A New Web Site for Men’s Groups
www.mensgroups.org.nz has been developed by David Brindley. Drawing on experience as a Trustee of MensTrust in Christchurch, his own growth through Men’s Work and as a participant and organiser of Men’s Groups, David has worked to create an informative web site to support Men currently in groups and to encourage Men to seek and join a Group.
Topics covered in the web site include:
- An introduction to Men’s Groups
- News items of interest
- Links to other websites dealing with Men’s issues.
- Notices of Men’s Events
- A forum and blog for news and views
Introduction to Men’s Groups
A major initiative is the running of an Eight Week introductory Men’s Group, helping Men understand how a Group works, what they can bring to the Group, and what they can take away”.
Why Men’s Groups?
Around 50% of New Zealand Men have no friends, Men they can rely on in a crisis. Developing new networks through Men’s Groups puts a Man in touch with Men who will support him and challenge him; Men who with whom he can develop a depth of friendship unknown in bars and clubs.
As a Man grows in his group he is able to support and mentor new Men in his life.
Most men don’t have a life. What we have instead is a big act, kept up for protection. Early in our adult lives we pick out one of several standard masks – hard worker, cool dude, good bloke, tough guy, sensitive new man. And then for years afterwards, we keep up the pretence that this is us and that things are fine. “It’s cool”. “She’ll be right.” Underneath though, there is often a profound loneliness. Pretending, and having a life, are not the same thing.
– Manhood, Steve Biddulph
This is cool. It could help our group.
Comment by julie — Tue 20th November 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Excuse me for being the partypooper, but the site is too girly, getting in touch with your feelings sort of stuff, not very useful for majority of men. The website layout is a little BEE-ZARRE too ! Maybe men need to get in touch with their feelings, but it must be done spontaneously and MUST not have a girls image
Comment by martin swash — Tue 20th November 2007 @ 7:22 pm
Its too formulaic:
1 Did your REALIZE that you have a BIG problem!
2 Look ! We have the answer- (God, Pills, Courses, etc. etc.)
I talk to dozens of different men each week- men from all sorts of cultures.
Sure- I know many men who need help- but I find that most men are able to access and articulate their feelings in their own ways.
Example- I was recently in a garage run by recent immigrants from Iraq. Some were Islamic, some were Christian. We all shared this huge joke about some man in Pakistan with 7 wives. I think I saw some deep emotions about life, relationships, different cultures, and more expressed through the joviality.
Let those who feel they need the canned God, or the make believe supplements, or the girly courses do their thing.
I prefer talking with men.
Comment by John Brett — Tue 20th November 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Who are these people? (I don’t recognise any names) What do they do? What experience do they have? To me they are NOT interested in enhancing the status of men, simply their own ego’s
Let us see a list of your outcomes, and I mean real outcome, not warm fuzzie “Courses”
Comment by Alastair — Tue 20th November 2007 @ 7:52 pm
Maybe he site is sponsored by Feminazis
Comment by martin swash — Tue 20th November 2007 @ 7:58 pm
It’s not easy to find, but in his blog section David writes about White Ribbon Day:
Doesn’t sound at all Feminist to me.
I personally think any initiatives that encourage men to support each other are worthwhile, and I must confess to having enjoyed a few “warm fuzzy courses” myself in the past.
Comment by JohnP — Tue 20th November 2007 @ 8:22 pm
White ribbon day originated in Canada much as you describe. Unfortunately the NZ Feminazis have perverted it to a campaign denigrating men. Personally I don’t consider it worthy of our support.
Comment by Alastair — Tue 20th November 2007 @ 8:41 pm
It’s pretty hard to be objective when the first thing you see ont he website is how some guru thinks your not and has the way to too you how you really should be. The first thing the Steve Bidouf statement of “Most men don’t have a life” is that the “Stupid white men can’t learn that much.”
It’s sad that the voice of encouragement telling men that they have support immediately describes how to get better.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 21st November 2007 @ 1:56 am
MEN ARE NEVER GOING TO GET THEIR RIGHTS BACK UNLESS WE TAKE REAL ACTION, we must do something like cyfswatch.org , put pressure on the legislators, name them and shame them, stop the domestic violence industry
Comment by martin swash — Tue 27th November 2007 @ 10:44 pm
The issue here Martin, where your target is the legislator, is to be sure about what it is that is being legislated that needs the attention of the public. Radical protest empowers a subjective view and that is why it is so powerful. The more cars you turn over, or the more citizens you get to convince themselves to blow themselves up, the less you have to adhere to the objective principles in order to be considered by a great mass that you may be right.
So by selecting the legislators, rather than the acting executive, you really change the rudder in national direction as to how protest should affect law.
The base principle you challenge is whetehr or not “the law is an ass”. To be succesful where you are preparing to high jump the highest hurdle you quite simply have to be right. Additionally you have to be right over the rule of the judges whose job it is to measure those pieces of legislation, developing common law as a means to establish a pattern of societal existance that is consistent with the intention of those duly elected to craft law and order as demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you: but the reason the task is so hard is because it is embodied to a democratic process that includes all parties to be involved, inviting the public to comment through various means including by the direct submission of a select committee. By far, not least, among the reasons why I can agree with you, is that if there are problems on what is eventuating in society, where it is detrimental to the public good then its effective source must come directly from the pen of the legislator.
So then what is the law that needs to be tested, if it is removing, if not has removed the rights of men? Now this should be obvious if an could agree with your statement, and has to be obvious if a public could agree. You complain about the loss of rights. There is law that protects those rights – (or is there?). If rights are protected then they are protected under human rights law. That’s simple. What rights have been compromised? Well this is where I would really like someone with skill and resource to go back through what i have been saying and count the number of times and in the number of ways I have been saying the same thing.
It is unlawful discrimination to discriminate against a citizen on the grounds of sex. Being a man is about sex. Are men discriminated against on the grounds that they are men? I say yes. In fact not only is the answer yes but the conditions in law, as made by the legislators are obvious. We have a Ministry of Women’s affairs. That is considered an affirmative measure. It is what is called a positive discrimination. Yet in order for this condition to be stable it has to be backed on the grounds that it is a necessity. Why is this a necessity? Because men are treating women badly. That is a statement that is discriminatory against men and is one that has directly fueled decades of unlawful statements and attitudes that for their voracity has damaged countless children.
The part where I disagree with the objective principles of your statement by your subjective demand and ask you to measure it back for a period of test, is that the work that you claim should be done is at present being done. To qualify this I need to elaborate a bit more on what I have already written.
An appeal to the Human Rights Commission on discriminatory practice in the hospitals has been upheld. There are five complainnants of which I am one. Talks or negotiations are about to get under way. The fundamental principle has been established and is confirmed. The policy is discriminatory against sex. The “executive” now on behalf of the “legislators” now need to work their way through these principles. I imagine they will be feeling confident that the basic principles of their argument will determine that women are indeed hard done by in society and this creates active and legal ground for remedies that empower discrimination. Obviously, along with 4 others (unnamed so far) I think they are wrong. I do not believe they have a dog’s show of standing up against the whistle blowing strategic demands of the hetrosexual male: describing in the public interest that domestic violence law, is as you say an industry.
And there is more going on: a lot more! So hold that thought. If your thinking that the protests should be directed at the legislature then I repeat, your brave. That it can be done requires the legislature to have made a mistake, and mistakes aplenty they have made. The primary thing to consider, (if you or others are preparing yourselves to stand resolute as should be a father’s commitment) should that energy have to be called, is that the maintainance by wilful alienation of a child to (or through) any separation of a parent is not to be factored as a form of domestic violence. Think about it.
Cheers,
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 28th November 2007 @ 11:23 am