Who owns our children?
One of the most significant elements of Section 59 of the Crimes Act is that it reinforces ownership of the child in the hands of the Mother and Father. This went hand in hand with the guardianship act, which has since been replaced by the Care of Children Bill. One of the most significant elements of the COC Bill is that the best interests of the child is now the responsibility of the state, reinforcing a transfer of ownership from Mother and Father to the State — It has always been the intention of the feminist movement in NZ to succeed where Hitler failed, and if Sue Bradford succeeds in the removal of section 59, then much more will have been achieved than an unsuspecting public realises.
I am opposed to the law reform that Sue Bradford is introducing, as a mother and grandmother this is one of the only ways to teach our children right from wrong, reasonable force is not illegal under the section 59 act of the criminal law. But what is unlawful is that the power to be a good parent is now out of the hands of those who are. It is over time that we need to show jut who are the ones that run this country, those who are in those positions where once youngsters, and I bet they had a backside smack in their time, I knnow that it neverhurt me or my children (I am proud to say that none have ever been in trouble either) and now the grandchildren have the same rules their parents had. We need to pull together as a nation in this, before there is no time left to allow good growth, morals, ethics and the many other elements that are now lacking in this country.
March March March on those who are trading our lives, our children and our future.
Comment by Moira Buchanan — Tue 10th January 2006 @ 10:49 pm
Dear all,
I can only see that across the world the family, child, issues has become a multi-billion industry in regards to whom shall have the access to and
care of a child.
As in Sweden New Zeeland has the same, farhers are left emptyhanded, due to their sex, and are to fight in court preceedings for contact with
their children.
If lucky they will get acess to their children a weekend or two if unlucky, no acess at all.
Across the world one can easily find thousands of men issue web pages, groups, fighting in the dark by random trying there best to awaken the
average man to “see” or at least understand what is happening in our todays, families, world!
From New Zeeland to Chile, from Chile to Canada, from Canada to the Artic Circle the pattern is just about the same, frozen hearths.
Families, children, relatives as well as the comunity is frozen by all the problems caused by Lawyers, CSA, and unhuman treatment of children and their parents.
A Monkey child seems to be better of than a human child with acess to common sense, the needs of a child, parents, are simple and basic today a waste majority of youngsters, parents, act like straycats, confused, sadden, with frozen hearts seeing how our society ruin, destroy, its own foundations, for familylife.
In Sweden, my experience, too often fathers are questioned, put a side, as in New Zeeland. If fathers cannot be united, the will loose it all!
No doubts, no question about it, there is a ongoing world war, a war between the sexes!
To what good, to what purpose, when a Tsunami or a Hurricane tells how small and vunerable we humans are. Then it´s nice to have both father
and mother, relatives! Then it´s nice with joint custody, and acess to the children without limitations.
The comments by Moira Buchanan is about the same as mine, their is a ongoing trade with families, children, and lives! Today it´s big business and a big show, across the world, often with actors with frozen hearths!
My apology for my poor english.
Kenth Andersson
Sweden
Comment by Kenth Andersson — Tue 10th January 2006 @ 11:58 pm
Here’s a blog from the famous Phyllis Schlafly. It appears to concur with Bevan’s view of feminism. It’s not copywrited and is succinct and powerful polemic. Ideal IMO for passing on to others. I invite readers concerned about fatherlessness to do so.
Thankyou Phyllis.
I need more women like you in my life.
by Phyllis Schlafly
When the feminist movement burst onto the American social scene in the 1970s, the rallying cry was “liberation.” The feminists demanded liberation from the role of the housewife and mother who lived in what Betty Friedan famously labeled a “comfortable concentration camp.”
Feminist ideology taught that the duties of the housewife and mother were (in Friedan’s words) “endless, monotonous, unrewarding” and “peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls.” Society’s expectation that a mother should care for her own children was cited as oppression of women by our male-dominated patriarchal society from which women must be liberated so they can achieve fulfillment in workforce careers just like men.
Articulating vintage feminism in the 1974 Harvard Educational Review, Hillary Clinton wrote disparagingly about wives who are in “a dependency relationship” which, she said, is akin to “slavery and the Indian reservation system.”
