings are still in his care) of 4 of those kids. The other he did not go to court over.

    And I do mean full custody – visits with my mother were supervised initially, for at least a year.

  31. Skeptik says:

    I’d love to hear his version of events.
    He must have had a sense that something was terribly amiss to have left and taken the five kids.

  32. SicKofNZ says:

    Oh, the Femily Court is definitely biased. I also won full custody of my children. The time,effort and expense required to accomplish that considering I was always their primary care-giver and that she was practically certifiable proved that. My journey to keep my children safe was saturated with Femily Court bias.
    Their mother ended up with supervised visits for the first year (one hour per month).
    I know of one other father who has won full custody of his children despite vehement opposition from the mother besides me now. Two wins don’t constitute balance nor disprove a bias. Maybe your father was ‘the other one’ that my solicitor spoke to me about.

  33. Keen Skier says:

    Make that 3, so did I!

  34. noconfidence says:

    I also know a father who has full custody (maybe we know the same person..lol). While all these stories are great, it doesn’t distract from the facts that they were the lucky ones.

    During relationship services counselling I was told by the counsellor that the family court errs on the side of the woman. I’ve been told by lawyers that thsi is true and I’ve seen it with my own eyes. L4C is a classic example with my one only wanting to meet the children while my ex has them in her care. I’ve had psychologists say things that my kids have supposed to have said that I know are a lie. Mind you the same person wrote things about what I had said which weren’t true so I have zero tolerance for psychologists. The thought of a medieval witch hunt springs to mind.

    By the way; does anyone know how my kids can fire their lawyer without the court using the old ‘they are being influenced by others’ excuse ? Do they need to get another lawyer to represent them and take action in another court ?

  35. J W Buckley says:

    Hi there great to hear im not the only one with basically the same issues. I would like to know how much damage has been created by our flawed system eg. Child support family courts I havnt seen my two children in 2 years as it is to difficult because of issues that you have encountered,i think your doing the right thing with your main arguement (go for it) Good luck with your battle you”ll need it.

  36. martin swash says:

    I have just been reading about a French philisopher, Robert Briffault, who emigrated to NZ and studied at Dunedin University, his laws about women were as follows :-

    The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

    To put it in our terms, once the state can offer her MORE income than her husband, then she will think about leaving you. It is all these Social Security benefits from the state that single women receive that are one of the root problems of WHY we are being treated like we are. In England, single mothers can work 16 hours and receive huge amounts of “tax credits” which are equal to a married couple working 70-80 hours (paying tax). In most other western countries single mothers receive DPB, house, legal aid, etc etc etc. At the time of writing, Briffault’s law was contraversial because the man was still considered head of the family.

    As a corollary to this law , has been added the realisation of divorced men that “Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association”. Unlike men, women will not even think about the past love or money you have given her or your kids. This was of the things that so amazed me, women just think of your potential in the future, and if the state can offer more she will be off, and not think of anything you have done or given her in the past

  37. Chepas says:

    This is a ridiculous comment that doesn’t serve to help anyone in such a situation. Perhaps you should be looking up what a Feminist is exactly before you start blaming them for all these ‘crimes’ you speak of. Feminists believe in promoting and fighting for equal rights between the sexes and any so-called ‘Feminist’ who speaks otherwise isn’t one at all.

  38. noconfidence says:

    There has been and always will be discussions about what a feminist wants. If you look elsewhere on this site you will see references to what a feminist is.

    However, if you want equality as you mention then please use the correct term ‘equalist’.

  39. Skeptik says:

    hi Chepas,
    Whilst I don’t agree with everything Ivan writes I think you’re seriously amiss with your ‘definition’ of feminists. I know this is how they like to think of themselves. I also know their behavior belies the definition they parade as ‘truth’.
    Please keep coming back to this site though. I’m sure that in reading the threads you’ll get a deeper understanding of why I hold this view.

  40. Chepas says:

    A Feminist: # a supporter of feminism
    # of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women; “feminist critique”

    This term is supposed to be used in the context where women are treated unequally and so have to advocate for equal rights with women.

    As you may or may not have noticed, women have always had less rights than men.

    I am not saying that the FC isn’t completely biased against men, as I truly believe that they are (my partner is currently fighting against that at this very moment), however I refuse to sit here and let the word Feminist be tainted and used inappropriately because of ignorance.

    Anyone who believes in the term ‘Equalist’ is obviously ignoring the inequality that different races, sexes and religions have had to fight against. We do not treat each other equally and probably never will so this term to me is for someone who wants to live in ignorance and fantasy that bad things don’t happen to people merely due to discrimination.

    Please don’t tell me which terms I may or may not use in future, it’s insulting, but I’m sure you were quite aware of that.

  41. Skeptik says:

    Chepas,
    It’s easy to quote a dictionary definition of feminism and tout as the last word on what a feminist is.
    i could do the same for the term comunist without ever refering tothe fact that Stalin (Uber Communist)killed MILLIONS.
    Still, if you want a debate on what the term means to posters on this site be my guest. As for trying to tell you what to think of feminism I think you’ve already made your mind up. Take the huff all you like I’ll still insist that from decades of experience I KNOW what a feminist is, and they’re nothing like you naively and benignly describe them to be. I’ll do that because I’m not going to have decades of my experience swept away in some PC whitewash.
    Equality. Hah! feminists wouldn’t know equality if it bit them on the arse!
    Go here and get an education.
    Yes, I guess you’ll feel ‘offended’ and ‘patronised’ at me saying that. But I’m not interested in your emotions. Emotions are cheap. Intellectual rigor and truthfulness expensive. So I’m interested in giving you food for thought. So do it anyway. And then after you’ve read a fee pages (not skimmed in a pique of ‘righteous indignation mind you) but REALLY READ say 6 pages come back and ask folks who post at this site what a feminist means to them.

  42. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    While first/second wave feminisim may have been focused on equality the third wave (The current expression of Feminisim) is not about equality at all.

    I would also draw your attention to the white middle class european entity that feminisim is and the abandoment by the 3rd wave of political equality in favour of personal enpowerment.

    Feminisim has little to do with equality and more to do with a clique of white western middle class woman who have become what they accused men of being.

    Regards

    Scrap

  43. julie says:

    Perhaps you should be looking up what a Feminist is exactly before you start blaming them for all these ‘crimes’ you speak of. Feminists believe in promoting and fighting for equal rights between the sexes and any so-called ‘Feminist’ who speaks otherwise isn’t one at all.

    It’s funny how you mention ‘equal rights’ because that’s something I am looking into at the moment. One thing I am noticing is that it has nothing to do with equal rights between the sexes.

    On the one hand you’ve got feminists working as the heads of the Human Right’s Commission who blatantly say, “Men ruled for thousands of years so it’s our turn”. (I’ve interviewed a couple of them) and on the other hand you’ve got feminists fighting anything that religion stood for like feminists in ‘Family Planning’ and on the third hand (just kidding, we don’t have 3 hands) so these feminists are in between. They beleive in women’s experiences as the equality and come under humanism. For them it’s about rights to do things.

    Here’s an e-mail I just received when asking about Family Planning and stopping the age of consent for sex.

    Specific information on this topic is thin on the ground I’m afraid. Obviously it is a very touchy subject for the activists to admit to be pursuing, but I do have one relevant quote.

    Back in the 1980’s an Englishwoman called Valerie Riches, then head of the UK-based Responsible Society (a great lady) was out here on a speaking tour at the invitation of the SPCS (The late Patricia Bartlett’s organisation – Society for the Promotion of Community Standards)

    The Dominion of 14th October 1983 had a small story on this entitled “Family under siege says Briton”, and there she was quoted thus :-

    “One of FPA’s aims is to get rid of archaic sex laws, which would include Age of Consent and incest. In spite of sex education and free contraception teenage pregnancies had doubled in the last ten years. Even the FPA admitted that provision of contraceptives led to more abortions.”

    Never lose sight of the fact, Julie, that the FPA is not a stand-alone outfit. It is simply a front, with its agenda influenced by the radical anti-Christian, UN-linked and shadowy Humanist movement whose philosophy says that “Short of harming others (???) or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire”. i.e. there should never be any legal limitations.

    To begin looking at this Humanist movement and its radical agenda for international revolutionary social change by peaceful means would be to open a Pandora’s Box!!!

    Remember, not long ago our (Labour) Government was looking to legalise AOC…. The NZ Herald of 24th May 2004 reported that the Government had backed down on the “child sex” law, Phil Goff, then Minister of Justice had proposed via a Crimes Amendment (No. 2) Bill to take a more permissive approach to sex by 12-16 year olds. Names of those supporting it were a virtual Who’s Who of Humanist folk, such as Dr. Margaret Sparrow, Dr. Carol Shand, lesbian Gill Greer of FPA etc….

    Also, back in the 1980’s I recall how in Britain the National Council for Civil Liberties (there and here, one of a number of Humanist front groups) had called for children to have the “right” to sex whenever they wished in their own homes!!! It is far from being simply an FPA issue, that’s for sure!

    Best wishes,

    What rights do YOU want? Are they something that makes you a radical or an ordinary woman who would get her equality just because society is working on caring for everyone equally? You see, you won’t be welcomed to join in unless you have something that is either – anti men, or – anti religion. What does either of those things have to do with equality between the sexes? Could it be that this equality of the sexes is just a front for sex with children? Yes, it is being used for that. So what else do radicals want that you most likely don’t want?

  44. Phoenix says:

    I will go totally against the grain by saying that I agree with you completely.

    See earlier article.

    What we see is that society is still calling man hating, privilege seeking, chauvinistic women “feminists”. When they aren’t and the term is no longer accurate. If the correct terms were used the “feminist” movement would grind to a halt.

    Would anyone seriously follow the ideas of any woman who didn’t lie, and told society the truth, that she was about women getting more rights then men, gaining privileges that men don’t have, ripping men off, taking their children from them, falsely accusing them of all kinds of things, and driving them to eventual suicide? What would happen if a woman went on TV and said those things openly? There would be a public outcry.

    But under the radar, that is exactly what IS happening, simply because true feminism, which really was about equality, and died a long time ago, has mutated into a disgusting, man hating parody of what it was. In essence the modern feminist has become EVERYTHING her predecessors fought against, a seeker of gender based inequality. But society is still duped into thinking differently.

    What you will find is that modern “feminists” manipulate society with language, misusing words (which is a form of lying), or trying to eliminate words completely, (which could be viewed as a form of brainwashing). This is the reason that the word “misandry” which means man hating is not in most dictionaries at all, and never shows up on spell checkers either.

    I could be wrong, but aren’t the continual misuse of words, and the deliberate removal of words from language propaganda techniques?

  45. Skeptik says:

    There seems to be a great deal of confusion about what the term feminist means. So I’m going to try and explain what it means to me.
    Feminism as I understand it started during victorian times. It was at such time not a mainstream movement as it was a view of life held only by a small group of women who were sufficiently supported by rich men or endowments from such to be privileged and have spare time and mental capacity to think about more than survival needs.
    They called for women to have the vote, which on the face of it today distantly removed from those times seems reasonable.
    However I think to be fair it should be noted that not all men had the vote then only those few who were ‘landed’. These ‘landed’ men were, as they had been since medieval times expected to pay taxes and raise MALE militia by payment to defend the realm in times of threat from foreign powers. The landed men themselves were expected, if young and robust enough and sufficiently capable to actually to lead these regional militia combined into armies into battle. This history is enshrined to the day in our folklore, although most people don’t recognise it’s significance – “The grand old Duke of York,
    He had ten thousand men,
    He marched them up to the top of the hill,
    and he marched them down again”.

    It should also be noted that the vast majority of men at that time DID NOT have the vote either.
    What’s more ONLY MEN were obligated UNDER LAW AND THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT to be drafted into the military, go to war as combatants and as they did in the first world war be maimed and slaughtered in their millions.
    It was in such circumstances that the first wave of feminism achieved it’s goal of getting women the vote whilst women happily looked the other way in willful ignorance at the fact that they had even as early as that achieved MORE RIGHTS THAN MEN. I say that because despite all the rhetoric that will come from feminists rightly saying that women had unresolved issues back then, all those issues seem to pall into relative insignificance next to the fact of loosing one’s life. I don’t think anyone can argue that there’s ANYTHING MORE IMPORTANT TO LOOSE THAN YOUR VERY OWN LIFE!
    This situation still persists in many countries including USA which has the draft FOR MEN ONLY and NZ which still has on it’s statute books the 1951 Defense Act which stipulates that in times of national emergency (e.g war) and at the Governor General’s discretion ONLY MEN between the ages of 18 and 45 years of age will BE OBLIGED to be drafted into military services.
    The rest of feminism (2nd wave, 3rd wave) is history so to speak. And in my mind has only built further upon the elevation of women to being first class citizens and men’s further disposability.
    Any subsequent research into men’s situation will bring up men’s lesser longevity, greater morbidity, in fact their predominance in all social indicators of stress and distress including drug addiction, homelessness and suicide.
    These things are immutable facts to me.
    So I’m not interested in debating the term with those who either don’t acknowledge this history and instead want to whitewash the facts in willful ignorance or naively dress it up in sanitizing language.
    And yes,I agree entirely with Phoenix that omitting to tell certain truths amounts to lying and is a form of propaganda a charge I level at feminists mired in their own vain victimology.

