News Update
USA: CLEVELAND Officers received a call before dawn Thursday from a 15-year-old boy, who said his mother makes his sister tie his brother up every night or she gets beaten.
They say they found the younger boy on the floor with his hands and feet bound behind his back with tape and a shoelace around his neck. They say his feet were tied to the table.
Police say the boy’s discolored hands indicate he may have been tied up for some time.
The mother and a man were asleep. They were taken into custody. No charges have been filed. Nine children have been placed in county custody.
NZ:
A woman facing 21 charges of assault against five children has admitted she smacked them.
Tafailagi Su’a, 30, pleaded not guilty in Auckland District Court today to 13 charges of assault with a weapon and eight of assault on the children when they were in her care in 2008 and 2009.
Opening the case for the Crown, prosecutor Anna Longdill said Su’a regularly assaulted five children in her care with kicks, slaps and pinches.
She also assaulted them with various weapons, including a shoe, a belt, a vacuum cleaner pipe and a roll of plastic wrap, a jury was told.
All the children were under 14 when the alleged offences occurred between July 2008 and May 2009.
The children had been put into the accused’s care in July 2008, after their mother seriously assaulted them on numerous occasions. They were removed from the accused’s care a year later.
– NZPA
Meanwhile the inquest into the torture and murder of Nia Glassie still hasn’t even mentioned the fact that Nia Glassie’s father was shut out of the picture and this was a crucial factor in the outcome.
Apparently in feminist New Zealand it is up to 15 year old sons to stop their own mothers from drink driving.
On a more positive note we finally have a case where a woman has been jailed for falsely accusing a mentally impaired man of rape. She talked her own daughter into making the false allegation. Ironically the man’s mental disability probably saved him in the end. He was probably seen by the police as more vulnerable than some ordinary man.
Thanks for this news update Dave. I know they take a lot of time.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 5th May 2010 @ 7:41 pm
Dave,
Thanks. I had not seen some of these, particuarly the story about false allegiations made against a mentally impared man by a trio of liars.
I found the husbands response to his wifes lies fascinating.
Deane’s husband, Darren Deane, said yesterday his wife had been “slammed with a jail sentence” out of proportion to her offending and her jail sentence would be incredibly hard on the family. The youngest child was 11.
“My wife is not a threat to society. She was only a menace.”
He believed his wife had been set up to make the false accusation.
He said the only reason his wife did not like the victim was because her daughter “got tangled up with him”.
Scary, very scary.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 6th May 2010 @ 10:18 am
I take anti-feminist sites/blogs with a grain of salt because some of the articles on it raise some interesting points. However blaming for feminism for everything seems a little excessive. This statement in particular “apparently in feminist New Zealand it is up to 15 year old sons to stop their own mothers from drink driving” I find confusing as the article does not state once that it the child’s responsibility to prevent parents from drink driving. The boy is commended for his actions but there is never an implication that it was his ‘job’ to police his mother. How is this the result of a ‘feminist New Zealand’?
I’m sure your response may be that feminists do it, but how is twisting the words on an article to suit your agenda actually help your cause? Perhaps if women didn’t feel like they were being villianised by your articles then they would respond in a more positive way to the important issues that you raise.
Comment by Amanda — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 1:02 pm
Good point Amanda.
Last night on police 10/7 or a similar NZ police series, a women phoned the police on her baby’s father and said on the phone her tried to knife her. She lied to get her own way.
The police turned up as a gang ready to take down this male predator.
He was a Pacific Island man and he walked out the house and was told by police, “Spin around” so they could see if he had a knife or other weapon. So he put his hands behind his head and spun around. Then he told the police he had shared care and was looking after the baby, buying food, nappies and so on for the weekend. He said the mother turned up drunk and off her face on ‘P’ and he wouldn’t give her the baby and told her to come back when she was straight and sober.
The police treated him like shit while I and every other member of society who watched the program could plainly see she was off her face. The police arrested him and gave the baby to the mother.
How screwed up is that? How many people would be thinking today, “OMG, how did that happen?”
But there’s nothing anyone can do because the majority of New Zealanders are an enemy to the men’s movement. I felt awful explaining to my sons that I can’t help because I’m torn between hating women and loving men and that the radicals in the men’s movement are ruining any chance they’ve got.
Comment by julie — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 1:20 pm
That’s a horrible thing to have happen to that man. I also abhor women who make false rape allegations for the damage it does to the men accused and the women who are really victims. I’m a feminist but it doesn’t men I hate men or even think that women are more important. People dislike feminism for the same reason that I dislike the way that news update was written. Radicals who make it the fault of ‘the other side’.
Feminism doesn’t make women make false allegations or assualt their children. No more than men’s movements make men rape women. Bad people and their bad choices make those things happen. Blaming feminism (as this site appears to do) for everything that is wrong for men is as pointless, reckless and stupid as women blaming the patriarchy for everything bad that happens to women.
Feminism does have a slant towards women’s issues but is based around equality. Surely men’s movements could do the same for men without blaming it all on us evil “femi-nazis”? Feminist might be a little more supportive if we aren’t getting blamed for men losing custody and getting arrested everytime.
Comment by Amanda — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 1:30 pm
You are right in what you say Amanda. The majority of women in NZ don’t think like radical feminists.
I hear from females who dropped out of women’s studies after the 2nd year because they agree with the concept but don;t have the hate for men.
Now-a-days women have to sign a paper saying they agree with radical feminists just so they can complete their final year in women’s studies.
Most women hear what men are saying and they actually give a damn but because the loudest men in the men’s movement pull women down, women back off and so do most good men.
Lots and lots of men and women care, IMHO.
