- 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 8th May 2012

Dunne runs for cover following death by child tax

Filed under: Child Support — Scrap_The_CSA @ 12:38 pm

Following Paul Jenkins death by child tax miraculously Dunne’s disaster to be gets a rapid path to first reading.

Child support is set to be overhauled in the biggest proposed changes to child support law in 20 years.
The income of both parents will be factored into child support calculations for the first time under the Child Support Amendment Bill proposed by Revenue Minister Peter Dunne which has its first reading in Parliament tomorrow.

This bill will not remove the fundemental flaws in the current child tax act, but will negatively impact, Tens of thousands of parents, particuarly Dads.

Regards

Scrap

101 Responses to “Dunne runs for cover following death by child tax”

  1. John Dutchie says:

    Rely to Scrap_The_CSA

    A question I would like to ask Mr Feminist lover ‘Peter Dunne’,is ‘He’ going to take a Mothers new live in ‘hidden’ boyfriend earnings into the ‘factored child support calculations’…????…I think not….

    Now watch this space when them poor Kiwi women feminists scream blue murder with there sense of entitlement of the…’We are the Victims’ … That there ‘oppressed’ meal ticket could be clipped…..

    Kind regards John Dutchie…Free at long last….

  2. Kelvin Dunn says:

    While there are some changes to the Child Support Formula that are to be welcomed there are others that are not. The proposals, far from being a panacea, will merely create a new class of disadvantaged (again mainly fathers).
    I put to IRD the scenario whereby a vindictive mother moves regularly without giving the father prior notice or new contact details for the children. Also, the mother refuses to allow the father any contact with the children contrary to the provisions of an extant Parenting Order which gives the children 28% of time with the father. Could the father expect that % to be reflected in his payments and therefore result in a commensurate reduction in his liability?
    ANSWER: The Parenting Order would normally be reflected in liability levels. However where the position “on the ground” is different then that would be reflected in liability levels. In the scenario set out above that means the father (who is prevented from complying with the Parenting Order by the vindictive mother) would have to pay more! He could apply to IRD for an administrative review or Commissioner’s determination but, on balance, “there would probably be a presumption in favour of the actual situation” where that is different to the Parenting Order! IRD also ‘advised’ that in such circumstances the father should apply to the Family Court for an Order enforcing the Parenting Order if he wanted to ensure the reduction in shared care was properly reflected in his liability!!!!
    So whichever way you look at it, this situation leaves the father in a no win situation. Fight with IRD or the Family Court? Its like asking a turkey to vote for Christmas!!!

  3. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Kelvin Dunn

    A very good post you have written Kelvin…And do you how many vindictive Kiwi women feminists are employed at I.R.D child support department..More then you could ever image….My blood use to boil when the I.R.D used to advertise ‘Its our job to be fair’

    your comment…. ‘Fight with IRD or the Family Court? Its like asking a turkey to vote for Christmas!!!’

    In lot of circumstances, the Father is usually fighting with ‘both’ the I.R.D and the Family court… that’s like inviting the Turkey to be the royal guest of honor for Christmas lunch …

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

  4. Ford says:

    what pisses me off about custody and court orders etc is the women seems to be able to please herself what and where she takes the kids and all the courts do is alter court orders to cover her unilateral decisions..its about time the courts told the women to stick to current orders or give up the kids

  5. Down Under says:

    Dunne says,

    “What happens is people get behind in their payments and they incur interest and penalties and the figures get to be very huge and they drop out of the system because it becomes all too difficult,” he said.
    So it is not the fault of the law, or the behaviour of the IRD, it is the fault of the individual for whom it was all too difficult.

    Down Under says, ‘You conceited arsehole.’

  6. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford#4

    Your comment ‘women seems to be able to please herself’…’Tongue in cheek’ humor here Ford

    Its a Kiwi women definition of been ‘Empowered’…Haven’t you seen the ‘YOU GO GIRL’ bill boards at women’s only gyms…

    Kind regards Free at long last

  7. Ford says:

    The income of both parents will be factored into child support calculations?..
    does that mean the Govt now has 2 wages to extort money from seeing 2 parents are now liable to pay?

  8. Ford says:

    #5..isnt dunne a complete fuckwit

  9. Ford says:

    on the next ‘fight for life’ charity boxing event..i challenge peter dunne

  10. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Ford,Comment number 7.As I understand it yes.

  11. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford #7 and Scrap_The_CSA#10

    And you honestly think that Peter Dunne is going upset New

  12. Kelvin Dunn says:

    Ford. While I haven’t seen recent statistics I seem to recall that about 12 – 18 months ago it was shown that the greater proportion of mothers did not work but were on benefits! What the new proposals will do if that situation still prevails is to place an even greater burden on a hard working father who already struggles. And if the father gets Fringe Benefits in his job (company car for example) the value of the benefits is added back in to his wages for Child Support purposes. And if the father runs a Ltd liability company any retained earnings of that business are also added back in to his wages to pay child support on. And if he has worked hard since relationship breakdown and has been luck enough to save a little money in a Family Trust to help his children through University for example or to do additional study while at school etc then the Trust Income is also added back in to his wages for CS purposes!!! Bear in mind that all these add backs are based on GROSS amounts but have to be paid out of NET income and it is clear to a Blind Man (Dunne excepted)that whichever way you look at it liable are father’s are F……D over big time under these proposals despite the few welcome changes…..!!!!
    In the UK there is a saying “There is no one so blind as a man who can’t see. But no one as stupid as one who can but won’t”!!!
    In closing, I wonder what the take up would be of politicians (Dunne included) if they were challenged by liable fathers to time in the ring with all charitable proceeds going to Fatherless children!!!!

  13. John Dutchie says:

    Bugger, hit the wrong key

    Reply to Ford #7 and Scrap_The_CSA#10

    And you honestly think that Peter Dunne is going upset and get on the wrong side of New Zealand women………….I think not….

    Do you honestly think the powerful Feminists employed in all sectors of N.Z government departments will agree to that situation and sit back and do nothing…Again,I think not …Don’t ever under estimate on how powerful the feminist movement is in New Zealand…

    Watch this space, I will guarantee there will be silent, but a very powerful lobbing done by the feminists concerning if women are so called held accountable and ‘liable’…

    Watch out on so called ‘unbiased’ reports been released to the media by the feminists at N.Z universities loudly stating … ‘the children will suffer’… If women are held liable and accountable for shared child support

    The ‘tongue in cheek’ unbiased Child support will be always hammered onto the Fathers…

    Just look whats been happening in western society for the last forty years relating to Manhood and Fatherhood which have been ‘villain fry’ and ‘demonized’ by the feminist movement…

    I really hope for all the decent Fathers in N.Z that have been ‘slaughter and quarter’ by the N.Z feminist state that I am going to be proven wrong with my opinion….But sorry to say this…History is on my side

    Kind regards… John Dutchie …Free at long lasts

  14. Ford says:

    #12..as i thought its men that will get shafted again and if Dunne is concerned and cares about children so much he should gladly accept a challenge and an opportunity to help children

  15. Ford says:

    i watched the news about free contraception for women on benefits and the female reporter tova obrien said people will squeal its another attack on ‘poor females’..i hope it becomes compulsory

  16. dad4justice says:

    I am about to write to Peter Dunne on a very serious child support matter. I will publish on my blog and here. Mnay will be shocked. I have them checkmate. Just watch and learn. Poor peter.

  17. Ford says:

    after reading the link i seen this…’At present, the income of the parent who has sole care of children is not considered in child support calculations because current laws assume the sole carer will not be earning an income’.
    if this is the case why do the courts award custody to parents who have no income to support their kids

  18. blamemenforall says:

    Thanks Kelvin for your informative comment on the proposed changes. I haven’t read the proposed bill and it sounds like it will be traumatic to do so.

