Sticking Plaster on Decapitation
Today, the Sunday Star in its article “Splintered Kids” wrote “…Desperate for help, Lucy’s parents approached Jill Goldson, an Auckland Family Court counsellor who was involving children in separation counselling for a research project funded by the Families Commission … On average, children attended two counselling sessions and Goldson says in every case, the intervention eased communication and reduced conflict … The research findings are being included in a submission to the Family Matters Bill to be considered at the end of the month …”
Yeah, right. Feminism and other politically-correct ideologies promote discontent in couples, label normal conflictual behaviour as unacceptable “violence” and encourage parents to prioritize their own quest for better sex and “happiness” ahead of the continuation of their families. Many laws (e.g. marriage laws, matrimonial property laws) based on such ideologies encourage people to view their families as readily disposable. The government funds the DV industry including a Wimmin’s Refuge that arbitrarily pressures every client to break up her family, without checking on the veracity of her claims, regardless of the real circumstances that led her to approach the Refuge, and with callous disregard for the impact on children from such family trashing. The government provides a no-fault, DPB open-chequebook to encourage mothers to dispose of their husbands thereby depriving children of the security and identity of biological family units. The Family Court system, its empowering legislation and its lawyer beneficiaries operate in ways that almost always increase acrimony and reduce goodwill between separated parents. Then, while the government wields havoc on families in all these ways and more, it graciously funds a pilot programme to “ease the pain” of children whose parents separate. And of course the pilot programme is done by a female prepared to spread the requisite dishonesty that “children cope ok with separation as long as there isn’t too much acrimony between the parents”. And this same person who provides the intervention programme also evaluates that programme, and surprise, surprise, she finds the intervention programme to be very effective! Hey, great, all our children’s problems will now be solved.
Hans, I don’t want to try and minimize your feelings on this but … we ALL can do research for the Families Commission.
We may not have the qualifications as some Psychiatrist but we can as groups apply for funding showing the way we will do it.
It is getting to the stage that proactive work for the future is going to be needed. People need to step up and take part in actually solving the problems.
There are only 2 actual researches going on that I know about at University level on fathers and children. The others are from the community groups themsleves. But how many applied? The Families Commission closed the applications July 2007.
Comment by julie — Sun 14th October 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Julie,
this is because men think differently from women. Why apply – if the odds are already stacked agaisnt you where you are applying to be incorporated into a feminised programme that will work to emasculate those factors of your existence that are of your primary sense.
As far as I am concerned Hans, you are right to every degree except for the mosat fundamental – and that fundamental fact is the point that requires are dedication, energy and hard out masculinity to reform:
You missed “on average children attended two counselling sessions and Goldsen says in every case, the intervention eased communication and conflict”.
That’s a goal Hans! That’s a good goal.
So let’s take stock here. I agree with you and yet you haven’t identified in which place of your argument you wish to separate yourself and men from the demand to accept conflict as ordinary resolution. You have said instead “normal conflictual behaviour”. I think that is weak and men are stronger than this. If we hide behind conflict as to identify our masculinity in its state of normality we’ve missed something. I think you are saying instead “men” are the boss, and I fundametally disagree. Men have a role to play and it is this role that is in neglect, always has been.
If you parallel what I have been trying to identify for some time you can directly note the difference between what you say and what I am presenting.
Children are directly discriminated against by this feminist machine. It says women are equal with children because they are the hosts for the child. This in turn indirectly and unlawfully discriminates against fatherhood. Women cannot take up this role where they are automatically linked to children through childbirth and then additionally claim equality. The two concepts are not compatable. Yet the complaints that you are describing are a manifestation of this discrimination. This discrimination, in New Zeaqland at least has advanced to such a dangerous degree that we made a law to say that children do not need dads anymore and a single woman or lesbian couple are allowed to have children on their own – no more need for dad.
The point I have made above, if you have not got the point is that you are missing the point. We don’t need to concentrate on on “conflict” as being normal behaviour – we have to first comprehend what the conflict is. The conflict is that women say they are equal excusing themselves from their responsibilities to child raising, saying that these are natural and cannot be excused giving themselves full licence to enjoy life as if they are men.
No matter how hard this makes the road for men, where the children in the article you post are crafted deeper into teh conflict where they are being used as you suggest as instruments to ease the conflict, we cannot afford to allow the children to develop in conflict because men haven’t yet figured out the problem.
This is our problem: men haven’t yet figured out exactly what is going on. For those of us who are enlightened what you guys haven’t yet figured out is how to describe the problem in such a way that other people can listen. No offence intended – what you wrote was consise.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton,
(of a) fathers’ coalition)
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 15th October 2007 @ 7:58 am
BTW,
JP, your clock’s still missing an hour off the recent saving’s change.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 15th October 2007 @ 8:04 am
Benjamin – My main point was that our society maintains a huge, child-damaging problem (because it’s family-damaging) at all levels, denies and ignores it’s doing so, then establishes some small patch-up programme in the hope of fixing the problem. I was highlighting the silliness of trying to fix a problem using hopelessly inadequate solutions that don’t address the problem’s underlying causes. And they can’t even implement that pathetic response sensibly (largely because of politically-correct, wooly and feminist ideology).
I know I overstated the case somewhat in a sarcastic style, and I don’t mean to diminish a well-intentioned practitioner’s attempt to find improvements. And possibly, something honest and sensible could come from the awareness arising from this kind of initiative. Sorry though, I doubt it.
My comment regarding conflictual behaviour merely referred to the broad, over-inclusive definitions of “violence” that have been promoted by the DV industry. Anger is a normal emotion but now almost any expression of it, well at least if it’s a male who expresses it, is defined as violence. This now promotes further, unnecessary dissatisfaction in relationships and leads to responses much more violent than most of the conflictual behaviour leading to such responses.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 15th October 2007 @ 11:24 am
I repeat I don’t disagree with your points, although I should probably be clearer on what I have said, because where I repeat that you have missed my point, I want you to comprehend exactly waht I have said. Additionally I have an emotional investment of sorts in the programme we are discussing so I should be clearer about this as well.