Comment by julie — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 1:49 pm
BTW Amanda, it’s good to hear from you. And I’m glad you care enough to speak up.
Comment by julie — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 1:50 pm
Equality is important to me. We can’t achieve equality by only making progress for one gender!
Comment by Amanda — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 1:52 pm
Stick around for a while Amanda and enjoy your stay. You will be appreciative to hear from men and I’m sure you’ll add interesting points also.
I’ve got to go but I want to share something I’m tackling at the moment. I hope you read the comments and look to the sites people have given in their comments also. (see below)
http://menz.org.nz/2009/lundy-bancroft-seminar-re-shaping-our-radical-feminist-future/
Comment by julie — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 2:02 pm
Firstly let me agree that one incident does not mean a great deal. Who knows perhaps 15 year old sons stop their fathers from drink driving every day of the year. I doubt it – but who would know given the level of research on fathers?
I could also accept you basic argument that this one sentence was a cheap shot. I had taken more time perhaps I should have asked the readers to comment on whether they thought there was a trend of teenage boys taking on the role of trying to get their solo mothers to consider the consequences of their decisions – such as in this case.
I could also argue with you semantically because you somewhat missed the point. If the boy didn’t see himself as it being up to him whether his mother drove drunk – then why did he stop her? This is a boy contradicting the wishes and actions of his mother. A person to whom he is dependant on for survival (at least in his mind). His actions demonstrate that he believed it was his role to stop her.
At no point that we know of is it made clear to the boy that it is not his responsibility – rather he is praised. What should have happened is the judge and the article should have severely criticised the mother for putting the boy in a situation such as this. You can be sure a father would have copped a ton of bricks over this point.
You are also being disingenuous by saying the judge/law/article “…does not state once that it [is] the child’s responsibility to prevent parents from drink driving.” For goodness sake! Is the reader really expecting the article to make such a claim? I am the one saying that apparently it is up to children. In this case it was.
For all that I accept it is but one incident. What it does though is bring these events forward from page 34 into the discourse on where society is heading.
Comment by Dave — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 6:08 pm
@Amanda “I take anti-feminist sites/blogs with a grain of salt …”
Please note this is not an anti-feminist site. By that I mean this site is news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
Unfortunately modern feminism works and preaches against all of these things. Feminism is gender politics.
You claim “I’m a feminist” but you also claim: “Equality is important to me. We can’t achieve equality by only making progress for one gender!”. This is contradictory. I think what you are saying is you are not a (modern) feminist – that you believe in true equality. That’s great! Welcome!
Every aspect of the media “villianises” men. The family court positively deamonises fathers. Therefore it is most interesting to read that you think women would respond in a more positive way if they were not treated in the same way as men are treated every day. I don’t see what your justification for that theory is. It didn’t happen before we started reporting on this trend of anti-social women. Why would it occur now?
Also why is it that by reporting on the high incidence of anti-social behaviour by woman is “anti-feminist” and “villianisation”? Men have been portrayed in the media this way for as long as anyone can remember. Why should women continue to receive special censorship?
These are not rhetorical questions. I think you are making a good point. I want to make sure I understand you from a rational equitable point of view.
Please correct me if I am wrong but I think your point is that this site should highlight how/when men are victims but gloss over how/when women are perpetrators. At the risk of being excessively simplistic, is that correct or have I missed the point?
The other issue your comment raises is how interested are we in motivating women to respond in a positive way to the important issues we raise. I think we are interested in that demographic. I just think that over the years we have become unconvinced that they will change dramatically in the short term regardless of what we say or do. I’d be very interested if you have evidence otherwise.
Comment by Dave — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 6:54 pm
I also take your point that feminism is not the root of all evil – so to speak. I used to think this as well but over the years I have come to understand that feminism is a common denominator.
For example I blame the family court for much of what is wrong with society and the divorce industry. Now you could put forward strong arguments either way whether the family court is chivalrous or feminist. Depending on your personal paradigm you can see elements of both.
Likewise although there is no doubt Child Tax laws are extremely feminist you could argue that the problem with custody laws is (on paper) with their interpretation, not the law itself. Hence you could argue not all negative aspects of these laws are as a result of feminism.
Still, it’s a weak argument. It’s a bit like saying there was never a glass ceiling once discrimination in the workforce was made illegal. Feminism is like a glass door for men in so many aspects of society it is ridiculous not to address feminism for what it has become.
Comment by Dave — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 7:10 pm
P.S. sorry for my long responses. I just thought your comment was well written, intelligent and thoughtful. Hence I considered it deserved a thoughtful and detailed response. Also I strongly suspect you have a lot more to offer if I haven’t managed to scare you away.
Comment by Dave — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 7:15 pm
Hi Amanda,
I think like David does – if your in favor of equality for men then feminist is the wrong title to give yourself. A better title i suggest is humanist.
I’ve been involved in men’s issues for several decades now.
In times gone by I too would have called myself a feminist, but I came to realize after a time that feminists were only advocating for women not men.
I also lost count of the number of feminists who only had horribly disparaging things to say about the male sex.
This became mainstream to such an extent that many people unfortunately have grown up knowing nothing else and are not even aware they themselves had been inculcated with terribly maligned views of males.
I think it’s also fair to say that feminists have been heavily involved in shaping laws, attitudes and social conventions which over the last few decades have made men’s lives in NZ increasingly and awfully difficult.
Sadly to the point where several of our brothers suicide each year.
Well now, increasingly men are waking up and speaking out.
In doing so we sometimes highlight female violence as David has done with his news roundup. It’s very important to do so to counter feminist misinformation which for decades has told people that basically only males are violent. We no longer want to be sexually stereotyped and consequently treated as second class citizens!
Welcome.
i hope you stick around.
