MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

National Radio Nine to Noon yesterday interviewed Prof Mark Frydenberg, an expert on prostate cancer who works at the Urology Dept, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne. 600 men per year die of prostate cancer in New Zealand each year.

Prof Frydenberg explained that several international studies to evaluate the benefits of screening programmes had not been running long enough to come up with results, and the key argument against screening programmes was the lack of evidence that such programmes would actually achieve worthwhile reductions in death rates. However, an informal screening programme introduced by a urologist in Tyrol, Austria resulted in 50% less deaths from prostate cancer than in the rest of Austria where no screening was done.

The professor’s personal opinion was that screening programmes were likely to be helpful and that they were justified given that as many men die from prostate cancer as women die from breast cancer in Australia. He also said that the false positive rate for prostate tests was approximately the same as that for breast cancer mammograms leading to biopsies, thereby dispelling one of the favourite arguments against prostate screening. He strongly advised men to seek checks for prostate cancer from a younger age, given that earlier onset prostate cancer was more likely to become the cause of death, and by the time symptoms (typically, difficulty passing urine) are evident it is too late for effective treatment in many cases.

The professor was of the opinion that more flexibility could be exercised in treatment options. Small, slow-growing tumours could be safely watched and may not become significant prior to death from other causes, while only the more aggressive cancers might need surgery or hormonal treatment.

Although interviewer Kathryn Ryan deserves credit for airing the case for prostate cancer screening, it’s a shame the interview stuck to National Radio’s track record of never seeking comment from men’s movement representatives. Radio NZ interviews about breast or cervical cancer inevitably provide airtime to the likes of Sandra Coney or other feminist activists alleging sexism and demanding an ever-increasing slice of the health budget because women deserve it. In regard to prostate cancer, the men’s movement doesn’t necessarily demand screening programmes if these are not yet proven, but it may ask why more money is not spent to educate men about the symptoms and risks, or greater subsidies are not provided for the medical assessments, especially given that there is really no option for self-assessment as can be undertaken by women checking for lumps on their breasts. Also, Ms Ryan lost most of her brownie points at the end of the interview when she laughingly suggested that perhaps men’s wives should be targeted in a campaign to increase the rate of male testing for prostate cancer. While the professor agreed that men were slow to seek medical tests, Ms Ryan’s statement was patronizing and demeaning towards men, suggesting that men needed women to live their lives responsibly. This insinuation ignored the fact that the medical assessment for prostate cancer is especially embarrassing and uncomfortable because it involves the doctor sticking a finger up the man’s anus, this being incomparable with the relative ease of mammogram testing. It also ignored the fact that very little government funding has been allocated to encourage men to seek such tests, compared with that spent on encouraging screening for breast and cervical cancers. And of course, men must pay fully for the prostate test whereas women’s screening is provided free. Further it ignored the fact that even though breast cancer screening is easy, free and conveniently shipped into every local community, a significant proportion of women still don’t take advantage of it. There are many reasons other than the “stupid men who need their wives to manage them” theory implied by Ms Ryan for men’s low self-initiation of testing.

Allegations that sexual abuse was committed by several touring English rugby players have been milked by unscrupulous media showing scant regard for civil rights. The NZ Press Association is even quite happy to provide names of those who might have been alleged to have committed sexual crimes.

The case raises important questions relevant to gender politics. For example, why have the police spent what must now be considerable time and expense “investigating” a case for which no complaint has been laid? If you went to the police and told them your mate had an eye injury that he said had been caused by Joe Bloggs assaulting him with a bat, what do you imagine the police would do? There is a good chance they would simply tell you there’s nothing they can do unless your mate came in and made a complaint. If they did not have too much on their plate, they may well pay your mate a visit at some stage and ask him about it, but you can be sure they would quickly lose interest if he made it clear he wouldn’t lay a complaint. So what’s the difference? (more…)

Judge Paul von Dadelszen was interviewed on National Radio Nine to Noon on Wednesday 11 June 2008 in his role as Acting Principal Family Court Judge. His confident, resonant voice made him an ideal replacement for his slick ad-man boss in progressing dangerous abuse by the state as if it were beneficial.

I thought it worthwhile to report on the learned judge’s statements and to offer some comment. It’s a long post but worth the effort to see how the system is thinking. The judge’s actual statements are in italics while my descriptions and comments are not.

1. His Honour began by emphasizing that the initiative for the new legislation came from the police, but the Principal and other Family Court judges were well pleased with it.

The fact it was pushed by police gives a clue as to the intended use of the proposed “safety orders”. The orders will be used routinely by police attending domestic call-outs to ensure they are not bothered again at the same address as the domestic couple continues their argument. Who cares that it is men who suffer for this convenience? Men have always been the expendable gender.

2. “There does need to be an ability … for victims of violence to have ready access to justice.”

But the police orders will only be given when there is no evidence enabling police to arrest and charge someone, i.e. there is no evidence that there is any victim of violence. Also, throwing men out on the street at short notice when there is no evidence they have committed a crime can hardly be called “justice”. Judge Boshier was previously criticized for displaying his own bias by using gender-specific terms in discussing domestic violence as if it were only ever committed by men, so it seems in this interview Judge von Dadelszen was careful to use the terms “victims” and “victims of violence” where he may have wanted to say “women”. (more…)

Miriam Long is an IRD Administrative Review Officer based in Wellington.  It has become increasingly apparent that Miriam Long appears to hold a grudge against male liable parents. I have dealt with a number of Dads who have been at the reciving end of Miriam Long’s administrative review decisions.

I am in the process of coordinating a complaint to have Mariam Long stopped from hearing administrative reviews.

If you have experienced the Long hand at an administrative review please leave a comment and I will contact you back.

If you are a dad taking part in an administrative  review of Child Support Tax and you are told that Miriam Long is your Review Officer demand another Review Officer.

Regards

Scrap

And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is
Still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be. Yeah
There will be an answer, let it be.

(Lennon/McCartney)

After reading Garth George’s NZ Herald column on Gutless politicians (the majority of our politicians being men), I felt the need to say something.

To the Editor

Dear Sir,

If this is your Headline I am sure Mr George will forgive you for not understanding his faith. If however it is Mr Georges Headline he may choose to pray for forgiveness for his trespass against others.

His role as a self confessed Christian is not to issue abuse, but express understanding in a manner that others may choose to follow.

The law around abortion is a fiction. It does not exist in law, but by the conscience of parliament. It is a moral death warrant for a birth certificate that does not exist.

In a representative democracy our vote also contains our conscience and every abortion, none of which are within the law are the responsibility of each and every one of us.

Ignorance of the law may have new meaning for many people.

First post, I’ll try to be brief …

As I see from reading through the wealth of information available here.  I have a realistic view of what can and can’t happen when a loving Dad who seeks 50/50 care of his beautiful children, tries to review how much child support is due from him.

However; it’s late, and I can’t sleep, and I know there’s many people here who know the same truth, that some things in this life aren’t fair.  So excuse me for venting.

I am currently negotiating a full 50% share of nights and days caring for my two gems, Louis (5.8) and Elliot (2.5).  At every turn I find roadblocks to enabling me to care for my two sons.

IRD: We’re very sorry sir, but there’s nothing we can do, someone has to pay the Crown for the DPB she’s claiming.  Even if she chose not to claim, we’ll make her claim.  Pity though.

WINZ: Yeah good one, you really think we can help you, even if you didn’t earn what you earn, she already claims DPB for your two young fellas.  Pity though.

My only hope, is to negotiate with my ex-wife that it’s in the boys best interests that she seeks work, rather than rely on DPB and the Child Support I have faithfully paid every month for the last three years.

Next stop Administrative Review … because unfortunately the cost of setting up house again is getting the best of me.