You are very eloquent. Your words are balanced and clear. Your views are well thought out and asides from the anger you recognise as a necessary emotion for anyone, you can incorporate that emotion into what you write without delivering any direct offence to any reader who may directly disagree with you. Or at least, this is how I perceive how you write. Obviously, this means that you possess intelligence and can demonstrate this clearly, and yet I still maintain that you have missed my point.
My last point was that men/fathers/us readers, are ot telling those who would listen to what we say, the kinds of things to which they would listen. In many ways, this too is your complaint, although I perceive you are more directly challenging the condition of the problem and not the cause.
POINT 1: The cause is discrimination. I am asking you not to worry so much about what people are doing to us that is worthy of a complaint, but more why it is that we are justified to complain.
Any of us, as we have been doing for so long can just keep on going on about how we are victims – but I am suggesting that it is time for this to change.
The damage that is being inflicted on fatherhood is unlawful. It is called indirect discrimination. Unlawful means that it has to stop. This is why we have laws.
The reason we are backed up so strongly to have these bad things stopped is because for the unlawful indirect discrimination to occur it has to be mastered through the direct discrimination against the child. Direct discrimination is far worse than indirect discrimination. But because women/society are allowed to directly discriminate agaisnt children this has been exploited.
What I am saying Hans is that YOU are complaining about a problem that YOU/WE can have fixed. We can have it fixed because it is against the law. This is what I am asking you to focus on. Conflict is fine, just so long as you are right and that righteousness is balanced to being reasonable and fair.
So far, I seem to be the only person properly recognising what it is I am telling you, so my voice is very much alone.
If you go infront of a judge and say something is wrong. The Judge will say what. At present you will say to teh judge all of what you have said in your last comment and it will sound good. The Judge may even agree with you – but you would never ever get to find out – because you haven’t raised any question of law. Your not saying why you are right. Your thinking it most passionately and very clearly.
You are right because of s.21 of the Human Rights Act. Discrimination against sex. Not because a programme that has been invented on the back of an extremely efficient gender attacking agenda is exceptionally efficient. You are efighting hard with your emotions but cannot win the war unless you can specifically identify what it is you are fighting.
Women demand equality. Legally in New Zealand they cannot demand this equality where it includes having children without providing the child with the dad because in order to do thhis it means they have to unlawfully discriminate against those (all) dads saying that the child does not need them! I need you to be clear, otherwise no amount of conflict will save you from losing the ground on which you believe you have the right to stand. The feminist agenda is being very succesfull in beating up the blokes. There’s your point of conflict – now fight them back!
POINT 2: The programme, if it is the same one I have seen simply helps the child speak. Invariably the child will say “I AM WOUNDED. YOU PEOPLE ARE HURTING ME. I CANNOT CRY BECAUSE IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. I AM ME. YOU ARE YOU. HELP ME PLEASE I AM ONLY A CHILD, WHY DO YOU ARGUE I LOVE YOU BOTH SO MUCH. YOU ARE BOTH ME”.
Any dialogue that leaves these facts to exist as if they are conditional is weak, unfocused, confused even, and if it is ever to be recognised has got a lot of work to do to lift itself out of the place of “self”.
Fair enough. We are all human. We hurt inside on separation as much as the child. Yet we are the adults.
My pledge to this programme is to attempt to bring the dads back to the families where they too will feel protected agaisnt the vicious behaviour of the woman, as if they were presently a woman protected from the vicious behaviour of a man.
Yet we agree. This is not a problem that is recognised in society and we have the severe and damaging behaviours and attitudes that we do. So there is only one resolution.
Go back to point 1: Why is there a problem?
(a) It is because women/feminists as protected, in order to be equal must directly discriminate against the child.
(b) Yet they still want to have babies and they don’t want to be forced to have men in the lives of those children.
(c) This is called unlawful discrimination against men: fatherhood and it needs to be stopped.
Again Hans, I feel forced to reply that I mean you no disrespect but we need to fight the problems all toghether and in my mind this means that we have to fight the problem. Any other battle just plays into the strengths of your adversary. Our weapon is the Human Rights Commission.
Most respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 15th October 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Hi guys
Good points but a Question though… WHY would human rights commission be remotely interested?
If they were wouldn’t they have acted on it by now?? Its not as if they don’t know about the problem… so how can S21 be used as a weapon when the administrators are reluctant or uninterested?…
Ben u raised a good point about raisng any issues that are lawfiully correct or incorrect in a court of law. However isn’t law meant to protect ethics and correctness instead of the other way round?
Comment by starr — Mon 15th October 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Thank you Starr,
No. Ethics do not play a part when ethics belong to the Ethic’s Committee( EC). What has been proved here: (in NZ) that when (I) tested the ethics committee; they, the EC had made a fundamental botch up. They had not calculated their responsibility to Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This mistake/information was not balanced (or correlated) to the information supplied either to or by the Law Commission. And the COC became a corruption. Check it – please. Sons and daughters need their fathers – but in all of the excitement that women had these “new” empowering rights what had been comprehensively forgotten was that sons and daughters need their dads.
Starr, I’m alone until others read what I have said and check it. If what I am saying is right then there is a serious problem. If we have a problem, and I am alone standing against it – then wow guess how bad it can “F” everyone.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 15th October 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Well said Hans, you raise some excellent points. When we were separating we went to family counselling organised by the family court. Our counsellor was a brainless lesbian and she had no intention of facilitating any kind of resolution. I said that it must be terrible for children having to live between two homes, imagine doing that yourself. She said that ‘all the research’ shows that children really enjoy it. I later learned that this is completely untrue in fact the latest research from USA shows that children do not like it and that they wished their parents had stayed together. Parents are pursuing their own interests and just don’t seem to have pride in their families anymore. I guess that the ‘me’ generation where people put their own selfish interests first but never manage to find the happiness they seek
Comment by Jerry — Mon 15th October 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Look , the Human Rights Commission is as effective as the Families Commission , that is, they do not consider fathers rights worthy of the slightest consideration ?