I’m sure if you do you’ll learn a great deal about what life is like for modern day thinking NZ males.
Julie,
you said –
Most women hear what men are saying and they actually give a damn but because the loudest men in the men’s movement pull women down, women back off and so do most good men.
Well excuse me for breathing!
I’m definitely one of the loudest in the men’s movement as you know, because I believe there’s an awful lot to be loud about. Plus people don’t hear what men don’t say.
If it were true that most women give a damn as you say then how do you explain the fact they aren’t hitting the streets in protest against the misandry in NZ?
Where are the legions of women assailing the footsteps of parliament to protest against the vilification of men in the mainstream media, lack of funding for male health issues, much heavier sentences for comparable crimes men usually get etc etc.
As you know I have another view. A view which calls women TO ACTION and remains unconvinced that they care until I see it.
Feminist women cared enough to protest in the streets and town halls FOR THEMSELVES in the seventies let’s see women of NZ do the same for NZ men! For their sons! For their fathers! For their husbands and boyfriends! For their kid’s male teachers!
Is that scenario happening anytime soon?
Have we missed some grand action on NZ womenfolks’s part which undeniably showed they cared about us men?
Hell, a man can’t even visit the place on an Airplane without being branded a potential peodophile for sitting next to a child.
So isn’t it really much fairer to say that feminists over the decades have done such a great job of getting NZ women to think of themselves first (empowered is the phrase they often use)that men rank as distantly irrelevant.
I know. I know. Some will react in knee jerk fashion and I’ll get tarred and feathered metaphorically speaking. I’ll get branded a ‘radical’ and mislabelled a woman hater. The the price i pay for being outspoken I suppose, and it’s easier to label me than actually do the hard yards of taking up the challenge.
Truth is all I’m doing is saying to the broad mass of New Zealand women –
‘Hey you believe in equal rights? Let’s see you support your menfolk with ACTION TO PROVE IT! I’m tired of wishy washy words of sympathy. They don’t cut it with me any longer. Do what you would do for women! Then you’ll show the world you care about men.
So Julie,
Sorry. I presume you mean well, but can’t really take your view of NZ womenfolk as caring about NZ menfolk on board.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 7th May 2010 @ 9:00 pm
Julie,
I feel for you. I truly do.
What a terible thing to have to try to explain to your sons.
Unfortunately men are att\ teh bottom of teh social heap right now, and as you’ve probably worked out economically poor Maori and Pacific Island men are at the bottom of the bottom.
I believe you are getting to a point I once reached where I saw the actions of so many ’empowered’ NZ women as being so vile I was tempted to hate women. I was also at that point stripped of the most precious things in my life – my only son, my sense of security, community and belonging in an otherwise aesthetically beautiful land and my birthright to be a father and
Fortunately as much as you may like to think otherwise so as to avoid my many stern powerful challenges I made the choice NOT to hate women.
Sure I’m very tough with women, you included, as I quickly feel righteously defensive in the face of thier immense institutionalised and oft misused power, however I implore you DO NOT HATE WOMEN. For if you do, you’ll never reach them with the humanity that resides within you, for you will have lost that humanity and alienated yourself from them. You’ll be no better than the feminazzi who wishes men didn’t exist and does whatever they can to achieve such a malevolent aim.
Please instead do as the great group counselor Carl Rogers used to advocate – ‘hate the sin but love the sinner’ – yes even the feminists who would rationalize away or deny the very things you are now seeing with your own eyes.
That doesn’t mean putting up with thier behavior it simply means rising above them.
Anyway, time for me to shut up now and let others have a chance to digest and respond/react to heavy heavy tidings.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 12:14 am
Good, straight thinking Skeptik. I would add that many men joined women, and continue to do so, in marches and other action calling for an end to discrimination, victimization or unfairness towards women. I have also joined women’s marches, and would still do so although my scrutiny of the worthiness of any specific cause would now be greater. Now that men are suffering huge injustice and exploitation relative to women, active support by women for men’s voices falls far short of reciprocal (with all due respect and gratitude to those few women who have offered more than platitudes).
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 12:16 am
I hear you both Skeptic and Hans,
I think I’m being a bit too impatient and thus my words yesterday. I have a better picture on what’s going on than most and should be understanding that all is as it is because of what it is. Women aren’t the issue, building a good solid support for men is, and many good women are involved in this. I think the message from feminists is, “Hey men, care for men rather than care about bringing women down to the level you find easier to deal with”.
There’s a lot in their message but men aren’t ready to do that. They are at the stage where they need to compare themselves to women as women compared themselves to men to ascertain the discrimination and encourage other men to speak about their experiences as women talked about theirs. It is only by doing this that men will insist on changes.
I can understand men would find a walk by women down Queen St comforting, especially if they’re overseas and only get news through the media. Unfortunately, a walk down Queen’s street by women won’t solve anything. This takes hard work and work takes time.
There’s a whole lot of good men out there as well as on sites who are doing a great deal of hard work for men. Maori, Pacific Islanders, Asian, European and other nationalities. If men online can reach the men offline and share what’s important for men, I think this movement for men will snowball in no time. I also think women will support them as men supported women. Hey, they already are. It’s just the fear the wrong men will be empowered that worries women.
How long? It’s hard to say. Women have been nagging at the likes of Warwick for many years. Women are organising meetings for men then waiting to hear the results. Women will give freely anything they have available for men to get things up and going.
I guess you can say it will take as long as it takes for the good men’s voices to be louder than the men who want women to be behind and underneath them.
Comment by julie — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Hans,
Thank-you.
it’s good to see someone appreciates my straight forward logic.
Julie,
You say you hear me, yet I don’t think so.
Hans and I make the point that NZ women aren’t doing anywhere near what they did to elevate each other for NZ menfolk.
No marching down Queen Street, no pamphleteering and speechmaking at parliament. Instead a HUGE AND VERY NOTICABLE PUBLIC SILENCE. The conclusion we can all draw from that is that ’empowered’ as they now are NZ womenfolk care more about themselves than their menfolk.
You appear to rationalize that away as though there are legions of NZ women working to overcome misandry.
Both Hans and I can’t see it and I dare say we’re fairly astute purveryors of NZ society and culture.
I think you’re also mistaken that it’s also just a case of envious NZ men wanting what NZ women already have.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
It’s summed up in this beaut of a demonizing sentence where you say –
I guess you can say it will take as long as it takes for the good men’s voices to be louder than the men who want women to be behind and underneath them.
That’s just plain terrible twisted logic.
It’s also a DEEPLY OFFENSIVE SEXIST FALSE ACCUSATION.
For I’m sure I’m not the only NZ man who DOESN’T WANT THOSE THINGS NZ WOMEN ALREADY HAVE –
* A whole industry devoted to stripping the other sex of children and material assets.
* The greater slice of health funding than the other sex
* Lighter sentencing compared to the other sex
* A state ministry for thier sex only.
* A family court sytem where thier sex can make false allegations with impunity
* A child support sytem unfairly scewed towards thier sex.
* A media which routinely highlights the suffering of thier sex whilst making the other sex’s issues invisible
* A human rights commission which defends only thier sex against sexual discrimination
I could go on at length citing many other examples of other MISANDRIC INSTITUTIONS NZ WOMEN CURRENTLY SEEM IN NO BIG HURRY TO GIVE UP.
You also completely contradict yourself within two sentences by saying that men would find women actively protesting for men’s rights (marching down Queen Street for example) comforting, yet women marching down Queen street would be a waste of time.
Another thing, who says we get our news only via the media? You’ve no idea, yet seem to want to discount my views are narrowly based. Why?
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 6:19 pm
Whoops! Terrible typo! – last sentence should read ‘You’ve no idea, yet seem to want to discount my views as narrowly based. Why?
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 6:21 pm
ARGH!! So much to respond to! I only have limited access to the internet on a computer, the rest is on a PDA (fantastic for emails, not so much for the intelligent debates..
Skeptik – I used to call myself a humanist, but do you have any idea how much harder it is to explain than feminist? =) I’d like to be part of changing the perceptions and attitudes of feminism for the inclusion of equality for both genders but as a feminist I do take a deeper interest in issues that primarily affect women. Many of these issues affect men directly, or indirectly, as well but my focus is first on the women’s perspective while making an effort to not discount men’s experiences and to support them in their campaigning and progression of their rights.
In a perfect world I’d like to see men’s groups and women’s group working together to make issues like rape, dv, health, family etc. work for both genders because I believe that the gender differences are important within some issues. So yes, I’m a feminist because for me, women’s rights come first on my list of ‘to-dos’. But it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support men in their rights any less.
Dave – I guess I believe that the article was too short to sum all of those opinions up. It’s brevity allows anyone to take whatever message they want from it. I feel there’s a lot I could write in opposition but I don’t think debating a small article to such great length has any value for anyone! And I’m a bit tired and I’ll make an arse of myself trying to explain what I’m thinking!
Radical feminism is the area that I believe is inclined to misandry rather than modern feminism. My experience with modern feminism is that now that things have changed for women in certain areas, there is a desire to move forward together with men.
Media is a difficult issue because it can depend on the sources, the research and the audience. I personally read plenty of anti-women AND anti-men articles. I think both are ‘villianised’. My main concern with the way women are portrayed by this site was not that they were pointed out as perpetrators but rather that the actions of one woman was seen the actions of ALL women. It’s like being raped by one man and saying that ALL men are rapists. The actions of the individual are (hopefully) not the actions of the group.
I’m going to plead ignorance on family court, divorce, custody issues and anything in that arena. I have no experience in those areas and limited knowledge and therefore would like to refrain from commenting. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me in the manner you did because you really never know what kind of response you’ll receive when you express an opposing view.
Comment by Amanda — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 6:54 pm
Amanda,
you lost me at this point –
I’m a feminist because for me, women’s rights come first on my list of ‘to-dos
Humanist is easy to define – the support of ALL humans. There done.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 7:15 pm
Hi Amanda-
Don’t feel that you have to defend the status quo all by yourself.
Question- how can you justify being a “feminist”, and working presumably for womens interests foremost?
As a “Humanist” you might consider being more even-handed.
As a man, women are just as important to me as men- I have just buried my dear mother- she fought for her rights at times- I have two loved sisters, two daughters, two sons.
We are part of a whole- to promote one gender ahead of another disadvantages all.
Our culture is probably doomed now because of the “mariage strike”, young men refusing to form marriages or relationships to raise families, a generation of young women doomed to childlessness, plumetting birth-rates necessitating immigration from other cultures as a result.
I was SHOCKED when I encountered the Family destruction industry. Like disease, or terrorism, ignorance is no defence. Do some research please, before it hits someone close to you.
Regards John
Comment by John Brett — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 7:17 pm
Skeptik and John Brett: Saying that I will work for women’s interests first means that I’m going to put more of my effort into those areas. It doesn’t mean I am less likely to support anything that relates to men but it means that I’m more likely to end up working to support young women who become pregnant or rape crisis over men’s prostate health! There are so many issues in this world and the ones that matter the most to me, the ones I’ll put my heart and soul into happen to be ones that affect women primarily.