  19. PB says:

    Its a start that IRD may look at the sole carers income. BUT no where have I heard what is proposed for shared care other than a reduction in the threshold. (Presumably this sounds like a graduated payment proposal).
    50/50 care is just that. Why should I with no assets, same costs as the Mother, have to pay her $200 per week?
    I house, feed, clothe, entertain, pay 1/2 schooling, medical, schooling etc. PLUS $200 a week to the Mother who works AND had a live in Partner.

  20. Tanya says:

    Maybe the including in of Company & Trust money has been done because men have hid money for decades to avoid paying Child Support?In my experience many of them do this out of anger towards the custodial parent.Just a thought.

  21. Ford says:

    #20..your average joe bloggs on the street hardly has 2c to rub together let alone having a company and a trust fund so id say the company and trust were set up when the couple were together with the woman delighted the taxman etc couldnt get to the money.then when they split the woman then wants to get her hands on it or in her spiteful games she wants the taxman to take it all.Rather the taxman have it than the x.And in my experiences most men want to do right by their kids.Its the women that want to ruin it for him and you wonder why they are angry.Why should a man lose everything because of some spiteful vindictive bitch?.just a thought

  22. Ford says:

    #19..if you have shared care apply for child support yourself..you are entitled to it with shared care arrangements

  23. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Tanya#20

    Oh really Tanya….All what I can say to you, as a typical Kiwi woman..You are truly full of it…

    The same old usual Kiwi women feminist ‘shaming tactics’…. The usual ‘I am victim’ mentally … The same old typical manipulating Kiwi women feminists spin machine in action….

    Have a read of this article below…that will dispel your Kiwi women feminist crap…!!!

    http://www.interest.co.nz/node/59163/personal%20finance

    CS stuck me with a bill for around 40% of my gross income a couple years ago. I didn’t have paperwork they would accept and I had just been screwed over by my accountant so I was busy doing the business’ accounts and didn’t have the time or papertrail to set CS right (I was too busy making sure the company filed & survived the IncomeTax.)

    I made the mistake of borrowing the amount to meet the CS bill. !!!!!

    What I didn’t know was that to get your ACTUAL taxable income recognised you HAVE TO file an income estimate form. Even if it’s the last payday of the year and the all the year has gone by, you *must* file that estimate form and meet it’s 15% deviation rule if you are going to get your actual income recognised.
    Because I thought the amounts were “squared up” at the end of year (which had always happened before, since I’d always had to file estimates because my income is all over the place) and it was late February before I got the last of the company’s accounts processed and correct, I didn’t think it was worth filing an estimate with only 1 month to go. WHAT A MISTAKE. I thought, ‘hell it’s just a waste of beaurucracy time. I file it, they query it, we fix it. then by the time that happens its year-end’. BIG MISTAKE. They took my $6000 overpayment (which represented over 30% of my net income for the year) and kept it!!!!!!

    I’m still paying off the loan for the money (I figured I’d just repay the majority of the loan with the overpayment) and the interest on that – not to mention the cashflow issues that has caused for me. (I’m down 6k cash, and up 6k of my ‘leverage allowance’, + servicing)
    I tried to get it reviewed.
    BUT. The people who hear the case at IRD, CS; have NO accounting training. They don’t know their credit from their elbow! Can’t tell revenue from expense, let alone income/profit.
    I have a flat that I rent in town (that is ‘home’). But I have to spend time at the farm, for security purposes (Bailee responsibility and vs theft). So their “expert” decided that the value of the farm office/house must be added to my income. Also all electricity used at the office, and phone also got added. I had to supply a car for the job, to the company, which FBT is nil because I contributed 100% of that purchase value to the company”¦ but they added more than the cars value to my theoretical “income”.
    Fortunately the family trust had made losses, so when they tried to add the trusts income to mine, as if I had the income personally, it would have reduced liability – so they ignored the losses.
    The company had paid a large amount of Provisional Tax, so that got added to MY personal income (it showed as net profit [bT!!] ).
    The company had also increased its inventory and materials by 20%, so THAT got added to my personal income TOO.

    The rental properties that I own”¦ that had already had their income and expenses accounted for in my taxable income, and on my IR3R (most positive cashflow that year)”¦the _gross_revenues_ were added “¦. but not the received amounts! They took the gross rental payment per week and multiplied it by 52 !!!!! despite one property being empty for 4 months!
    One ex- had run up student debt, got a replacement late model sceond hand car, smokes, drinks, can afford to support 2-3 cats, has so many books/knickknacks/toys for her and kids you can hardly move in their house. Her 20k debt for this was taken into account.
    My (company)500k debt for business and (personal) 200k mortgages was not taken into account. except they declared me “asset rich”

    That “I was able to pay” CS’s overcharging WAS taken considered “proof” that I could afford to extra, despite not actually being liable for it.
    My only recourse was to take the issue to the Family Court, pay a lawyer (they still kept my 6k, and I’m paying it off as well as the normal Child Support for my pay grade this year). And take the time away from the farm and business to pursue the matter in court.
    CS closing remarks on their report, were that my ex should take -me- to court for part of the action/profits in the business, farm and houses. (all got after we divorced).

    Not a bad scam considering she chose to leave me, and all I had left was a kitchen table and a couple of old black’n’decker power tools (& a half interest in one house, which I brought her out after the divorce, from money gifted to me). I was so poor after the separation, that a baliff visiting about a forgotten speeding ticket, offered to let me off (the collection fee) !!!’

  24. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Tanya#20

    Here is a awesome link for you Tanya and also for the rest of your Kiwi women feminist friends to appraise…That includes the feminists employed at the Gestapo ministry of women’s affairs……Enjoy the read Kiwi feminist women…..

    http://www.manwomanmyth.com/women/toxic-women/

    Reply to Ford #21… Spot on with your post Ford…and well said Good sir…

  25. bruce.tichbon says:

    Comment to Scrap_The_CSA

    Scrap, I think it was you that pointed out IRD needed $1billion to upgrade their IT, and that would prevent many policy changes (I thought it a good comment at the time). I expected this might delay this legislation but no way. I would appreciate any further thoughts you may have now.

    Listening to the debate in Parliament last night, the Bill promotes shared care, and the feminist MP’s were sure hitting back at that. The way so many MPs accepted that mum is the custodial parent and dad must pay was sickening.

  26. Jason says:

    Tanya’s comments seem the same as my ex wife Tanya an accountant.
    I have shared care with our son who I have 5 days a fortnight. I am spending any remaining money I have after paying child support trying through the family court for a complete shared care agreement. I am all for child support but when an ex partner is earning more and uses a child to get back at an ex partner (which is a form of child abuse) I cannot see any fairness in the system. The law says that fathers have the same rights as the mother but this never seems to work out this way.

  27. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to bruce.tichbon

    Your comment Bruce of’ feminist ”MP’s were sure hitting back at that. The way so many MPs accepted that mum is the custodial parent and dad must pay was sickening.’

    That doesn’t surprise me at all Bruce…As I have said previously on this post …Its not only the feminist MPs that will fight this Bill ‘tooth and nail’,that ‘promotes shared care,’

    Its also the very powerful Manhood /Fatherhood hating feminists controlled government departments in New Zealand that will lobby to ‘hell and back’ against this bill….

    Its the Feminists ideology that the family unit must be destroyed…Men and Fathers shouldn’t be allowed near their own Children …

    See below, here are some world famous revered,prominent feminists quotes relating to there ultimate goal

    “All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women… All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men’s prey.”
    Marilyn French

    “I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father’s concubine… What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What’s more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.”.
    Journalist Sylvia Fraser

    “We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable.”
    Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.

