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

Violence Defined

Filed under: General — dpex @ 6:51 pm Mon 8th May 2006

Violence is any act or conscious ommission which is ‘designed’ to injure a third party.

Thus fraud is violence, as is theft, and cheating.

One could argue that an employer, forcing an employee to work extremely extended hours, thus leaving little or time left for his or family to be an act of violence against the employee’s family.

Consequently, the term ‘violence’ can be applied with the same broad-brush as blue can be applied to a sea-scape unless some level of substantive test is set to determine violence.

It follows that ‘violence’ per se, must be coralled (for the purposes of interposing its content into family matters) as a physical act which results is some identifiable damage to the violated party.

But let’s back up the bus here. It is entirely unsatisfactory for any two persons to couple and produce children where such coupling is based upon some wishy-washy, drift-into-it, arrangement.

Formal marriage vows assert, ‘For better or worse’. Modern coupling ideals deal only with better.

But the ‘contract’ of marriage contains that axiom, ‘For better or worse.’

And so, unless you have established what you believe is the ‘worst’ in a partner, then don’t amrry and don’t have children.

One can apply the same precepts in a non-marriage arrangement, and do so by contract.

If that contract is broken by either party, then the other has the right to sue. But the basis of such suit MUST be substantiable fact, not wishy-washy clap-trap.

Heavens forbid. I could assert the check-out operator at Pack N Save demonstrated violence by failing to smile at my witty jokes.

What we, as a society are up against, is a vast shift in the perceived ‘cost’ of a relationship, especially where children are involved.

The ever-increasing reliance and belief in Social welfare has cause reality and dreams to merge.

When my ex-mother-in-law was just a child-bride with four children, cooking on a coal range, and suffering privations I can’t even imagine, she put up with the odd slap from her man.

That he worked incredible hours, rode a peddle bike for twenty kilometers too and from wrk, over metal roads, and never had just one possession of his own (the kids got everything first) attested to his and his wife’s committment to a marriage and a family.

Nowadays, if one or other party can’t have what they want, when they want it, they often start blaming the other.

Social welfare has turned reality on its head. The ‘I want’ ideal transcends any thoughts of personal responsibility.

The OSH rules have added to that. Everything must be ‘safe’. ACC come in to support that concept.

Hire purchase and credit cards added to the rot. Nowadays, everybody wants everything, today. The TV, the boat, the car, the holiday, the flash house. And so it gos on.

But nobody wants to pay the price. Sure, they try to pay the cash-debt, but they don’t want to pay the emotional price; the stress such unrealism brings into families.

And so they decide to bug out, to find greener fields. I mean. Why struggle when some agency will take on the struggle for you?

And so we now have a society peopled (frequently) by adults who want everything now. They want a constant supply of the ultimate experience. And, of course, once one has had ‘the’ ultimate experience, the next has to be better.

Why, do you suppose, real head-smashing drugs are so popular? It’s because they provide the ‘perceived’ ultimate experience.

But worse, drugs allow the user to bug out from reality. The reality that they are not perfect, nor are their partners. Their children do scream and cry. They do want all the guff they see on TV. They are driven by peer-pressure to want the best gear. They don’t want to do their homework because bugging out is what they wish to emulate.

This is modern society. A place where equality is demanded. That I could spend 20 years developing my brain to the point where I earn a vast sum, compared to some putz who simply drinks his way through life, is not said putz’s issue. He demands equality on account of he’s a human being.

And this is the socialist order.

The moment you try to step outside this grand plan for making the entire world grey, then the system comes down on you.

In schools we see it is unacceptable for children to win because in doing so it might hurt the losers.

We see in society that the drain-diggers should be accorded the same respect as a brain-surgeon, because without the drain-digger the brain-surgeon’s drains may never get unblocked.

And so, the drain-digger can petition parliament to get a better deal, but the brain-surgeon get’s pilloried because he runs out of hours to perform brain surgery, on account of the funds required for his task are being soaked up by the drain-digger’s wife who has decided she would prefer a better life on DPB than put up with a man who constantly smells of drains…..despite the fact she married him in the same state.

And then we get to my case.

I have gone without, big-time, so that my grand-daughter can have the very best of opportunity. I have not one shred of clothing which is not less than ten years old. I drive an old banger car. I haven’t got the boat of my dreams. I can’t travel, I can’t buy the art I so adore. I am forced to live a simple life.

But my grand-daughter has everything at her feet. She swims comptitively. Plays football, piano, flys aircraft, has her own dirt-bike, has done dancing, can abseil, rock-climb, pot-hole, fish, ski (water and snow), and so the list goes on.

In other words, within the limits of my resources I give her the opportunities which my lovely old in-laws gave my wife. But whereas they where honoured, I’m told I’m doing all this in an act of grooming her for sex.

That she’s now thirteen and way savvy seems to have passed way over the heads of these freaks.

But do you see how the game plays? Play the socialist game and you’re an okay person. Become or remian independent and, Buddy. we’re gonna get you.’



  1. i once got a message from my ex which went “To live for others is to lose oneself, to lose your happiness, your individuality
    I told her only a selfish person thinks like that wanting everything for oneself.. we have a kid, we should be concentrating on opportunities for her so she can proceed from a level we were not at when we started.

    At the mo she is crusading on.. my daughter.. I care so much about her etc etc… when the ex couldn’t leave her folks for the betterment of our marriage. I did however pount out to her if you cared so much about your daughter why are you separating her father from her, why can’t you give it a go for the sake of our child.. why the showmanship now about our daughter..? why have a court order preventing access… I am not a danger to my kid… in fact everytime I manage to talk to her she says “mum I want to go to papa”

    So yeah it’s a “ I wantt, my wants world” no longer is there a genuine concern for the future generation…. Only for the self

    Comment by starr — Mon 8th May 2006 @ 7:23 pm

  2. A favourite phrase I constantly hear the feminists shreiking is “Violence against women !!!” etc

    Is this not incorrect grammar ?

    Shouldn’t it be “Violence towards wimmin” ?

    Comment by Moose — Mon 8th May 2006 @ 10:43 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