- 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 25th January 2011

Scare tatics to prevent DPB reform

Filed under: General — Vman @ 12:37 pm

Guys we need you to hammer every news site and discussion site you can. We need to influence public opinion and shout down the DPB bludgers.

Concerns over welfare reforms

Mon 24th January 2011

Sexism in Courts and Media

Filed under: Domestic Violence,General,Law & Courts,Sex Abuse / CYF — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:50 am

As I have said before, the frequency with which we see anti-male sexism means there are almost always good current examples handy. Take the following stories that have appeared in the news over the last week or so:

The first story was raised on MENZ by Wayne (21/01/11). It deserves fuller analysis and to be compared with similar cases involving male offenders. It was about a 17yo woman who had sexual intercourse with a 12yo boy after plying him with alcohol. Features of the case and the news article included: (more…)

Fri 21st January 2011

A Sign of Changing Attitudes?

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 12:14 pm

This news article was interesting. It was headlined ‘Police hunt sex pest’ and described a ‘half-naked’ man aged about 20 years offering to drive a female European tourist to show her Huka Falls. (Actually, he was dressed in shorts on a very hot day”¦) He drove her instead to a nearby dam further up the Waikato River and at some stage after they both left the car he made some sexual suggestion through gesturing. According to the article, she became angry and he ‘took fright’, drove off and left her there. A nearby worker noticed her there soon thereafter and alerted police.

Now perhaps this man’s intentions were unsavoury, his behaviour dishonourable, exploitative and irresponsible. Perhaps he is a rapist-in-waiting who couldn’t quite bring himself to proceed on this occasion. But we only have her version of events that might not be entirely truthful, and even that version didn’t warrant the extreme language or jumping to conclusions that he was dangerous, a ‘sex pest’, ‘she was lucky to escape unharmed’ etc. Equally, he may have found her attractive, hoped that she was interested in a bit of nooky with him, driven her to other nearby sights to extend their time together (he may have explained this but language difficulties caused some misunderstanding), then felt so perturbed and offended by her hostile reaction to his playful sexual suggestions that he sought a quick escape. He may have been concerned for his safety if he tried to drive her back to town, and/or concerned that her unreasonable hostility predicted she might make false allegations to police when they returned to town so he’d better make himself scarce. (We all know that any such allegations will ruin a man’s life regardless of their veracity, and that nothing is needed apart from allegations to prosecute and convict a man of sexual crimes.) She may have had her own personality problems leading her to make unwise choices in the first place and affecting her subsequent interpretations and responses. He may have been aware that the power station was close by and she would easily find a ride back to town. The fact is, we simply don’t know. All we are told is he drove her near to a dam and power station, indicated he was interested in sex and quickly left when she declined in an angry manner.

The fact that police and news media alike were so quick to jump to conclusions involving male-demonizing hyperbole won’t surprise anyone here, but what was surprising were the public comments in response to this article. Nearly all were scathing of it, many recognizing accurately that the man had not committed any offence, that simply asking a woman to have sex now saw a man treated like a rapist, and that real crime was being sidelined through this manhunt for a non-offender. Several people even recognized the broader issue of feminist misandry as relevant here. Check it out; this may represent significant progress in public attitude, a refreshing intolerance towards male-bashing.

Thu 20th January 2011

Ex-partner trying to provoke foreclosure

Filed under: Law & Courts — Reasonable @ 11:05 pm

I have a half share in the house with my ex-partner. I paid for half the house and I am on the title. I separated from her and suggested she could move out and I could stay in the house and pay her half of a fair market rent or vice versa. The alternative was to put the house on the market and in the meantime rent it out to a third party.

I was stupid enough, when we were still in the relationship, to suggest that I renovate the house, the whole house, which would increase its value. She was more than happy but refused to take any loan for renovation materials. I not only put in my labour but also took a $30K loan in my name, she promised to pay me half after we sell the house. There was another loan of $20K in my name.

I moved out two and a half years ago and my ex hasn’t paid me a penny and of course I cannot evict her or force her to pay as half of the house is hers so she doesn’t need to move out of this half. She has trespassed me from the property so I cannot use my share. (more…)

UN concern over Kiwi kids rights.

Filed under: General — Vman @ 3:03 pm

Read this and note the focus on poverty rather than on fatherless children. yet we know fatherless upbringing in the main indicator for poor outcomes for children.

stuff.co.nz

Mon 17th January 2011

Witness for the Defence

Filed under: Law & Courts,Sex Abuse / CYF — JohnPotter @ 3:31 pm

After years of facing accusations that she’s an apologist for paedophiles, Professor Felicity Goodyear-Smith finally comes to her own defence.

In an exclusive interview with North & South’s Donna Chisholm, the highly respected professor of general practice at the University of Auckland discusses why she continues to be a witness for the defence in child abuse cases.

In this regard, Goodyear-Smith stands alone, ostracised by former colleagues and thrown out of DSAC (Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care) – a group that once made her a life member.

Married to the son of Centrepoint guru Bert Potter who was convicted of child sex charges, she also spent five years as the commune’s GP.

A doctor with a compromised past who’s protecting the predators? Or a champion of the falsely accused? Decide after reading Goodyear-Smith’s story in the February edition of North & South.
(more…)

Sun 16th January 2011

Sharing Experiences With Younger Folk

Filed under: General — MurrayBacon @ 4:09 pm

I am assembling a directory of commercial films, which contain issues that are presented well enough, to offer training and perhaps teach skills. I am asking for a few people to also watch these DVDs and to confirm that they do present these issues well enough, to be usefull to others. In some cases, they contain a mixture of useful and perhaps some inaccuracies, which need to be identified, so that they do not cause problems.

I am also helping a few people (myself among them), to make their experiences with separation available to younger people, who need to know how NZ actually works. This is aimed at helping people to negotiate their separations, at lowest cost, financially and relationship-wise.

Request for help:

People willing to put in a some time watching and discussing the DVDs, please call me on (09) 638 7275 or E MAIL murray_bacon @ clear . net.nz.

People willing to help with filming and paperwork, for peoples stories, please also phone me on (09) 6387275. In particular, people with WORD and POWERPOINT skills would be very helpful.

Thanks, MurrayBacon.

Thu 6th January 2011

No job or income but admin review says I have to pay $1450 in child tax per month!!!

Filed under: Child Support,Law & Courts — Had_Enough @ 9:11 pm

I have always paid my IRD formula prescribed amount of Child Tax. Never missed a payment and at times even had to borrow money so I could meet my obligations. In May I lost my job. I have been unemployed ever since. I am not entitled to any form of benefit being a middle class, middle aged married male who has paid his taxes all his life. Soon after I lost my job I filled out an IR104 which allowed me to have my liability assessed on my actual earnings for 2010-2011 instead of my earnings for the previous year. For several months I was allowed to pay the minimum amount which I thought was fair since I still have no income and no job or savings. There was a thing called the Global Financial Crisis but IRD don’t appear to believe me when I tell them that this has prevented me from finding employment since I lost my job in May. By the way I lost my job due to some very dubious practices and I believe I would have had a case for constructive dismissal but I’d had enough so didn’t bother getting litigious. Anyway, I will get to the point. The mother of my children who has a job and multiple benefits did an admin review on me. I declined to take part since it was obvious that I had no income. I mean the IRD people can easily verify that so I thought the result would be “no departure”. Oh how wrong I was!! The Admin Review Officer has decided that I should have to pay the same amount of Child Support as when I had a full time job in the 2009 – 2010 tax year. She has made an assumption that I have deliberately made myself unemployed to avoid child support and thus should continue to pay $1450 per month!! Not only do I have to pay this going forward but she has backdated it to September which has immediately put me in arrears.

Please wise people out there , what the F**k can I do to make these people see reason. I have been told I can’t do my own admin review unless it is based on different grounds to the ones the mother of my children used on me. This makes it impossible because she used grounds 3, 7 and 8 which are precisely the grounds I need to use. I have also been told I could take it to the Family Court if I want it overturned. Yeah right, like that’s going to help!!!! Any ideas?????

Tue 4th January 2011

New Zealand Homicides of Male Intimate Partners Committed by Women 2009-2010

Filed under: Domestic Violence — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 10:14 pm

This is a new presentation of data I recently discussed in another thread. I have prepared it as a stand-alone research report because I think the work important enough to be found easily and quoted widely.

New Zealand Homicides of Male Intimate Partners Committed by Women 2009-2010

Hans Laven

Introduction
In New Zealand over the last few years we have often heard police or other spokespeople refer to domestic partner homicide with reference only to female deaths. The most common statement goes something like this: “On average a woman is killed by her partner or former partner every five weeks” sometimes followed by “and ten children die in domestic violence incidents every year” (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). (more…)

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar