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

Nuffs enuff

Filed under: General — PGRoy @ 8:27 pm Thu 4th May 2006

Well the lids coming off

Why, can someone explain is so much emphasis put in to mens violence. Also why are there mens stopping violence groups, (although its really precious little), and why are agencies not into change or stopping violence groups for women?

Why have I been supporting freinds who are verbally abused and subject to psychological or motional abuse for not being in agreement in a negotioation with woman partners?

Why have I been supporting a freind whose wife cracked him with an object around the head so hard as to leave a blooded scad by an ear and on his cheek?

I have had enough….tell your stories!!!! Just do it. This needs to brought out into the publics eye.


  1. PGRoy,
    Some of what I say can be debated but I want to try and answer some of your question with my limited knowledge.
    For starters it is national rape week so I guess alot of emphasis is on abuse in the public arena right now.
    At all women centres there are courses for female abuse towards men and counselling for female abusers. I know (really, I do) that women refuges are aware that women are abusive emotionally, mentally and physically and that women do provoke violence in males. (This is definately not in all cases) However they do not make a big deal of this because it is not in the interest of their cause. Women refuge is for…(We would need to look at thier aims and objectives in their constitution) but basically for the women and their children’s safety. I mean, would you expect a male’s refuge to challenge a male who comes in abused. You wouldn’t ask him what he did to deserve it. That would be like blaming the male for the females actions. And you wouldn’t publicly say that men are abusive while you are protecting them.
    There is a number (unknown to me) of women working in womens refuges who have been abused themselves. And believe me there are stories out there that will make you sick and give you nightmares. Sure many women do something to piss the male off but they do not deserve to be bashed up beyond recognition or locked in rooms beaten daily for weeks on end until someone realises they are missing.

    I am not saying that women have it worse than men. Because for every story I can tell there will be one you can tell.

    If women are doing more charity work as Al D Rado explained in another post then we have more women support. Men need to support men.

    When I go to community or funding meetings I see more women present than men. I don’t know why but maybe someone else can answer this one.

    Comment by julie — Thu 4th May 2006 @ 10:23 pm

  2. To try and answer what the person asked: Women and fox personalities get a free pass because their violence is indirect or distanced from the deed. Even on this site we hear about bullies again and again, but nothing about foxes and weasels, for we aren’t directly hurt by them, so it is easier to deal with. The effeminate society understands foxes ways and rationalizes them(politeness, sensitiveness, done with the best of intentions, I was too afraid to leave my husband so I killed him as he slept etc.). The state, especially in peace time, is filled with fox leadership and will resort to corruption to save face and their thin skin. This indirect war has made states fall throughout history, but foxes like to point the barbarians at the gates or the rioters from the inside as the cause. Why? Because they are weasels of course, and they must hide their evil!

    Comment by Intrepid — Thu 4th May 2006 @ 10:51 pm

  3. Julie,
    A good question.
    I suppose many men are so thoroughly instilled with stoicism they wouldn’t go near any funding meetings you attend, nor want to be seen dead creating community.

    Comment by Stephen — Thu 4th May 2006 @ 11:03 pm

  4. Stephen
    Had to look up the word “stoicism” in the dictionary. What a perfect word to use.

    STOICAL means – enduring pain and hardship without showing one’s feelings or complaining.

    I can totally see that happening and I can see women are doing the opposite.

    When I was a teenager, I felt this world and those that controlled it was f.. up. So I decided to not be a part of it and get stoned and live outside of it. I guess that’s still what teenagers today are doing.
    But eventually I had to grow up and be responsible. (not fun)
    I have kicked and screamed for so long because I don’t like systems only to have wasted so much of my precious time and energy. Along the way, many people that have walked my walk told me, “It’s a game, just play it by it’s own rules.”

    I never like that saying but it is real and that’s what I do now.

    On this site there are stories where people play the games with the blocks stacked against them. So they have to get around them, underneath them, over them. Or quit the game.

    Males have to play the game by the game’s rules and create change or they can not and nothing will change.

    I don’t totally understand Intrepid’s comment but I think if you have to be a fox or weasel to win, then be a fow or weasel. Don’t focus on the fact you had to be something you didn’t want to be, but on the fact you get what you want in the end.

    Comment by julie — Fri 5th May 2006 @ 7:57 am

  5. Is making a false rape complaint a form of violence?

    It may be quite common

    False rape claims and politics

    Comment by jimmy — Fri 5th May 2006 @ 9:40 am

  6. to what percentage are stories told by women in refuge centres really true? has an analysis been done to determine this or is it just “take my word for it” type of scenario? my experience say the latter.

    If an investigation were done to verify then the actual events that really happened is much less than what is being claimed at present.

