The Power of the Child.
Someone once said “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” Hitler was less subtle, “your child belongs to us already” Socialism has always realised the power of the child and the need to destroy the family, the church, and to control education and values. The destruction of the family in New Zealand has been a remarkable success over the last 30 years, and men have been removed from schools at an equally alarming rate.
In our legislation we still have one major legal stumbling block. Legal ownership of the child remains with parents as long as we retain section 59. Loose it and we loose not only ownership and authority over the child, but ownership and authority of the Childs information.
You may be left with possession and responsibilities toward the child, but legally you will have lost the power to say what information the child may collect and store. The state in authority will have no legal obligation to tell you its decisions on behalf of the child. What information is stored, where it is stored, who has access to it, and how much of that stored information you are allowed to see.
So many people do not realise the political and legal significance of the section 59 debate. At first it was masked as a smacking debate – then it was use of a weapon for discipline debate. It is not hard to simply alter section 59, so why do those antagonists demand compete repeal.
The real debate is should parents have ownership and autonomous authority over their child, subject to the laws of our country, or should the state have ownership of the child and the parent be subject to the responsibilities the state dictates.
One of the major changes in the care of children bill is that the best interests of the child is now a responsibility in the administration of this act. Who is going to determine what are “the best interests of the child”, and who is involved in the administration of the act.
Teachers, The police, CYPS. The Family Court.
This contrasts with the concept contained within section 59, that parents have authority, unless they appoint another person in their absences, and teachers automatically have authority when the child is in their care.
You will pass on, your descendants however may not enjoy the freedom and community that your parents left you. It is at this point many women will realise that they never gained liberation, they just became a pawn of the state.
I have been following this web site for several months readng and listening with great interest to the comments herein/therein.For me, all of what is discussed on this site is very valid and topical. The concerns of NZ men seem widespread throughout the community. What I would like to draw attention to is that; it is my perception that there is much passion and nashing of teeth about how hard done by we as men experience in this country, there is little dialoge on how we can turn this around to benefit men and women alike! It also seems [to me] that it is easier for men to complaign, deride the state or women [feminists]than working collboratively to change the situation.I have noticed on this site aggression and language that does little to enhance positive dialogue with those we need to have a dialogue with. Women started their movement over thirty years ago, what stood out for me then was how they received the publicity to drive their movement.Of course, men cannot burn their bras, gate crash parliament breasts exposed and encouraging the sisterhood to withhold sex…Men need to make a non – threatening, non-aggressive impact on the community to initiate changes in attitudes that are stuck in time. It is for you to work out who’s attitudes need to change, men in general or the community and respond to what you come up with. It seems to me that there is an apathy amoung men to move from their comfort zone to work collaboratively, by all means discuss and debate the issues but move it into the community.Don,t restrict debate to websites and the odd news bulletin on how badly men are being treated. I ackowledge that there are many things out there impacting badly on many men and their families. I am passionate about creating change but there are to few men working together to make the changes needed to move on as a cohesive community and until we do this much the same as we experience now will continue.
I would welcome any feedback on my comments.
Generall Brian, I agree with you.
But perhaps men complain as per this web site, because we feel so powerless in our own situations.
I have had everything thrown at me in Family Court, for example, that I am controlling.
Therefore I am powerless to insist on anything in regard to my child, because this simply confirms I am controlling.
I will neve resort to any form of physical discipline, because my ex my cite me as being violent.
The merest hint, and I am up for a DPO, and off to spend 16 valuable evenings on an anti-violence programme.
If I turn up at my ex’s place – ven invited – i expose myself to the same.
I might emotionally harm my daughter – another family court thrust – so out goes any form of other discipline.
Actually, discipline is an interesting concept. In a nutshell, it means to make a desciple out of someone. A deciple is basically a student whom you are teaching to follow your ways.
There are groups of men fighting for change, but the real issue here, through this website, I feel, is the frustration men are experiencing at having lost their children, be it live in, access, contact, discipleship, etc.
And that is the breeding ground of our contempt.
My apologies for my spelling.
Wise comments gentlemen,
I think that we must understand that standing up for our parental rights is never easy, it can cause family turmoil , make you unemployable, and always causes huge emotional upset. The loss of the children is beyond belief to a good Father.
However anyone who has felt the hay maker – king hit – whacked into a corrupt system and who has dared to challenge that system knows the sweet rewards of exercising PERSONAL POWER.