John, as I say above, there are just too many issues to learn about them all. I’m unmarried, childless and not in any hurry to change that situation. If it directly affected me I’d go out there and learn all I could but right now, I can’t do that. What else would I need to go out there and educate myself on because it could affect me? Immigration policies? All the cancers? My head only has a limited amount of space to fully educate myself!
Comment by Amanda — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 7:54 pm
Amanda,
You lost me here this time –
I will work for women’s interests first means that I’m going to put more of my effort into those areas.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 8:26 pm
Hmmm, that does sound a little confusing. I warned that I was tired.
I have a certain amount of effort to dole out over all the issues that I’m aware of. Most of that effort will go to women’s issues because they are the ones that hit closest to home and are most significant for me. It doesn’t mean I don’t care about the others, or not support them, but it does mean I’m not likely to be organising a protest for something like men’s custody rights. I’d go, I’d support but it’s not at the top of my list.
Does that make sense?
Comment by Amanda — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 8:30 pm
“or don’t support them” rather.
Comment by Amanda — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 8:31 pm
I got to here this time
Most of that effort will go to women’s issues
Anyone noticing a pattern?
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 8:33 pm
Should I feel bad that most of my effort will go on women’s issues? Surely most of your effort goes on men’s issues? Will you be organising the next Breast Cancer run? Going out there and organising fundraising for women who have raped?
Comment by Amanda — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 8:35 pm
Amanda,
You say –
I’m a feminist because for me, women’s rights come first on my list of ‘to-dos.
I will work for women’s interests first means that I’m going to put more of my effort into those areas.
Most of that effort will go to women’s issues.
Thanks, at least your honest about what your priorities are.
You ask – Should I feel bad that most of my effort will go on women’s issues?
I reply – That depends what you mean by ‘feel bad’. I certainly felt guilty and disappointed when I realised I’d been culturally misguided like many others to view women’s issues as so important that they take prescedent over other folk’s issues.
You ask – Surely most of your effort goes on men’s issues?
I reply – I thought deeply about that many years ago and decided that becoming a Men’s Rights Activist was the greatest act of HUMANISM I could effectively engage in at this point in history. I still think that. What that means is I view my Men’s Rights Activism not as something I do narcisistically to help men only. I do it because I beleive that it’s the biggest social issue of our time and my activism helps everybody regardless of their sex, age, ethnicity etc.
You ask – Will you be organising the next Breast Cancer run? Going out there and organising fundraising for women who have raped?
I reply – In days gone by I did fundraise for Rape Crisis, but as I’ve explained the greatest act of humanism I can think of doing at this point in history is to be a MRA. I used to work as a psychotherapist and quickly learnt the most humane way to work with a group was to give my attention to the members of the group that needed it the most. By doing so I brought most benefit to the group overall. In the same vein as a social scientist I know that men as a group are in much worse shape than women as a group in NZ society (by any measure of social distress – health, suicide, addiction, homelessness etcetcetc) so as A HUMANIST that’s where I put my energy.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 9:02 pm
Yes for me, women’s rights are going to come first. I’m a woman. I’m going to be a lot more personally affected by issues like abortion, women’s health, eating disorders and rape. I’m hopefully not going to find out that I have prostate cancer or that I’ll be accused of raping someone (both issues that primarily face men).
I don’t think that one should feel guilty when they are doing the best they can for issues that impact on them.
Because you believe it is? So based on your beliefs I should put down my feminist sword and start campaigning for men. You are trying to tell me that my focus on woman’s issues is narcissistic because of your experiences and your beliefs. How can you even start to quantify one issue over another in any logical measurable terms? Is a female rape victim is less important than a male who has unfairly lost out in a divorce preceeding? Women’s breast cancer is less important than men’s prostate cancer? Domestic violence towards women is less important than domestic violence towards men?
Personally I think no. All of those experiences are the most important thing to the people who are involved in them. I don’t feel guilty for making women’s rights come first in my life. And I’m not going to apologise for it.
Comment by Amanda — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 9:25 pm
Where did i put my troll spray ?
Comment by Kiwi In Thailand — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 10:20 pm
Actually I don’t agree with you ‘kiwi in thailand’. Amanda has made her point of view known and I think for her it is fine. She is just saying she is a single woman with no kids and woman’s issues matter to her above other injustices. She is not saying the other injustices are any less important. She is jut talking about her own priorities.
If she hopes to have a long term relationship with a man then these issues will become far more important to her. However she doesn’t see this happening in the short term. Perhaps she has no brothers and perhaps her father has passed away. You don’t know.
She isn’t saying she thinks we are wrong. She is only explaining her personal proirities.
What’s wrong with that?
It doesn’t make her a troll.
All politics is self interest at the end of the day. There may be things we can learn from Amanda.
Comment by Dave — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 11:22 pm
No Amanda, I for one won’t be ‘organising’ the next breast cancer run, because this is already taken care of, but every year I agree to stand on a corner in Auckland’s K Road wearing a pink sash in my motorcycle leathers collecting for breast cancer, and my personal experience is that men give more generously than women. Does that count?
Comment by Gerry — Sat 8th May 2010 @ 11:40 pm
Actually Amanda,
It’s simpler than you imagine.
I just put my energy wher the need is greatest. Men’s issues far outway women’s issues in NZ at this point in time.
And I beleive that BECAUSE OF THE MANY FACTS WHICH SUPPORT IT.
If you’d like to debate that such facts exist let’s do so.
I relish the opportunity to re-educate yet another feminist.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 3:46 am
Amanda,
Here’s a good place to start
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 3:54 am
Skeptic,
For sure. That 70’s march was fantastic, alright. All the rest you say is to 2 million women and I can’t answer for them.
Comment by julie — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 10:43 am
Still awaiting your research amanda.
You obviously accept that your view on partner initiated violence is flawed as you have offered to rebuttal to the referenced reputable longitudinal studies that disagree with your assumptions.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 11:27 am
I would make the point that the evidence base for the men’s movement is much more honest than what underlies feminism. Facing huge legal and social barriers to change it may be understandable that feminism adopted a position that men and misogyny were to blame for all evil, and created a mythology that did not accurately reflect the reality that most men’s primary focus was always on providing for, protecting and assisting the happiness of their wives and children. Feminism pushed the belief, unfounded on anything but preference, that there were few differences between men’s and women’s functioning and abilities; this belief has been belatedly abandoned in the face of overwhelming research findings. Feminism created the unscientific, ideological “power and control” model that has distorted understanding of relationship conflict as much as belief in witches delayed knowledge about human ailments. Feminism created many other specific myths such as the “rule of thumb” and “superbowl” false propaganda that continue to enjoy widespread acceptance and to fuel hatred of males. Any claim that feminism is about seeking gender equality may have been true a long time ago but has long been disingenuous as shown by the behaviour of feminists since law changes largely tipped the balance of any gender privilege. Yes, of course feminism was based on just causes and much of what it achieved towards equality was fair and sensible. However, the selfish, dishonest, duplicitous, unfair, exploitative and violent nature of modern feminism is, in my opinion, little different from a white supremacist movement.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 12:30 pm
I see that the current NZ social mileau is currently unsafe for NZ men and boys to exist within.
As a humanist (supporting ALL people) I take up Men’s rights activism because I see that as the most overlooked and worst of all social problems in NZ.
As I said before I place my support where the need is most.
Currently apart from a very very few NZ women I feel with regard to NZ womenfolk at large as certain other NZ men have expressed –
Ignored and/or ridiculed, marginalised rather than listened to with humanity and respect as time and again I see NZ men’s issues passed over and trivialized as less worthy of attention than NZ women’s issues.
Not cared about, but rather often subjected to faux expressions of care which insult my intelligence and degrade my existence.
Often disrespected in person, in print, online and in other NZ media as my sex is stereotyped in all manner of villifying ways.
Miscontrued and misrepresented as evil, debased, woman hating and a risk to fellow NZers despite having successfully completed decades of social work protective of NZers.
MISANDRIC INSTITUTIONS NZ WOMEN CURRENTLY SEEM IN NO BIG HURRY TO GIVE UP –
* A divorce industry devoted to stripping men of children and material assets
* The greater slice of healthcare funding DESPITE the fact that NZ men as a cohort suffer more on ALL major indexes of distress (longevity, ischaemic heart disease, cancer, addictions, homelessness, work related injuries and death, suicide etc etc)
* A justice system which routinely doles out lighter sentencing for comparable crimes to women.
* A state ministry for women which routinely inflates women’s issues and completely ignores men’s issues
* A University system which contains scholarships, courses, academic support systems and whole courses and departments which focus only on supporting women whilst ignoring men and thier issues.
* A secretive, unaccountable family court sytem where women can and too often do make false allegations against fathers with impunity
* A domestic violence industry which operates on hearsay rather than verifiable evidence to stigmatize and criminalise men as vilent, which ignores the extent of men’s being victims of domestic violence and often stereotypes only men as abusers.
* A child support system unfairly scewed towards women which is deeply resistant to hearing the pleas of many impoverished fathers.
* A social welfare system which routinely dispenses from the public purse money to women in a raft of ways unavailable to men.
* A media which routinely highlights the suffering of women whilst making men’s issues invisible
* A human rights commission which defends only thier sex against sexual discrimination
I’m confident that several folks who blog here routinely can provide solid research to back up these claims.
Of course all of the above mentioned institutions are interrelated with vast amounts of networking going on between participants.
They form a nexus of female only entitlement we may call the matriarchy for short, which is sublimely and grotesquely ironic as it appears to have formed as a reaction to feminists ideas of there being a ‘patriarchy’. Indeed when NZ women are challenged about the existence of these misandric institutions they routinely allude to the fictive ‘patriarchy as justification for having these misandric institutions as ‘payback’.
With regard to the vast majority of NZ womanhood I’d love to feel included, valued as equal, humanely treated, cared about, respected for being a kind, very generous and loving father, mentor and fellow citizen. But I don’t.
Whilst NZ womenhood hangs onto overpriveleged power and control at the expense of the health, welfare and human dignity of NZ men I feel compelled to continue to defend myself and NZ men.
I do not want to die with a legacy of having looked the other way with regards to NZ menfolk’s distress.
There’s deep irony in that too because it means that rather than being as I’m often wrongly portrayed as the reactive retrograde sex I’m actually leaving women behind as I grow in courage and compassion.
In a certain sense I feel more humble and more human than ever before.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 1:03 pm
Shame no other women have jumped in on the conversation.
Comment by julie — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 1:45 pm
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard of men being killed coming to the assistance of a woman they don’t know, or drowning trying to save the children of complete strangers. I certainly understand why they do it, because I was brought up breathing the same cultural air – to many men it is second nature to help those who need it
But when I see so many woman such as yourself declaring no reciprocal concern, of course I will rethink my behaviour. So too will more and more men. We will start thinking like women – our own interests first and foremost.
So there will be less and less point in feeling bad about being single-mindedly self-centered.
I don’t know if you have noticed men withdrawing from your life yet, for example looking right past you in public, avoiding sitting next to you in buses, trains or ferries, not engaging in any small-talk, not donating to any woman-specific charities – but it is already happening. It isn’t exactly unprecedented either – there are large parts of the world where men and women have virtually no interaction at all other than family. Maybe you would welcome this. Maybe I would too.
Comment by rc — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 2:01 pm
Hi Amanda
I can understand your position to some degree:
e.g. Because i am a cyclist and a motorcyclist (amongst other things) I put a little effort into issues relating to those things.
More importantly, I am HOT about Family Issues, (not men’s issues on their own)
I have raised four children, two boys, two girls. When I say I raised them, I was present at the anti-natal classes, the medical apointments, at the birth (hey I even delivered one myself), fed, them weaned them, changed and washed nappies, toilet trained them, played a big part in educating them (two have Cerebal Palsy- one, my daughter Angela now is a Scientist at CERN, a published author, the other, my son Carl has just had a Kidney transplant, has a career as a Computer Network specialist, also just qualified as an Inshore Launch Master- etc. etc.
My gratefully-ex ex-wife played little part in all this, even though she never worked, and is now a mental patient on a sickness benefit.
I have six grandchildren to the other daughter, and have REFUSED for 15 years to have any contact with them, because I know that false allegations would be made, and that such cannot be defended, I would AUTOMATICALLY become a criminal child molester (and you know what happens to THEM in prizon!).
I am HOT that because I dedicated my life to supporting and raising a family, I am treated as a criminal (or one we haven’t yet found out about).
I know that my other three children will never raise families
I know that the lives of my children my grandchildren are much poorer because of how men are treated.
My case is not special Amanda, just typical.
I meen hundreds of men in far worse positions than myself.
Should you ever find yourself wondering why you are growing old, alone, (except of course for your equally single girlfriends and most of the NZ Female population) and wondering why men are committment-shy, then think about men’s rights as an integral part of Humanism, as an integral contribution to women’s welfare.
Please do some research into how Feminism was hijacked- start here http://www.friesian.com/feminism.htm and here http://www.aei.org/scholar/56 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
and http://fathersforlife.org/pizzey/planned_destruction_of_family.htm
Regards
John
Comment by John Brett — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 2:04 pm
I think that Amanda is just making the point that most women will not care until they realise it effects them personally. Yet another reason for the marriage strike. Women will speak out in higher numbers when they realise they have priced themselves out of relationships.
Comment by Dave — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 4:11 pm
rc,
I’m right with you brother.
You wisely said –
But when I see so many woman such as yourself declaring no reciprocal concern, of course I will rethink my behavior. So too will more and more men. We will start thinking like women — our own interests first and foremost.
So there will be less and less point in feeling bad about being single-mindedly self-centered.
I don’t know if you have noticed men withdrawing from your life yet, for example looking right past you in public, avoiding sitting next to you in buses, trains or ferries, not engaging in any small-talk, not donating to any woman-specific charities — but it is already happening. It isn’t exactly unprecedented either — there are large parts of the world where men and women have virtually no interaction at all other than family. Maybe you would welcome this. Maybe I would too.
I already do all of the behavior described above. I’ve done so for some time. It’s now so well ingrained and so automatic that I model it many times every day to other males including many boys. I see modern day westernized women as competitors in the marketplace and so I’m even reticent to mentor them in the workplace. They so often give so very little in return (not even a civilized thank-you) yet so often intentionally use ‘eye candy’ to try and get information out of me that I just switch off. They in turn look increasingly stressed, bewildered and lonely. When a woman (unsolicited) is genuinely kind, helpful and generous I give profuse thanks in order to reinforce the behavior. It doesn’t seem to produce any change that I can detect so far though in most women I encounter.
It seldom happens anyway as I don’t get close to begin with.
In summary I am perpetually wary around ’empowered’ westernized (mostly anglophile) women.
Decades of experience have taught me my life is much safer that way. Such wariness and engaging with the occasional woman soley on my own terms are paying handsome dividends – my health has improved dramatically, I am better off financially, I have grown to nurture myself independent of women’s ‘concern’ and just moved on basically. I had a romantic liaison with a woman in Germany last summer which was a real eye opener. We got to the point of asking and discovering what each other would want in any kind of ongoing partnership. The moment I asserted my preferences instead of being customarily chivalrous and letting her have her way at my expense this ‘powerful’ modern woman instantly reverted into a grovelling sniveling wreck which was pitiful and embarrassing to see. Whilst I didn’t enjoy seeing her so anguished at the thought of being left on the shelf for good, and tried to reassure here she could still be attractive to other men she was a mess and not my responsibility to help either. I often have women eying me up which is gratifying, but I have far too much work ahead of me to do trying to create a safe social environment for myself and other men to be in to pay much interest. I suppose I come across as aloof and polite but cold – a mirror of the vast majority of modern day ’empowered’ womanhood including family members.
It would take a very remarkable, assertive AND sensitive woman who was actively engaged in improving modern men’s disposable second sex status to tempt me into any kind of long term commitment to her, and even so with so many misandric modern day feminist conventions and state laws in place I’d always be looking over my shoulder to see if she’d switched and I was about to be crushed again emotionally and financially.
That’s just not an attractive proposition, and I’m not about to weaken and sell out on myself and menfolk for the sake of a few crumbs from the feminist table. And so for now I remain a……
Skeptik.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 9th May 2010 @ 5:18 pm
Skeptik,
Many posters on MENZ advocate moving overseas, e.g to Thailand, but things are just as bad here in many respects . I dont think that you will like it here if you are looking for equality unless you have a BIG FAT wallet
It is the custom for the oldest male to pay the meal bill for everyone at the table. Thai ladies will never pay a bill until they have bled you dry of cash. They frequently bring their friends and especially family along for a free meal at your expense. If you go to the local shopping mall or market, i estimate 95% of the shops are for women, 5% for men ! Many women are poor , yes, but they still get a salary, maybe 25% of yours, still 25% ! But they will never pay for anything ever.
If you marry a Thai lady, many parents still expect a SinSot, money for the bride, a dowry. 200K NZD is common ! And female violence ? Thailand is the penis reattachment centre of the world !
Comment by Kiwi In Thailand — Mon 10th May 2010 @ 2:05 am
Yes K i T,
I recently came across a study done in a Chiang Mai magazine. Quite small scale admittedly looking at 100 or so farang (foreighn westerner) men who were seperated from 100 or so Thai women. I forget the exact cohort number, but the thing that struck me was that in ALL CASES it was the Thai woman who had initiated the seperation, no doubt having gotten a pile of money/materials in the process. You’re also right about Thai women. On dates with men they pay NOTHING. Moneygrubbers, way way overrated, arrogant and decietful. Only guys who think with their small heads go near them.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 10th May 2010 @ 3:32 am
K.i.T,
I’m impressed with your action. You put men’s well-being ahead of a bullet into NZ women. Wonderful thing to see.
Comment by julie — Mon 10th May 2010 @ 11:19 am
A while back Hans offered a timely reminder of how oftentimes men’s plight is made invisible whist women’s plight is spelt out overtly. here’s a classic example of that from our very own news hungry bastion of sensitivity towards males ‘Stuff NZ’.
Unfortunately all sarcasm aside they’ve been at it again.
Notice anything in particular about this article that renders men invisible?
Yep, you guessed it the word MEN never gets used even ONCE.
VERY VERY ODD EH? (rhetorical question)
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 12th May 2010 @ 11:01 pm
Actually, the word “men” is there once, in the 4th line. Maybe they put it in later. Regardless, one could be excused for missing it, the only reference in a long article to the fact that every single person who died in that mine will have been male. Issues of mine standards, whether rescue protocols were observed, and the country’s steel industry were all seen worthy of comment, but the brave contribution male miners make to society and the fact that men routinely lose their lives in that industry were not considered worthy of comment or analysis. Imagine, however, if it had been all women who died in a workplace accident! Then we would have seen plenty of analysis about why that industry is so dangerous, whether we should have people doing the work at all, and grateful obituaries to the brave women who gave their lives making their contribution to society.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 13th May 2010 @ 11:01 pm
Thanks for spotting the word ‘men’ Hans, and sorry for the oversight.
I think you make wise comments about the media double standards regarding safety of men vis a vis women in the work place.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 13th May 2010 @ 11:09 pm
Here’s another interesting example of female violence in NZ.
Comment by Right hook — Fri 28th May 2010 @ 11:12 am
Dear Amanda
I know the ex ex wife very well. Amanda she is a lovely lovely woman who does not have a mental illness. He on the other hand we know suffers from Aspergus Syndrome. For him to say what he has said about his ex wife is defamatory. And Amanda if you believe what he says you are being sadly misled.
Comment by Don Wood — Sat 29th May 2010 @ 3:21 pm
Here’s a test for everyone…
All the articles – longer one here – I can find regarding this situation use the word “parents” exclusively.
What does this mean?
(for those who need it a useful study guide can be found here.)
Comment by gwallan — Sun 30th May 2010 @ 4:18 am
Yes Right hook, this news story is an interesting example of people’s tendency to disbelieve that females are capable of violence. Some police officer would rather latch on to rumours (or lies by the violent girls themselves trying to avoid responsibility) that parents were responsible for “organizing fights” than consider that girls are being violent. The same kind of thinking underlies the tendency of Courts to refer violent females for psychiatric assessment much more so than males, as pointed out by Warren Farrell many years ago. If a female is violent it must be due to something else, but if a male is violent then that’s because he’s a violent male.
The same kind of thinking lies behind decisions like this, where a woman accused of stabbing her male partner to death is released on bail! How many men who have stabbed a woman to death would be given bail? If this woman now seeks to blame the man for her violence towards him, just watch how eagerly the media and the public buy into that excuse. The excuse may or may not have some validity, but men who kill their partners will usually have excuses of equal merit.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 30th May 2010 @ 11:41 am
To be fair the point is that 13 year olds still need to be taught that fighting is not the way to resolve disputes. Hence they can be forgiven for fighting. The parents on the other hand don’t have an excuse.
I could be wrong but it is very hard for me to imagine any biological father organising for his teenage daughter “aged 13 or 14” to fight someone else. The male instinct to protect his own children is very strong and primal. The statistics on outcomes of fatherless children support this notion very clearly.
Beyond gender ask yourself if this is more likely to happen for a child with a solo mother on the DBP or in a family where both parents are working hard?
Comment by Dave — Mon 31st May 2010 @ 11:51 am
An Auckland woman found guilty of murdering a three-year-old boy in her care sobbed and called-out after the verdict was read.
Dylan Rimoni, 3, died on April 18, 2008, in Auckland’s Starship children’s hospital after his life support was turned off. An autopsy showed he died from head injuries.
“This child was beaten for a long time. He was hit, cut and maltreated over the period he was in Ms Pickering’s care. In the end he was dead, in her arms, effectively.”
The jury was shown a cupboard door with two dents in the wood that the Crown claims were caused by the boy’s head hitting it with force.
Evidence had been given to the court by Pickering’s neighbours, who heard angry yelling at the house. One neighbour had heard Pickering yell: “Shut the f… up, shut up”. Another heard her say: “If you do not shut your mouth, I’m going to punch your head.”
Neighbours also gave evidence of seeing Pickering roughly handling a child outside the house a month before Dylan’s death, Mr Hamlin said.
Pickering had then lied to police about what had really happened, blaming Dylan’s injuries on him being a “clumsy” child.
“Toddlers do not run around and get significant brain injuries.”
Comment by Dave — Tue 22nd June 2010 @ 4:54 pm