    Catharine MacKinnon ( ) maintains that “the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women’s exploited labor.” In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state’s nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid–ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed–they’re “hiding from the truth.” The family isn’t a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don’t simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to “breed” them for that purpose.
    Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)

    “In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.”
    Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies.

    Another posting on FEMISA: “Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men’s violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers.”
    Both quotes taken from Daphne Patai’s excellent critical work,

    Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman,” Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58..

    “How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” Roxanne Dunbar in Female Liberation

    “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage. Robin Morgan, from Sisterhood Is Powerful (ed), 1970, p. 537

    “Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership. Only when manhood is dead–and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it” Andrea Dworkin

    I don’t have to say anymore do I….This is directed to you, Kiwi women feminists employed at ‘The ministry of women’s affairs’

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last….

  28. Ford says:

    #27..it goes to show how much women want to have control of everything and im on the understanding controlling behavior is a no-no or is that just a rule for men?

  29. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Bruce,

    Scrap, I think it was you that pointed out IRD needed $1billion to upgrade their IT, and that would prevent many policy changes (I thought it a good comment at the time). I expected this might delay this legislation but no way. I would appreciate any further thoughts you may have now.

    Listening to the debate in Parliament last night, the Bill promotes shared care, and the feminist MP’s were sure hitting back at that. The way so many MPs accepted that mum is the custodial parent and dad must pay was sickening.

    Bruce,

    I listened also. Dunne is quite clear there is no connection between what he kept calling access and Child Tax. In his view it is the clear duty of the liable parent to pay. Collection is paramount. Voluntary compliance saves money, if you dont comply IRD will hound you to death and beyond.

    What they are talking about when using the term shared care is an attempt to further entrench the tax collectors notion of “shared care for the purpose of calculating child tax” NOT shared care of children.

    First reading hansard here :http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Drafts/b/5/1/50HansY_20120508-Draft-transcript-Tuesday-08-May-2012.htm

    To quote Dunne – Child support and parental access do not go hand in hand, nor does the level of child support payable have any influence on determining the level of access to one’s children. That is a separate process determined by the Family Court under separate legislation and has nothing to do with the child support system. The point is that parents have a fundamental responsibility to provide for the care of their children, regardless of whatever access or custody arrangements have been concluded or whatever town or city, or even country, they might live in.

    Will be blogging and mobilising over the next few weeks.

    Regards

    SCrap

  30. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford #28

    After having a think on what you said Ford and my Asian lady reads whats been posted here at Menz…She made a comment that made my jaw dropped to the floor..It was this….

    ‘I thought Nazi Germany ideology was condemned in western European society,it looks like to me, it is still alive and well entrenched, but under a different banner ‘

    Have a little think here on what she as said …Scary

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

  31. Ford says:

    #30..if 1 argues against a woman 1 runs the risk of being accused of all sorts of shit..the gas chamber would be a better option than to have to deal with their crap

  32. Mits says:

    This bit caught my attention
    “The child support scheme is a back-up arrangement where parents fail to reach agreement over the financial support of their children.”
    what a load of political bollocks, I never agreed to back up the Govts DPB system.

    As Ive said before, couples that can sort out their own child support issues through a private arrangement usually seemed bemused that others can’t come to an amicable arrangement.
    Its the DPB that creates alot of problems, my own ex wanted me to pay her the same ammount as I paid the govt as a contribution to her lifestyle choices and then when she remarried enjoyed the power concept of IRD enforcing what she calls “her money”
    From my own experience its when predominantly the mother decides she can use IRD to furthur punish the fatherthat the problems start.
    Dunne nothing isnt about to reduce the tax take and I see nothing but further shite coming down with this attempt to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic
    Mits

  33. Ford says:

    #32..in hindsight and what ive learnt and the things my x said to me in a counsellors room she only got pregnant to me to play her sick mental vindictive games of revenge on men and i was it

  34. Triassic says:

    Could it be that things don’t change because MEN think that to attack unjust policy in a ‘masculine’ manner will solve the problem? Feminist’s have been successful in their quest due to the manner used to affect change…..i.e. they worked from within the system over a long period time. If you are a father at the moment you will unfortunately, for your mental health, need to accept that nothing will change until more MEN go into the system possessing a Social Science degree and have the will to affect change for MEN. At the moment the ratio of females to male in SSc is 1:20 Masculinity and therefore Men ,(in modern times these are not necessarily synonymous) are in crisis for many reasons including victim or gender feminism. Remember that feminism, in the 1st and 2nd wave when it requested equity, is fair and reasonable and a healthy requirement for any society wanting social justice. Rather than to just talk about the problems go back to university and join a growing group of us men who intend to make REAL and JUST changes to NZ society for the next generation of fathers.

  35. Ford says:

    feminists have been sucessful because theres too many soft cocks pandering to their shit but if 1 wishes to take the gay approach..go to school

  36. Kelvin Dunn says:

    #20. Tanya
    Unsurprisingly your jaundiced comments are fully reflective of the feminist “all liable fathers are dead beats” and “Me Me Me,I want more and I want it NOW” brigade!
    The reason why Dunne included company retained earnings, Family Trust Income and Fringe Benefits in the new formula had nothing to do with him trying to address the issue of fathers trying to limit their child support liability! By including them in the formula Dunne is able to offset the increased payments against the benefits that most custodial mothers receive. Consequently he reduces the drain on public finances (and now helps to pay for ‘free’ contraception for dead beat mothers who procreate with new and casual partners in order to stay unemployed and rake in the handouts from the state and her ex parner/s – just a thought!).
    Any father out there who has a job with a newish company car on which his employer pays Fringe Benefit Tax should be seriously concerned at the extra CS liability that will result! And for small business owners who have set up Trusts to safeguard what few personal assets they may have been left with after an unbalanced Matrimonial Property Settlement they would be well advised to spend the next few months reviewing their position!!

  37. Triassic says:

    Ford, your ‘gay’ comment’ indicates to me that you fail to understand the fundamental problem facing ALL fathers attempting to gain decent access to their children. The system is not against MEN per se but against masculinity. It is the definition of masculinity defined by gender feminists that is at the core of the problem. The Duluth model of power and control was developed way back in 1984 by battered women in the town of Deluth in the USA. (every father on this site should study this model). It is the foundation document used to describe masculinity within the court system. Whilst it may depict men who abuse their partners with ‘intimate terrorism’ it does not in itself encapsulate masculinity, however within the ‘system’ , in the language peculiar to them, it represents all the traits of masculinity. Therefore, when you go into court the lawyer of your child’s mother and lawyer for child will concentrate on displays of your masculinity both in your past and the present to illustrate to the judge that you fit the description of the Deluth model. Interestingly, should you fight for the rights and injustice toward any other social disadvantaged group, you will not be judged on the anger or civil disobedience you display in order to get your point across, but beware if you do this with any matter concerning the family court. All agencies connected with this court, including your own lawyer, ALWAYS have the DELUTH model in mind owing to the power it holds.
    Without understanding the system you are up against all your actions will be but pissing into the wind.
    It does occur to me that should you go into court and declare that you have discovered that you are indeed ‘gay’ and display all the overt, so called ‘feminine’ characteristics of ‘vulnerability, sensitivity, helplessness and cunning, you probably would end up with equal shared care!