Second stop Full Custody … if I’m going to see them for half the time and still have to pay Child Support, why not have them all the time and put that money into an account for them?

Nite all, thanks for listening.

First time writer. I just wanted tell my brothers story on this site as he cannot do it for himself as he is in jail due to FALSE allegations of sexual abuse & rape. My family & I are absolutely devastated by the guilty verdict the jury delivered, but after reading some of the listings on this menz sight I was horrified to find it seems to be the normal way things go for Men. My brother comes up for sentence soon & I’ve been doing a bit of research on ways to help him, as we know he’s innocent!. His so called TRIAL was a F—N shambles, I would love to tell you all the details but im afraid as he will be appealing the conviction & sentence & i don’t want to do anything that might f–k up his appeal. It seems to me that the justice system is so F–ked up that any female with a bee in her bonnet can accuse anyone with no evidence & even when the accused has evidence to prove his innocents it doesn’t matter cos if you’ve been accused you MUST BE GUILTY.  I am ashamed to admit being female after finding out how EVIL some bitches can be, as it was my brothers x wife’s & her daughter that accused him. We know they only did this because of the custody battle that has been goin on for years (he lost all those too!) as hes been trying to get visitation to his biological daughter. I rang a mens ph councilling line hoping that i could get my brother someone he could ring & talk to but he gets lock up for the night at 4.30pm & this councilling service doesn’t start til 6.30pm, which was rather disappointing so if anyone out there knows of another such service I would be grateful if you let me know, also any advice or info would also be gratefully recieved.

Judge questions legality of abortions
Abortion law ‘being used too liberally’
Decision raises fears over abortion
Decision raises fears abortion will be harder to get
Editorial: Abortion reality check overdue

WHO THE %^&*($ DO THEY THINK THEY ARE!

Suggesting that abortions are too easy to get in this country! I mean, i ask you!
We all KNOW that abortion is nothing to do about the woman’s choice. We all KNOW that the 18,000 or so abortions are almost entirely because of the risk of serious mental harm to the mothers, should the pregnancy continue! There is NO WAY the abortion laws are being flouted, or that abortion, even with two medical practiioners signing off, is anything about abortion on demand!
Abortion is a last resort! These mothers will have mental health issues, otherwise!

Surely all that money spent funding abortions would be much better spent developing a whole new mother-victim industry, as the 18,000 or so mothers EACH YEAR suffer the mental harm of having a child! Surely these mothers must live with the anguish of having averted their own mental pschosis! After all, all those men should have kept their zips up, after all - it’s their fault, really!

I tell you what, I am ever so grateful (sic) that our women-folk bore some 350,000 less children over the last 20 or so years, rather that having all those mental-health-issue women in our homes and on out streets. Just as well the would-be fathers of all those children didn’t matter.

The late Dr. Bill Sutch is again in the news with the release after several decades of his Security Intelligence Service (S.I.S.) file.

The N.Z.Herald of June 6th quotes current SIS director Warren Tucker as saying that “while the (SIS) had long regarded Sutch as a security risk it had never considered him to be a Soviet agent” etc.

Soviet agent or not, the indications are that he was a subversive influence in N.Z. for all that. So it would seem that the N.Z. Left owes much to Dr. Sutch, even if, for example, one was to judge only by the testimony of one notable N.Z. leftist activist, Christine Dann.

Dann was interviewed on Radio N.Z. on 18th September 1985 re her new book ‘Up From Under‘ where it was disclosed that she was one of the founders of N.Z’s “Women’s Liberation” movement. She recalled there that the seeds for such radicalism were sown through a visit to her school by Dr. Sutch, where he discussed such matters, and how she subsequently became deeply politicised. Nor, presumably, would she have been far from the only young person so radicalised by him.

Just how deeply involved Dann was to become was well spelt out in 1979 with the publication of her highly revealing article ‘Radical Feminism and the N.Z. Political Scene‘ which was published in the July 1979 issue of The Republican. (more…)