- 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.

Tue 10th February 2009

Big Buddy- Dangerous Window Dressing?

Filed under: General — John Brett @ 9:52 pm

The Big Buddy program is based on the philosophy that boys need good male role models in their lives to become good men. Implicit is that good male role models provide a substitute for a father.
There is no provision to provide good male role models in the lives of girls to become good women.
There is no provision for female big buddies for the children, who need a female role model in their lives,
The big buddies are interviewed, police checked, and screened by a psychologist
The selection of “Big Buddies” does not seek men who are, or have been fathers, and most big buddies are probably childless single men.
The candidate Big Buddies are not asked about their sexual orientation.
The ‘little buddies’ and their mothers are NOT Police checked, interviewed by a psychologist, or have any checking done into any possible history of abuse committed by them.

Fatherless Kids are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school
10 more likely to abuse chemical substances
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution
20 times more likely to end up in prison

Big Buddy equates fatherhood with ‘male role model’. Fatherhood is to ‘male role model’ as Love is to pornography. There is no evidence that having a ‘male role model’ can mitigate the negative effects of losing the man who created you, loves you, who would lay down his life for you.

Fatherless boys do not gain an appreciation of the role of a father. Kicking a ball round a park, fishing, walking on the beach or visiting a museum is hardly the same thing as the absolute commitment of fatherhood.

Fatherless girls also miss out on an appreciation of the role of a man as a father- and an appreciation of the role of a man as a loving, committed partner for their mother. Their subsequent choices of partner can reflect the view that men are just for sex, at best just temporary accessories to their lives.

Big Buddies are NOT available for girls because presumably it is considered unsafe for the girls to develop a friendship with a strange man. Any man with half a brain would recognize the greater dangers for the ‘big buddy’, and would avoid like the plague any such situation where allegations could result..

The organizers of the Big Buddy programs DO NOT ASK about the sexual orientation of the big buddies- presumably they would want to avoid being accused of homophobia (being afraid of homosexuals). Homosexual men are, by definition, attracted to the same sex- so why in the heck would you pair off a homosexual man with a young boy? It would be no different than pairing off a heterosexual man with a young girl. The fact that the question IS NOT ASKED is evidence that the organizers of the big buddy program are in fact afraid of homosexuals (homophobic) and the reaction they would get from the homosexual community if they did ask the big buddy candidates about their sexual orientation

The organizers of the Big Buddy programs also fail to adequately screen the mothers and the children for behavior patterns which could endanger the big buddies. It is nice conceit to see all women as angelic victims, however this ignores the facts that women commit most abuse of children, and that women have become accustomed to being able to make allegations of all sorts against men without challenge. Big buddies therefore expose themselves to the possibility of allegations of sexual acts or acts of violence against boys, against other children, against mothers.

The organizers of the Big Buddy programs have the philosophy of blaming men for all relationship issues, and even run the notorious “Anger Management” courses which prescribed by the courts as a requirement for see their children again. The organizers of the Big Buddy programs openly profess that they believe all men would benefit from such anger management programs. People from such an organizational culture are hardly likely to be supportive of a big buddy who became the victim of such an allegation. No doubt this is the reason why they do not see fit to take any precautions to safeguard the safety and liberty of their big buddy participants.

It is necessary to illustrate what happens when an allegation is made. An allegation is usually made by an adult, to a social worker, who then involves the police. The child is then taken away and interviewed in the police video evidence suite. A team of social workers work over the child to attempt to gain the child’s trust, and to elicit the required ‘DISCLOSURES’ to support the allegations. Leading questions are the norm, the child will be asked questions such as “When did he do (this) or (that),” and “He is a bad man isn’t he” attempting to persuade the child to agree to the story that has been pre-written. The unfortunate victim of this conspiracy, the accused man, will probably be advised by his lawyer to plead guilty, because of the requirement to prove innocence, and to hope for a minimal sentence. The sentence will include mandatory attendance at suitable indoctrination courses held for men like him. After the almost inevitable conviction, the unfortunate man may find that his circle of friends, his family, and his employment opportunities have shrunk markedly, he may even get beaten up by the odd righteous thug. Hopefully he will avoid any prison time, because prisoners tend to be a little rough on convicted kiddy-fiddlers.

The Big Buddy program fails its initial premise that “a good male role model” will substitute for a father, and ensure that boys grow up to be good men.
The Big Buddy program fails girls who especially need their fathers in their lives to grow up to be good women.
The Big Buddy program offers nothing to the children who do not have a mother or female role model in their lives
The Big Buddy program puts boys at risk from homosexual child predators
The Big Buddy program puts big buddies at grave risk of having their lives destroyed by false allegations made against them, just the same as so many good fathers have had their lives ruined.
The ‘Big Buddy” program is fatally flawed by being associated with the organization which places so little value on men and fathers that it can with a clear conscience be a money making part of the father-removal industry.

32 Responses to “Big Buddy- Dangerous Window Dressing?”

  1. Alastair says:

    I seem to remember a stat. where fatherless girls were more likely to be promiscuous, comit crime, and suicide. Being a father is:
    Feeding the child at 2am.
    Taking them to work with you.
    Picking them up & cuddling them.
    Taking time off work to take part in school activities.
    Holding your childs hand while they are ill.
    Waiting in Hospital while they are in the operating theatre.
    Being there when the child wakes up.
    Loving them when the accidently damage something you prize.

    The nicest words a father can say, “This is my son, whom I love and am justly proud”

    What pseodo father can do this?

    This organisation is simply set up to boost their members ego’s

  2. julie says:

    This is the first time I have seen you post an article John. Nice one.

  3. Skeptik says:

    Yes John,
    Thank-you for the posting.
    I believe the claims you make about the Big buddy program are correct.

    If people look behind the scenes of the Big buddy program and Man Alive they’ll find feminists pulling the strings.
    They’ve had the purse strings for the last 9 years at least possibly longer as feminism has a long and unsavory history in NZ now.

    What feminists have done over the past 20 years or so is create a culture of incentive burgeoned with a raft of laws encouraging women to divorce.
    Then over that time with ever expanding numbers of solo Moms who’ve jettisoned their husbands (often with false allegations and for spurious self indulgent reasons no doubt) it’s inevitable that many kids will go off the rails.
    Then having created this socially dysfunctional cesspool, the feminists and their chivalric sympathizers have the gall to create the likes of the Big buddy program so men get to play ‘buddy’ (a euphemism for a cross between a security guard and a psychological sewerage worker) for errant boys.
    The buddies no doubt conveniently get at least some of the the blame if their efforts to straighten the boys out fail to boot.
    The feminists can then oooh and aaah, and pat themselves on the back for being ‘good enough’ to try and ‘care’.
    All is thus given an added gloss of respectability when the process gets screening by psychologists even! – never mind about them being a profession knee deep with feminists and their agendas for female supremacy.

    All of whom no doubt think they’re helping the boys to avert becoming tomorrow’s rapists, violent offenders, drug addicts and homeless (the endgame of feminists is always about protecting and enriching themselves despite the enormous costs to others).

    As I’ve said in a previous post the Big buddy program is like trying to help by putting a sticking plaster on a haemorrhaging gash.
    Meanwhile the REAL root cause of the problem – the huge feminist pandemic of ‘no fault’ divorce goes uncured.

    The divorce and abuse industry has been carefully crafted over several decades now by feminist lust for the demise of marriage as a stable institution.
    Check their literature from the 1970s onwards.
    Those ‘women’s libbers’ students from that period’s ‘intelligensia’ are now the powerbrokers of today firmly and comfortably esconced in positions of authority and influence in all walks of NZ life…but none more so than in the social ‘services’.
    In their giddy rush for power and control they entirely forgot that stable marriage is for kids, as it is indeed for society as a whole it’s very bedrock foundation for stability.
    Still the onslaught goes on unabated……….
    No fault divorce en masse………………
    False accusations routinely used in secret unaccountable ‘family’ ‘courts’ to throw away decent fathers…………………
    Child support set at ridiculous levels…………..
    A blind eye turned to women’s violence and regular propoganda demonising men only as the violent ones…..
    visitation by fathers often blocked by malicious ex wives with total impunity………….
    A ‘family’ ‘court’ which is in fact a divorce resources pickapart for vulturous staff and their legions of supporting actors in the plot to disenfranchise men of their kids, livelihoods, even the very lives for those who buckle enough under the strain……sucking the life out of fathers inexorably……..dollar by dollar………allegation by allegation……….time delay process by time delay process……….until many men run out of financial and emotion resources and VERY REASONABLY give up trying……………..where to kick them whilst they’re down an reeling bloodied they get insultingly referred to as dead beat dads…….

    300,000 kids in NZ without a father in the home. Think about that for a moment.
    You’d have to be as loopy as a barrel of snakes to believe the feminist myth that there are that many ‘dead beat’ or violent dads in NZ…………!!!

    …………….and sadly Man Alive and it’s Big buddy program only divert attention away from this Elephant in the room, namely the present day feminist accomplishment of their long avowed aim to destroy the nuclear family because they stupidly and hatefully view it as a ‘patriarchal institution which oppresses women and children’ and women should have their independence.

    As usual the feminists and their supporters want and do indeed get it it both ways – destroy the nuclear family by incentivising divorce and then get men (As are those at Man Alive to do the shit work of mopping up the social mess they create in the process…….one could easily extrapolate from this……think of all those male police, prison guards, security officers, big buddies who do the social cost sewerage work for feminism……

    and Man Alive fell for it….

    … or viewed less benignly …..

    …Man Alive cynically feeds off the crumbs which spill from the table above encircled as it is by their bloated gorging feminist puppet masters.

    For a less prosaic, but nonetheless powerful and much more scholarly explanation of the kinds of dynamics behind such a carnival of errors and hatred of men see here

    -> http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia.2202.htm <-

  4. Larry says:

    John, you make a lot of very good points about the mentoring program. I have concerns myself because no one can replace the biological father: not someone who can spare a few hours every now and then (now matter how well intentioned) or any of the men who are sleeping over with the mother. I don’t rule out male mentoring though but have a few reservations. I can think of one or two exceptional men who gave their time and complimented our parents role, but then we always had mum and dad as well. Another problem with single mother ‘families’ is that the girls don’t have any male role modelling or experience and as a fact, they will typically end up being hostile to males and will want to dominate in a relationship. Boys need to be raised to stay away from feminists, sluts and women from broken homes.

  5. julie says:

    Being a realist, (today) I would have to say that groups like ‘Big Buddy’, “Man Alive’ and ‘Single parents’ are band aids on a problem.

    If you want to deal with the core of the problem, it would be better to join and promote religious family groups. These are the leaders of anti feminism.

    Interesting enough, they are gaining a fair bit of ground in America and in some places around the world. NZ needs these types of groups also to be the equivalent of radical feminism.

    This is an interesting link that some in NZ may not know of yet.

    http://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/world-congress-of-families-reacts-to-unfpa-leader-who-says-family-breakdown-in-a-triumph-for-human-rights/

  6. Skeptik says:

    Thanks for the link Julie.
    It would be wonderful to see the Christian churches join in the push to roll back the crazy no fault divorce laws.
    As I said before I’d love to also see the ‘family’ ‘court’ changed into or replaced by an institution with the duty to help married couples stay together and work through their difficulties.
    Perhaps this is something the churches can take a lead in.

  7. John Brett says:

    Being a realist Julie- you can keep your religious family groups. This is not about religions, it is about families. Families came first, millions of years before religions.
    Feminists have a habit of calling family groups names such as “Right wing, Religious, Conservative, patriarchal etc.” They try to distract attention from the issue – which is the importance of family, so they try to distract attention.
    I prefer a Darwinist approach- Feminists are a random mutation which does not have survival any survival advantage. I have seen Library books about aging feminists, we can loo forawd to ‘Ellenor Rigby” funerals where nobody comes, the history books of the future will maybe have a footnote about the curious and short-lived feminist period.
    On the other hand, you might be right about religion- perhaps the history books will be written in Arabic, with a prayer to Allah on the flyleaf!

  8. Alastair says:

    I write this as a committed Christian.

    Unfortunately the Christian church in general is run by happily married couples who know nothing of the pain of seperation, cannot imaging the frustration of dealing with the family court, tut tut at any suggestion of anybody turning this frustration into action, and are totally sympatetic to the “Community Organisations” and the police. Worse still they do not even understand the laws they are offering guidance to deal with. People (Singles) who have been through the mill tend to be put down by churches. Single men especially are distrusted.

    In saying that one or two religious organisations manage very well, usually because the listen to and support their singles and second time arounders. In Wanganui, there is not one church I would fully trust and several that are positively dangerous.

  9. JohnP says:

    I find it hard to understand why some of you guys are so down on Big Buddy.

    When I read this article I wonder if you are even writing about the same organisation I know.

    John Brett states:

    Implicit is that good male role models provide a substitute for a father.

    Others go even further, suggesting that Big Buddy is an integral part of the father-removal industry:

    @Skeptic: feminists and their supporters want and do indeed get it it both ways – destroy the nuclear family by incentivising divorce and then get men [like] those at Man Alive to do the shit work of mopping up the social mess they create in the process…

    As far as I am aware, boys who’s father has been “removed” by the Family Court are explicitly EXCLUDED from getting matched with a buddy.

    If any fathers reading this feel they have been replaced by a Big Buddy, please comment below and correct me.

    I don’t believe any of the Big Buddies think they are substituting for fathers. For example on the Big Buddy website, they describe the relationship as a:

    male mentor who can foster a relationship similar to that of say an uncle;

    In the good old pre-feminist utopia, boys had lots of contact with men other than their fathers – extended family, teachers, scout masters, etc, etc. These days if you are a boy who’s dad has died, shot through, or mum doesn’t know who he is, you quite likely don’t get these opportunities to hang out with men.

    My guess is that the vast majority of Little Buddies value the relationship highly.

    I don’t see how it is harming anyone.

    You say:

    There is no provision to provide good male role models in the lives of girls to become good women.
    There is no provision for female big buddies for the children, who need a female role model in their lives

    The don’t provide for starving children in Africa either – the heartless bastards! Criticising things an organisation doesn’t do is easy, but it’s hardly a convincing argument.
    Most people will probably object to your idea of providing male role models to produce better women, but I’ll concede you may actually have a point here. Problem is, because Big Buddy isn’t in the business of replacing fathers it isn’t relevant.

    The organizers of the Big Buddy programs also fail to adequately screen the mothers and the children for behavior patterns which could endanger the big buddies.

    You do raise a valid issue here I think – this is the one thing that does concern me about this setup. It is inevitable a Big Buddy will encounter a false accuser sooner or later IMO. I have read about an American Big Buddy who was accused and NOT treated well by the organisation. Again, I’d welcome any ex Big Buddies who have been accused to write in and enlighten us on this matter.

    The organizers of the Big Buddy programs have the philosophy of blaming men for all relationship issues, and even run the notorious “Anger Management” courses

    This factoid which keeps getting repeated is incorrect. Big Buddy was introduced to NZ by Man Alive in the late 90s, but as far as I know it has been completely independent since at least 2004.

    Disclosure: I get paid by Man Alive to run their website. I have never been employed by Big Buddy.

  10. Skeptik says:

    John wrote –

    “On the other hand, you might be right about religion- perhaps the history books will be written in Arabic, with a prayer to Allah on the flyleaf!”

    having just started to read Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone” downloadble here –

    http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/1815631/Mark-Steyn-America-Alone-2006-pdf

    I see what you’re driving at

  11. julie says:

    How many of these comments are sarcasm?

    The Muslims taking over the world is another Chicken Licken and if it is agreed not to be I would like to put forward another conspiracy theory.

  12. Skeptik says:

    J.P.
    Great to hear you acknowledge there IS a father removal industry happening in NZ.

    However I wasn’t just referring to the ‘family’ ‘court’ in my comments.

    As you’re probably aware the toxic environment of feminism is enshrined much wider than just within the ‘family’ ‘court’.
    Unfortunately it’s tentacles extend into all strata of NZ society……the universities, the media, government, colleges, schools, churches etc.
    That means that it’s not only through the avenue of the ‘family’ ‘court’ that fatherhood in NZ is made problematic. It’s in this toxic stew that many boys come adrift from their Dads and no doubt many into the orb of the Big Buddy program.
    Sorry for giving the impression the problems created by feminists were so small.

    What I’m trying to convey is that organizations like Man Alive and it’s Big Buddy scheme like other social services which try to mop up the afterspill of feminism offer feminists a convenient distraction and cover for their dealings whilst the very real problem of marriage being debased with feminist derived no fault laws goes unaddressed.
    Like I keep saying it’s like trying to put a sticking plaster on a gash.

    I myself had lovely mentoring from Uncles, male scout masters and male teachers but there’s NOTHING can replace a father’s loving involvement.

    300,000
    NZ
    children
    with
    no
    father
    in
    their
    home

    What
    a
    sad
    short
    poem
    NZ
    has
    become

    One other thing J.P.
    It well known that MANY of those people past and present involved in the running of Man Alive are staunch feminists.

  13. Skeptik says:

    Julie,
    No sarcasm at all.
    Don’t be so hasty to write off the idea of the islamification of Europe.
    The number one popular dish in England now is the curry.
    The 5th most popular boys name there is Muhamed.
    Millions of Islamic people have either moved into or been born in Europe in the last 20 years.
    Last Year Paris, Lyons and Marseilles got torched by Muslims went on a three week riot rampaging in demand of amongst other things more islamic style governance.
    The same year riots occurred in Sweden, Denmark and Germany over the Muhamed cartoons in Danish newspapers.
    Turkey with it’s huge Islamic population is set to join the EEC.
    Sharia law looks set to sweep all of Europe as Europeans don’t replace their populations any where near enough by breeding whilst Islamists increase their numbers dramatically and exponentially by having much larger families.
    I get all this first hand from UK and French residents and parts of the European media who see their lives and values inexorably bit by bit becoming dominated by Islamic culture.
    If you don’t breed enough to replace your population you become literally a dying breed, fact. Period.
    Just get a good book on European demographics out and do the math.

  14. Skeptik says:

    I know it’s getting off topic but want to offer this to help Julie out –

    http://blogwonks.com/2009/02/10/great-britain-wimps-out/

    Perhaps Sharia will overturn feminazzism

  15. Hans Laven says:

    I was open minded about Big Buddy (BB) and I previously highlighted some positive aspects of the message conveyed by the scheme, e.g. that men are important in children’s lives. I was also reassured by several statements made on MENZ by the BB chief executive Richard Aston. However, when I checked their web site I found nothing to support Aston’s assurances, and I found that BB works under a contract with CYFS and that BB worked with the Families Commission and Barnados. On the surface, it looked as though BB was another gear in the machinery that defathers our society. I sent a list of questions to Richard Aston and he declined to answer them. I replied politely encouraging Richard Aston to answer my questions so that I might foster support for BB among the men’s movement. He has not bothered to reply. I am now highly suspicious of BB and I suspect that Richard Aston’s statements on MENZ were designed as hollow reassurance to deflect the mens’ movement’s disquiet. BB is colluding with anti-father and anti-family forces in our society, and at the very least demonstrates little recognition of the broader political and philosophical context of its activities. Its true attitude towards fathers is evident in Aston’s arrogant and patronizing dismissal of my questions. I urge men and fathers to challenge Big Buddy to come clean about its operation, and until it does, to warn society about its facilitation of family wrecking.

    Relevant correspondence was as follows. Draw your own conclusions.

    Dear Mr Aston

    I have followed the debate about Big Buddy in the Dominion Post and on the MENZ site, where I have already posted a contribution.

    I have read the Big Buddy web pages and some of the newsletters. I was not able to find any statement indicating where the boundaries lie between your service and biological fathers, or supporting your statements on MENZ that Big Buddy works to try to engage biological fathers in their children’s lives before offering the substitute options.

    I have a number of questions and would be very grateful for your response:

    1. Does Big Buddy provide buddies for children whose fathers cannot see them due to unresolved Family Court proceedings?

    2. Does Big Buddy provide buddies for children whose fathers refuse contact with their children while Family Court proceedings are ongoing?

    3. Does Big Buddy provide buddies for children whose fathers refuse to see their children because such contact has been legally limited to supervised access?

    4. Does Big Buddy provide buddies to children whose fathers are in prison?

    5. Does Big Buddy seek permission from living fathers who are unavailable to their children, e.g. in prison or living overseas?

    6. What would Big Buddy do if an absent father expressly denied permission?

    7. Big Buddy has a contract with CYFS. CYFS frequently removes children from fathers and moreover often specifically seeks to exclude fathers from children’s lives. This is sometimes based on dubious grounds, e.g. unsubstantiated allegations from mother or grandparents, conviction for illegal pornography in the absence of any sexual offending towards children, or rudeness by a father towards the social worker who then mounts a vendetta against that father (as a psychologist I have been involved professionally in several such cases). CYFS also frequently bring about father exclusion by threatening the mother with removal action if she allows the father to stay in the family home or to have contact with the children.

    7(a) Does Big Buddy provide buddies to children whose fathers have been removed by CYFS?

    7(b) Would Big Buddy proceed if father exclusion had occurred in any of the above ways?

    7(c) Does Big Buddy make any effort to involve fathers who have been excluded from children’s lives by CYFS?

    7(d) Does Big Buddy investigate the background and circumstances that have led to a father being excluded by CYFS?

    7(e) Under what circumstances would Big Buddy accept permanent father exclusion by CYFS and proceed with providing buddies?

    8. According to your newsletter you have been working with the Families Commission and Barnados. Both of these organisations intentionally or unintentionally collude with feminist processes that result in the defathering of our society. The Families Commission like the government that formed it seeks to redefine the concept of family to mean “any bunch of cohabitants”, and from what I have seen it avoids doing anything that might highlight the damage being done to our children by social defathering processes. Barnados makes most of its income from supervised access orders, thus turning the wheels of the vast machinery now existing to damage fathers’ roles in their children’s lives.

    8(a) Are you aware that Big Buddy’s involvement with such organisations risks identifying it as yet another organisation working to reduce respect for men and fathers?

    8(b) Have you similarly contacted and worked with men’s and fathers’ groups, and if not, why not?

    Kind regards,

    Hans Laven

    Aston’s reply:

    Hi Hans,
    This debate is over for me, I have clarified our values and approach as clearly as possible , I just don’t have the time to get into a point by point debate on all possible scenarios. To be honest I think you are pointing your energy in the wrong direction , there is much that needs changing in the world.