  38. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Triassic #37

    Your comment Triassic to ‘Ford, ……’your ‘gay’ comment’ indicates to me that you fail to understand the fundamental problem facing ALL fathers attempting to gain decent access to their children. The system is not against MEN per se but against masculinity’

    Wrong…Very wrong Triassic,and sorry to say this Triassic…. Its ‘you’ Triassic that fail to grasp the real situation,as in the system is purposely blatantly and fundamentally structured to be totally against Men/Fathers thanks to the ‘real’ Feminist agenda……

    If you can’t see that Triassic, might I suggest to you, open up your eyes and read these quotes that relate to feminists ideology of their definition of ‘Equality’…

    These famous feminist quotes were made public and openly published to all to see,these vile and evil quotes were made by revered,prominent world wide famous western European women feminists.. Feminists from all over the world worship and idolized these famous western European women feminists…..

    As Hans as mentioned on another post…. Go to some visit some feminists websites and again I repeat this… Open up your eyes and read what feminists are saying about there definition of feminist Equality …

    “All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women”¦ All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men’s prey.”
    Marilyn French

    “I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father’s concubine”¦ What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What’s more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.”.
    Journalist Sylvia Fraser

    “We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable.”
    Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.

    Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman,” Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58..

    “How will the family unit be destroyed? “¦[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” Roxanne Dunbar in Female Liberation

    “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage. Robin Morgan, from Sisterhood Is Powerful (ed), 1970, p. 537

    “Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership. Only when manhood is dead-and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it” Andrea Dworkin

    These above Feminists quotes reminds me of nothing more of them vile and evil Nazi propaganda machine of there agenda of promoting hatred and loathing of the Jewish race

    Kind regards….. John Dutchie… Free at long last…

  39. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Triassic #37

    Oh, by the way Triassic…What happen to ‘Peter Ellis’ in the Christchurch Civic Creche was nothing more then a well organized Kiwi women feminists witch hunt to purposely get ‘Men’ out the teaching profession so they could slowly start there feminist brain washing social engineering agenda in the N.Z education system…..They nearly succeeded too

    I suggest you read a book called….’A City Possessed – written by a very well respected author called ‘Lynley Hood’ that also open up your eyes…

    Kind regards John Dutchie …Free at long last

  40. Ford says:

    #37..seems to me the system wants to feminize all males to how women want them to be..im a masculine male and thats how i intend to stay..i wont act soft,feminine or gay just to please some woman..for me the whole ordeal ive been through is about showing considerations to womens needs and not my own..i did anger management and i said to the facilitators that it was brainwshing and they agreed with me..i have a mind of my own and i intend to keep it.its all a controlling headgame.

  41. Ford says:

    #37..ill let you know that i have shared care of 2 children..1 of them lives with me and 1 with her mother..i received my CS statement today and currently my balance is $0.00 and the system can still get fucked

  42. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford #40

    Your comment Ford ..’seems to me the system wants to feminize all males to how women want them to be.’…

    Aha Yes Ford I can remember in the late eighties and also the nineties, the Gestapo ‘Butch’ Kiwi women feminist movement were proclaiming with there social engineering feminist crap in the media that ‘Kiwi Men’ need to get in touch with there feminine side and become a ‘sensitive new age guy’ known as a ‘S.N.A.G’..

    And did I become one…???? Much to the disgust of Kiwi women….Like hell I did…!!!!

    I will never, ever bow down or submit or be subservient to you, the Gestapo Kiwi butch feminist women…Hope you are all reading this Kiwi women, and especially you,the Gestapo Kiwi butch Kiwi women feminists employed at ‘The Ministry of Women’s affairs’

    Ah Yes, the wonderful ‘unbiased’ Kiwi woman Feminists inspired ‘anger management’ courses where the Kiwi women Feminists ideology is taught as such

    Men = Bad

    Women = Good

    Men = Abuser

    Women = Victim

    Kind regards …..John Dutchie …..Free at long last

  43. Ford says:

    yes john i remember the term S.N.A.G..what a load of bollocks..anger management was/is all about brainwashing males into being sensitive towards women.getting men to take responsibility and not to blame her so when you get to your court case the guy is taking responsibility for all the shit the woman has blamed him for and he hasnt blamed her for anything..so she has all the blame to throw his way and the guy has nothing to say in return..now thats manipulating garbage at its best

  44. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford#43

    Yes Ford your comment of ‘.now thats manipulating garbage at its best’ ..Yes,you are correct…

    However I would rephrase to this… ‘Now that’s Kiwi Women feminist manipulating garbage at its best’ now that to me, is more a accurate term to use…L.O.L

    Now I am getting of the original subject,my apology to the author…

    My Asian lady partner found this particular website,see link below..Have a real and hard look Ford…A ‘picture’ paints a thousand words don’t you think?

    http://problemwithwomentoday.blogspot.co.nz/

    Kind regards ..John Dutchie…. Free at long last

  45. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Triassic #37

    With no disrespect to your comment of ‘The system is not against MEN per se but against masculinity.’

    Below, is a link that I would like you, Triassic to have a read of this article…

    What more proof do you required Triassic,that Feminism is blatantly Anti Men and Anti Father

    http://derekclontz.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/feminists-want-men-replaced-by-robots-by-2020-and-experts-say-it-can-be-done/

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last….

  46. triassic says:

    Thanks for the link John….

    ‘Contrary to what some women might say, men are still in control,’ says Rev. Dr. Paul Mort, Dallas, Texas-based clergyman with a shortwave ministry. ‘We might be a silent majority now, but if you press us too far, I think you’ll see us bring the little fillies back under control.’

    The reverent expresses himself in a language that is demeaning to females and herein lies the problem. I have female lecturers who are feminists and they stand for men and women having the same rights in ALL areas of society. When I point out to them the reality of the family courts rulings, regarding men who want to enter a females tradition domain of child rearing, they become surprised and upset that men cannot gain equal shared care. We often use words that have blurred meanings and often the arguments put forward are invalid due to interpretation. As I have already stated, ‘Feminism’ i.e. as expressed by political, economic, and social rights for females, is a good thing and many feminists continue to love men expressing masculinity as opposed to machismo or effeminate behaviour. However, what most men and many women do not support is GENDER FEMINISM. It is this brand of feminism that is pernicious and counterproductive to the welfare of children. If you juxtapose this with machismo, as expressed above by the reverent, the only difference is the sex of the proponent. Both have a belief that the personal is political.

  47. Ford says:

    #46..ive been offended,degraded and abused by females and the system for the last 17 yrs and when that changes ill change my attitude.And if women cant handle some of their own medicine i guess its bad luck for them

  48. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to triassic#46

    A question for you Triassic…..Before I reply to your post, which I intend to professional ‘rip to sheds’ And I will too it…!!!!.

    Are you a ‘feminist brain washed’ sensitive new age Male feminist…?????…!!!!

    John Dutchie Free at long last,from this Gestapo feminist state called New Zealand and I am unashamed of my ‘strong masculinity’ and be damn to hell,if I will ever become a sensitive new age feminized gutless wimp …

    And you Triassic,can tell that your beloved Gestapo feminist students and your beloved Gestapo feminists lecturers that cry ‘salt water crocodile tears’ concerning Men’s/Fathers rights

  49. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Triassic#46

    Below is a link that you must show to your beloved Kiwi Gestapo feminists lecturers..

    http://hereticalsex.blogspot.co.nz/2006/07/never-date-western-women.html

    Your comment Triassic ‘The reverent expresses himself in a language that is demeaning to females and herein lies the problem.’

    Funny thou Triassic,but when western European female/s start to express there demeaning language to males they are applauded by there own gender with usual double stands of Feminism ‘YOU GO GIRL’…’You are a empowered women’

    Yes Triassic,I know to well the real and true meaning of ‘Feminism’ on equal rights…Its a gender ‘Nazi’ style supremacy cult…Nothing more,nothing less…..