Interesting that in this article Bevan talks about parents yet the comments are focused on men.
Somewhat missing his point I think.
I cannot agree with the concept of activism as used by the feminist movement during the sixties and seventies – apart from anything else it is tired.
Since the cultural elite of this country are unsympathetic to the family agenda, mockery and derision would be the only result. When you talk of family values you are likely to be sneered at than listened to.
Here’s my 2 cents worth. I have four children and they are all individuals. What works with one is counter productive with others. We have known them all their lives and have developed methods of maintaining discipline for each one through trial and error. Communal upbringing of children by necessity becomes a one size fits all exercize.
And make no mistake about it, the left and the radical feminist agenda seeks to move the upbringing of children from where it belongs with the parents to ‘society’.
The destruction and human misery this has wrought is a absolute disgrace.
That would be leaving out our “beloved” leader’s background in socialism and communism. In the earlier communist teachings (by Marx?) they stated that “the [biological, inter-generational] Family is the single biggest impediment to the teachings of the State.”.
Their resolution of this issue?
Put Mums to work and create State funded child care facilities to advance the teachings of the State….sound familiar at all?
Radical and feminist are there, but so are the underlying socio-communist base that Mrs Clark [wrongly] believes will solve the ills of the world.
Russia and China have both proven that communism/socialism works only while you restrict access to information and heavily penalise any person who stands in your way. Under the iron fist of Mrs Clark it seems New Zealand will try the same already failed social experiments, but with much more radical feminism added for good measure.
As a Dad of three, I am unwilling to watch my three suffer further at the malevolent hands of Mrs Clark and all her queer brigade (Oxford dictionary Queer: a. strange or unusual) and will be doing what is in my power to ensure a much better outcome for them.
Let’s not forget our Governor General Dame Silvia who also was moulded in the late 60s early 70s cauldron of radical feminism.
All the Utopian thinkers of the 19th century taught that society should bring up children so that they could be inculculated with ‘societies’ values (presumably parental values were at variance with these). Robert Owens even tried it with his model community New Harmony (which was anything but harmonious.) Despite the obvious failures of every attempt to create utopian communities via this mechanism the dream lives on.
What amazes me is the way we are ignoring the overwhelming evidence of how catastrophic the smashing of the nuclear family has been to our society.
For example NZ has the second highest rate of imprisonment in the developed world. John Campbell has been bathering on about that recently. Well it is well known that people (predominately men)who end up in prison come from fatherless households – numbers I have seen put it at about 95%. But we never talk about that. Could it be that the way to reduce imprisonment rates in NZ would be to encourage and nuture the nuclear family? Huh
Another one is male suicide – males under 50 are more likely to kill themselves than die on the roads. We may talk about the suicide epidemic and note in passing that males are more likely to die by their own hand than females. NZ conducted several studies into suicide in the early 2000s. None of these studies even asked the question what role does family breakdown play in suicide. As far as I am aware there is only one study into suicide that has ever asked this question (a West Australian one). And that study showed that divorced and separated men dominate the suicide statistics. Since suicide is a result of mental illness a valid question to ask “is what role did mental illness play in the breakdown of the family?” This chicken and egg question will give a family hating socialogist an easy out. “The guy was nuts and his family is better off without him. Move on nothing to see here folks.”
Pointing this out is just pissing in the wind after all what would I as a mere male know.
It was William Ross Wallace
Brian makes a pertinant point:
Unfortunately Bryan, it “takes two to tango”, and that is officially considered heresy by the current regime, I believe.
later you say:
You have hit the nail on the head here – having seen first-hand how men’s organisations in NZ struggle to find more than a few active supporters, I think that this is indeed an issue the men’s movement will need to address before we are adequately prepared to take part in any dialogue which will sooner or later take place.
Here’s a link to a very pertinent radio interview with Stephen Baskerville – president of the American Coalition of Fathers and Phyllis Schlafly – staunch and highly esteemed advocate of biological families.
Well I certainly support you Bryan and John in your encouragement to get men involved in social change.
With regard to the issue of ‘Socialists’ wanting to raise our children by the state. They do not seem to me to be alone. In the last election campaign Family Incentives of varying kinds were offered. But I note not one of them offered support to families who choose to remove one parent from the wrokforce so that they may raise their children themselves. It is still highly undervalued role even when men want to be providing the primary care. The Solialists want to control the children and the capitalists want to pay someone else so every available adult is a good workere bee in the big money making machine.