    At this stage if a woman says she was beaten up by a male… i would be skeptical… did it really happen or is she making up sob stories. Bruises… were they recieved from getting beaten up or were they self inflicted..etc

    I know.. i am being harsh but with the kind of gaes the mordern women play these days… it has become exytremely hard to verify facts from reality…

    to tip the scales evenly anapproach needs to be undertaken

    Comment by starr — Fri 5th May 2006 @ 1:41 pm

  7. Starr,
    You raise a good question about whether or not to accept the reports of women from refuge centres as fact or mere allegation.

    From what I can tell there are 2 schools of thought on this issue.
    One school says you should always accept the word of someone claiming victimhood, as to decry thier allegation is to revictimise.
    The other is that people accused of violence are innocent until proven guilty. It’s this latter view I support, as I believe to ascribe to the former view is to invite the wolf of faccism to your table.
    That said, you may reasonably question as you so wisely do – “to what percentage are stories told by women in refuge centres really true? has an analysis been done to determine this or is it just “take my word for it” type of scenario?”

    Comment by Stephen — Fri 5th May 2006 @ 2:06 pm

  8. to further the issue… if the infor i recieved on Cambell live program for wednesday is correct then the violent side of women was downplayed a lot during the program or wherever possible just brushed over.

    I also believe as the bible says one should not provoke the other into acts of unreason… provocation is something that should be added into law ( my bad if it is already there… )
    because even an animal when provoked acts..even god did become angry and flooded the earth.. we are only humans..

    A father will react if he is forcefully seperated from his children.. animals do that too… so the point is proviocation should be made against the law because it has become a type of invisible weapon thta is being used predominantly.

    Comment by starr — Fri 5th May 2006 @ 4:11 pm

  9. There are women that take advantage of women’s refuges. And on top of that the women who run the places (homes where these women stay) watch their behaviour and listen to their conversations. They are not dumb and they don’t tolerate it. Some women think they can use the refuge as if it were a backpackers and some set their partners up. Like I have said in an earlier comment females looking for residency are using women’s refuges to get what they want. Never forget the women running these place and the volunteers have boys as children too. They can blacklist women and they do. They also understand that alot of women need to learn about parenting and relationships.
    In saying all that no-one can say that they are not needed. Look at the “P” problems. That must be creating major violent situations. What about the guy who attacked that woman and her friend with a samari sword and then later killed someone. There are very volitile situations that women’s refuges have to enter.

    Here’s a question I have… If an ex partner acusers you (made up scenario) with raping your child or violent abuse to you child, can you take them to court yourself. I mean anyone can prosecute another person without the police being involved.

    Comment by julie — Fri 5th May 2006 @ 5:58 pm

  10. An interesting concept Julie, and one I’d love to test.

    First, I’d tackle proving she perjured herself. Argubly, I’ve got hard evidence – eye-witness evidence , documented evidence – that my ex wife perjured herself on at least three, maybe four counts.

    And then, I’d start on several counts of slander (making unproven allegations in public) – I understand the benchmark for civil action for slander is that you have to tell three people. She meets that criteria.

    Next, I’d love an account for her several allegations of child sexual abuse – her best family court evidence was “well I don’t know – he might have”.
    I don’t think that kind of evidence of wrong doing would stand up in a real court.

    Lastly, the judge ruled she found “no evidence” of child sexual abuse.
    She has already been declared by a judge to have unsubstantiated claims, ergo, they are proven false.

    I can’t see how I’d lose!
    But I’d probably be up for anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000 in legal expenses.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Fri 5th May 2006 @ 6:56 pm

  11. No. Al D rado you don’t have to be up for a cent. You can stand for yourself. I have looked into this while representing a woman even though I am not a lawyer. If you are in the Auckland area you can ring the Auckland (city) court and they will put you onto the person who deals with your surname’s initial. They will be dealing with your case throughout it’s proceedure. They will tell you what to do if you represent yourself. They will tell you to find an act that the ex has violated. You then proceed to be the prosecutor. By the way, find case law as well(another case that is similar, make sure very similar) to yours and proceed. You can introduce law from England and Australia as well as from New Zealand. But do find as many cases as possible from New Zealand.
    If the Auckland court does not do as I say they will do, then remind them that they should. Be the nice simple person you are.

    Comment by julie — Fri 5th May 2006 @ 8:52 pm

  12. And that’s precisely the approach I have taken thus far.

    (in Family Court).

    No, at this stage, I am biding my time, and will strike (with all the above) in Family Court in due course, to secure my real objective: not to bring my ex down – I leave that to my fantasies
    (oops – I just had another violent thought).

    In reality, my sole objective is simply to have normal unrestricted unsupervised Contact with my children, to be a real father to them.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sat 6th May 2006 @ 6:56 am

  13. Al D Rado,

    I mean in the criminal court. Not in the family court.

    Comment by julie — Sat 6th May 2006 @ 10:06 am

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