We will never have gender equality or positive parenting rights when we have a bias government that fails to acknowledge or treat mothers and fathers as equal parents at United Nations Level.
This is sad, as children need gender balance from Government because kids need dads too.
Comment by dad4justice — Mon 15th October 2007 @ 7:39 pm
Yesterday’s raids by police around the country were an exercise to flex the interpretation of terrorist activity as much as they were any initiative to control the gangs. 128 Able Smith Street in Wellington was raided and Val a leading activist along with another, whose name I didn’t get was arrested. This house is like a conglomerate for interested parties and the aura of anarchist opinion is highly prevalent – yet it is all constructed to principles of non violence and peace: so the raid, unless there has been some kind of covert activity associated to any party in the groups was unnecessary. It was muscle flexing in a legislative abandon on freedom. However, there were one or two points that are relevant to this readership, and this discussion.
1: Family law, until these terrorist controlling and their new amendments laws go through was the unique area of law where a person is considered guilty until proved innocent. My case is the verbatim example. I chose not to answer allegations of domestic violence in Court agaisnt me, because they were ridiculous, exercising my freedom not to use the Family Court, seeking instead that the institution of CYFS to challenge Parental Alienation Syndrome be employed and falling guilty of those allegations as being violent as alleged by my children’s mother. These facts, where I have employed a deliberate breach of the order as well as not attending the required living without violence course to open proceedings to the mother’s perjury, where in Court she has accepted that there was never any vilence – prove – all that is being said about the Court and how it protects allegations without effecting due process to compete with this alienating damage onthe children. CYFS say use the Family Court. I say I won’t because the Court does not have the job or the capacity to cope with the problem of alienation (predominantly exercised by women it would appear) and everyone resounds in chorus: Mr. Easton, you are abandoning your children. Perjury is openly committed before a jury and the Judge covers it over as if it is normal and acceptable behaviour. The point is that the allegation of discrimination and bias in the Court process can be proved where the principle of being able to be guilty before one is innocent exists prior to terrorist legislation. The administration is protected on an ex-parte basis and that administration is alleged by this group to be feminised. Fathers are petty terrorists.
2: (This point I believe will be difficult to register where it is due). The raids were an exercise to achieve an end by the police, and whatever other department, or political administration was linked into its organisation. They were looking to test some things. The raid on 128 proves that beyond reasonable doubt in my mind, if there was no covert activity where there were no guns, (or any chance of weapons) being found on those or associated premises. The people involved are pacifist. The reports registered an incident of threat laid against Helen Clark. I have heard no direct report of where that threat came from, but with our own history, as published I believe on CYFSWATCH we know that people affiliated with our direction can get volotile and specifically angry. In my opinion the threat on Sue Bradford forced the emphasis to lower us further down on the media and political radar, doing us considerable damage where we had made so much ground from protesting outside Judges and lawyers’ houses and putting up the Name & Shame campaign. We were responding to having already been isolated and stepped up our campaign to be more direct, we gained ground – some real changes occured and then we polummeted back into the mass without the primary problem of emasculation having taken any direct hit. That was because in our emasculated state we resorted to being stupid. The point is: that if fathers’ are to be effective in bringing a rampant feminist machine into heel, it will be because we are disciplined. This rampant feminist machine now says it is OK for women to have babies without the child being protected to know and associate with Dad. This because it is directly inconsistent with our own law as well as with Article 9 of the UNCROC is really heavy stuff. If we are to compete with this absolute in gender discrimination, then we cannot afford to drop our responsibility to pull this feminist machine into heel. All of point 2 is to say: We all agree that anger is reasonable, we all agree that the damage that is being deleiberately inflicted on fatherhood and the family unit is extraordinary, yet can we all agree that our criticism of those who administer in this outright corruption, gain considerable ground if any of us overstep the political correctness of criticising language. I do not know who said what of Helen Clark, or from which group the threats came, but for our history some pretty hard and scary comments have been uttered forth on how we respond to those who oppress fatherhood and the traditional family unit: If the police are out to play games on groups that have any kind of link to new legislation that can draw people into being arrested for comments made: for pities sake everyone – please take stock of what it is we are faced with and keep our tongues in check. Anything can be used against us: just like what happened at 128.
3: (a) I accuse the government and the judiciary of direct corruption, where I say I prove that Margaret Wilson did not put in the COC proper. That’s simple. Even MW agrees, yet their corruption is that the HRC, at least, will not address this issue which is an extraordinary breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and was done directly to protect this discrimination about which we all collectively complain, and that disassembled the traditional family unit. I allege I took this to Court at and in the appropriate time so to do and introduced it to the judiciary who ran a country mile telling lies to cover up their trail. Their act breached the ultimate necessity of non corruption by interchanging the roles of the judiciary with the executive. This is the most major act of corruption that can occur where the bodies of independence collude to administer and maintain a corruption by one or the other. These are facts. These are before the executive and soon enough to be tabled before the judicial conduct commissioner and other allegedly non corrupt organisations. Once table effectively and professionally there will bbe no authority who could disagree with the findings that women have corrupted parliamentary process in order to protect their abuse to control every associable condition for the having and raising of children:
3: (b) Vince Seimer has put up a website that directly accuses the judiciary of corruption. This site as far as I am aware is still up on line. The judiciary have tried to bring it down and as you can imagine have taken no measures to answer or have answered the allegations of corruption that have been presented by Vince. They are protecting themselves. If you have visited this website, you may be in danger of associating with a crime.