    Only when I see feminists taking concerted political action to get men long overdue equal rights in the areas of relationships, reproduction, health and education, I’ll believe they’re about equality.
    Until such time they remain in my book misandric bigots and naivettes guided by scoundrels.
    I’d like to think that this posting would put the sword to the issue and settle it once and for all. However I’m old enough to realize that just as I was duped into believing the feminist propaganda propogated by those who should know better like Neville Robertson and Hillary Lapsley at Waikato University and had to debunk myself by finding a new way of thinking and a new community of thought too, there remain many who haven’t yet made the intellectual leap and/or lack the emotional resilience to face the kind of loneliness I endured for before finding fellow like-minded souls. So I’m not holding my breath waiting for others to get on the path of truth. On the face of it that may seem like a kind of cold-hearted resignation.
    However I console myself with the thought that it’s taken since Victorian times for this social problem to develop and it may take as long again to be resolved, So I’m being pragmatic whilst distancing myself as much as possible from the damaging tentacle reaches of feminist/chivalrist culture.
    I see this comment has drifted away from the initial topic of the thread. However,I’d welcome someone setting it up as another thread where debate about the nature of feminism could take place.

  46. Ivan Zverkov says:

    WILL FUTURE FEMINISTS INCREASE EXPECTATIONS FROM MEN,
    – OR BECOME MORE MODEST?

    We have to understand we live in a feminist dictatorship.
    After we realise that, everything will fall in place in our mind.

    And we’ll stop being confused, and we’ll get angry and want to fight for equality.

    Majority of women know we live in a man-hating dictatorship, and less than 1% of men know it. Actually, nothing new for women, they always felt entitled to special treatment, and feminism is the logical continuation of female expectations.

    In all human societies, since stone age, women have had more comfortable and longer lives than men. Cavemen bones show earlier and violent death, animal bites, crushed skulls.

    When he ordered his wife “you sweep cave with this broom and I go hunting”, she probaly said “that’s ok honey”.

  47. Get a grip says:

    Ivan
    It is what being a man is about?Go and hunt.

  48. Ford says:

    gripper…go find a broom

  49. Mits says:

    I wasnt going to comment as Get a grip appears to be a wind up troll, and an entitlement princess to boot. Probably some heavy issues there that need venting poor thing.

    But Ford, my man that was perfect. So succinct and to the point and yet so all encompassing at the same time.
    “Go find a broom”
    Applause to you.
    made me laugh at how you nailed it.

  50. Ford says:

    get a grip..on a broom handle

  51. dee says:

    IS THERE A PHONE NUMBER FOR MY GOOD FRIEND TO CONTACT SOMEONE WHO HAS JUST BEEN TOLD HE IS NOT ALLOWED CONTACT WITH HIS SON >?

  52. Bunyip says:

    Who told him that ?

  53. Allan Harvey says:

    Hi Dee
    0508 Call Dad (0508 22 55 323) gets the Kidz need Dadz help line via an answer phone.
    We also advertise in the personal help pages (Page 4) in the phone book as Kidz Need Dadz or in older books as Union of Fathers.
    If in the Bay of Plenty you can phone 07 928 4323 for Kidz need Dadz 24 hour emergency line.
    If you are in Auckland or Christchurch contact Father and Child Trust
    09 525 1690 or 03 982 2440
    If in the Bay of Plenty you can phone 07 928 4323 for Kidz need Dadz 24 hour emergency line.

  54. Man X Norton says:

    Thanks Allan

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