The Gimcrack Girls
You got your hooks in the bank account and chains on our lives
You call yourself woman, oh please don’t insult our pride
Enough of your PC rubbish – pink think’s just a mind full of hate
You changed the rules – bitch law got us married to the state
You know best, of course you do
And you got your way – now
So screw you, screw you, and screw you.
You took our daughters and poisoned their minds,
They grew up gruel instead of kind.
You took our sons, and filled their hearts with hate.
State mothers designed their fate.
You know best, of course you do
But we can’t trust you now
So screw you, screw you, and screw you.
Is that women we hear roar
or gimcrack girls and socialist hoar
Gynecocracy, the female fascist state
That ain’t equality – it’s Godzone burned by hate.
You know best, of course you do.
But we can’t respect you now
So screw you, screw you, and screw you.
If words are our weapon and our aim is straight
We will shoot down the high flying witch and those that keep the gate.
For the love of our children and men and women,
Our country’s lost like love between fathers and the state.
You know best, of course you do.
But we’ll fight you now
So screw you, screw you, and screw you.
Well I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade but are posts like this just justifying women’s opinion of males.?? If we really want to get anywhere we really need to rise above this and work the process the same way the women have been doing for years and that is to go for the same sympathy vote they have been getting.
While like most men I have been done over and over again by my Ex but I am bigger than to stoop to her low approach to everything and finally after 14 years my kids have seen through all the scrap and neither of them have seen her for over a year but they visit me every week.
So I say lets take the high road not the low one.
Comment by SNMP — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 5:49 pm
So after all these years your children now hate their mother instead of you. You finally won, congratulations. And for the children that don’t find their father again, after they finally work it out, I am sure you would have something equally comforting to say to them. As for being about women, it is not about women, its about feminism – that’s a state of mind.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Bevan, I don’t believe it ‘is’ about feminism. I think it’s all about some sense of rage which the Cyfsterhood hold.
Under every stone in their world is a sexual abuser. In my experience they see these fantasms everywhere. Yet a simple beating (broken arm here, pulped face there), or lack of food, or lack of reasonable parental input, seems to leave these women disineterested. But the very mention of the ‘S-word’ and they’re in like robbers dogs, developing all manner of theory. None of which are based on fact. Most of which can be repudiated.
But my great sadness is; the CYSTerhood never contact the repudiators. Heavens no. Let’s never let the truth get in the way of a good theory. But then they justify their refusal to interview and record the words of sundry repudiators because, in their ‘opinion’ the repudiators have clearly been ‘groomed’ by the perp!
Like the child who steadfastly refuses to agree any abuse has taken place. The CYFSTerhood know better. Thus they accuse the child of being in denial.
Later…and we’re talking about an early teenager here….The teenager finally decides he/she has had enough, so he/she takes matters into his/her own hands and runs to the place he/she wants to be, but has been debarred because the CYFSTerhood have deemed it necessary.
So they pluck the child under a S59, sling the child into an appalling environment AKA, a CYFS foster home, and generally treat the child like a criminal.
The child runs again. The CYFSterhood won’t truck disobedience, so they sling the child into a secure facility.
But what has the child ever done? Zero. Zip. Nothing. All the child wants is the place to live the child wants. But, oh no. We can’t have that. The CYFSterhood knows better.
Thus, due to the CYFSTerhood wanting to enforce ‘their’ way on a child who doesn’t buy any of the malicious crap, the child becomes a criminal. On his/her record is ‘time’ encaserated in a CYFS secure facility.
And this is their caring about the child????
No. It’s their way of exerting power and dumping their shit on innocent children.
But How do civilised people stop this power trip?
David.
Comment by dpex — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 7:17 pm
Bevan,I have just been watching “Sunday” on TV1. Caught the end of a very very sad story. Foster parents smacked child on hand and 4 yrs later lost their children to CYFS. They are not considered suitable any more. You could tell they were lovely people and really missed these children. We met the CYFS head person. This unfortunate woman had a face that told a story and not a good one. My heart goes out to anyone that has to deal with this woman. Did anyone else see this item and tell me what the big sin was?
Love your poem Bevan….was it really necessary to say “screw you” 3 times?
Comment by triassic — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 8:09 pm
Yes in this case I mean “to extract under pressure,” and I meant it to sound intense.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 8:22 pm
Just supporting dpex re child sexual abuse,
with what I just said in another thread:
Feminist theology : ‘if you think you may have been abused (as a kid), you almost certainly have been’!
(refer Ellen Bass in her book ‘The Courage to Heal’, which in essence states in one of the earlier chapters.
My copy of this book is at my other home, so I can’t readily quote you the exact words, but will happily supply them next week for any serious pundits.
Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 9:26 pm
Triassic
A while ago I posted an article
“The next allegation” please refer back.
What you are seeing here is CYPS and the family court acting as though section 59 has already been repealed. Section 59 is critical to
“the strategy”
so instead of making a big deal out of it they are tying to slip it through as a non event private members bill advanced by Sue Bradford. Advancing the care of children bill relies of section 59 going. Once section 59 goes the welfare of the child is the concern of the state, not the family. I will say it again, STOP TALKING ABOUT SMACKING AND UNDERSTAND SECTION 59.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 10:20 pm
http://www.menz.org.nz/2006/the-next-allegation/
Look at this in terms of any parent (mother or father) or any person in place of a parent (mother or father), and parallel that with any caregiver or the state.
What these people are saying is that your children are our property – not yours. We own your children, and we will subject you to the full force of our law, to maintain our position.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 10:33 pm
Bevan is dead right about section 59 repeal. It is part of an ongoing agenda to take control of parenting away from parents and place it in the hands of the State.
A few weeks ago the Chief Family Court Spin Doctor took great pleasure in telling the nation that the C of C finally enabled Judges to control the FC by giving them , not the litigants the power to control how the case was heard.
Too many people only see these issues in their small silo (CS, CYPFS, DPO.s etc) Men need to take a holistic view.
Before long parents will have no rights (Its started with the C of C we only have responsibilities as parents, not rights)
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 10th April 2006 @ 12:12 pm