3: (c) Points 3 (a) & (b) together: These matters link fatherhood to a want by those administrating in laws to a “want” to be better effective to mitigate our position, where that position isolates the corrupt practices about which we complain. A lot of work, cost for Vince I am sure and considerable emotional pain and sacrifice from my point of view have gone into establishing the grounds against corruption to such a point where our allegations can be realised.
3 (d): If any of the points I have made in (a) and (b) are valid, then it is likely that there will be some link in the raids that have occured that could be manipulated to give the authoriites a power to override our ability to express the truth in a forum of acceptable presentation and to have this dumped on for loose comments blowing off at politicians or bureaucrats would simply be very unfortunate: So please, while I am asking you folk to concentrate on what is really happennig in NZ, I also ask you to take some care in how you “might” approach the problem.
3 (e): Vince and I are right. How far we get challenging in our various forms this corruption, those acts we can categorically prove may well be dependent on being effective with the public in support. Who is going to run away from the truth?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 9:42 am
Benjamin, thanks for your work. I don’t share your faith in applications to the Human Rights Commission or other current formal channels, but I would support initiatives of this sort. It seems to me that only democratic political pressure will make the changes required to protect men and children from the current prevailing ideologies. To build such democratic pressure, open discussion, publication and debate of viewpoints are important.
However, your comments regarding the Terrorism Suppression Act are very important. Following is my post this morning on an email group. I realise that the advice applies as much or more to me than to many others…
“Note that the raids on Maori activists in Eastern Bay of Plenty (see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10470129
) and presumably environmental activists in Wellington were based in part on the Terrorism Suppression Act. The police were able freely to
use an unprecedented range of methods as described in the Herald article: “Conversations were bugged, phones tapped, text messages
intercepted and suspects secretly videoed.” It appears that the Act can be used to allow unlimited spying and invasion of privacy,
regardless of whether any of those targeted are ever charged under that Act.
The message for groups like ours and for the fathers’ and men’s movement in general is that great care needs to be taken in what is written.
Our ambitions represent a threat to the feminist-socialist state. We can assume that our activities have long been under scrutiny by the SIS
and probably already by the police terrorism squad. Threatening or excessive language could easily be used to justify raids on members’
places. Even if nothing remotely resembling terrorism is found, individuals and the movement will be harassed through seizure of computers
and other assets for long durations, and through their fishing expedition the police may well find other unrelated offences they can charge
some individuals with to discourage them.
It’s very important to avoid giving the state any reason to justify such actions. I’m not exactly sure how to do so, but certainly there
can be no room for foolish outbursts, abusive language or anything remotely resembling threats outside legal and formal channels.”
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 10:18 am
Some time ago, after effecting the protests outside the family law workers homes I decided to give the army a ring – just to see if they wouldn’t support a legal point of view I held at the time. I was passed on to a very senior officer in the army – who respectfully declined my invitation for them to support the presented view and informed me with absolute certainty, that he knew who the fathers’ coalition were and was familiar with our activity. I sort of figured that there were a few dads in the army and their specific interests in fatherhood need to be protected as much as anyones.
I possibly made an error in my earlier post. I am told no arrest occurred at 128. This changes my overall impression where I was waiting with interest to find out what the charge could be where the primary charges were to do with firearms related law.
Thanks Hans yours is a good reply, yet we are still left in a position where we have no direct challenge on an administration thatis exploiting democratic process to stall its responsibility to answer reasonable allegations agianst this process. And I am still loeft in a position where the chrages that the law has been directly broken is not directly suported by those who would argue the same arguments that I put forward – although in saying this I am not entirely being fair.
What I will need to do, as I have done on the hospital questions issue is to put in this challenge on how the law is directly discriminatory agaisnt children and unlawfully indirectly discriminatory against fatherhood with the HRC myself. So far I have rested the weight of responsibility on Bevan’s similar complaint, but really without the results that are necessary that directly identify corruption.
My anguish, and I do appreciate those comments and actions of support that I get for what i am doing is that I am in the end left with holding every responsibility to the actions that need to be taken in order to competet with the as proved corruption. Vince knows the feeling I am sure.
So I’ll just keep on plugging. Most especially given that we see the raids overnight and there are those of you who will read from what I write that my activity is directly challenging corrupt practices, and given the broad nature of the laws that are being tested with these raids, surely it points to others that I, like Vince are people who come with liabilities attached. I suppose that makes me pretty scarey.
BUT, isn’t this what challenging injustices is all about: risk – commitment and adversity? Isn’t this risk the reason we ahve sent soldiers into battle before in order to disaffect practices that compromise the safety of our families, our communities, our children and our freedom – isn’t this why our soldiers went into war and were maimed and killed?
Are any readers as they think about these things that we know are being applied in today’s society that hurts our families and children, themselves sheltering from adversity where the road just get too tough? How many more Jim Bailey’s can we spend as we watch our masculinity drift away from us – doomed to jar of frozen semen and abnormal children propped up and functional for chemical/artificial and social interventions that determine that they are normal just so long as big sister says that being feminised is what normal really is? How many more Jim Bagnall’s do we have in stock – or is he too one of the bad guys that we all have to avoid if we want to get anywhere in this country?
If I’m not coming up to Auckland which seems possible if I have had some support pulled that was pledged, then I will endevour to put in this complaint with the HRC next week.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Eason.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Lucky for others. I have faith in the system. And I am talking about the system of life. Every yin has a yan.
The feminists are the yin … but where is the yan? I know the yan does exist as a big movement. It is waiting for leaders and organisation.
Men are not considered bad. Not on the whole. This is all just a bad fucking dream. The world is not against men. Men are not useless and disposable no more than women are useless and disposable.
Do you know what part of the MRM I hate? It’s the part where women are the problem. It is the part where women are to blame. It is the part where only surrendered wives are good enough.
And I bet there are a whole lot of other women who feel the same. And yes, they are called feminists and/or pro the women’s movement.
Work together. That is the only way forward.
Comment by julie — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Benjamin, I think I am targeting you the most. You are the one out there doing the most work. You live and breathe this.
I have a neighbour who is a single mother. She has lung cancer. She is basically house bound and she has 3 boys. The eldest is away but the other 2 are way off track.
The middle child I have taken to enroll in a course because all he does is get into trouble. He is just old enough to go to men’s prison and has a record so long from getting into fights and stealing cars. But OMG, is he out of control. The youngest one is 12 and has been expelled from school. I hear and see his pain but I am not capable to help him. I already have 2 boys of my own and have taken on a third one from a single father. And I work. And on top of this I am kind to my ex because I have learnt from the men’s side that they suffer. He wants to take the boys for a week at Christmas. One week out of 52 he wants to be a father. The rest I am the father and the mother.
If only, oh if only all women would bow down to the men’s side we will not have children like this. This is not true.
To change the laws for men is not going to change this. To stop gays and lesbian rights is not going to change this.
Did you know that 80% of all our criminals in prison are from single parent homes. That is a huge amount.
Where are the fathers?
Comment by julie — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Primarily, there are many practical solutions that are capable of interferrign with the problems, both those you individualy describe and those directly associable to your frustration. None of these are targeted on or to women’s behaviour.
For example, I suggest that there is should be a mandatory period of care, employment and assessment for children between the age of 16 to 18 based into three groups, those who need discipline and community development skills, those who are interested in work based initiatives and those that are focused to further education. Paid to a set wage.
The group you are talking about with the woman you know would be heading into the first groupp where theri behaviour was in need of direction and that direction would and could be set directly to that child’s needs. This woul enable society to begin to direct him as he matured into those areas where his skills would be best to encourage and be given the opportunity to advance. What this means is that society begins to take an interest in the child’s specific needs as if society is a caring adult: unlike the present bunch who have created and constructed markets to every thing that moves.
This is a pipe dream so it is impractical as advise at teh moment because if it were to be worked into an affect it would already have progerammes on the way to being established. The programmes that exist at this stage that I see are jails and living without violence courses.
Speaking to this point, however, I’ve had a couple of really useful conversation with Allan Harvey of the UNion of Fathers’ in Wellington. I have asked him to directly target the Police, advocating the UOF’s assistance in Court cases, relevant to assisting men before the Courts and another conversation that is specific to teh problem you describe about the single mum. I want the UOF to develop into amn area where it could vist the single mum’s home – who you say – with a dad, and offer out practical support. Allan agrees. But society doesn’t and the UOF is left to starve where men’s issues tunmble down because they are just too hard to get off the ground: Government does not pay these kinds of necessities any care because it does not recognise the role of the father as of fundamental importance. The term goes “women and children”.
So – to bridge your comment to your observation that women are the targets and this frustrates you. You could read back. I am suggesting that women should be targeting women, not men. You are targeting men in your reply defending women – saying again that is the men’s fault. It isn’t. The women’s refuge rescue women from problems that come about allegedly from the damage inflicted by men. Sure. Good for them. Ann excellenet idea that, help someone who is being damaged removing them from risk. I agree 100 percent. Yet in the cases that there is not risk, there is not dialogue. Women just go blank. Women do not seem to beleive that thery could be violent in a different kind of way from that of punching and raping, or that this behaviour could be so extreme that it might cause someone less clever in how to cope with it to punch – and sadly (so sadly) rape. Women will just not accept these facts.
What I am saying is that men can take care of their own and I have given you two ideas on how men can take care of teh problems boys have but that society just simply isn’t interested (because of the econmy) and I have pointed to a problem of adversity in women’s behaviour that does not register on the scale and nonoe pays it any interest: yourself included.
Now I say “yourself” included because that is simply the fact. Having a baby without providing that baby with their right of dad is an anbsolute extreem in the kind of vuiolence that i am talking about and it constantly just goes over the top – like it isn’t a problem.
Removing a dad for a baby at birth because a single woman or a lesbian couple don’t want a dad around is out and out abuse: yet apparently it is a “right”. That is not a right Julie – you cannot defend it: it is an abuse, so please stop trying to defend it.
It is an abuse because the “law” says it is an abuse. International law and domestic law all say the same, yet your reply in the end falls back at men, that it is in the end men’s fault. I don’t mind you targeting me at all, in fact I encourage it because I want you to answer in reply, how you can say it is a “right” to have a baby without ensuring that the dad is around – and as a woman who is respectably proactive in trying to help people from gender abuse, what you would do to stop it?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 2:49 pm
No Julie you are the mother.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Fair enough Scrap. But it sure doesn’t feel like it sometimes.
Benjamin,
You should come and talk to the men’s groups in Waitakere. They are trying to get the fathers involved but they can’t get them to come to groups. And if they do come, they don’t keep coming. Destiny church has started groups in the area now. That is good but I don’t know their numbers. I should ask.
The state we are in is terrible. The courses for these kids are full up and there is waiting lists. There is just not enough available for what we need.
The high schools tell me that they feel really sorry for the teenagers and the police say that people do want to help but there is not enough funding available.
The teenagers are carrying knives and taking drugs and drinking alcohol.
So sad. But then the Maori and the Pacific Islanders are caring through visiting the schools and taking care of their own. That’s great. But they get the funding because they are minority groups.
But what about the white boys? They have nothing.
Anyhow thanx for listening to me. I feel really sorry for the young boys who are expelled from school especially. Where is life going?
I don’t disagree with you views on lesbians and gays having children but I do understand their plight to be accepted in society. I just think that is very hard to take on.
We really need for the Government to give money for male’s needs. This really is not good enough. I am not exactly wanting to blame men but I do think that men’s groups are set back by being anti feminism. I shouldn’t expect men to bow down to the feminists. Feminism is wrong. 100% wrong.
Sooo, I just have to stay frustrated, I guess.
Wow, my comment is all over the place.
Comment by julie — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 4:36 pm
I should add to this that the Maori are open to helping the white boys also. It just isn’t happening much yet.
They have put a lot of effort to offer males to do things and so has the council. Is part of the problem that men and males are just not feminised enough yet? How pathetic that I should be asking this question.
Comment by julie — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 4:42 pm
I agree that fatherlessness causes prisons numbers to swell .
The socialist Labour government want all fathers eradicated because they want to play nanny state daddy. They want test tube dads .
This is a very sick country .We must fix it and do what ever it takes .
Comment by dad4justice — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Thats because they dont understand dads and their needs. Organisations like Men Alive are too busy telling Dads what they need instead of listening to what dads to determine their needs.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 16th October 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Dad4justice – I’m concerned about your statement “We must fix it and do whatever it takes.” and I wish to dissociate myself from that statement.
Here is a piece I wrote elsewhere today:
Note that the raids on Maori activists in Eastern Bay of Plenty (see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10470129
) and presumably environmental activists in Wellington were based in part on the Terrorism Suppression Act. The police were able freely to
use an unprecedented range of methods as described in the Herald article: “Conversations were bugged, phones tapped, text messages
intercepted and suspects secretly videoed.” It appears that the Act can be used to allow unlimited spying and invasion of privacy,
regardless of whether any of those targeted are ever charged under that Act.
The message for groups like ours and for the fathers’ and men’s movement in general is that great care needs to be taken in what is written.
Our ambitions represent a threat to the feminist-socialist state. We can assume that our activities have long been under scrutiny by the SIS
and probably already by the police terrorism squad. Threatening or excessive language could easily be used to justify raids on members’
places. Even if nothing remotely resembling terrorism is found, individuals and the movement will be harassed through seizure of computers
and other assets for long durations, and through their fishing expedition the police may well find other unrelated offences they can charge
some individuals with to discourage them.
It’s very important to avoid giving the state any reason to justify such actions. I’m not exactly sure how to do so, but certainly there
can be no room for foolish outbursts, abusive language or anything remotely resembling threats outside legal and formal channels.
Dad4justice:
I appreciate your concerns about NZ’s gender politics. However, the implied threat you published is exactly the kind of thing that could see many of us harassed under the Terrorism Suppression Act. I hereby dissociate myself from any implied threats you made here or elsewhere and assert that I do not intend or encourage any illegal actions in relation to my political activity. From reading many of the other posts I believe that my statement is consistent with the views of most contributers here.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 12:27 am
Yes Julie,
I will talk with the groups you can organise in Waitakere. I will be up in west Auckland on Sunday at my mum’s from 2pm – hopefully the children will be over but that’s not likely as my ex hasn’t responded to texts from my sister. Not to worry, the costs will eventually be returned when the state finally recognises that her problem is common, it is a serious sickness, something needs to be done very quickly to arrest domestic violence where the state is complaining about an epidemic condition and the day that she gets forced to undertake the necessary counselling will be the day that I won’t feel tired – anymore! If you don’t have my mum’s phone Julie send an email to laos_waitakere and tell me if you can meet. If your coming to the Labour Day picnic then not a problem, it would be good to see you then.
Hans, Peter’s language is less extreme now than before and I hope he has put som much energy and positive influence into his Court work that he recognises that he compromises everyone he has ever helped if he loses the plot now. On serious questioning he is emphatic that he is not a loose cannon resorting to “whatever it takes” because I believe that he knows foll weel, that whatever it takes cannot possibly include any violence.
Your advice to him, in my opinion as consistent to Scrap’s excellent comment is more to focus on the affect on you for the words he says, rather than how you will react to those words once they are spoken. No Julie, this is not feminisation, it is common sense that hasn’t been crafted into our schools and our children’s education. Violence pays – always has done and so far there hasn’t been enough strenght behind its demise to force it out of the market. We can all do this – it has nothing to do with gender.
The gays are the ones who have instiuted the rights to have children Julie. If you buy the line of self-pity then you are barking in the dark. Hetrosexuality is having the crap bred out of it. If homosexuality is honourable then it would and will lead the campaign to remove this aboration of removing the father from the association of the child to accomodate with women’s “want” as agaisnt the child’s “need”. I’ll talk with the gays in Waitakere if you want. You sort it and I’ll bring the debate.
How we are going to fix the porblem is with people facing up to what it is. Once we get this hurdle out of the way then we can see just how effective and honourable our politicians really are.
Thanks Paul – thanks Rob, I’m travelling up on the bus tonight.
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Thanx Benjamin, but I can’t organise things over night.
There are specific people you need to talk to but you must understand they are a part of the MRM also and they have been working in these positions for many years.
It is not about telling them what to do. It is about going around them and making something work that they will follow.
Some of the guys are working in the council itself now.
So it is the gays who want children not the lesbians. Well, I didn’t know that but I am not surprised that the lesbians don’t want children. I can’t get you gays nor lesbians that want children. I know quite a number of them personally or from a distance but having children has never been an issue as far as I know. The ones I know are too busy getting into businesses and having a good time.
Yet, I do understand you are talking about law. The lesbians I know of from a distance who want children have been having them in NZ for at least a decade. I am sort of presuming you want to take back a law.
Bat all need to be aware of the gays and lesbians. They are the richer for not having children. They have more money and status power that most families.
Comment by julie — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Oh please stop it , I did not mean do whatever it takes to mean violence or direct physical action of any sort WHATSOEVER – understand ? ! .Bloody hell I don’t know why I bother on here sometimes !! If you only knew me in person !
I am an ex soldier , a sapper , you know them , please I have friends in Police and Army . Do NOT associate me with any para military nutbars . OK ! THIS IS NOT WHAT I MEANT !
We must be VERY clear on this . How dare anybody twist my COMMENT to mean violence and anarchistic behaviour . Who the hell do you think I am ?
Comment by dad4justice — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 4:47 pm
I hope that didn’t come over wrong Benjamin. I am presuming you already know the men in Waitakere and can visit them and have a discussion of what you are doing and what they are doing.
The do like to be kept in the movement.
Comment by julie — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Actually Benjamin, I do take that back. There are a number who you wouldn’t yet know. There is new blood.
Comment by julie — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Dad4justice, I know you would not hurt anyone. If the terrorist squad came after you, I will back you up. It is not the one who speaks up that is of concern. It is the one who doesn’t.
Comment by julie — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Thanks Julie , I just had to make that clear that I am not a violent person and do not advocate violence in any shape or form , and if the truth be known I help Police regularly rather than hinder them .
I was just worried that our Fathers Rights Movement could be linked to my rants which should be taken at times with a grain of salt . Sometimes my mouth is my downfall, however I’m pleased to report that I’m learning fast as the grey hairs appear . I did not mean to offend anybody, as I am a genuine dude who is slowly learning the art of correct word placement .
Comment by dad4justice — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Dad4justice, don’t worry about it. Readers understand.
Every time I make a crazy outburst I get e-mails. Just from my comments above I have now learnt about 2 other groups.
There are heaps of men reading this site now. They are not silly to life. Else they wouldn’t be out there helping.
Hmmm, out of the range between 1 and 10 for you wonderfulness. I give you are 10.
Comment by julie — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Dad4justice I enjoy reading what you have to say.You’re straight up and I can’t see any threats in your posts.
Comment by rosie — Wed 17th October 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Dad4justice – I respect and appreciate your periodic efforts to moderate the tone and language of your posts.
I didn’t twist your statement to mean anything. The statement “whatever it takes” includes everything and I want to exlude myself from some of what it could mean. More importantly, it is likely to be seen by the authorities as an implied threat, especially in the context of many of your other posts. I don’t want to be targeted by police or to see other posters targeted due to the careless writing of a few.
I do not accept either your indignant denial that your statement “whatever it takes” implied violence, or your claim that you do not advocate violence. Your writing is often violent and advocates or implies a threat of violence, and it has little to do with “word placement”. This has not changed much over time. Whether such violence is justified is not the issue here, simply that it is likely to bring men’s cause into disrepute and to attract unwelcome attention to us all from the police. For those who don’t believe me, here are some excerpts from your posts on this site:
March05 My 4 NZ born children are not going to have a Dad for much longer
June06 They can destroy a mans life the second he recieves them just as he gets whacked in the head with a police baton – thank you Westport Detective Constable John Cunnen ( keep the spies happy) – I owe you one mate and I never forget my introduction to protection orders
July06 It would be so easy to kill one of the 25 judges involved as they will not admitt to a mistake has been made. I got nothing to lose as society views me a dangerous criminal !!!! Bang bang down goes a judge -simple as that …. I think they call it natural justice ?
Oct06 … what will it take before they realise that shafted fathers are not going to tolerate this anymore! My grand dad went over the top with a real gun with real bullets at the Somme 90 years ago …
Oct06 … every morning I struggle with my strong urges to get natural justice !!!! … No wonder men pick up guns to even the score and being on the recieving end of a huge injustice .
Dec06 I blow the beehive, as this makes arrest easy for the pigs who will put me in prison …Good bye all – last comment ever .
Dec06 Politicians are not interested as they ALL are selfish , despicable, inept, cretins fit for the offal pit .
Feb07 That malign bush pig Badford and her feminazi cohorts … It’s time to round up these feminazi whores and girlymen , give them all lobotomy’s and lock them down for life in a lunatic asylum !!!
March07 neville robertson is a just a feminazi sycophant on the liarbour payroll . He is a twisted nutbar , a hen picked ,pussified eunuch who is a parasitic leach !! … I told a family court judge last week that I am livid and heads are going to roll … I am so angry with the Family Court words can not describe my feelings !!!
Mar07 … we battle on against the feminazi whores !!
May07 Julz ever thought about doing us all a real big favour and getting a lobotomy done , as you’re such a silly igmoramus suffering psychosis !!
May07 What a sick bunch of filth these creeps are .
June07 The day of compromise and weak -willed men is gone and I suggest the only way we crush this radical unfairness is for men to get a hold of a manual for combat courage as this unbalance must be stopped NOW !! …. The system breeds resentment and the frustration is going to strick back with torrid vengeance … strike back with vengeance.
July07 The day I bow to the socialist feminazi pigs that are destroying NZ is the day I’ll put a bullet to my head !
July07 This country is a cess pit of lies and Helen Clark is a maggot evil bitch !!!
July07 I wish I could exact revenge on this sick system !!
Aug07 Fuck I am livid and somebody is going down bigtime !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aug07 If someone did that to my daughters I would kill them , simple as that .
Aug07 … and the hateful dyke vipers that make up the Klark regime all clap there insidious blood soaked hands ! … One question bilious bitch Helen Clark … Stand down you insane women !!
Aug 07 Got you maggot Clark!!
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 12:51 am
That was a bit unfair
Comment by rosie — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 6:29 am
Bevan forget me for the Republican Party and thank Hans for that , see you, as this is it . Goodbye and John Potter take me of this list .
Well done Hans , who needs an enemy when I have filthy friends like you .
Goodbye all – I will NOT be back !!!
My last post and forget my political involvement with anybody !!
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 7:03 am
Hans – I hope you feel REAL GOOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 7:05 am
dad4justice I don’t like what was said about you either,but calm down.Hans is behaving like a bitter ex wife and there is no need for that kind of nonsense on here.
Comment by rosie — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 7:28 am
Rosie – What, it’s “nonsense” to quote on a site things that someone has published in writing on that very site? You don’t like what I “said about” dad4justice, but actually I said nothing about him (I have never met him), only his writings right up to the present time. I didn’t write that stuff, he did, but somehow now I’m to blame, another “filthy” badie who’s persecuting him and responsible for the impact of his own actions.
I empathize with dad4justice’s experiences, I understand the anger he feels about certain things, and I recognize that many of his postings were outpourings of the most painful emotions. However, encouraging him to deny the riskiness of some of his statements is hardly helpful either to him or to this cause. It would be more helpful to acknowledge that some of his writings are problematic, likely to attract police attention (this has already happened in the past, from reading his posts), and to encourage him to recognise when his comments might be unwise. I repeat, I don’t want his or anyone’s careless outbursts to place me in jeopardy in what is fast becoming a police state, or to jeopardize the hard work that many others are doing.
Rosie, for some reason you chose to oppose my very reasonable, totally non-abusive expression of concern about a phrase dad4justice used, and my right to distance myself from the implications of that phrase. Regarding dad4justice’s posts you stated “…I can’t see any threats in your posts”. Given the reality of dad4justice’s postings, do you still stand by that statement?
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 11:21 am
If I was you Hans I would say no more on the subject, as I have been with police all day helping them nail some filth . Get your facts straight . Typical psychologist , trying to twist things .You don’t know what good I do for society Hans ! You will be surprised when you find out . I warn up shut up about me now as I have crap from you in the past on Paul’s News . Ok . Stop it .
Kind regards
Peter Burns
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Oh , I forgot Hans if you want the active file numbers that I am assisting the New Zealand Police with please email me . I work with Police who have been very supportive Hans ! What is your agenda mate , ease up and talk to me , not Rosie .
You should know some facts about me ?
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 1:47 pm
I’m writing from Paul’s machine:
Pete, I apologise for being rude in my text on the night of the ‘creating a new market of fear into NZ terror raids’ night. You are an asset mate not a liability.
Obviously I agree with Hans, because that is why I texted you to say tone it down. but like Hans, I withdraw and empathise with your position.
Word for word you are being tortured under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989.
Don’t leave the list. If you left the list I’d be forced to call you rude things and swear at you even! please don’t call Helen Clark or other bureaucrats any more rude names – let’s get the argument into the right places before the public. Let them see our unity and not our hatred.
Good on you Pete your a warrior amongst us.
Best regards,
Benjamin Easton.
Comment by Benjamin Easton. — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Peter – My agenda has been simple and clear all along. I don’t think I need to reiterate what I have now stated repeatedly. Your reaction has been as though I mounted some terrible personal attack on you; that is not the case. If you feel uncomfortable reading what you have previously written, then learn from that.
You have not acknowledged any merit in my views on this matter or even responded to their actual content, and you continue to avoid the issue by aggressive denials and by focusing on other matters of little relevance such as your police support work. That’s your business, but I will continue to highlight posts that include risky or excessive language and to distance myself from them. On that note I don’t appreciate being called abusive names or being “warned” to shut up, though it matters little to me.
My preference is that you contribute responsibly or not at all. I don’t wish to spend more time on further defensive responses from you or anyone else, but I am happy to reply to any reasoned argument about the issue of safe and unsafe postings in the era of anti-terrorism legislation.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Hans I think that staying up half the night to try to prove a point is kind of petty and darn right cruel.
Comment by rosie — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Rosie – you have no knowledge of what I stay up at night to do! It didn’t take long to find a few of Peter’s previous posts; they are there for all to see.
I think supporting someone’s threatening and unsafe postings and thereby placing others in the movement at risk of police-state harassment is downright cruel to all of us.
By the way, you haven’t replied to my question “do you still stand by your statement that you can’t see any threats in Peter’s posts?”.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 4:32 pm
hehehe, this could go on and on and on and….
I’ll be the judge on this one. I am sick of being the defendant.
Peter, you are to sit on the naughty chair for one minute for every year of age.
I think that will be about half and hour. lol
And please think about your behaviour.
Comment by julie — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Hans Laven – goodbye you nutbar .
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Peter – Farewell. Take a long walk off a short pier
Comment by Alastair — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Nice one Alastair – nice one mate .
This is why the mens movement is a sick joke . Good luck all .
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Hans of course I know what you do at night.You sit at your computer and run people down.
By the way,I see hurt in Peter’s posts,not threats.
Comment by rosie — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Peter don’t take it to heart. I was talking to Benjamin tonight and I think the reason we get crazy, or as one person says, (yes, you know who you are but I want some of the BBQ, so I won’t call out your name) a headcase. I am OK with being thought of that way.
I think it is because we are all working individually and we all need support. We are all ordinary people trying to do extraordinary things.
And we are good guys and girls. So let’s support one another. Peter you are a major asset and too valuable to lose. Please don’t get let this get you down.
Comment by julie — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Hi Rosie. I was posting at the same time as you. Peter has dealt with worse. He will get through.
Comment by julie — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 7:53 pm
There are many things Peter does well. Unfortunately agravating others is one of them 🙂 I can think of several projects for Men that Pete has not only gone the extra mile, he has gone the extra 2 miles – and into a blizzard.
If only we could focus this determination and “Stickability” We would be winners. Pete does not deserve to loose – He just does.
Comment by Alastair — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 8:10 pm
Women use the Family Court and Protection Orders as part of their own violence against Dads, because it is virtually free, easy to obtain and is a blunt but effective weapon. When will the courts realise this in NZ?
Comment by martin swash — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Women who are genuinely exposed to real male violence should rightly be fully protected, but those who make false allegations should lose the custody of their kids, it is just child abuse and perjury
Comment by martin swash — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 8:45 pm
I don’t know you Alastair but can you tell us all about the extra mile that you have gone?
Comment by rosie — Thu 18th October 2007 @ 8:58 pm