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

  50. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Triassic#46

    And here is another link to show to your beloved Gestapo Feminists lecturers Triassic

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003821/Feminists-claim-men-hold-open-doors-women-SEXIST-chivalrous.html

    ‘Tongue in cheek’….Wonderful, now ‘your’ beloved western European women feminists claim that chivalrous behavior is sexist…Pray tell , so what next Triassic since you are a male feminist…Oh I know, if stand up and do a ‘pee’ that degrading gesture to the female gender…..Oh hang a minute read this below Triassic

    http://depantsing-queens.greatnow.com/should-males-be-required-to-pee-sitting-
    down.html

    Kind regards …John Dutchie….. Free at long last

  51. Ford says:

    #46.. ‘The reverent expresses himself in a language that is demeaning to females and herein lies the problem’..what problem?Women express themselves in a language that is demeaning to men and in some circumstances leads to suicide..i too think feminism and womens rights is a good thing but not when its detrimental to men’s health,wellbeing and causes some to kill themselves..they need to make gains on their own merits and not at the expense of men.They also use children as pawns in their deceitful games.men and women having equal rights in society is a good thing but anyone with half a brain knows its not the reality.
    You say your feminist freinds become surprised and upset that men cannot gain equal shared care.I dont believe they get upset at a;; and their reaction/s are PC garbage.Put them in a court/custody situation and they would be just as nasty as any other bitch on the planet because i believe they are all as vindictive and manipulative as each other when they feel the need to be.I beleive they are the worst of the 2 genders.They project their own nasty characters onto others and they cant have an argument and drop it..they want revenge and they do it through the legal system.i wouldnt believe any shit that comes out of a females mouth.

  52. Triassic says:

    Stereotyping is bigotry. The injuries caused by bitches in power can make one paint all women in positions of power with the same brush…….big mistake. I have 2 daughters and I am so pleased that they have the same choices, apart from sex based differences, that boys may have. Feminists from as far back as some 130yrs ago started that process. Are you, Ford and John, wanting to turn the clock back or are you happy with what those feminists achieved? Surely it is better strategy to celebrate the equity they have achieved in certain social matters and demand the same for us men who wish to establish the same equity in family life. Like the right to terminate a pregnancy that we don’t want and if the woman proceeds with it then our liability is terminated. The right to equal shared care where possible as a starting point. Any parent not agreeing with this has to present solid evidence that the child is in danger. The equal right to social services where violence occurs in an intimate relationship. Equal responsibility accepted by women for violence in a relationship where it does not fit the Deluth model. Mothers equally held accountable for perjury in the family court. Mother treated equally and held accountable for false abuse accusations. These are but a few of the issues I am keen to see men being treated equitably with women.

  53. Triassic says:

    Sorry, I meant to say ‘false child abuse accusations’

  54. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Triassic #52

    You talk about ‘Stereotyping is bigotry..’… Excellent….!!!!!Well then Triassic,show this well written article done by a very astute Kiwi Lady to your beloved ‘bigoted’ Feminists lecturers…And then lets see more of your beloved feminists lecturers ‘salt water crocodile tears’

    ‘The feminist agenda three decades on

    Printer friendly version (PDF) View >>>

    Last month, when the public furore erupted over an airline policy that bans men from sitting next to unaccompanied children, I wondered whether the feminists were celebrating. A few years ago, the mere suggestion that a man on a plane could be a likely child molester, would have been greeted with derision. Now, however, not only has the concept been taken seriously by the airlines, but some public servants – including the Commissioner for Children – have said it’s a good idea.

    Stuart Birks, Director of the Centre for Public Policy Evaluation at Massey University, explores the emergence of this worrying trend towards the denigration of men, in our guest opinion piece in this week’s NZCPD Forum (click here to view).

    The unfortunate situation we are in today can be traced back to the agenda set in place by radical feminists some thirty years ago. While the key objective of most of the women who have enthusiastically joined the women’s liberation movement has been equality for women, the movement appears to have been taken over by those who want to pursue a socialist agenda.

    A booklet entitled A Strategy for Women’s Liberation produced in 1974, explains:

    “The socialist who is not a Feminist lacks breadth. The Feminist who is not a Socialist is lacking in strategy. To the narrow-minded Socialist who says: ‘Socialism is a working class movement for the freedom of the working class, with woman as woman we have nothing to do,’ the far-sighted Feminist will reply: ‘the Socialist movement is the only means whereby woman as woman can obtain real freedom. Therefore I must work for it.’

    The booklet outlined the rationale behind the feminist movement:

    “The oppression of women began with the origin of the patriarchal family, private property and the state. Anthropological evidence has shown that in the primitive communal society, women held a respected and important position. The basic economic unit was the maternal gens or clan, in which the family as we know it did not exist. In this clan, goods were shared among members equally. Women played an important role in the providing of food and shelter and were not tied to individual men economically, nor was there any compulsion to remain with one sexual partner.”

    “With the development of an economic surplus and the individual accumulation of this surplus as private property, the clan system gave way to the setting up of separate households. This was the beginning of class society and the patriarchal family. Women became isolated from communal activity, and monogamy for the wife was strictly enforced to ensure legitimate heirs.”

    “Today, the nuclear family unit remains as the basic economic cell of class society and women continue to be isolated in individual households, dependent on individual men for economic survival. The family also serves to perpetuate capitalist rule by inculcating in children the values of the private property system.”

    Radical feminists believed that the only way to achieve true equality for women was through liberating them from the bonds of husband and family. Further, they could see that if women were freed from the traditional requirement to remain loyal to one partner, the whole system of private property rights – which relies on the creation of legitimate heirs and is a fundamental tenet of a democratic free market economy – would ultimately collapse.

    The Labour Government of the day embraced these feminist goals and introduced the Domestic Purposes Benefit as a vehicle for change.

    The effect of the DPB was to pay women to separate from their husbands and partners. It paid them more money to have more children, and it didn’t matter how many different fathers were involved. In fact, it was not even necessary for the woman to name a father on a child’s birth certificate.

    The DPB also encouraged single women to have children on their own, to the extent that the number of women now receiving the benefit who have never married, has eclipsed the number of women who were married but separated. This shows that rather than helping women to adjust from failed marriages, the DPB has created single-parent families.

    Further, as the DPB has caused parenting and inheritance lines to become increasingly blurred, men have been prevented from using modern DNA technology to establish paternity – unless the mother agrees. But the consequence of placing all of the power and control in the hands of the mother is a continuing erosion of the fundamental rights of fatherhood.

    Thirty years on, with state funding what was essentially a radical feminist agenda, the family unit has been significantly undermined, transforming society in a way that is putting our children at risk.

    Throughout the ages, the nuclear family has traditionally been the safest environment in which to raise children. Yet, with the DPB effectively incentivising family breakdown, child abuse and neglect have escalated to the point where it is estimated that almost 50,000 children will be referred to our child welfare service this year alone. With literally tens of thousands of children now living in dangerous family situations, governments have clearly sacrificed the safety and wellbeing of children in order to satisfy the on-going demands of radical feminists.

    And radical it is. Back in 1974, feminist leaders warned: “With its thrust against the family institution, the women’s liberation movement is profoundly revolutionary”.

    These women put in place a well-organised plan of action some thirty years ago (click here to view details of their policy programme). The changes have been introduced incrementally and they are now well on the way to achieving their key goal which is the replacement of the traditional patriarchal family.’

    Reply to Ford#51 …Spot on with your comments Ford,however Ford,I hope you don’t mind I have just change a few words to one of your comments…Just to reflect how I view it….

    ‘Put them in a court/custody situation and they would be just as nasty as any other…. ‘Western Kiwi European women’…. bitch on the planet because i believe they are all as vindictive and manipulative as each other when they feel the need to be.I beleive they are the worst of the 2 genders.They project their own nasty characters onto others and they cant have an argument and drop it..they want revenge and they do it through the legal system.i wouldnt believe any shit that comes out of a… ‘western European’…… females mouth.

    Kind regards John Dutchie …Free at long last

  55. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Triassic #52

    Sorry,I forgot to add the link….Relating to ‘Dr Muriel Newman’ article..Read it Triassic, and open up your eyes on the real agenda of Feminism and there definition ‘Equality’

    http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly12.htm

  56. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Triassic #52

    My Asian lady partner found this wonderful feminists website Triassic…Enjoy the read Triassic

    http://miss-andrist.livejournal.com/

    And here below is a link which in my humble opinion,is the ‘best of the best’ articles concerning the ‘real’ agenda of Feminism…

    And please show it to your beloved Gestapo Feminist lecturers at university,and please feel free to invite them to debate with me…

    I look forward to hear the usual feminists ideology ‘spin doctoring’ of there feminist ‘shaming tactics’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1215464/Why-I-loathe-feminism—believe-ultimately-destroy-family.html

    Kind regards…. John Dutchie… Free at long last…

  57. John Dutchie says:

    Ford your statement of ‘i too think feminism and womens rights is a good thing’

    I totally concur with you Ford

    BANG…You have hit the nail on the head… !!!’but not when its detrimental to men’s health,wellbeing and causes some to kill themselves..they need to make gains on their own merits and not at the expense of men.’

    And I will add the following comment ‘And purposely alienate Fathers from there own child/children’ because feminists believe in the following….see the feminists quotes below

    “Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact.”
    Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

    And:

    Another posting on FEMISA: “Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men’s violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers.”

    Both quotes taken from Daphne Patai’s excellent critical work,

    And that is what Feminism as turn in too….So Triassic, you a revered male feminist please explain to me your ‘interpretation’ of these two feminists quotes,also it will be interesting how your beloved feminists students and your beloved feminists lecturers ‘interpretation’ the above feminists quotes I can’t wait to hear the feminist ‘spin machine’ in action….

    Kind regards… John Dutchie….. Free at long last

  58. Ford says:

    ‘men as a group tend to be abusive’?..and women arnt?..lol..they dont take responsibility for anything do they..by blaming men for everything is abuse in itself..time they woke up and smelt the roses and the system needs to stop protecting the hoes

  59. Ford says:

    triassic.. ‘Stereotyping is bigotry..’then all women are bigots because they put all men in the same basket

  60. blamemenforall says:

    Welcome to the John Dutchie and Ford chat group…

  61. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to blamemenforall #60

    Just ‘Tongue in Cheek’…Pardon me blamemenforall…??…Could you please kindly rephrase that statement good sir, as in to this ‘Welcome to the unfeminized John Dutchie and unfeminized Ford chat group’

    That sound much better thank you

    Kind regards ..John Dutchie……. free at long last

  62. Ford says:

    #60..feeling left out? and i see you just had to join in

  63. Triassic says:

    Gender is a social construct. Apart from biological factors, your sense of being masculine has been formed by the environment. The factor most commonly associated with masculinity is bodily strength, being produced by huge amounts of Testosterone and not estrogen. In all of our evolutionary process this has played a major part in our domination over women.
    The following is an extract from a book written in 1870

    “The natural position of woman is clearly, to a limited degree, a subordinate one. Such it has always been throughout the world, in all ages, and in many widely different conditions of society. There are three conclusive reasons why we should expect it to continue so for the future.
    FIRST. Woman in natural physical strength is so greatly inferior to man that she is entirely in his power, quite incapable of self- defense, trusting to his generosity for protection. In savage life this great superiority of physical strength makes man the absolute master, woman the abject slave. And, although every successive step in civilisation lessens the distance between the sexes, and renders the situation of woman safer and easier, still, in no state of society, however highly cultivated, has perfect equality yet existed. This difference in physical strength must, in itself, always prevent such perfect equality, since woman is compelled every day of her life to appeal to man for protection, and for support.”

    The author was Susan Cooper, an intelligent female writer in a book to the women of America.
    Some women despised this biological difference but can we say that it was these women who developed the technological revolution that has stripped men of traditional jobs reinforcing their sense of masculinity. I don’t think so. We have entered an age where physical strength has little value and men along with their masculinity are required to reinvent ourselves. Equality and equity are two completely different things. Sex is biological and gender is an environmental construct. There can never be equality between males and females but gender feminists are determined to achieve it through the destruction of masculinity and femininity. They hate them both equally but overtly attack masculinity in the belief that femininity is a by product of the former.

    There is a war in progress for sure. It is a civil war and therefore it’s hard to tell who is the enemy at times. I like the analogy of the father and son bull in a padlock and The son notices that the gate between their paddock and a paddock full of cows has been left open. The son screams out “hey dad, let’s run down the hill quickly and shag some of the cows” father bull replies “no son let just walk down and shag them all”

  64. Hans Laven says:

    Equality provided through the thin veneer of civilization is something most men are happy to work towards. Unfortunately, feminists long ago abandoned any real interest in equality, preferring to maintain most of the privileges women previously had, insisting upon new special considerations and showing total disregard for the many ways in which men are on the disadvantaged side of the gender comparison. Feminism is now femaleism, seeking to dominate, exploit and enslave men in women’s service.

    It may be true that women previously were subordinate to men in some ways but that’s simplistic and they were certainly not subordinate in many other ways. Men opened doors for women, gave up their seats, provided for them financially, put them first for survival and gave up their lives to protect them. Such respect and caring generally isn’t accorded to subordinates. Male survivors from the Titanic were later villified under the suspicion that they had not given up their places on lifeboats to women.

  65. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Triassic#63

    What the…..!!!!!…Your feeble and your pathetic comment ‘but can we say that it was these… ‘women’…. who developed the technological revolution’

    Seriously, you are truly a clueless,brainless,brain washed Male feminist fool..It was ‘Men’ not ‘Women’ who developed the ‘technological revolution’ and also the ‘industrial revolution’…Get your facts right before you mouth your idiotic Feminist dribble….

    Thank goodness I have left N.Z for ever…I can not believe how some people can be so easily brain washed …Now I can understand how some people who lack a basic degree of common sense got suck into ‘Nazism’

    Kind regards… John Dutchie… Free at long las

  66. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Hans#64

    Your comment Hans ‘Male survivors from the Titanic were later villified under the suspicion that they had not given up their places on lifeboats to women.’

    You are very correct Hans,a few nights ago my Asian Lady Partner and myself watched a fascinating,well researched documentary on our local Asian t.v station,concerning the sinking of titanic and the flow on effects ,both as in to the survivors and the casualties of the families from the night that Titanic sunk,to present day

    Kind regards John Dutchie…Free at long last..

  67. Ford says:

    #64..should have used women as lifeboats

  68. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford#67

    Ouch …That was a wee bit harsh there Ford… L.O.L…!!!…’

    Tongue in cheek’..Sorry Ford, but the…’The ministry of Women affairs’ …wouldn’t think kindly of your typical Male insensitive unfeminized suggestion…

    Kind regards John Dutchie…Free at long last

  69. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Hans#64

    Hans, Google and have a read of the latest article in ‘A voice for Men’ website concerning ‘murder-cheer-leaders-polish-their-image/website’ ,it could useful in your field of work ….

    And that goes for you too Triassic,it might alter your idiotic brain wash beliefs in the wonderful new age of ‘Feminism’

    Kind regards …John Dutchie…Free at long last

  70. Ford says:

    #68..could tied a few together so they wouldnt float alone

  71. Ford says:

    #69..john..i was watching the crime investigation ch on sky today and these 2 murderers jenny eisenman(31..killed hubby)..mindy brenyi(16..killed her father)..the excuses these 2 come up are how abused they both were and how it drove them to murder..thankfully the courts saw through their shit and they both got 20+ yrs

  72. John Dutchie says:

    Rely to Ford#71

    A Link for you below Ford….This made news over here in this Asian country Ford…My Asian Lady partner quietly said ‘That should put off Asian men getting involved with a New Zealand woman’

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10805343

    Kind regards …John Dutchie …Free at long last

  73. Ford says:

    sick demented bitch there john..some of them deserve the death sentence

  74. rc says:

    Gender is a social construct.

    Imagine if this particular assertion hadn’t been swallowed whole by the body politic, and all the public institutions funded by our tax dollars.

    Imagine how very different our world would look if the fundamental understanding of people was that there actually were two sexes, as our eyes and commonsense keep telling us, with different values, different thinking, different needs and different requirements in our growing development.

    How long do you think we would be able to maintain a system that systematically denied the worth and need of half the human race if we simultaneously acknowledged that half the human race could only thrive if its differences were recognised?

    ‘Gender is a social construct’ is the quintessential lie. It lies at the very heart of our absurd governance.

    It is the first, and essential, feminist lie aimed at denying men their existence. It is a tactic used to redefine the world in woman’s image, knowing that if masculinity can be expunged as a legitimate difference, then women can build an entire body of thought, with all the legal constructs, with no regard for our existence as men.

    We would become non-people, as they built a world that only considered woman’s priorities, because we could be represented as essentially the same as women – the only difference being some kind of outward and insignificant genital thing.

    ‘Gender is a social construct’ is the myth that must be laid asunder before we have any hope of undoing the nonsense that guides public policy. Fortunately, men and women already know that there are two sexes that are very different, so the task is only one of reminding them cognitively of what they already know to be true instinctively.

    Everything else follows from this.

  75. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford#73

    I can honestly tell you right now Ford,if either a ‘Man/Father’ or a ‘woman/Mother’ would have done that type of hideous crime,concerning a innocent child/children here in this Asian Country…

    They would received a instantaneous death sentence if found guilty by the justice system…They don’t fool around in this Asian Country Ford, nor do they accept or tolerate a so called…’Pussy pass’… syndrome ….like a lot of western European societies do,which pamper to the western European women feminist ideology….

    Kind regards… John Dutchie…. Free at long last

  76. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford #68

    Your comment Ford..’could tied a few together so they wouldnt float alone’…My Asian lady partner just read your comment there Ford…She on floor laughing her head off….

    ‘Tongue in Cheek’..Oh dear,them Kiwi women won’t be impressed with her at all…But I will get the blame of course…L.O.L….

    Kind regards.. John Dutchie….. Free at long last

  77. Ford says:

    ann miller kontz was sentenced in 2005 for the poison murder of her hubby..she was also a co-producer of 48 hours witness..a programme that aired the murder

  78. Ford says:

    #76..your partner sounds lovely john..lol and rules need to be the same for everyone..regardless of gender

  79. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford#78

    Thank you Ford,and yes you are correct…. I am a extremely lucky and a very blessed man,I have found my ‘soul mate’,sorry my mistake it was more like this… This beautiful Asian lady,both as in ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ found me…

    One day I hope you can leave the cesspit of Feminist N.Z and explore and experience the Asian countries, my gut feeling is Ford, you won’t want to come back to the feminist state called New Zealand…Till that day comes,stay strong good sir

  80. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford#78

    My Asian lady partner found this website for you Ford…..A worthwhile read…link below..Oh,and by the way she likes your ‘no nonsense’ bluntness

    http://www.topix.com/forum/blogs/TIRAJD10IR0NTRB2A/p734

  81. Ford says:

    thankyou john and im envious of you..i honestly believe its the way to go..one day

  82. Bob says:

    #65 to your comment……What the”¦..!!!!!”¦Your feeble and your pathetic comment ‘but can we say that it was these”¦ ‘women'”¦. who developed the technological revolution’

    Ummmm….that was a question asked by triassic with his answer “I don’t think so” The point he was trying to make was that MEN, not WOMEN developed the biggest change in the history of our evolution which in turn weakened the advantages of masculinity. It was therefore not achieved with a political quest in mind.

    You appear to equate ‘feminism’ with negative connotations. Do the terms ‘social justice’, Equal opportunity, Democracy, and one man one vote generate the same emotions in you? Your rhetoric reminds me of Joseph Stalin. He was absolutely sure that capitalism was evil but was not able to define it adequately. Consequently he murdered millions of socialists and communists alike because they did not conform to his narrow dogma. Brainless,brain washed Male fools are created through ignorance,and bigotry is acquired through anger and fear. Yes,some so called feminists are bigots and have moved into positions of great power in NZ. Having male bigots attacking all females who speak out for social justice will get us no where. With respect, I am not referring to you as a bigot but pointing out that if we expect positive change to happen then it must be in tandem with feminists who hold the SAME VALUES as we do. Hans comment… “Feminism is now femaleism, seeking to dominate, exploit and enslave men in women’s service.”…is defining ‘gender feminism.’ Surely you believe in equity between men and women? May be you don’t. I have always seen this site as a gathering of men who want equity with women. In the arena of family we are viewed as inferior and are seen purely as a wallet. Isn’t it all about bringing about change in this area through equity?? Stalin was never a true communist, he was a megalomania who grabbed the ideology of communism to hold on to power. You will find that ALL gender feminists have similar traits. They are responsible for many women, men and children experiencing a life of unhappiness.

  83. Ford says:

    #80..thumbs up john..asian women are beautiful

  84. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Bob

    ,
    Your comment ‘I am not referring to you as a bigot’…Guess what Bob???..I wouldn’t give a ‘Fat Rats Ass’ if you called me a ‘Bigot’ at all…A Suffice answer for you Bob….

    As for your comment ‘rhetoric’ …Again,if that’s your opinion,so be it and once again I repeat …I don’t give a ‘fat rats ass’…I leave so called ‘rhetoric’ to the feminists…

    By the way Bob..Feminists do not believe in ‘Equality’ as in for both ‘Men’ and ‘Women’ … Today’s Feminism hidden ideology is that they believe in a gender supremacy for one gender, is that ‘Rhetoric’ enough for you Bob?…If so…Guess what Bob…Take a cement pill and harden the **** up…

    Kind regards to you Bob…John Dutchie…Free at long last from this feminist cesspit called New Zealand…Is that ‘Rhetoric’ enough for you Bob…If so….Excellent, you have made my day good sir…

  85. Ford says:

    if despising radical feminists is being a bigot id gladly accept the label

  86. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford#85

    Well like you Ford, I accept the label too, as being a first class ‘Bigot’

    Here is another website that my Asian lady partner as found for you Ford…Oh Bob…You are most welcome to have a look too..Oh by the way Bob ,don’t even dare to suggest my Asian lady partner is a ‘Bigot’….And she far from been so called submissive or subservient,she is full on feisty ,and a very highly intelligent lady, but she as that wonderful strong femininity quality that I will always honor,cherish, respect and love till my last breath on this earth….

    http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Do-Western-Men-Prefer-to-Marry-Asian-Women&id=1753097

    Kind regards John Dutchie…Free at long last

  87. triassic says:

    #74 Gender is a social construct within the culture we are raised in. It does not define the sex but rather the characteristics that a particular sex displays. In babies, this behavior appears innate to some degree. However, should the child begin to display characteristics that our culture defines as opposite to the sex of the child, we, as parents have a choice. Either guild the child to display the ‘correct’ characteristics or let it develop its own, free of external influence. To achieve this the parent would have to give the child a name suitable to the gender and dress it in attire accordingly otherwise influences outside the home will demand that the child behaves according to its sex.

    In this sense RC you have well pointed out that if the definition of masculine can be defined as ‘detrimental’ for humanity, then society will eventually attempt to define feminine as good and masculine as bad.

    The characteristics of gender differ from culture to culture and with the GAY movement providing another dimension to it in western society it has become more difficult to define masculine. Is it masculine or feminine when a man holds a baby in his arms and smile lovingly at it? What is it when a man single handedly goes on the battle field under heavy fire to rescue a fallen comrade? what characteristic is it when a female does the same thing? If a woman asks you out on a date? If a man cries at a funeral? When a woman send a nation to war?
    Gender feminists are f**ked up females who have worked over a long period to infiltrate every area of our society. It is up to us men without a gender agenda to take back that power and bring justice and sanity back to society.

  88. Ford says:

    #87..’then society will eventually attempt to define feminine as good and masculine as bad’..what do you mean eventually..its how it is now..masculine males are already deemed as abusive..i see society wanting men to go against things that come natural.i see society taking power away from men and giving it all to a pack of lying manipulating bitches and to get some form of sanity back into the equation getting rid of idiots like yourself would be a good start

  89. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to triassic #63

    Triassic my comment to you, relating to your post of #63,and Bob is correct ‘What the”¦..!!!!!”¦Your feeble and your pathetic comment ‘but can we say that it was these”¦ ‘women'”¦. who developed the technological revolution”…I totally misread your post thus I got it completely wrong, so I owe you a sincere and a humble apology….

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

  90. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford#89

    Your comment Ford..’masculine males are already deemed as abusive’ and what about the rest Ford such as.. potential rapists…potential pedophiles…Control freaks….Degrading womanhood and Motherhood…Killing our own child/children…Etc…Etc….

    Your comment…..’its how it is now’ and its been like that for the thirty years in western European society its been happening and each year that passes its gets worse…

    Kind regards…. John Dutchie …Free at long last…

    I am waiting for the day when its deemed to be a ‘Crime’ punishable with a prison sentence,for a masculine male to even dare to look at a western European women,let along to talk to one…..

  91. Ford says:

    #90..being a crime is well on the way and as for killing our kids..its well known that its the new boyfriend or stepfather that harm the children of another man..i compare it to lions..the fathers want to proect their young..its the newcomers that want to do the damage

  92. rc says:

    Gender is a social construct within the culture we are raised in. It does not define the sex but rather the characteristics that a particular sex displays. In babies, this behavior appears innate to some degree. However, should the child begin to display characteristics that our culture defines as opposite to the sex of the child, we, as parents have a choice. Either guild the child to display the ‘correct’ characteristics or let it develop its own, free of external influence. To achieve this the parent would have to give the child a name suitable to the gender and dress it in attire accordingly otherwise influences outside the home will demand that the child behaves according to its sex.

    Generally we name and dress our children long before they express anything that we may like to reinterpret as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’, so I cannot take this argument seriously.

    Most parents do, in fact, let their child ‘develop its own (identity), free of external influence’. A lot of young boys do show attachment to dolls and soft toys, while many young girls show interest in more masculine playthings. Most parents just let them follow their inclinations. Eventually the masculine/feminine duality asserts itself without interference from Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs Wellington BusyBody.

    That suggests to me an underlying tendency that cannot be denied.

    Surprise, surprise, there is a world of scholarly people ready to argue the case that this is not so.

    Curiously, they have a living at stake. Just imagine the livelihoods at risk should the equivalence between male and female be successfully disputed.

    But oh, for some reason, the clerics who went ballistic at Darwin for suggesting that God may not exist (however obliquely) come to mind. Which do you think is most threatening? Is it the danger to the idea that guarantees the material wellbeing of our academics, or is it their fear for the intellectual integrity of a theory of sexual equivalence?

    If I was a betting man, I know who I would be backing.

  93. triassic says:

    #89 accepted john cheers

  94. triassic says:

    Clothing as a study gives an insight to the changing character of gender identity. It is often commercialism that drives gender characteristics.

    For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department said, ‘The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.’ Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.

    In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

    Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s, as a result of Americans’ preferences as interpreted by manufacturers and retailers. ‘It could have gone the other way,’ Paoletti says.

    So the baby boomers were raised in gender-specific clothing. Boys dressed like their fathers, girls like their mothers. Girls had to wear dresses to school, though unadorned styles and tomboy play clothes were acceptable.

    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html#ixzz1udfbvZYu

  95. rc says:

    Colours may be subject to fashion, but babies, generally, don’t care.

    You can dress boys in blue and girls in pink, or the reverse, and I suspect all of the time, the babies will not care. Some adults might. Some adults won’t. Where I agree with you is this: “It is often commercialism that drives gender characteristics”. Except it isn’t as simple as that. Commercialism is only hoping to agree with its customers in the hope that they will buy more. Who do you think does the buying, and what do you think they want to believe?

    Commercialism tells us nothing original. It only reflects and intensifies the hopes of the buyers.

  96. Ford says:

    everyone likes black

  97. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Ford #91

    Your comment Ford..’its well known that its the new boyfriend or stepfather that harm the children of another man.’…Correct..

    And guess what happens to the birth Father that tries and protect his child/children from a abusive low life ‘new boyfriend or stepfather’….Hes the one that gets his ‘ass whipped’ by the N.Z feminist controlled justice system…

    Kind regards John Dutchie…. Free at last

  98. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to triassic #93

    triassic,I am been very serious here….I still want you to put your university feminists lecturers onto this website for I have some sincere and genuine questions that I want to ask them…

    Kind regards… John Dutchie…Free at long last

  99. Ford says:

    #97..and all fathers want to do s what comes natural..to protect and the system forces men to go against their natural instincts

  100. triassic says:

    OK John I will direct her here. BTW FYI the curriculum for social policy papers looks at Freuds phycosexual development from a child at 3-6 yrs as the phallic stage where they identify themselves with the same sex parent. (tough for a lad with only mum around) And Erik Erickson’s life stages where adolencense is the Identity Vs role confusion stage. This is the stage where it is hard for boys to gain a healthy role model on how to act as a man. If machoism is the only option he is in big trouble. If a girl wants to be a tom boy then society will allow her to grow out of it, however if a boy shows signs of effeminate behaviour he is labled as GAY and there is seldom a way back.

  101. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to triassic #100

    Nothing wrong with been direct triassic and I truly welcome it…

    Your comment ‘where it is hard for boys to gain a healthy role model on how to act as a man’…Now you are talking turkey Triassic…

    And that’s exactly whats been happening in western European society and its having tragic results to both decent women and decent men…Triassic,I will always honor, respect and love.. womanhood and… Motherhood

    But this new age Feminism,sorry Triassic,its my turn to be ‘direct’…I truly despise it, I have seen the damage its done to western European society as in for both Women and Man…

    Have a look at this web site http://www.wholereason.com/2006/09/how-feminized-education-harms-boys.html

    Christina Hoff-Sommers’ 2001 book The WAR AGAINST BOYS: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men

    Triassic,I can stress how important for you, to this read book ,it explains on what you have mentioned in your last post

    Also this website down below

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1359186/Peter-Pan-syndrome-Does-rise-women-mean-men-grow-up.html

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar