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

Are we becoming equal?

Filed under: General — Julie @ 12:51 pm Fri 9th June 2006

It looks that there is a change happening in male and female relationships.

According to a poll, 48 percent of men (and an equal percentage of women) reported dating partners who drew the same income as they did. Twenty percent of men reported dating women who earned more.

There is a want and need for equality among people in their 20’s and 30’s. Men are wanting to share the responsibilites with women and do not want to be the sole breadwinner and decision-makers while women do not want to be stay at home mums wasting their years and talents to only raising children. Both sexes have watched their parents trying to cope alone with their personal responsibilities in the relationship. And I guess like many of us, promised themselves things will be different for them.

“It’s great that men are no longer the success object and women are no longer the sex object. But when people organize their lives differently from their cultures or families of origin, they have to make it work practically and emotionally. You have to negotiate before [marriage] how you’re going to deal with the core issues of sex, money and kids.”

Barry McCarthy, a psychologist in Washington, D.C.,

It makes complete sense to consider that the ultimate relationship would be between people that are best friends. And to become best friends each needs to click emotionally and mentally.

Women today want men that can and will share thier feelings because they don’t need the masks in their busy lives and it is tiresome trying to live so closely to someone you don’t understand. It seems also that men (and you will correct me if I am wrong) need more from their women than trophy wives.

We live in a world today that spins around our economy. Everything seems to evolve around money as to our worth. What house we have, what clothes we wear, what schools our kids can go to, medical care and the list just goes on and on. Many families cannot sufficiently live without 2 incomes in todays society and absolutely cannot survive without working together in partnership. But in any successful partnership, the individuals must be real to themselves first and then real to their partners second.

Once again equality is neccessary.



  1. Stats that prove the glass is half full from someone with a questionable shrink degree that demands we leave biological facts behind or they will question every one of our positions with hidden subconcious aspects we can’t even identify without their approval. Hmmm.

    Many men would say, “Men and women deserve equal rights, but men and women are not equal.” Many women are at present saying, “Women deserve superior rights and men and women are the same.” These 2 positions are at polar opposites and spill the glass that is half full or half empty.

    This happy news reminds me of a pep rally run by the class president. Julie try any other educational background but phyche, political science and law to sway us to the equality of the sexes for these 3 are very suspect, and leave men more cynical than they already are. Biology would be a good place to start.

    We are the skeptical sex and you the warm fuzzy or kiss kiss hug hug sex. You are impressed with the rank postioned person who reaffirms your feelings, while we are not impressed by a science that turns feelings into a higher ranking form of science(which funny enough reminds me of men competing on who has the bigger one). Freud is guilty of one-up-manship in that his theory trumps all the others to date(every idea is under the control of something else that only a shrink can find). Every day I have a desire to eat too much(maybe subconciously too), but I don’t follow it for I don’t want to be a fat self-reflective person watching the world go by and rationalizing it as really be adventurous in that I have interesting dreams. Freud has been used by feminists to turn their mysticism into a force above logic or one’s Christian God.

    It has something to offer those that have inhibitions that need to be overcome. While it should not be taught to those that have things that need not be released from their properly caged desires(ex:I want to cut my ex-husband out from access to his kids with lies for I have been taught women need to be more assertive by my shrink and I have had a dream that my ex raped me and our children-and his grandparents took part.) This dream might be some surpressed memory or it might be my indirect anger being played out like a soup opera that I watch too much instead of over coming my endless fears. * Note- Assertiveness in the indirecly form again, by the state strings being pulled.

    Comment by Intrepid — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 2:09 pm

  2. Intrepid,

    I know very little of biology. Are we talking about evolution and the cells that make up man and woman. Like DNA?

    Comment by julie — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 3:02 pm

  3. Dear Julie,
    Yes, but also traits we see in other animals that may be in us. For some of the research that has come out on people tends to be ignored, or not given, out for fear of the PC people. Both the religious & PC people both don’t like any truth found in biology.

    Comment by Intrepid — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 3:12 pm

  4. In defence of the great Sigmund Freud, I would like to assert that he was anything but PC.
    He said “Anatomy is destiny.”, meaning of course that basic biology gives men and women very different places in the world. It would be foolish though to interpret differences in biology as equalling differences in status.

    Comment by PaulM — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 4:10 pm

  5. Dear Paul M,
    I don’t state Freud was for PC, but those who embrace him seem to in the strongest way today. You seem to place him as anti-PC camp, why? Please inform me of the history I missed. Freud did debate against Hitler before his taking of Austria, or did so after his taking of Austria? He fought the propaganda and disinformation of his time(psychologically of more directly)befitting such a famous person with such publicity power at his finger tips!?! He was like Tolstoy constantly tempting the czars wrath! He didn’t save his skin and did slow down the Nazis’ moves at great personal risk?