Demanding that husbands take on equal duties in child care, the National Organization for Women passed resolutions in the 1970s stating, “The father has equal responsibility with the mother for the child care role.”
In 1972, “Ms.” Magazine featured pre-marriage contracts declaring housewives independent from essential housework and babycare, and obliging the husband to do half the dishes and diapers. As a model, “Ms.” published the Shulmans’ marriage agreement, which divided child-care duties as follows: “Husband does Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Wife does Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. Friday is split according to who has done extra work. All usual child care, plus special activities, is split equally. Husband is free all day Saturday, wife is free all Sunday.”
Then-ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her 1977 book “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” that “all legislation based on the breadwinning-husband, dependent-homemaking- wife pattern” must be eliminated “to reflect the equality principle” because “a scheme built upon the breadwinning husband [and] dependent homemaking wife concept inevitably treats the woman’s efforts or aspirations in the economic sector as less important than the man’s.”
Feminist literature is filled with putdowns of the role of housewife and mother. This ideology led directly to feminist insistence that the taxpayers provide (in Ginsburg’s words) “a comprehensive program of government-supported child care.”
The icon of college women’s studies courses, Simone de Beauvoir, opined that “marriage is an obscene bourgeois institution,” and easy divorce became a primary goal of the feminist liberation movement. Three-fourths of divorces are now unilaterally initiated by wives without any requirement to allege fault on the part of the cast-off husband.
As divorces became easy to get, the feminists suddenly did a total about-face in their demand that fathers share equally in child care. Upon divorce, mothers demand total legal and physical custody and control of their children, arguing that only a mother is capable of providing their proper care and upbringing, and a father’s only function is to provide a paycheck.
Gone are the demands that the father change diapers or tend to a sick child. Feminists want the father out of sight except maybe for a few hours a month of visitation at her discretion.
Suddenly, the ex-husband is targeted as a totally essential breadwinner, and the ex-wife is eager to proclaim her dependency. Feminists assert that, after divorce, child care should be almost solely the mother’s job, dependency is desirable, and providing financial support should be almost solely the father’s job.
It is settled law in the United States that parents (note the plural) have a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of the upbringing of their children. But feminists have persuaded the family courts, upon divorce, to acquiesce in feminist demands that the mother typically be given 80 to 100 percent of those fundamental rights that belonged to both parents before divorce.
What’s behind this feminist reversal about motherhood? As Freud famously asked, “what does a woman want?” The explanation appears to be the maxim, Follow the money. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the feminists used their political clout to get Congress to pass draconian post-divorce support-enforcement laws that use the full power of government to give the divorced mother cash income proportional to the percentage of custody time she persuades the court to award, but unrelated to what she spends for the children or to her willingness to allow the father to see his children.
Since the father typically has higher income than the mother, giving near-total custody to the mother enables the states to maximize transfer payments and thereby collect bigger cash bonuses from the federal government. When fathers appeal to the family courts for equal time with their children, they are opposed by a big industry of lawyers, psychologists, custody evaluators, domestic-violence agitators, and government bureaucrats who make their living out of denying fathers their fundamental rights.
It’s time for a national debate and discussion of the taxpayer incentives that favor divorce, the anti-marriage feminists, and the resulting exclusion of fathers from the lives of their children.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 11th January 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Sadly your title “who owns our children” is fodder for family court.
I have also had thrown at me that I’m “posessive” of my child (should that be, “of the child related to me by inception, born of a woman formerly related to me by marriage”)
Comment by Al D Rado — Sat 11th February 2006 @ 7:54 am
#3 Stephen,
One of the best explanations of how the feminazi anti-father-and-children hate gang has changed their dogma and propaganda to suit there own selfish purposes and governments through the last century have pretended to be brainwashed by feminist ideology in order to have more power, control over the population, and money.
We need to tell every male in the world not to ever have a stable relationship with a female and then we will be treating them like they treat us. Sadly.
Comment by Phil Watts — Thu 12th June 2014 @ 10:35 pm