    The last email sent 5 Feb:

    Hi Richard
    I wrote this email before reading your reply to a couple of these questions on the MENZ site. I just hoped for answers to this set of questions, most of them yes/no ones. That would reassure me about the policy you have conveyed on MENZ and would enable me to encourage the men’s movement to support your organization. Surely you could look through the questions and provide brief answers?

    Regards, Hans

  16. Larry says:

    I agree with comments that we are trying to deal with the affected and disturbed children who have lost usual contact with their father. While an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is better than nothing, it’s the issue of increasing family separation, initiated most often by women otherwise known in the public domain as male abandonment, deadbeat dads etc thanks to the feminist bigots. Women have a ‘trade up’ mentality. They will typically leave their husband for a man with better means, they always insist that any man they pair up with is well resourced and it is unheard of for high income women to pair up with lower status, low income men as men are inclined to do with women. When the woman files sexual abuse charges or has her husband removed from the home because she feels threatened, she is the one initiating unilateral divorce. As she is breaking the agreement to have a family together and while she can’t be prevented from moving in her new boyfriend, shouldn’t there be some penalty rather than the usual rewards that women have come to expect i.e free legal aid in doing the husband over, possession of the matrimonial property and custody of the children

  17. Alastair says:

    A wonderful set of replies Hans. I believe Big Buddie’s own words and silence must totally destroy their credibility.

    Are you intending to post these on Pauls-news and NZFVL? (Also CYFSTALK) If not may I?

    I suggest that these comments and BB’s deafening silence says it all.

  18. Skeptik says:

    Hans,
    I agree with Alistair – A wonder set of posts.
    Thank-you for filling in the details.
    I myself tend to send out prosaic pointed pieces with the aim of
    getting people thinking about the issues.
    Whereas you show great patience and skill in doing
    a great service to the community by raising the issues about BB as you do.
    Please keep us posted on any subsequent events.

    Cheers

  19. Hans Laven says:

    Hi Alastair (response #17). Please feel free to distribute my narrative in this post as you see fit. BB has an opportunity to be open about its operation by answering my humble questions, and if Aston refuses to do so this strongly suggests he has something to hide and society deserves to know this.

  20. julie says:

    Hans, I have to say this.

    I am overwhelmed that you would write such trash to Richard and then put it on this site.

    No! Richard will most likely not come back and we will most likely get no worthy men’s support either as we have not in the past for the same silly deeds.

    You could have just got off your arse and visited these men or phoned them and had a decent discussion. You might have been nicely enlightened to what is going on.

    Anyhow, as a follower of the hard work men put into the community I will answer your e-mail myself.

    1. Does Big Buddy provide buddies for children whose fathers cannot see them due to unresolved Family Court proceedings?

    No!

    2. Does Big Buddy provide buddies for children whose fathers refuse contact with their children while Family Court proceedings are ongoing?

    No!

    3. Does Big Buddy provide buddies for children whose fathers refuse to see their children because such contact has been legally limited to supervised access?

    No!

    4. Does Big Buddy provide buddies to children whose fathers are in prison?

    No!

    5. Does Big Buddy seek permission from living fathers who are unavailable to their children, e.g. in prison or living overseas?

    Yes!

    6. What would Big Buddy do if an absent father expressly denied permission?

    Nothing!

    7. Big Buddy has a contract with CYFS. CYFS frequently removes children from fathers and moreover often specifically seeks to exclude fathers from children’s lives. This is sometimes based on dubious grounds, e.g. unsubstantiated allegations from mother or grandparents, conviction for illegal pornography in the absence of any sexual offending towards children, or rudeness by a father towards the social worker who then mounts a vendetta against that father (as a psychologist I have been involved professionally in several such cases). CYFS also frequently bring about father exclusion by threatening the mother with removal action if she allows the father to stay in the family home or to have contact with the children.

    Big buddy does not have a contract with CYFS!

    7(a) Does Big Buddy provide buddies to children whose fathers have been removed by CYFS?

    CYFS doesn’t remove fathers!

    7(b) Would Big Buddy proceed if father exclusion had occurred in any of the above ways?

    Depends on the father.

    7(c) Does Big Buddy make any effort to involve fathers who have been excluded from children’s lives by CYFS?

    Nobody dares override CYFS.

    7(d) Does Big Buddy investigate the background and circumstances that have led to a father being excluded by CYFS?

    Repeated questioning. Non Applicable. See answers above.

    7(e) Under what circumstances would Big Buddy accept permanent father exclusion by CYFS and proceed with providing buddies?

    Repeated questioning. Non Applicable. See answers above.

    8. According to your newsletter you have been working with the Families Commission and Barnados. Both of these organisations intentionally or unintentionally collude with feminist processes that result in the defathering of our society. The Families Commission like the government that formed it seeks to redefine the concept of family to mean “any bunch of cohabitants”, and from what I have seen it avoids doing anything that might highlight the damage being done to our children by social defathering processes. Barnados makes most of its income from supervised access orders, thus turning the wheels of the vast machinery now existing to damage fathers’ roles in their children’s lives.

    Big Buddy works in the community. Barnados is supportive of fathers and understands the hardship fathers face at the moment. The families commission is also paying for research any men’s groups offered to do just last year. Fathers are important to the Family Commission.

    Big Buddy also discusses things with politicians. Waitakere’s politicians are very supportive of fathers.

    Big Buddy also works with the council. Wonderful work is coming out.

    8(a) Are you aware that Big Buddy’s involvement with such organisations risks identifying it as yet another organisation working to reduce respect for men and fathers?

    What sort of question is this?

    Are you aware Hans that sitting on the sideline does nothing.

    8(b) Have you similarly contacted and worked with men’s and fathers’ groups, and if not, why not?

    Big Buddy works with men’s and father’s groups. How do you think we are getting as far as we are?

  21. Alastair says:

    I think one of Han’s questions is being misunderstood. One arm of CYF (It used to be called the “Community Funding Agency”) funds organisations. It is an old saying, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The organisations being funded by CFA were “Contracted” to it and funded on the basis of services rendered. (The Refuge being funded on the basis of bed nights) CYF definitely calls the shots. In the long past I looked after funding for a particular trust. We approached CFA. At the time I was also a member of PANIC. CYF examined our accounting systems, and facilities. There was a phonecall to the chairman of the board which summarised meant I was personna non gratia. If you (The organisation) want funding get rid of him! Another reason for my anti CYF attitude.

    CYF normally creates an environment forcing any male from the home, this includes supporting the female in obtaining a protection order.

    I do not see that Big Buddy operationg without someform of CYF support. ergo, Big buddy is untrustworthy.

    While arguably poorly expressed Julie, personally I believe Hans is 100% correct, though as you said “A little proof reading before hitting the send key.

  22. Hans Laven says:

    Julie (response #21):

    1. Your responses to my reasonable though searching set of questions are of questionable worth as you do not represent BB as far as I know.
    2. I think some of your comments towards me contravene the personal attack rule of MENZ. However, your abuse doesn’t bother me and mainly serves to discredit your statements.
    3. Assuming any validity in your answers, your answers to the important questions about mentoring when fathers have been excluded from children’s lives through CYFS actions suggest that BB does provide that role but it “depends on the father”. This means BB is part of our society’s large defathering machinery. Unfortunately you avoid answering my further questions that might provide a better picture of how much BB is doing so.
    4. Of course CYFS removes fathers from children’s lives. They do so through stacked family group conferences, run by CYFS social workers and operating mainly as rubber stamps for whatever CYFS prefers. They do so by setting their huge legal resources against individual fathers in the Family Court. They do so by threatening mothers with removal of their children if those mothers continue to live with the fathers or allow the father to have contact with the children. They do so by applying different criteria to mothers and fathers, such that they will allow inadequate, disturbed or offending mothers to keep children but will rule out fathers on the basis of any transgression or weakness. They do so by blaming fathers for mothers’ and stepmothers’ bad or dangerous behaviour.
    5. Regarding contract with CYFS: From the Big Buddy newsletter, issue 14, winter 2008, Richard Aston’s editorial states: “You may remember last newsletter I was waiting on confirmation from CYF’s on our new funding contract, we have a funding contract now which is good…”, and in issue 12, summer 2008: “Last year we gained our accreditation with CYFs…” Your claim that BB do not have a contract with CYFS is clearly untrue.
    6. Other statements in those editorials include “I have also been working with the Families Commission, Barnados and Parents Centre…”, and (concerning mentoring) “I hope the debate continues and is more than election rhetoric…”. Here on MENZ the debate continues but far from welcoming debate Richard Aston refuses to answer any more questions.
    7. I have no wish to disrespect any of the men who generously give their time and love in mentoring through BB. Getting “off my arse” and visiting or phoning those men would probably not have provided answers to my questions about policies and philosophy of the organisation. The appropriate way to obtain such answers was to ask the leader who was already participating in discussions with me and others. However, when the questions became too sticky, he withdrew.
    8. One can hardly accuse me of sitting on the sidelines!
    9. I won’t get into the issue of Waitakere politicians and the male-blaming rhetoric for which mayor Harvey is known. Suffice it to say that the first “Family Violence Court” was established in Waitakere welcomed by said mayor.
    10. I note from further reading of BB’s newsletters that much of its funding comes from pokie bars. The gambling pedalled by these “trusts” is one of the most destructive forces against families in NZ, and accepting part of the huge profits they extract from addicts in part to plaster over the damage they cause raises further questions about the ethics and actual role of BB.
    11. As I stated previously, nothing on any of BB’s feel-good rah-rah-rah web pages mentions Aston’s claimed care not to usurp real fathers, or anything showing awareness that it might unwittingly or otherwise be participating in social defathering machinery.
    12. I continue to hope that Richard Aston will accord us the courtesy of answering my handful of questions and reassure the men’s movement, but until that happens I cannot recommend support for his programme. He certainly seems be building quite a little empire though.

  23. Alastair says:

    I will not support anthing funded or otherwise beholden to CYF

  24. John Brett says:

    John Potter-
    All of the comments on this thread are being ascribed to me.
    (Check the “Recent Posts” box.
    I fell like Confucious with the amount of wisdom being attributed to me
    Can you pls find out why, and fix it, thanks.
    John

  25. Skeptik says:

    Hans,

    You do right to keep pressing the big buddy program for answers mate.
    The big buddy program and all who advocate for it should be
    FULLY OPEN AND ACCOUNTABLE.
    Not sticking their heads in the sand when
    you or anyone else asks some probing questions.
    They are answerable to the taxpayer after~all.
    Or do they wish to operate like their buddies who refer men to them at
    the family caught?
    As for getting referrals from CYF.
    What a joke that’s going to be…………….
    referrals straight from feminism HQ in other words.

    It just gets loopier and loopier……….

    tick….tick……tick……….

  26. JohnPotter says:

    Yes, I see, and I figured out what I did wrong – should be all fixed now.

    Please use the contact form or email me directly if you see a problem like this – I sometimes don’t see comments for a few days.

  27. julie says:

    Edit: I wrote something as a reply to other’s comments. But I think I will step back in line instead.

  28. John Brett says:

    Julie- you appear to have been taken in by the persuasive sweet talk of these people. I have myself interviewed the BB Staff, and put these questions to them directly.
    As to CYFS “not removing fathers”, and their lovely ‘family group conferences’- well my experience is some 10 years out of date- but I can confirm that father removal is their clear aim, and that they act without any checks or balances to achieve that.
    e.g. If you had spent 22 yrs raising a family, would you expect to be a part of any ‘family group conference’? I was NOT- and claimed that all subsequent actions were invalID AS A RESULT.
    e.g. What do you thing about the idea of encouraging and assisting with false allegations to remove the ‘offender’- the father.
    e.g. When requests for information, under the Official Information Act, and the Privacy Act are made, what would you think about an organization which refuses to co-operate with the authorities to release the information- it took three official requests and three years!
    I would rather deal with the Mongrel Mob, thanks.
    CYPS are totally corrupt, and any organization which works with them cannot be trusted.

  29. julie says:

    John you say…”my experience is some 10 years out of date.”

    How I wish it wasn’t.

    Look, I tested a lot of what I have been told over the last 3 years. I even asked older women in their 90’s if life was better in their day.

    I don’t know what to say to anything that is written any more.

  30. John Brett says:

    Hi Julie
    Are you wishing that I have more battles with CYFS? Surely not.
    Perhaps I wasn’t clear- I meant that MY experiences with CYFS were over 10 yrs ago- thru my contact with other fathers I gather that nothing has changed. CYPS is part of the problem.

    Now I want to quiz you on your statement that BB ‘Works with men’s and father’s groups”
    I don’t think so- I haven’t heard of any that work with Richard Aston and BB- can you enlightern us maybe?
    Until Man Alive and BB are outspoken in their support for
    1 Fathers being EQUAL parents to Mothers
    2 A rebuttable presumption of shared custody is the only acceptable outcome after separation
    3 Violence is NOT a male issue- it is a relationship issue.
    Then they are all part of the problem, working with them only encourages their weak-kneed policcies of appeasement and money making in preference to doing what is right.

  31. julie says:

    Hey John, you say…

    Now I want to quiz you on your statement that BB ‘Works with men’s and father’s groups”
    I don’t think so- I haven’t heard of any that work with Richard Aston and BB- can you enlighten us maybe?

    NO! But instead I will come visit you!

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 2019 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