- 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.

Thu 14th August 2014

Gendered Justice in New Zealand

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 9:51 am

I’ve seen women’s advocates in the Waitakere Court. They wander around the court like they own it and make the judge look like a clingon to the proceedings. When I saw a news article showing their direct influence in sentencing, I put up the post Women’s Refuge Justice System

I had been waiting for another such case to surface – which it has – and is posted under NZ Judge – Women’s domestic violence and anger ok

We have a tendency to classify such cases, especially within the justice system, simply as a pussy-pass which I have a problem with; not because I am sensitive about the comparison with female genitalia, but because we need to look more closely at the mechanics of what is happening and the likely outcome.

This needs closer analysis.

Pussy Pass may not always suit the social situation we’re in, but we still need to get the message across that our Justice system is segregating its decisions based on gender.

We need to be aware of the judicial activism from the likes of Judge Jane Farish in such cases – which might also be described as Judicial Violence Against Men.

We have become accustomed to seeing the disparity in sentencing; seldom do women receive anywhere near the same punishment as men for similar offending, but as the numbers of women appearing before the court are increasing, as is the seriousness of the crimes and the nature of their violence, what we are seeing is increasing duplicity in the approach of the courts to men and women defendants.

This could not have been more clearly illustrated when Farish applied a different standard than usual, to the trauma of domestic violence.

No consideration is given to the emotional damage caused to a man and baby who had been the victims of stab wounds in a domestic assault – Farish was looking for a way out and she found it in the form of report writers who excused the offender’s behaviour because of uncontrollable anger.

What happens if we make this the norm: The disparity ends up with men sentenced to imprisonment and women sentenced to home detention, at the scene of the crime – the family home. A feminist dream come true with Family Court applications for ownership of the detention centre, for the mother and the child, and guess who’s paying for that.

Ok, if we want to reform the Justice system that’s fine, so long as the same rules apply. Men get home detention too and no consideration is given to the emotional trauma of victims in sentencing. Let’s have a level playing field, although I doubt that would ever be possible in a warped feminist state, like New Zealand.

There are other issues surrounding the child. In the case referred to above Farish excused the women’s violence toward the child, and here’s the big question, would she have been able to do that had it not been for the fact that the child was in the man’s arms at the time.

Had the genders been reversed with a mother and child being stabbed we would have seen a very different outcome in sentencing.

We are seeing the same feminist philosophy that has existed in the Family Court for decades enter the criminal justice system and that will become more pronounced as women learn that the court excuses their behaviour.

Applying different standards, excuse one gender’s behaviour – the more we excuse women’s violence, the more we will encourage it.

That’s not good for men, children, or our society, and we need to protest loud and long against this, or we will see a two tiered Justice system that treats men and women by increasingly different standards and processes.

Not that this is not already happening, but if allowed to continue and develop men will exist in a very different society.

25 Responses to “Gendered Justice in New Zealand”

  1. dunnuffinwrong says:

    A few years ago a helecopter made a distress call -Reporting engine problems, who was onboard and the aircrafts heading. Media was alerted that a search was underway in the Runganu inlet area. We listend to the radio report with interest as we were working nearby.About and hour and a half later another news broadcast confirmed that searchers were removing two bodies from shallow water after a helecopter crashing in the Ranganu harbour. None onboard survived the crash.Police said ” we are not able to confirm if its the missing helecoper that sent out an sos warning earlier today”The police weren’t jumping to any conclusions. Victim identification failures have been embarrassing for police in past bumblings and all possibilities must be thoroughly investigated. Its possible for example-  that the helecopter landed on the roof of the shell service station at the end of the awanui straight, and the mechanic and his apprentice took off in the helecopter to assess the problem and they crashed it.

     A woman walks into a police station mid morning on a saturday to report the crime of assault.She claims in her police statment ” he did not answer me and I got extremely angry with him.there was a lot of swearing between us and he told me to” fuck off”. This made me even angrier and I hit him in the head”The police report states she was held down, and punched and kicked repeatedly while defending herself.The police arranged a little photoshoot presumably using a very poor quality cellphone with incorrect lightsettings.the photo depicts a woman with her head cut off.. she is wearing a crumpled white unironed shirt with a poor peasant girl style neckline.  She is pulling at the neckline which reveals her bra strap, there is some redness on her chest area and the rest of her skin appears pale and blotchy. Closely looking at the photo reveals what appears to be a few scratches on her chest. “Exibit a” is born and the victim identification process has been completed.  Police statement says as a result of the assault the victim suffered some minor bruising and abrasions around her neck area and her hands.She was placed back in the care of her elderly neighbour. Just 70 minutes later a full hospital report is completed. Her report states that shes not sure if she was punched or kicked at all and cant remember because she was just so scared. She now believes she was dragged around by the hands and throat..She claims not to be in any pain and no injuries are found.

    This week I had a meeting with my local mp. She totally agreed that men are heavily discriminated against and innocent men are colateral damage in court as the presumption of guilt is so severe.she filled me in on the history. It was established in the domestic violence ACT.Included in this. -ACT was a brand new charge called “man assaults female”- maf.Theres no fam its was just designed as a new punishment for men. Theres no mam and no faf – ..no one cares too much if a man assaults a man and as women arent ever violent this charge is just for men accused by a woman. You might think with the accusation against me be I might be charged with grevious harm or common asault or battery or something. If that was the charge I would be found not guilty based on evidence ( or lack of it)Instead im charged with maf which does away with any need for evidence. Streamlining the conviction process.Nothing more than the accusation from a female is required and by process he is convicted .Even when other evidence indicates that his crime didn’t happen thats not important,The judge err’s on the side of caution and favors the victim..The evidence is folded away and the victim impact statment is the only thing to be considered.A few years ago- even with the Act , working a treat, they decided that theres still not enough men convicted.Too many men were “getting off”. Womens rights groups claimed there was too many unreported crimes and boldly asserted they had counted them and said that still not enough men are being convicted.It didnt have to be guilty men. Any man will do. So rather than find these men who are guilty of unreported crimes they decided to eliminate any accused mans rights even further by scratching legal aid to any man who has tried to make a living . He might be broke and homeless, but hes too fortunate to qualify.My mp suggested there was an easy option for me,If I plead guilty its all over in a flash. As ive no previous crimes id likely be forced to do anger managment etc -and then if I play nice with that then I can apply to have no conviction on record. Many men take this option and that results in the courts and cops statistics improving as it looks like they are arresting and punishing the guilty.Also theres less time holding up the courts time with men who cant afford expensive lawyers.Yes thats right. Plead guilty to be found innocent…or plead innocent to be found guilty.But guilty of what.?. If they dont want to base the descision on evidence and cant prove the brutal accusation – what is the accusation?This is where judges introduce the new crime of “something””.!Something must have happened. Weve got this testimony as proof of your violence.Judges rephrase this. But its the new black in feminest fasion with womens advocates who run the court.My mp told me that if I had been the complaintant- I wouldve been the victim.Lets just play with that thought for moment and assume gender roles are reversed and I make the same accusation im accused of:I walk up to the counter on a saturday morning and state: madam constable, id like to report a criminal assault.My partner has refused to answer my questions and I got very angry. then after some swearing I got even angrier and hit her in the head, she retaliated and I’m a victim of her brutality.Ok sir lets take a photo insinuating theres evidence of this and thats all thats required then we will go and frisk her on the street in front of her nieghbours. Well lock her up untill sometime Monday afternoon. You Pop off to the hospital and make a report and you will be contacted by a 8 billion dollar support network designed to help you through this victim process. so youve got the rest of the weekend to go through her belongings and chuck anything you dont want in her car. Her place is your place now , her name on the lease is irrelevent.She can never return, a protection order will mean she cant ever go to anyone that you know and tell her side of the story, as thats indirect contact with you and well just lock her up again if she does.She will be vilified, outcast and forced to do 50 hours of anger managment as well . There will be no refuge for her.Then after some months of presumed guilt we will decide its time to decide her punishment.As for your volence and anger problem, well luckily , your the victim and your free to move on to your next suspected perpetrator. Even more amusing is the police constables oath on the wall which says “without favour”.

    Just one more example victim identification failure is Chris and Crue Kahui’s murder.These poor babies werent identified as having the same rights as other nz  babies because of their race seemingly. As were led to believe they mustve just beaten each other to death? Their deaths would have been much more vigourously investigated… if they had died in that helecopter crash than been murdered.
    If you disagree with anything ive said please say so. I would like to be wrong about my opinion of nz injustice.

  2. Downunder says:

    @dunnuffinwrong

    Who was the MP?

  3. dunnuffinwrong says:

    On monday I had a meeting with Poto Williams- A labour representative, at her New Brighton office.I was extremely well prepared as I hadnt met with a politician before and I was intending to descuss matters of the highest sensitivity.I had sent her an email and she had forwarded an invitation to meet with her. In accepting the invitation I reminded her that I was an accused man and that she may wish to have a support person there, that the matter was important etc. I had hoped she would be prepared also.I had gotten a fresh haircut, was appropriately dressed ( in light colours) cleanshaven with just half a dash of some aftershave from a bygone era. I was armed with identification ie three photos of my family..two of the work that im doing and three of my hobby interests.I had the “victims” statment and police disclosure. Printed documents on issues (just incase I needed them) and many questions.But Mostly I was very well mentally and emotionally prepared.Politics was not on my list… I was there for her professional opinion and her personal view. ,. Keeping my cool was the priority.I arrived on the minute with a pleasant smile for the woman at the counter. Introduced myself and told her of my appiontment.She went out the back to a computer to search a datbase as she could find no appointment- after offering me a chair.She said my appiontment was for friday, I showed her the message that I was sent confirming the date.She messaged Poto who arrived around 15 minutes later.I was taken into a boardroom with a large table scattered with the countrys newspapers of the day.(” thinktank central – had no special atmosphere”Poto was not prepared and had forgotten important points in the email I had sent.She shorted out my introduction and asked whats happening with your case at the moment.I gave her time to read the accusations against me.I didnt bother to protest my innocence or explain what really happened but made it clear that I was not guilty of this charge. Im not going to quote her.  Im just going to describe the nature of the conversation.She was blatently honest that there was gender bias in court and spoke freely about it.After a few minutes later the other lady left and Poto and I were alone in the building.Poto listened as I explianed police mistakes and the efforts id made to help myself in my situation.She apologised that there was little to be done and accepted that innocent men can easily be swept up in a system designed and improved to punish men. Her credentials and experience in this are without doubt in matters of domestic violence. She has been a victims support advocate particularly helping pacific islander women.She twice mentioned the “easier” option is to plead guilty and explained why.  I was in disbelief at what I was hearing but at the same time extremely greatful for her honesty.Calmly,  I sat there as she described the biased system.She wasnt uncomfortable as she mentioned that the system wasnt based on any quantity of justice.Justice was not the aim.  Since some men do bad things -and she described an eye gouging incedent with keys. the priority is to judge men harshly ie , if accused by a woman.the judge will err, on the side of the “victim”, unless the man has an expensive enough lawyer, mine is not.. I was partially floored by all this as I thought this was just largly mens interpretation,  I felt a bit shakey as I contemplated these facts.   I wasnt hurried out the door so I tried to mention the other questions id sought anwers to. Her answers were unsurprisingly unsatisfactory to me although she had offered that I could somehow apply to have the dv act amended…probably a good idea. She was sympathetic and apologised again for being of little help.I left politely after thanking her.I was pleased at my preparation for the meeting but there was no preparing for her truths. Id needed every ounce of the calmness that id consentrated so hard to maintain.I dont want to put Poto down in this post. She gave me her time and honesty and thats what id asked for.If you want to get into policys, do it on another page in another post and leave me out of it, im interested but busy.I went to her because she was the representative – not because she was a woman. But I did get the sence, from the way she was making little bracelets out of rubber bands….and a few things that were said that – Theres just such a hurry to bury any accused man , just because of what some other men have done and all these guys in unreported land.  They reduced the criterior for victim identification,,remove rights to legal representation, and consentrate on victim statements rather than actual evidence.  There is no justice. There is no fairness….just a mug shot of me next to a bad snap of decapitated femininity.Instead also theres , its not ok , but it is ok to ask for help. ?Come on in girls the waters fine…And since women are so innocent and by nature wouldnt tell a lie…………. ……………         ?..Theres no reason to believe a woman might ever dream of taking advantage of this 8 billion dollar system,Why cant they just  remind women (and men)  that all thats needed is a $60 cellphone and to record if frightened and instantly send evidence to police.?  Because its not in thier interest to reduce domestic violence.

  4. OMG! You'e (^%*(^%& says:

    None of this surprises me.
    I have been at pains over the last year or two to show that the whole DV industry is just that – an industry. Industry has a vested industry in growth – in perpetuating their industry. The whole DV industry in NZ – esp. women’s refuge have a vested industry in both *expanding* their industry (i.e. their all encompassing definitions of DV) and also not ‘solving’ (i.e. eliminating) DV – as their industry would cease to exist and they’d all be unemployed.
    Family Court lawyers are no different.
    Imagine of there was no generated conflict in family Court – all those female family law lawyers .. would have to find [real] work! (which by virtue of definition, they’re all unqualified for).

  5. dunnuffinwrong says:

    Tell us more about the red fems.
    The way to sink em is to get women onside who see this too.
    It must be said that all this” system” does is perpetuate and create violence rather than reducing it.

  6. dunnuffinwrong says:

    I got curious and looked on the womens refuge site. Surely their true intent would be evident by clicking on the Values button. And- yep it is..”The native New Zealand kōwhai tree is known and loved for its healing properties and beauty. Our logo features its delicate, vibrant flower in the strong and universal symbol of women – the perfect portrayal of Women’s Refuge and our values”.

    But wikipedia puts it a diferent way…

    . All parts of the kōwhai, but particularly the seeds, are poisonous to humans. 

  7. Downunder says:

    This is why Labour is such a dangerous political animal – and what you’ve done here dunnenuffinwrong is show quite clearly, not only how the system is stacked against men but how the political system is against men and un-representative of men – good work, great effort.

    There’s a few things you’ve said above that need to be clarified.

    The charge of male assaults female is in the Crimes Act and has been in that act since its inception in 1961. It was intended to protect women in public, not to be used in domestic disputes as it is now.

    It is a criminal charge, meaning that you are innocent until proven guilty.

    The Domestic Violence Act is one of the most draconian acts our parliament has ever passed, but it is civil law, not criminal law. It is feminist-extremist legislation which is heard mostly in secret in the Family Court.

    The civil law system means that a person makes a claim which is considered proven unless the other party proves it wrong – which gives the impression of guilty until proven innocent.

    It is important to understand the difference;

    Firstly, because there are different thresholds in evidence – a criminal charge, being ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and a civil application being ‘on the balance of probability’.

    Secondly, the strategy you would use in a criminal court is different to that which you would use in a civil court.

    Thirdly, you may end up representing yourself, as men often do and need to.

    As you point out men do not get legal funding as easily as women, and it’s well known that you will get stitched up through biased representation if you use a lawyer from the Family Court (“have you screwed a man over today?”) Club.

    The acknowledgement of this may have been warming to you, but there was no suggestion from the MP, that she would change any of this, only that you could try to if you want, and you thought she wasn’t a feminist? Some feminists can be charmingly nice, and agreeable, but that doesn’t change their politics.

    Taking this into account – the fact that they agree with you – and at times really have no idea what they talking about should indicate to you that you have no chance of getting any help in terms of parliamentary representation for men – that’s the nature of a feminist society.

    In polite company they say that the social climate does not favour men, which translates to ‘you’re screwed if you’re a man’, treated unfairly by the law, and f#$%ked over by the court system – totally agree with you there – let’s not add easily mislead by dumb politicians to the list.

    Historically men have been inclined to plead guilty, for a variety of reasons, regardless of innocence or guilt, simply to get ‘it’ over and done with, yes that is what feminist lawyers try to do as well, they don’t represent you; they represent an oppressive system.

    You should not plead guilty to a crime you did not commit.

    The difficulty is that even if you do get legal representation – and it’s a feminist lawyer – they will hang you anyway, by misrepresenting you, just because you’re a man.

    I’ve seen these bitches in action.

    When you are charged with male assault female and you’ve ‘dunnnothingwrong’ but you don’t want to go through the court case you can offer to plead guilty to common assault under the Summary Offences Act, rather than plead guilty to a criminal charge – male assaults female is a crime, common assault is an offence – and that makes a difference in other situations such as employment, and travel visas.

    Either way, if you end up with a Family Court case, having pleaded guilty to any charge of assault does not help your cause – once again the system is stacked against you.

    If feminists had it their way, there would be no criminal court system, no juries, and no innocent to proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What you are describing, is what we generally see in the law and the court system; a push by feminists to convert our criminal law system to a civil law system.

    We have recently seen the same political process in action with the Labour Party election policy to move the burden of proof in rape cases from the prosecution to the defendant.

    This would push rape complaints closer to the civil jurisdiction followed by a lowering of the burden of proof from ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to ‘on the balance of probabilities’, and we would see men, (perhaps more men) in jail on bogus rape complaints.

    We are seeing a much more obvious feminist political-agenda, and that’s just plain dangerous – but I think New Zealand is starting to catch on to what this is all about – Cunliffe at 12% for preferred prime minister is heart-warming news, less than 10% would be much more reassuring.

    Once again thanks for your effort and your contributions – that’s what this site is about.

  8. […] A comment from the post – Gendered Justice in New Zealand: […]

  9. dunnuffinwrong says:

    Thankyou downunder, so much of that advice was the understanding that I hadnt recieved inspite of my efforts to inform myself.
    I will reply when im able to- to your information.
    Ive got just a few more questions.
    But mostly I now understand the differences betweeen civil and criminal accusations and that has showed me the arena that I need to prepare for.
    Thankyou for you following post.
    9.5 hour day today on knee’s bedding pavers at the new chch bloodbank.
    The other bloodletters will have to wait for another day.

  10. OMG! You'e (^%*(^%& says:

    Feminist motto #1: What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.
    Feminist motto #2: It’s all give and take: If you don’t give, I take.

  11. Downunder says:

    Feminism is not a fad – not like Angry Birds – but wait it is angry birds; hmmm, maybe that wasn’t a good example.

  12. dunnuffinwrong says:

    Look im sure this has been done before but I have to ask..

    What happens if I turn up to court in dragg….?

    Do I have to have had an operation…,? Or is intending to get an operation sufficient?

  13. OMG! You'e (^%*(^%& says:

    Been done before. Bob Moodie, ex Police Commissioner. (I think that was his title). Wore Alice in Wonderland drag to court.
    Given wearing drag might be seen as getting in touch with your feminine side, aka being empathetic to the plight of women, you might get brownie points. Suggest putting your arm in a sling too, and face paint a few bruises and a black eye. Tell them you fell down the stairs. You get where I’m going with this ….

  14. Bob says:

    Gender difference,

    Hi, I am just wondering if anyone out there has the time to assist myself in some issues that I face.

    I have been psychologically and financially abused over a three year period and have notes of evidence to prove it.

    I have also been a victim of many other crimes during this period. Every avenue I go down for assistance, I am met with a brick wall.

    I am consider writing an novel about my episode to inform other victims of the scenario I have faced and taking this matter to the United Nations.

    Does anyone have some time to assist in getting the exposure my experience deserves?

  15. Downunder says:

    @Bob

    Writing a novel is one thing and the promotion of a book another.

    Getting exposure I would suggest is getting mainstream media to accept you have been unfairly treated and your story is news worthy.

    Your brick walls, like moving goal posts and general gender bias may be no different to what is a normal experience for men on this site.

    First I think you need to explore these options and decide what it is you actually want to acheive.

    A novel would be a book based on your experiences without identifying the experience upon which it is based, is that your understanding of a novel.

    Or are you talking about writing an account of what has happened to you, in the form of a book?

    You may want to consider a ghost writer. Have a look at a book like ‘True Red’ (an excellent example) which is about a Mongrel Mob gang leader having his story told by a writer, but of course that comes with a cost.

    There are always places to get help but you need to be clear about what you are trying to do.

  16. Daniel says:

    Wasn’t the child support act 1993 drafted and passed by National? You can get crap law from both sides.

  17. Downunder says:

    SraptheCSA would be the best one to answer that.

    My understanding is that it was lazy legislation copied off Canada, and would have been passed by either side.

    Have a look at the recent debate on the current amendment and see who voted against it.

    When you look at Red Fems policy such as moving the burden of proof in rape cases, right wing parties are a definite no.

    I think we need to be casting a critical eye over what is anti-male legislation and what is feminist legislation.

  18. JohnPotter says:

    Good point Daniel – National were also responsible for anti-family legislation such as the Domestic Violence Act 1995, the Domestic Violence Amendment Act 2013 and the Anti-smacking Bill – officially the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007.

    I still tend to think they are the least bad of all the current political parties, but men should be under no delusion that they are likely to be treated fairly under a National government.

  19. Downunder says:

    I don’t entirely agree with you there John. The anti-smacking bill, the Bradford bill was a private members bill from Sue Bradford in the Green Party. It ended up being a bi-partisan agreement with John Key and Helen Clark doing a side by side on the big stage – that’s politics – what they perceived to be the public mood and what mileage those two could make out of it.

    That was also under MMP as opposed to FPTP and Labour was in power at the time.

    Yes, you can get anti-male legislation regardless of who is in power.

    This is different from ‘if we get elected we will take this policy and make it into law’ that’s the direction I think we need to be looking at NOW not looking retrospectively at which party was in at the time, on previous occasions.

    Same with the Domestic Violence Act. (under FPTP) In that case, I don’t believe either party drafted that legislation. I am quite sure it was independently drafted and waiting in the wings. It got rushed through as a knee-jerk action to a now immortalised homicide case – which I am quite sure would have happened regardless of who was in power.

    We ‘men’ weren’t up to speed politically with what was happening and we got totally blindsided by radical feminists – The Red Fems – who previously hovered mainly in the background.

    We’re not doing ourselves any favours looking at left and right and the historical positions – the NOW is quite different and we need to get up to speed with the politics – and right now for men the dirty politics is quite clearly coming out of the Labour/Green camp, and traditional allegiances really don’t matter for us as a gender, if political parties don’t value the men’s vote.

    I’m not condemning opinions here, or out to curry favour for left or right.

    I seriously don’t think ‘us men’ are up to speed with the current political environment, and I think we need to be re-thinking our approach and actually having ‘some idea’ about what we might actually do about what is now being put in front of the public as policy.

    It is not a case of just Red or Blue anymore – it’s which political beans make 61 or 62 or 63 and what flavour the mix ends up with.

  20. Downunder says:

    This is an interesting, recent statement, from a man in New Zealand, about his situation. You can probably guess who said it, but that doesn’t really matter:

    I was living in this really happy bubble before. I was completely blind to most issues.

    But as long as it doesn’t affect you personally, you’re like, ‘You know, I’m living a happy life, who cares?’

    But it’s become my problem because all my rights are being pissed on and I’m being abused, but the average Joes don’t care because it doesn’t affect them.

    It’s the way men are, and I am not sure how we change that.

  21. Downunder says:

    And here’s a bit of history:

    http://awc.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Gossip/Summer-13.pdf

    Ruth Busch migrated to New Zealand in 1982 from New
    York. An expert in Family Law, she wrote the report which
    formed the basis of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. In
    1994, her work on the Bristol Ministerial Inquiry led to the
    enactment of the violence provisions in the (now) Care of
    Children Act (for more information see the next page). She
    is also a co-founder of the Hamilton Abuse Intervention
    Project, a domestic violence NGO which served as the pilot
    project for New Zealand. As a member of the Lesbian Elders Village, she is
    concerned that older lesbians are not driven back into the closet as they age.

  22. OMG! You'e (^%*(^%& says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but no party has actually undertaken to deliver anything that is either specifically or largely purely for the benefit of ‘white, middle class, men’. (say men aged 25 to 65, European, income generating men).
    Labour’s latest plan? Tax @ 40% income over 140,000. OK, so no one here will ‘fess up to thaqt level of income, but let’s be honest. The cited 3% of income earners over this level are likely to be overwhelmingly men.
    National’s key policies… er…. um …. can’t think of any?
    Greens? Like Labour? capital gains tax.
    Labour and National? Extend paid parental leave – overwhelmingly taken by mothers.
    Internet/Mana? More freebies for Maori and people too young to work yet.
    Winston Peters? More freebies for the retired.
    Conservative Party? binding referendum. Gog knows who that’ll benefit.
    Peter Dunne? Does he represent anything anymore?
    National? Increased pay for high performing teachers – a female dominated industry.
    Labour? Smaller class sizes? – a female dominated industry.
    Both parties???? males now legally responsible for females benefit fraud – meaning mainly DPB, ie mainly female offenders who get to ‘share’ their punishment with the poor men sucker-enough to sucker up to them.
    National (and probably every party) ? Lower drink drive limits – meaning men can’t ‘escape’ after work for a pint quite so readily. Might as well go home to the missus…

    Get the idea. What do political parties offer men? income earning middle class , mostly white, men?
    NOTHING.

  23. OMG! You'e (^%*(^%& says:

    forgot to note: A capital gains tax is more likely to affect men, as they tend to have more wealth than women, at least prior to separation. Thereafter ‘she’ gets half freebie, and ‘he’ gets to sustain his home, and hers, via CS tax. A CGT simply exacerbates this, as ‘she’ will move out, take half the house, and when ‘he’ sells, he’ll no doubt suffer the full CGT bill.

  24. Downunder says:

    I don’t think playing the victim will work for us.

  25. hi @Bob, you are welcome to the Fathers Mauri Ora Circle – every Wednesday night in Onehunga, we offer a safe place to share any father related issues. We aim to strengthen our collective abilities but if you need one-one support, try Father and Child Trust – 10am-2pm workdays, they also know where to go for specific assistance…

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are now likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

« »

Powered by WordPress