    Please I await the history I missed . It seems history paints him as someone lacking something in the conscious field of play, it would seem. I guess ambition and coke snorting insights by hyper-rationalists of the past are still to be worshipped like today’s ones. But don’t let me stand in your way as you blindly give him skills he didn’t have. I am a wonder at worshipping those who added more than I, but less than the greats that aren’t fashionable with this generation.

    Comment by Intrepid — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 4:51 pm

  6. Dear Intrepid
    rather than history or psychology, I refer you to poetry;

    … all he did was to remember
    like the old and be honest like children.

    He wasn’t clever at all: he merely told
    the unhappy Present to recite the Past
    like a poetry lesson till sooner
    or later it faltered at the line where

    long ago the accusations had begun,
    and suddenly knew by whom it had been judged,
    how rich life had been and how silly,
    and was life-forgiven and more humble,

    able to approach the Future as a friend
    without a wardrobe of excuses, without
    a set mask of rectitude or an
    embarrassing over-familiar gesture….

    … if often he was wrong and, at times, absurd,
    to us he is no more a person
    now but a whole climate of opinion

    under whom we conduct our different lives:
    Like weather he can only hinder or help,
    the proud can still be proud but find it
    a little harder, the tyrant tries to

    make do with him but doesn’t care for him much:
    he quietly surrounds all our habits of growth
    and extends, till the tired in even
    the remotest miserable duchy

    have felt the change in their bones and are cheered
    till the child, unlucky in his little State,
    some hearth where freedom is excluded,
    a hive whose honey is fear and worry,

    feels calmer now and somehow assured of escape …

    “In Memory of Sigmund Freud”
    by WH Auden

    Comment by PaulM — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 7:31 pm

  7. If (48 + 20) % of men are dating someone who earns as much or more than them, who are the other 32% dating, given women on average still only earn roughly 85%

    Comment by Al D Rado — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 7:44 pm

  8. [continued …] of what men earn!

    Comment by Al D Rado — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 7:45 pm

  9. Dear PaulM,
    I like your funny comments in the past, but mixing poetry & psychology starts my artsy-fartsy detector spinning. You should add some mysticism and cook it on a women’s site, let cool for a day watching something frivolous and get back to your good jokes.

    Comment by Intrepid — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 9:51 pm

  10. Dear Intrepid
    Surely you do not advocate censorship? Are you not in favour of equality? If it’s all the same to you and JohnP I believe I’ll continue to comment as I see fit.

    Comment by PaulM — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 10:15 pm

  11. Al D Rado,

    It is 78c not 85c to every dollar women earn but that does not stop them from earnig higher wages than many men.

    I would say the other 32% of men are dating women who have some kind of same intellect and same kind of interests.
    Possibly money is not coming into the equation.

    By the way, I have been missing your posts.

    Comment by julie — Fri 9th June 2006 @ 11:33 pm

  12. Intrepid,

    I have found what you are saying.


    by Russell Eisenman McNeese State University

    I think you would be interestd in this too.

    Do I need to sell it?

    Comment by julie — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 10:34 am

  13. Intrepid says:

    Freud has been used by feminists to turn their mysticism into a force above logic or one’s Christian God.

    The relationship between Freud and feminism is a little more complex than this!

    From Wikipedia:

    No discussion of Sigmund Freud is complete without some mention of his highly influential and controversial views on the role and psychology of women. Freud was an early champion of both sexual freedom and education for women (Freud, “Civilized Sexual Morality and Modern Nervousness”). Some feminists, however, have argued that at worst his views of women’s sexual development set the progress of women in Western culture back decades, and that at best they lent themselves to the ideology of female inferiority. Believing as he did that women were a kind of mutilated male, who must learn to accept her deformity (the lack of a penis) and submit to some imagined biological imperative, he contributed to the vocabulary of misogyny. Terms such as “penis envy” and “castrating” (both used to describe women who attempted to excel in any field outside the home) contributed to discouraging women from obtaining education or entering any field dominated by men, until the 1970s.

    On the other hand, feminist theorists such as Juliet Mitchell, Nancy Chodorow, Jessica Benjamin, Jane Gallop, and Jane Flax have argued that psychoanalytic theory is essentially related to the feminist project and must, like other theoretical traditions, be adapted by women to free it from vestiges of sexism. Freud’s views are still being questioned by people concerned about women’s equality. Another feminist who finds potential use of Freud’s theories in the feminist movement is Shulamith Firestone. In “Freudianism: The Misguided Feminism”, she discusses how Freudianism is essentially completely accurate, with the exception of one crucial detail: everywhere that Freud writes “penis”, the word should be replaced with “power”.

    It is interesting to note that originally Freud believed childhood sexual abuse to be the cause of hysteria–but he then recanted this so-called “seduction theory” (“The Index of Sexual Abuse”), claiming that he had found many cases in which apparent memories of childhood sexual abuse were based more on imagination than on real events. Instead he began to emphasize the Oedipus Theory, which asserts that everyone unconsciously wishes to possess their parents.

    Then Al D Rado asks:

    who are the other 32% dating?

    I think that we have quite a large group of young men who are not “dating” at all, because they do not have the kind of prospects that make men attractive to women. I guess this is why prostitution has become so prevalant.

    Comment by JohnP — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 11:55 am

  14. Dear John P,
    I don’t disagree with any of the information provided above, but if we are going to add what Freud put forth and where it has been taken one could spend a lifetime studying the subject(I believe this subject far from worth it). At some point one must ask is it a worthwhile science (this using of dreams to trump thought in the conscious). In “Why Freud was Wrong” Webster goes into great detail as to Freuds own modivation(conscious & even subconscious) and it turns out very disturbing to base his ideas so squarely in the position it is found today. In fact the real reason for its popularity ( I and others feel) is that it appeals to effeminate mysticism, even in spite of Freud’s anti-female bias. Women love sitting on the shrink’s couch as they do sitting on their gossiping friends’ couch. They talked about the same subjects before Freud had arrived.

    The real problem is so many have studied this very limited science to such a degree( the reasons for that I’ll leave to you to decide) that they will never come to see it generally as a waste of time (as to the amount of endless time spent verse the good it has to offer) with this quasi-religion.
    Yes, I’m sure there is much I don’t know about all the people who have studied this topic and then related their dreams( and paperwork) to connect this to God- knows-what in vast sweeping bad generalizations. People seem to dislike the biological generalization(and get angry), but then go on to just soak up this mysticism with little skepticism. Freuds sweeping genearlizations based on very scant dreams isn’t science. Either you use generalizations or not. If you are going to use them then use ones that are logical, and dreams can’t be grouped with any certainty.

    These dream worshippers might have done this without any theory to back up their insights(like the aboriginals have in many cultures), but we wouldn’t be giving it any true logical cover, that it has now given itself, unless it hadn’t been fallen in love with by effeminates, and instead had regarded it with the cynicism it has earned.

    By in fact talking about it we are confirming the idea of “any publicity is good publicity” aspect of how much people prefer this confused wacky way of dealing with the world. Just go out and find some earth mother cult and be done with it, and not continue to believe this is hard science. I don’t think John is this way himself, but by allowing these ideas to go unchalleged through the back door of our science world we make it all the harder to comes to terms with what’s wrong.
    I’m truly sorry if you studied this in University.

    Comment by Intrepid — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 1:11 pm

  15. Dear Julie,
    Yes that info was right on the mark, even that on women being better with kids at the enfant stage.
    Some of that I’d seen before, but some of it was new. I can support any effort you wish to do in understanding the true differences to do what’s best for bringing up kids and family, instead of mixing equal rights with equal charactistics for the sake of a PC agenda. We must understand what both sexes bring to the table (good and bad), and that is why I continue to bring up the bad on women. To give balance to the false idea( preached like propaganda) that female characterists are somehow better. Rationalized cowardice is no attribute no matter how you slice it.

    Comment by Intrepid — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 1:41 pm

  16. Yes, Intrepid, I agree.
    From the site I gave, I would consider myself an equality feminist. But the truth is that wouldn’t solve the problem even for the majority.
    Firstly, if men and women start of equal, they change personally and their circumstances change. They will learn at different rates and their interests will change as well as promotions will not be in line with each other.
    If they both considered themselves to have strong or weak characteristics they will find the other person to be vunerable at unexpected times and forceful at unexpected times.
    Psychology today touched on these issues also.

    And still with equality we have the biological differences that make us unique as a sex and as individuals.

    The question I wonder is; “Is there anything left to do that hasn’t already been done?” I know I would say, “Be equal” as a equality feminist. I am thinking you might answer; “Yes, we can understand what we are and what the other sex is.”

    That brings me to thinking it fair that the males get 11 negative traits because I gave the females the same number.

    But even so, I think males hard to generalise on. They can be the protective and sensitive. Even though we have the feminist and socialist movement, you can see these traits from toddlers. And I also think females can be protective and sensitive. There was a time when I thought we had seperate roles to play but with the world at war with itself and unpredictablity around every corner it is hard to play roles. You have to know how to survive.

    Comment by julie — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 3:29 pm

  17. Hi Julie- define “You have to know how to survive.”

    Comment by starr — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 6:11 pm

  18. Dear Julie,
    At an individual level I have learned to be polite in several cultures. I spend the time to learn what traits my wife has that should be considered female and the minority of male traits she has too. I see myself with certain traits, for the sake of not presenting myself a Mr. Male I have the female trait for conversation and writing.

    This is my local level of dealing with people as they claim to wish to be treated. Yet only when I go from this local personal relationship to that of the provincials or federal level of discourse do I start using generalizations so as to garther ideas for discussion. This multi-deminsional approach isn’t two-faced and is impossible for so many to do.

    Some get upset when you aren’t polite with ideas of such importance, for they want a local level of communication. Others play games with all and or themselves(whether in some form of denial or for fox-like reasons)by making bad generalizations because everyone says its ok(like most of Freuds’), or they make bad generalizations about one sex and think its evil to do so with the other(like feminists and true women haters).

    As to generalizations of males I would say they are combustible, and if brought up by the right hand can become a great person and if brought up by no hand or the wrong hand ( most single mothers)they can become wild boys who crave freedom( that women would consider all too risky). They can still succeed though, but they tend to act too selfserving, which we have enough of already in the female template. Women, in always rationaizing fear, are the perfect example of survival at any cost (their own interests). In most species the males die for the kids, society has tried to have us die for the state and other things. Yet women, as in the vast majority of species, will briefly fight for the kids a bit, but abandon the kids if things get truely hot( men define truely dangerous well, women do tempist in a tea pot exaggerations).

    We shouldn’t get confused how society is now, it is pathetically safe now, despite what the effeminate propagnda news says again and again(at least pathetically safe for women). It will soon start to get dangerous for women when there is no more money around. The men are just looking out for themselves like everyone else. It’s just traditionally we expected men to be something that we are very confused about now.

    Comment by Intrepid — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 7:04 pm

  19. These days we’re now equal in one respect Julie.
    Both sexes are in competition for the same roles.
    However comparing myself with most of the women I’ve ever met I’d have to say I’m very different to most women. Most women seem boring and very risk aversive to me (I suppose the result of having a brain bathed in so much eostrogen). They like things soft, comfy, user friendly, predictable. Even the mysticism so many women appear to go for seems like a conflated attempt to gain security – though ‘knowing’ what lies in store for us in future. LOL!
    No doubt I seem macho and overly risk-taking to many of them (Testosterone fuelled as I am).
    It doesn’t really get to be a problem though unless we try to enforce our own sex’s biologically driven risk level on one another.

    And there’s the nub of a problem IMO.

    Too many women seem to want to work in paid employment alongside men, take less risks, push themselves less, and then get the same reward!
    Many also want men as partners to supplement thier childcare, but to strictly female risk aversive standards. Hence the hysteria about men doing childcare drummed up by many fems. Hell, a guy can’t even sit next to a kid on an airplane without some woman (usually) getting her knickers in a twist! Many will also lie through thier teeth (false accusations) to hang onto the relatively cushy role of homemaker/childcare, where there’s nobody supervising you, and no competition amongst work peers.
    Cherrypicking rights and responsibilities isn’t going to engender much respect from mature men who’ve seen how these things work however.

    Comment by Stephen — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 7:48 pm

  20. Stephen is completely right here about how women go about making things safe, as they claim they are being dangerous with spirited talk. Even in talk they have promoted politeness to PC red guards, while men must talk nice and women can be brave. Or once again the example of how shrinks say to women to be strong as they tell men to get into touch with their softer sides.

    Comment by Intrepid — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 8:17 pm

  21. Yes Intrepid and Stephen,

    The whole situation seems absurd. It doesn’t make sense to tell either sex to work on their so called weaknesses such as females need to be stronger and men need to be weaker. But then that’s what I (as equality feminist) am asking for. Hmmm, may need to reconsider.

    Did anyone ever consider the consequenses of that? No, of course not. For everything that changes is to fix one problem without considering the whole picture. Or how changing that one little piece affects the whole puzzle.

    Now we see the consequenses in action with young confused males and females.

    I could go on about the individual consequenses but I am sure you both know them well.

    I, as a female already see the men distrusting women, leaving it to them (meaning they are allowing the women to play thier role) and thinking of themselves. This is not about “deadbeats” this about real people and real life.

    So, now what? Where as western society do we go from here? Down?

    Intrepid, I am glad you mentioned the biological side for it puts the differences and expectations of equality in perspective.

    I can’t help but be concerned about the females being in trouble soon. I am thinking you are talking about the radical feminist that use the money to pursue the teachings “all men are bad.”
    You are aware that they need younger women to keep their theory alive.

    Comment by julie — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 10:23 pm

  22. Hi Starr,
    You asked, “What do I mean by You have to know how to survive”

    Maybe I should of used other words. Looking at the words I used, I can see they could mean more than what I mean’t. What I mean’t is that it is hard to keep on keeping on.
    For me, personally, I have to keep things going for my family, for myself and be ready to cope when negative things come unexpected.

    Comment by julie — Sat 10th June 2006 @ 10:38 pm

  23. Lets not generalise.
    I was my son’s primary caregiver from birth until the day his mum left me at 8 months. Our son stopped breast feeding just before 3 months, but I had already introduced him to bottle feeding weeks earlier, and very successfully.
    I was every bit as successful in the ‘mothering’ role as any mother.
    We should not confine our potential to what is ‘usual’, ‘excepted’ or ‘traditional’, and we need to look past the “girls can do anything” slogan which is thrown into our faces daily.
    Within physical and mental boundaries, men and women can achieve equally.

    Comment by Wayne — Sun 11th June 2006 @ 6:51 pm

  24. Julie
    I think recent stats will show the gap to be declining, and be done to the 85% figure. However, whether 78 or 85% isnt really the point – if so many men are marrying better or equal income earners, there’s too few men left the lower income earners, which of course satistically is the vast majority of women.
    I’ve been tied up enjoying life lately- hence my absence of posts. Cheers.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 11th June 2006 @ 7:58 pm

  25. Dear Wayne,
    Yes, you did a excellent job and so can many other men, but that is what generalizing is! It isn’t blanketing. You then go on in the same argument to generalize youself.

    Within physical and mental boundaries, men and women can achieve equally.

    Really all… or just most can ?! Hmmm…
    I have brought up my boy more than my wife, even with us being happily married. I still see traits and characteristics more on the one side than the other. These traits flip to the other sex often enough, but to play this feel good game of PC talk is just so unreal. Certain traits tend to be found in one sex more often. You are making generalizing statements as you are claiming you don’t like them. What you are in fact saying , as all anti-generalizers are, is I want everyone to follow my generalizations(ex: men and women are basically the same), but dont have the understanding of yourself to admit it, or other. Is having breast milk and the liking of having a child suck your tit not an advantage for women generally speaking. Deconstructionists always call up the exceptions to generalizations as if this means anything, as do over sensitive types.

    It is when feminist go on to say that since women are generally more on the ball when a child in its enfant stage to then claim women are also better at all aspects into all times in the future of child rearing that they can be rightly called the abusers of political overreach on a grand scale. What the worst feminist abusers do in generalizing is blanketing, point to good women traits, and hide behind slogans like yours to cover their bad ones?. Then go on to point out men’s bad traits, that tend to be less hidden by design, and then politically go about defaming their good ones.

    To have peace in the battle of the sexes we must call a spade a spade, and call a bad generalization a bad generalization, not claim your generalizations are all bad and my generalizations are not generalizations.

    Comment by Intrepid — Sun 11th June 2006 @ 8:29 pm

  26. Hi Al D Rado,

    I actually did a little research on the subject of females earning less than males. I suppose the percentage differs but it is not important.
    I have come to the conclusion that it is not that if an employee hires a female they will pay less than if they hire a male but it is about;
    Women earn less because they are generally in and out of work child-bearing so they don’t get the promotions that a steady working male would that stayed on.
    Females work more part-time than males so they get part-time rates.
    Females don’t get senior positions as much as men. This has changed yet some places still expect females will want children.

    And females work more in female dominated jobs that pay less.

    You would think that the problem would be solved rationally but the truth is females probably don’t negotiate as much as men for wages/salaries because they don’t commit for as long as men do.

    I personally have never come across in any job whether part-time or full-time
    a wage difference between me and males. If you phone for a job they never say, “We pay 15% more if your male”
    If it actually did exist, I personally would vote to have it changed.

    I wish I knew how they figured out the difference.

    Comment by julie — Sun 11th June 2006 @ 8:48 pm

  27. Intrepid,
    its all just meaningless burble..I’ve got far better things to do, and posts to read.

    Comment by Wayne — Sun 11th June 2006 @ 10:20 pm

  28. “Meanless burble” , generally speaking of course? It is fitting that you end with yet another generalization. I’m glad you set us straight on the evils of others always generalizing, while your points contain obviously no generalizing, for you are above the practice. Let me guess, you are also against base crass insulting too with terms like “burble.” It funny how the mind works.

    Comment by Intrepid — Mon 12th June 2006 @ 12:00 pm

  29. to put it straight meaningless burbles are what is sensationalised and is readily and very easily accepted

    hi julie thanks for your comment 22.
    to put things in perspective if it is hard for you to keep on keeping on… the situatiuon has become much harder for males to do the same hence equality will not come into being.

    Comment by starr — Mon 12th June 2006 @ 1:23 pm

  30. Hi Starr,

    the situatiuon has become much harder for males to do the same hence equality will not come into being.

    Sorry, but I don’t buy that. I am the wrong person to be saying that to.

    I understand the unfairness, what it is about and why it is about but if we start comparing personal stories, well……

    Comment by julie — Mon 12th June 2006 @ 3:19 pm

  31. well then julie.. generally look around you-
    a male so much as looks or waves it can be and is readily construed as an act of DV… now if a female does that… it would just be treated as such by a male.. a wave or a look- no extra analysing into it or possible hypothesis coming into it…

    again generally speaking which gender runs most to the cops for every action, alleging and hypothesising it as an act of DV or future possible DV?

    you have it hard… i think not. to test it.. run to the nearest local cophouse and just allege anything against anyone that comes to your mind which sounds horrific. will an investigation be done to verify this?..and the reulting chaos which follows?… you know the answer as well as i do. … fairness? No.

    common sense comes into being as well as common consideration which is quite lacking due to the system in place which makes one gender powerless over the other… so i again say equality will not be possible until a common sense approach is in place as well as common consideration together with an adoption of ethical principles to treat everyone fairly whether it is detrimental or advantageous to one.

    you mention unfairness… but compare what you in that situation went through versus what a male would go through in the same situation… and then make your opinion.

    Comment by starr — Mon 12th June 2006 @ 3:42 pm

  32. Hi Starr,

    You asked me what I mean’t by “You have to know how to survive”

    For me and the life I have so far lived this is real. It has nothing to do with domestic violence. I have not beaten up a male nor a female nor my children. Actually, I did strangle a woman once because she was wanting to beat me up but that was when i was 17.

    If men are getting falsely accused of DV then that is wrong and I have a friend who has been accused falsely and gone to jail for it. But he won’t listen to me when I tell him to get away from her. He went straight back to her. Go figure.

    I am more than aware of the problems of violence between men and women but it has nothing to do with what I said.

    Men do not have it harder than women in life. Life is full of ups and downs and it (life) is not sexist. What the women’s groups offer me or the feminists is of no use to me. I am not a victim and I cannot buy into it because I want more from life.

    PS. Having an attitude day. Sorry if it is spilling onto you. I put my views across to a worhtwhile female today and got lectured but in a real way.

    Comment by julie — Mon 12th June 2006 @ 4:37 pm

  33. Julie,
    You really reckon men don’t have the harder lives in NZ?
    Why do you think I’m not there sis?
    Reckon I enjoy watching spoilt girl/women gloating at my bros suffering whilst they cream off the social systems there for the last few decades? AND ongoing?

    I’m afraid that if your attitude is really that men’s lives are as cushy as women’s in NZ we are definitely parting company.
    For I can’t and won’t travel far carrying the handicap of associating with people who hold such views. Those who do are part of men’s problem IMO.

    You appear not to want to compare lives. Just imagine if voteless Victorian women or blacks in the 1960s southern states of USA or in apartheit South Africa held such an attitude. How far in thier struggle for equal rights woould they have gotten.
    Also imagine how incensed they’d feel (as I do with you now) being told by someone from the overpriveliged group -‘Oh, there’s no point comparing lives’.
    What a disgustingly callous attitude that would seem to those oppressed. Then to pass it all off as an “attitude day”.
    Wow, I’m disappointed with you.

    Comment by Stephen — Wed 14th June 2006 @ 2:15 pm

  34. Stephen,

    Ok I admit that men are having a harder time with the social policies and the way our systems are run.

    There are always going to be people (male and female) that will grind the stone day after day to get somewhere in life and I will tell you that I have respect for these people. I was quite affected by Mark’s talk on child support. It’s bullshit that people in that situation cannot win. The odds are stacked against them. I get it; I know why you tell men to leave New Zealand.

    And on top of the child support, I asked about them having student loans and found out that they do not get community service cards or any other assistance. Yes these are the good men in society being forced into either throwing their arms in the air and giving up or they won’t use their potential to become the best they can be.

    My frustration is with people that you prop up and then just fall back down again. For those people I have no empathy.

    And if they are male I will not buy into thier hardship no more than I would a female.

    Starr asked me what I mean’t when I said “You have to know how to survive” well I consider myself a person that grinds the stone too and personally there are men that will do less than I will do. So, I chose to take it on a personal level.

    Comment by julie — Wed 14th June 2006 @ 2:45 pm

  35. so what you are really saying philosophically is to the effect of “cutting of a persons legs and asking him to win the race with fully limbed people”.

    A very condescending approach. you are comparing your situation with perks and fem support including legislations in place to give you an advantage (all present historically- say the last 2o years?- and which you would be taking advantage of no doubt) to a males who are just realising their destituteness from a system which is not fair to their sex.

    To be the best they can be- we do get there only to be Screwed by a system that would take all you worked for in your lifetime and waste it on the advantaged without leaving anything for your future generation or your kids. hence the hands in the air attitude cos you Know that whatever you do it will not be worth it nor will it be utilised where it should be.

    As i have said above philosophically thats putting a man with no legs in a race with able bodied people and saying to him “you win by playing the game fairly”.

    thing is you admit the unfair advantage but are not acknowledging it to the extent it should be acknowledged- just like the lawyers brushing things under the carpet when the situation gets hot— the fire remains.

    if i got a dollar for everytime i heard that…

    Comment by starr — Wed 14th June 2006 @ 3:08 pm

  36. Hi Starr,

    so what you are really saying philosophically is to the effect of “cutting of a persons legs and asking him to win the race with fully limbed people”.

    Yeap. Pretty much.

    But let’s not forget that that there are males who don’t get into this situation. What do we say about them? Some of them will later on but some won’t even go there.

    I will remind you that the system of CYFS wasn’t friendly to me although I am aware males get a harder time.

    I will get let off lighter than a male if I end up in trouble with the law or will I. That will depend on the judge I get and to which men will I get less than. Doctor’s, lawyers or the males that know how to play the system.

    In just what situations are we talking about here, Starr.

    I really don’t want to minimise my own achievements to maximise the disadvantages of males.

    Comment by julie — Wed 14th June 2006 @ 3:48 pm

  37. This goes to the game played with generalizing. Surely there are alot of men not suffering! Men who never get married or have a good marriage don’t feel oppressed to the degree of millions of others. Therefore unless a majority of men are all unjusticely treated all at the same time it isn’t injustice? This is sophistry of the worst kind.

    Spartacus was spoiled like a race horse in the evenings, he was fed, groomed and could kill in the ring. Was he free because women and others feared him? No, he saw that despite all the vestages of manlihood he was not free to choose his own fate.

    You have a job, that is taxed to the degree unheard of in the recent past. To complain of such taxes that don’t go to the children of the future, is to be labelled uncaring to all the ones who whine for things now and spend their own money stupidly.

    To not want access to your kids is brutish; and for you to want access to your kids is not enough, for you aren’t good enough to have this if a women can merely stand straight and look and talk nice to a judge and not have a record up the whazoo. A live female ex-wife queen card trumps a average jack man more than 80-90% of the time.

    Julie and others say look at the 10-20% of women who suffer too. I’m sorry I feel for them- I do, but every women I know has had either the state help her heavily & disproportionately, their family help them heavily & disproportionately over the males, other men heavily & disproportionately , the laws heavily & disproportionately and the media heavily & disproportionately etc.
    To say this is generalizing, or as one PC woman on this site said Gendersizing, I say yes and proud of it. If you are our equals why so much never ending help and excuses? Sure go to skid row, find some homeless women and say there is one under all these male bodies see! Don’t you fell sorry for her too! This is missing the point intentionally or not. We need battle hardened women in this fight for our cause, not empathy that goes away with the next victim that looks more pathetic than men. Men don’t know where to begin with appearing as the victim, and even if they learn to act to get what they deserve they aren’t better than everyone else at is. They have neither the vebal or emotional skills(men cry much less in every culture of the world), body type(scary and large), personality and more to compete with some poor child in Africa suffering from wasted billions by the same ones saying follow their lead of the heart strings. There is only one way to win. Join together and fight. The other side is saying fight in a way that we can tolerate and not give in to you, or we will slander you with our overused heavy hammer of angry white male or there is a Nazis under every rock theme. Well we’ve got a surprise for them, men don’t care about having the bad boy image(unless you are a momma’s boy), and either give us justice or better continue finding more ways to surpress us( and the hair spitting is going to get harder to do) for you are going to need it for we continue to get strong as you get weaker. The longer you wait the worse it will get.

    Comment by Intrepid — Wed 14th June 2006 @ 4:55 pm

  38. thanks intrepid you have said it artuclately what i was going to say.

    Julie… it seems Peter hit the nail on the head some posts ago. play fair and you will gain respect. play unfair- don’t expect to be praised for it.

    the fire still remains and will burn the carpet you are standing on. when it does don’t cry about the burns recieved.

    Comment by starr — Wed 14th June 2006 @ 5:15 pm

  39. PS your comment
    I will remind you that the system of CYFS wasn’t friendly to me although I am aware males get a harder time.

    “I will get let off lighter than a male if I end up in trouble with the law or will I. ”

    would you go back and ask for equality treatment as the males would recieve it? regardless of the consequences? this is where a lot of ethics comes into play… the question then becomes how ethical are you?

    Comment by starr — Wed 14th June 2006 @ 5:20 pm

  40. Intrepid,

    That’s exactly what it is. It is the % of things that I myself have known to happen that throws me off. And when I am called to them I can’t seem to not be affected by them.
    But in saying this I know I also make others think. It is much easier to fight for the female’s side.

    I need to remind the point that I have also been a part of growing up in a time and place where feminism and socialism taught me.

    I almost think of this change as coming out of the “Matrix”


    No, I would not go back and ask for equality. I have not grown up to believe I have ever been less than a male.

    Comment by julie — Wed 14th June 2006 @ 6:16 pm

  41. Julie,
    I’m afraid for you. You seem to lapse into a gynocentric viewpoint which has as you allude to been trained to focus on the plight of a few women whilst overlooking the real injustices done to a lot of men.
    If you continue doing that don’t be too surprised if your sons end up victimised by nz’s femocracy the way countless other men have.
    I’m sure you don’t want a son shafted in that secret cult – the family court. Nor denied treatment for male only pathogens which aren’t funded at the same rate of women’s. Nor being the victim of false allegations of DV and having thier reputation in the community destroyed. Nor suffering false patternity and paying 19 years of child support for a child that isn’t thiers to begin with. Nor having the child they helped create unilaterally vacuumed out into a stainless steel pan. Nor paying more taxes than womenfolk, yet dying earlier and so not getting anywhere near the same retirement return for thier years of taxpaying. Nor drafted into the military only because they have testicles. I’ll stop here but could go on.
    But these and other unjust outcomes are precisely what you and other parents will see thier sons getting unless there is a more concerted effort to improve thier lot.
    My old philospohy lecturer taught me about Utilitarianism – efforts to improve the utility (goodness in life) of the most people. As he would put it creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people – being utilitarian – is the most pragmatic and effective way to be positively generative.
    I’m clear therefore that whilst there will always be a few women who you could argue were worse off than most men, whilst most men are worse off than most women (for reasons stated above for starters) I’ll be in the men’s movement. It’s like supporting black suffrage from apartheit is creating more good than helping a few very sick whites whilst ignoring black’s plight.

    Comment by Stephen — Thu 15th June 2006 @ 6:18 am

  42. Stephen,

    Don’t feel sorry for me. All that is happening to me at the moment is about personal growth that is preparing me for a system I am willing to fight.

    Because I have these 2 exams and another 2 papers I have to prioritise my time. My committment is weak. My determination has not yet kicked in.

    The more I learn the stronger I become and you may be surprised at what part I will play. You are so not alone in this. These women that care for the women and children know it is not working and that is from high ranks. And there are males who have spent many years playing there cards carefully into power.

    I am actually excited to be a part of this. But i need to research and research, so I have been told. I am reminded once again to do my homework.

    I believe in what’s real. I believe in me and I believe in others like yourself.

    Comment by julie — Thu 15th June 2006 @ 7:47 am

  43. Stephen,

    I mean’t “afraid” not “sorry” and I don’t want to sound like i’m bragging because even if I had to clean the toilets, the leaders will use to work this out, I would do it.
    I will probably suprise myself at what part I will play.

    Comment by julie — Thu 15th June 2006 @ 9:07 am

  44. HI jULIE
    “No, I would not go back and ask for equality. I have not grown up to believe I have ever been less than a male”
    so do you belive you are more?

    Comment by starr — Thu 15th June 2006 @ 12:34 pm

  45. Hey guys,

    This shocked me but it probably won’t shock you.

    I wanted help for the boys from man-alive but have to pay $50 for the assessment and then ongoing costs. OK it is worth it and not the end of the world.

    I was told last night that I can have free counselling from Domenstic Violence crisis. Not sure if that is counselling with a female or a male. All I need to do is say that my children have witnessed me being abused from a male.

    OK, I surrender on this one. Men have it harder than women in New Zealand.

    (the above statement is saying you are right)


    Do I believe I am more than a male?

    I am gathering do you think I am worth more. Or that I am more valuable.

    The answer is “NO!”

    Males got the strap at school while I got the ruler. Police manhandled the males but not the females. It was pretty obvious males and females were treated differently.

    A female uses crocodile tears to get nicer treatment when she has done something wrong. The males seldomly did that.

    I think males are valuable as males and I think females are valuable as females. I don’t think one is better than the other. Some things I am better at (very few these days) and somethings males are better at. That does not mean I won’t take on a challenge.

    Comment by julie — Thu 15th June 2006 @ 3:59 pm

  46. then it appears that what you have said previously should be reviewed by yourself. It appears you are jumping shipswhen compariing what you have said in 36.

    Comment by starr — Thu 15th June 2006 @ 6:04 pm

  47. dear intrepid, after reading many of your posts in am unsure as to stance on generalizations. it seems you start a post critical of a generization made by someone the go and do exactly the same but a generization of the polar oppisite, such as comment 37. I am not saying i dont agree with many of veiws especially surrounding the capabillites of men as solo parents, however because “of the women you know” have done/recieved something that doesnt mean all do…and isnt that the whole point of your comments of generizing yes many men have great single/married lives but that doesnt mean no men are treated with discrimination

    Comment by jake — Thu 5th October 2006 @ 4:15 pm

  48. Dear Jake,
    First off, you read me wrong or I wrote badly. I do believe in generalizing, though not blanketing very often. Blanketing means all are “this way or that way.” Generalizing can, I guess, be anywhere from 95% to a noticable minority on any issue. My earlier work on this issue showed my exasperation with those you play the denial game on this subject best shown in the establishments demand that generalizations that it likes about “males & fathers” are OK to make, while generalizations about women & effeminates are not OK and deserve to be labelled hate speach.

    I know of very few people who don’t generalize, but many who say “let’s not generalize” but do themselves all the time.

    This is a way to discredit logic as a way out of this mess for men. The more men worship the new mystic effeminate ideals the more they will let the establishment rule. This article starts off with some good truisms that men & women should be a team and be friends and then at the end goes into men must talk about their feelings all the time and how psychology is the way to the promised land of relationships. When we have had shrinks go at it for 100 years and things are worse in the area they are trying to fix, yet they aren’t looking at themselves as much as they are their patients.

    Women today want men that can and will share thier feelings because they don’t need the masks in their busy lives and it is tiresome trying to live so closely to someone you don’t understand. It seems also that men (and you will correct me if I am wrong) need more from their women than trophy wives.

    Yes, I will correct him when he is wrong. This quote is effeminate BS at its best!

    Comment by Intrepid — Thu 5th October 2006 @ 7:30 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar