- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
By PATRICK CREWDSON – The Dominion Post
Women may have claimed some top jobs but worsening domestic violence and a sexist backlash show they still face discrimination, a New Zealand delegation will tell the United Nations.
Please take the oppurtunity to send feedback to Stuff and The Dompost on this article
Regards
Scrap
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
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.
Contact me for rates
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
Stop portraying NZ women as victims
Response from Judy Turner, United Future to the Dom post article
Comment by UF — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 10:54 am
Done.
I saw this same headline on the news last night, and I
Laughed.
Out.
Loud.
Comment by Rob Case — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 11:53 am
I haven’t read it yet but that it is on the front page of the Dominion Post is a good enough signal, along with Judy Turner’s reply that two sides of a debate have been drawn again. So opinions are now being formed and the issue of gender imbalance can make its way back to the front of peoples’ conscious minds.
Are we ready enough to take this issue up and make sure that this time around we don’t get relegated to the back of the bus and can chose to sit at the front as well? Is the front page of the Dominion Post enough or what more can we do to get the debate effective. Well Julie has made a good start and she has Judy Turner on side ready to meet with the public on the same platform as our champions. If we make enough of it this is exciting and we will get a new air in which to speak. And then there is Viv’s protest in Hastings. Take the day off work. Get in your car and drive to Viv’s protest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need numbers we have new ground and we should and must make the most of it. Come on fellas you are directly protecting your sons and daughters as responsible parents by advocating against the injustices that interfere with that primary function. Let’s rock the joint.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 12:03 pm
There is a poll on the subject on http://www.stuff.co.nz
Please vote, as the abuse industry will certainly be organising a block vote on this.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Proof that femisocialists are getting worried (as they should be) that thier gravy train is under increasing threat.
No doubt the women’s council will try to rationalise thier bizarre claims with feminist ‘research’ you could drive a bus through.
If someone would kindly post such ‘research’ on this site I’ll gladly do it personally.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 2:06 pm
I could refer you to the violent females database on pauls-news. I have already posted a reply to the dom post.
Comment by Alastair — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Question 11 at question time in parliament today was a patsy question, I suppose and aggressive approach to take the wind from any backlash associated with the article. Unfortunately, I still haven’t read the article, but will later this evening. Sue Maroney (Labour) stood to ask Lianne Dalziel (Minister of Women’s Affairs) had received any reports on the future of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Interstingly Lianne Dalziel wasn’t in the House and the natural aggression of Ruth Dyson was employed as the Minister to answer on the absent Minister’s behalf. I say interestingly because of the parody of rationality or adult behaviour that took place on Tuesday where Margaret Wilson (Speaker – supposedly with the New Zealand authority of God) ordered first Ron Mark (NZ First) an MP from National whom I haven’t properly registered and for his own removal as a perpertrator of House rules Mr. Peachey (National). Additionally on his refusal to withdraw and apologise Bob Clarkson, again of National, stormed out of the House.
On the Tuesday I watched Ruth Dyson come into the House and I knew something was out of place. Her dimeanour was different; I thought, in fact, she almost looked nervous. There was something amiss from the confidence she ordinarily presents. And on answering the last question she let it rip, quoting Bob Clarkson from a report on employment issues his want to fire Maori workers with greater ease. Bob Clarkson took to the debate with a predictable return, which I read today went like “liar, liar, pants on fire”. He rebuked I think Mr.Hughs for accusing him of unparliamentary calling him a “twit” and rejected the demand from the Speaker to withdraw. The point of interest was its deliberate delivery and the gang affect from the Labour side to optimise the circumstances. This linked into today’s event as well. Where in answering the patsy Ruth Dyson launched again at Bob Clarkson, quoting him for saying… “All guys should get married. We should all suffer the same amount”. Earlier Chris Carter had taken an out of the way swipe at Bob Clarkson as well. So there is a point and there is a plan in place to reject and refute any justifiable pressure on issue of equality or criticism of social policy and I think that Labour will work to focus on a weaker link within the Nation defence and work down and dirty at Bob the Builder as Chris Carter called him, twice, over and above a rebuke by the Speaker for doing it the first time.
The issue here is that it is possible, if not likely, where there is no effective substance of reply from within National (if Ruth Dyson is correct and both Judith Collins and Paula Bennett are making statements about the Ministry of Women’s Affairs that are inconsistent with each other) that will be effective enough to takle the events. Judy Turner had already left the House and I have seen nothing in her behaviour that has told me she would have taken this issue to task anyway – she lacks this aggression. So the bullying behaviour from the likes of Ruth Dyson and Chris Carter will be given free reign, Bob would be an easy target as he in the House reacts angrily and quickly at insults and out of the House he puts up quotes of the like which are easy pickings for the adamant viciousness of a lashing from Ruth Dyson. The frustration of the writers on this website and all over New Zealand is well justified where no male, other than someone the ilk of Bob Clarkson for his kinfd of replies and have a go. I am sure Ruth Dyson was well pleased with the end effects of both replies to the questions and as unopposed it makes her look and possibly I will concede under these circumstances Chris Carter competent in the lines of their chosen fire.
In the exchange today I couldn’t hear the replies as Mr. Hawkins managed to have repeated the quote on Bob Clarkson because the noise raised from the National benches was loud and boisterous. But that was all it was; a lot of noisy gas; enough to get to carbon nuetrality by early next week if only it could be harnessed.
What angers me most though is that these people talk loong and hard enough to give themselves the outright confidence that they are right and clearly where they reject and refuse to answer the questions that isolate them they are not. Take Peter Dunne for example. He was outside the House addressing a protest by the Fulon Gong group. His speech was well worded and he put his position clearly with that of teh Greens as the reject the practices of torture, corruption and violence to other human souls as most obviosly being practiced in the extreme by the Chinese government. He was so emphatic I would have almost voted for him on the issue. But half way through he drew from me my most cynical of chuckles. He wanted to have protected in China the rights of association for its citizens. So here he was outside on the steps of parliament being righteous and noble. He set himself outside from other politicians such as National who rejected the offer to speak to the Crowd and wooed them with his eloquent words. Yet he knows on Human Rights and the right of association for NZ children to have that association protected with thehir dads that our country is not constitutional. He knows this yet plugs the air with how good he was and is and how much everyone should respect him. Really though he is being an unapologetic liar. Keith Locke the same. He knows what I have written to him about sedition and that its charge is the only legal protection for any protester to have their protest taken to the level of cross over between the freedom of speech in good faith and breaking the law. He either knows this or he is stupid. I doubt any politician would concur with any view that they might be stupid.
Yet coming back to the issue of Chris Carter and Ruth Dyson hiding behind the dissaffecting policies they employ, salvaging from any probability that their smoke screens may be disturbed, and now pretty much unopposed to spin the cocktails of lies and deceiption it should be clearly stated that they are in fact not right. Thsi crusade of women’s equality is at and in direct cost to children. Chris Carter knows that this function of tidy rejection of truths costs each child affected by assisted human rights technology costs the child their association with their father just as Peter Dunne knows it. It is so hard to sit outside parliament or inside listening to these people pretending they are so nice when their policies and practices would rip a primary emotional organ from a child and trade in it under the protection of House privilege as if they too like Margaret Wilson are our modern Gods of being right and wonder.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 4:39 pm
What a load of bollocks.
I’ve got my plane ticket, I’m sick of this crap.
Equality my arse.
Comment by MikeT — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 5:16 pm
See No Discrimination Hear No Discrimination Speak No Discrimination
Press Release by National Council of Women of New Zealand at 5:38 pm, 19 Jul 2007
The National Council of Women of New Zealand (NCWNZ) regrets that Judy Turner, United Future MP hadn’t actually taken the time to read the NCWNZ facilitated report on discrimination against women before making a statement to the media. This report was first given to the Member in February of this year.
“Had the Member read the report, she would have understood that areas of discrimination against women remain unaddressed and that these discriminations extend markedly beyond sexist jokes, although it should be noted that such jokes perpetuate a culture or social viewpoint that requires modernisation,” said Christine Low, NCWNZ National President. “Judy Turner’s viewpoints appear Victorian, i.e. not only should women be seen but not heard, but heaven forbid they express what is actually happening in their lives.”
In the report that will be presented to the United Nations on 30 July 2007, critical issues will be outlined, such as the appalling violence rates against women and children, the lack of movement on the gender pay gap and continued lack of pay equity, the need for gender analysis on financial policy as well as social policy, the barriers to women climbing the leadership ladder, and the cradle to grave raft of discriminatory factors that women have to contend with.
“The Council notes Judy Turner’s concerns that men have issues too, however the Convention that NCWNZ has responded to, and to which the Government has ratified, relates to women only. It would be a nonsense to report men’s issues against a Convention that seeks to prevent discrimination against women,” said Christine Low. “The Member can take heart that NCWNZ shares her concerns on the lack of male teachers and has advocated at a Government level for this to be changed.”
“Women’s groups and NGOs with a wider focus, but critical gender-specific information, exist for a variety of reasons. As the United Future’s spokesperson for the Community and Voluntary sector, NCWNZ is a little alarmed that UF would be suggesting that Women’s Refuge, Family Planning Association, YWCA, Rural Women New Zealand and the Disabled Persons Assembly (New Zealand) Inc need to validate why New Zealand society still needs them,” said Christine Low.
“By framing the NGO report as though it is an exercise in pushing for more funding, the enormity of the work involved in producing this work has been trivialised,” said Christine Low. “As a result of the Member making such a comment, NCWNZ feels pressured to not explore this option when presenting to the United Nations, which is certainly a useful means from the Government perspective of ensuring the UN Committee is not aware of all the problems NGOs are experiencing.”
To date the Council had not asked participating NGOs if they wanted the report to be used in this manner, despite the knowledge that many women’s groups are in dire need of funding, particularly if they are to make a difference in their specialist fields. Such groups for example include Women’s Refuge in domestic violence, Family Planning Association in women’s health, Rape Crisis Centres in violence against women. Representing what is best for women has been a driving factor for NCWNZ for over 110 years; the Council will now ask contributing NGOs if they believe there should be investment in the women’s sector as there is in health, sports, and social services and will present the response to the UN committee.
The United Nations CEDAW Committee has long held the view that New Zealand and the NGO reports submitted provide an important benchmark against which other countries can be measured.
“New Zealand is further down the ‘developmental track’ when it comes to equal rights, and removing chronically overt forms of discrimination. Scenarios such as the trafficking of women into the sex industry, which certainly was a feature in the last NZ NGO report, given the Thai sex worker scandal, are sadly not reserved to developing countries. However in New Zealand we are all hopeful that such occurrences are infrequent in nature; the social conditioning and gender mainstreaming that is in place in New Zealand which encourages “everything is OK in paradise” thinking, however is not occasional,” concluded Christine Low.
ENDS
Judy Turner will cop a bit of flack from the women’s groups over her statement. If you agree with what she is saying (or even not), it would be good for her to receive some feedback.
email is:
[email protected]
Comment by UF — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Well done Judy. They’re finally registering you as a serious threat.
Christine Low’s comment that your views are Victorian and imply that women should “be seen and not heard” suggests she has no great mastery of reason. What follows confirms this.
She does at least frame the state of affairs honestly: Women can fight their battles with government assistance, Men cannot. She gets to punch as often and as hard as she likes, we have our hands tied behind our backs.
(As in the metaphor, so too in real life).
Our concern isn’t to address whatever it is she wants to believe.
We need our hands untied.
Comment by Rob Case — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 7:03 pm
The funny thing about this fight between feminists ansd masculinsits is that both sides want the same thing. Both sides argue that neither side is of value. And you know something; fact is that niether side actually is of value to the other anymore. Yes, marriage is hard work and yes it is boring. Sure prostitutes are better when you understand how BORING marriage is. But the females are fighting for the young women. And the young men are fighting for a pretend idea of the past where women will be submissive to men and they will be happy. Yet they have no idea of what life is nor commitment nor sacrafice. And then there are men who are upset that women now a days have the younger men while older men are missing out and getting done for rape. Yes things have changed. Roles have reversed and yes it is going to piss off a huge number of men. And yes women are ripping off men and men are ripping off women. The system is a mess. Decency doesn’t exist as it once did. Selfishness is for both sexes. And so is harm.
The MRA are enemies of the men trying to better men as fathers and husbands who are needing to be bettered.
Benjamin,
You are wrong to put faith in me for i am from the street as you said. The street is where the community and volunteers work.
However, the paths CAN cross. That is all I am about. I spent time after work tonight with the gansters. Even patched members.
After tomorrow night I won’t want to be a part of the MRA anymore. I am going to go with those that want to make a change instead of those that moan and whinge on the Internet. Sorry, Benjamin but I remember when I was first here and David asked for people to give their cases to go to the Ombudsman. Mine was the only case that went. That is why he moved on. Everyone on the net is just talk. And they just put down the people that try to make change. But then the people that make change are not perfect and that is why they want to hear from our group and our meeting. Because they WILL do something. Those that do NOTHING are …
who cares what they are. I have proved so far that everything that is said is false. People do have power if they want it and they don’t need a cent to make a difference.
The one person I have pleased with finding the truth is myself. I can live in peace knowing the MRA movement without feeling guilty.
But I won’t ever let down the politicians who are standing up for male rights because i made that choice. And to me your word is you honor. Something that half the MRA wouldn’t have a clue of the meaning yet they brag they do. They think they are like gansters and speak like they are old school but they are not.
I am going to speak from both sides.
Comment by julie — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 8:01 pm
I sent this letter to Judy Turner earlier today.
I figure she needs support as she’s so isolated within the bearpit of parliament –
Hello Judy,
I have been following your recent press statements regarding the state of Men’s affairs in New Zealand.
Thankyou for your bold advocacy for Men’s rights in New Zealand.
It means an enormous amount to me personally and I know it also touches and encourages other male friendly New Zealanders I am regularly in contact with.
This stand you are taking is uncommonly compassionate, courageous, commendable and completely timely.
In a political era dominated by socialist-feminism you alone are the only woman in parliament to champion the cause of men getting much needed equal rights in New Zealand.
I am a New Zealander with a degree in the social sciences plus post graduate qualifications, and approximately 25 years of pastoral care work experience in New Zealand under my belt. In my time I’ve been a social worker, prison psychotherapist, anger management facilitator, psychotherapist for sex offenders, managed several support homes for folks with disabilities, nursed elderly folks and cared for at risk children and youth – all on a professional basis.
Throughout all of this I have acquired an in depth knowledge of many of the social dynamics, problems and issues in New Zealand.
Over the years I have looked on in mounting horror as women there accrued more and more power and rights whilst men’s issues were politically marginalised and trivialised.
As far back as 1982 I was advocating men get equitable healthcare funding, later the ‘family’ ‘courts’ be open and accountable, that real proof be needed before men were sentenced to anger management programs, supervised visitation and community wide condemnation as a result of mere accusations against them.
During that time I have also seen the exponential growth of solo Moms raising children alone with the fathers too often having been scared off. I have seen men’s particiaption as teachers in Primary schools plummet. I have seen prisons for men built faster than universities. I have seen the enormous swelling of fatherless children moving into adulthood bereft and awash in a sea of easily obtained drugs, petty criminality, cheap sex, anomie and ennui.
And in days gone by I could ratonalise all of this away, and even went so far as to call myself a feminist too and advocate for more abortion, more ‘safe’ houses for ‘battered’ women, more health resources for women only, more power to arrest ‘abusive’ men and more money to ‘educate’ men at large about the horrors of committing a ‘widespread’ ‘epidemic’ of domestic violence.
But I have grown, older and wiser.
Now as an ex-pat I have benefitted from seeing other parts of the world which do not emulate the New Zealand I these days wouldn’t care to return to.
I don’t blame any man for wanting to depart the place for greener male friendly pastures elsewhere.
Being as outspoken as I am I expect that upon return to New Zealand I’d be a target large for feminists there to concoct some ‘abuse’ to charge me with.
Yet every day I mourn for the country I knew all those years ago as I go about my own work to bring about a fairer society there for men and by extension women, but especially for our children who are unwittingly being inculcated in the ways of misandry.
I have no doubt that the men in parliament are currently cowed and/or chivalric to the point that they are not advocating strongly for Men’s rights as they should. I suppose they too fear being falsely accused of some form of ‘patriarchal tendencies’ and personal or systemic ‘abuse’.
So it is left to women like yourself to pull thier sisters into line.
The fight to overcome female supremacism must come from within New Zealand womanhood itself.
That’s all by preface to saying that I believe that as you go about that struggle many New Zealand men will warm to you and more likely vote for you.
But even more importantly the feminist destruction of normal heterosexual relations, of confident men, intact families and secure children will be overcome, and you will have created a great legacy.
Warm regards,
Stephen Gee B Soc Sci, Dip Teaching, Dip Cert Counselling, Dip Cert Men’s Health.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 10:55 pm
Julie,
Your statement – “The MRA are enemies of the men trying to better men as fathers and husbands who are needing to be bettered” is way off the mark. Arrogant nonsense.
I know lots of men (myself included) who’d proudly say they are Men’s Rights Advocates who don’t come close to fitting the ghastly generalisation and characterisation you seem to be peddling with such a comment.
Being a Men’s Rights Advocate and wnating to help some fathers (and mothers) improve thier parenting skills aren’t mutually exclusive aims!
Yet again you say you’re heading off, leaving lesser mortals behind –
“After tomorrow night I won’t want to be a part of the MRA anymore. I am going to go with those that want to make a change instead of those that moan and whinge on the Internet”.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard you say that you were leaving.
Also consider this….people complaining on the net IS doing something.
It’s raising awareness of issues which effect us all.
In particular I believe men openly using the internet and complaining IS A GOOD THING.
Sad thing is I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard folks, mostly women, say they wished Kiwi men expressed thier feelings.
Then when we do we often find that it’s only the ‘nice’ feelings these folks wanted to hear. Other feelings of complaint that they’re uncomfortable hearing because it DEMANDS change from them are deemed ‘unmanly’ and trivialised or rationalised away as unacceptable. Our complaining is often then myopically labelled ‘unmanly’ or ‘not doing anything’.
No doubt you’ll notice I sent a letter to Judy Turner posted on this thread.
Perhaps it fits your global eye of god view that –
“Everyone on the net is just talk” !!
Take a deep breath. Count to ten.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 19th July 2007 @ 11:25 pm
Sorry, this story is no longer available.
Comment by Rob Case — Fri 20th July 2007 @ 9:32 am
I notice the link that Scrap provided to the DomPost ‘Sexist Backlash against Women’ article now comes up with:
“Sorry, this story is no longer available.”
Comment by Rob Case — Fri 20th July 2007 @ 9:34 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4132490a11.html
try this
Comment by UF — Fri 20th July 2007 @ 9:54 am
Good for you Julie,
when you put your energy into creating reality against its falsification what you find is truth. That’s what you are finding because that is how you are thinking. You are eliminating deception by using the practice of natural justice which is the function of being fair. With this comes priority. With this comes principle and once you are committed to such a cause honour demands integrity no matter its bitter cost. The library system, or John’s site has been access based in change, modifying my priorities to the new limits to navigate streams. I’ll read the rest of your comment later this afternoon.
Look at what Christing Low has said on teh basic principles. She argue in the same way the MWA argues that they have no duty or function to recognise men’s issues and it would defeat the purpose of need. Besides this blanket demand over society excusing women from having any form of responsibility for and to the protection of others. Besides that this explodes a natural opprtunity in pious betterment to the principles of women’s campaigns for equality or fair treatment, inferring that Judy Turner’s statement is detrimental to the needs of the cause (further gaining in that ground of how dare any question the validity of our purpose)she overlooks for her own comments the most basic principle in the abuse of the women’s movement to manipulate ther circumstances as conditioned to how she would have them read.
Pretty much she ignores what Judy has said and throws the ball back at her to excuse for her submission that Judy could be acting in a way that in fact protects women – labelling her view as Victorian. She excuses herself and the women’s movement from its inhumane control of the demands for change by recognising men’s plight campaigning on behalf of the education sector to get more men into education. Hang on, this is what she said she shouldn’t do so why would she advocate to do it? It doesn’t make sense. It is illogical. What the woman is saying is that we are the people who recognise what women’s needs are and how men are disaffected by any other societal ill. She rejects a responsibility to any other group and as victim of “men” pushes forward in her campaign justified in exclusivity and from ongoing abuse.
This is bollocks. Abortion as infanticide by our own interpretation of the domestic violence act is the greatest breach of domestic violence and is directly inconsistent with the right to life. Apparently this fact does not factor. Government is reviewing the way they look at abortion and Professor Linda Holloway is head of the new group of three women. If this is the Linda Holloway I know then her view is likely consistent with Christine Lows. Abortion will be excused to accomodate as best possible the woman’s freedom to chose. So Christing thinks more men should be in education – she will be forced to recognise that the United Nations to whom the report will be tabled in its child orientated preamble protects children before they are born and in NZ, in order allegedly to protect extreme mental health issues for women every year we have approxinately 18,000 abortions. That means that under her thinking not to protect men because that their issues do not relate to men, that 18,000 legal killings occur in our country every year (and increasing) and that that issue has no relativity to men. This makes her an ignorant liar misusing a position of power to override a minority. The minority being the children.
So women want more men in early teaching is the statement. How is she going to get that if she is not prepared to face the facts. Why do we have more and more fatherless children? Under her effective and in control position as according to her ability to describe that women do not have to protect the issues of men in any way, yet decides those issue which are meritable to connect with her influence, undoubtably the reason there are more single mums for a new generation will be the male’s fault.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 20th July 2007 @ 10:40 am
Thanks UF link updated in article.
Business woman disputes report
20/07/2007 5:04:02
A leading businesswoman is not impressed with a report released by the National Council of Women.
The paper claims there is still inequality among the sexes and while women may be getting into top jobs, it is still a struggle to balance the demands of work and home life. It says New Zealand women are experiencing a “marked change for the worse” and that there is not enough flexibility in the workplace for mothers. It says men who get to the top do not have the same stresses.
This year’s Businesswoman Of The Year Trish McLean says it is not just about men or women because more flexibility is needed for all workers.She believes there are plenty of opportunities for women to climb the corporate ladder and they have to decide whether to take them. Ms McLean says if women choose to be stay-at-home mums, that is their decision and not something that should be frowned upon.
The report will be delivered to the United Nations. It included submissions from more than 90 organisations.
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Fri 20th July 2007 @ 11:45 am
Stephen,
You could be a rich man if you collect and save all the dollars you could get from each time i say I want to walk away.
It was a nice letter you sent to Judy Turner. I am sure that it is heart warming to hear encouragement. However it is even better when people act. And that is because without action words are nothing.
I do understand that is is great to hear men voicing how they feel. It makes a big difference to women just guessing and as women are more about words IMO, it can make a big difference.
You are just going to have to put up with me, I guess and I am just going to have to put up with what i don’t like to hear until someone better comes along and i don’t think for one moment I am better than others. Most people would have an easier time dealing with this on a personal level.
The only thing i say that is wrong with your thinking is that it is not up to women to stop this. This has to be a team effort. Both sides are going to need to change together. But then I don’t think the war between the sexes is going to stop for along time. So to me, IMO, it is better for both men and women who don’t want the fight to work around the war and ignore the war.
Comment by julie — Fri 20th July 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Good on you Stephen,
and I agree with you especially where you recognise that this reunification with principles that protect society rather than blindly damage them will be again led by women rejecting how other women would overpower thier rights to (1) stay at home if they so chose and (2) determine to protect the child to develop under the protection of the natural as traditional family unit.
The reply that women are protecting these conditions in any report that may be presented to the United Nations can be contested by fact. We have a nearly at capacity work force because it has demanded that women too have to be employed in order for our economy to effectively develop and grow. How does that protect choice?
BTW, today I have received letters in reply to my presentation to the OMbudsman from several relevant departments. I have put forward an option, including CC to Bevan and BCC to one other that will hopefully see the progress of the many issues I raise, secured for Bevan’s involvement determined behind closed doors. This is to say that still breathing I hope to disappear. If not then I’ll be back twice as angry.
Hope to see many people at Viv’s protest next week. Good luck Julie et al!
Benjamin Easton.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 20th July 2007 @ 2:58 pm
julie said:
Well, the men’s movement falls into 2 categories – the FRAs(Fathers’ Rights Activists) and the MGTOW(Men Going Their Own Way). Most activists follow a mixture of these ideas. Both agree that feminism is a bad idea. However, they differ in their direction of activism. The FRAs are practical idealists – they want the restoration of their place and respect as the husband/father in the family – some are divorced, some have been alienated from their children. But they strive to work things out. The MGTOW-crowd are realists – they have had it with feminism and Western society, they believe that the odds are against them – and they are going their own way, hence MGTOW. Their motto is : ‘Don’t marry, don’t cohabit’.
—-
Ofcourse, men and boys are being shafted in today’s world – misandry is rampant in the media, schools/colleges, politics and the courts, and yes, men and women will together have to set it. But this is going to difficult because :
– it is difficult/impossible to organize men into a movement, unlike women
– feminism has become so mainstream that very few women will accept that the war between the sexes is harmful to society and that men need help too.
-most women(and men) are so brainwashed right from childhood via feminized schools/colleges (it came as a shock to many that the ratio of men-to-women is 40%-60%) and only realize the situation until they are much older.
—-
In the end, every contribution is going to be useful – whether it’s activism in the real world or raising awareness of biases against men on websites/forums/blogs.
Comment by mikeray — Sat 21st July 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Mikeray,
Thanx for you description.
Comment by julie — Sun 22nd July 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Julie,
You misunderstand.
I didn’t say it didn’t have to be a team effort. Of course many men will try to free themselves from the shackles of feminist oppression.
I’ll say it again.
The women of new zealand have to pull thier misandrist feminist sisters into line. They must lead the charge to overcome the misandry of modern day feminism.
Clearly the men of new zealand cannot, otherwise it would have already happened and men there would have equal rights to women – reproductive and family/relational rights, equitable educational and healthcare funding AND freedom from the relentless and pernicious demonising accruing over decades now.
Every time men try to get due rights they’re now automatically assumed to be trying to wield ‘patriarchal’ power over women by many who’ve been indoctrinated to think so.
We’re now looking at several generations of women indoctrinated into treating thier own sex as the superior one, and reflexively lashing out often without even being aware of doing so!
Clearly you have a lot of work to do with women.
The alternative is for nz womenfolk to see increasing numbers of nz men going thier own way either as internal or external refugees from the feminist nz they’ve created.
Comment by Stephen — Mon 23rd July 2007 @ 4:27 am
Stephen,
I have a plan of a project to bring out this MTGOW and scare, I mean wake up females and wake up males. hehehe.
You have just made me realise how good a plan/project it is.
Comment by julie — Mon 23rd July 2007 @ 8:37 am
Well I have restrained myself for sometime to watch the style and content of information coming to this site. It is unfortunate that so many men are getting to that same old finger pointing habit. This is really interesting as all those very clever men who are obviously very academic are still going down this path of “he said she said”. When are we as men going to stop blaming/accusing/looking for excuses for the inequality of men in New Zealand. By always using the comparison all we do is continue to promote the good fight women have had over the last 114 years. Question? what are we doing to carry this great biasis of men in New Zealand? answer unorganised griping. We have men in senior places in the media and other entities throughout NZ what do these people do? talk about how we can better promote the plight of women. they can do this better than us (women) they have had more experience. We need to catch up, get off our own backsides lobby govt ourselves. We know all the stats on mens health issues, family court, dying younger,employment etc, what we seemed not to appreciate is that we are about 50% of the NZ vote, but because of overinflated male ego’s we are totally disorganised as a gender. men are afraid to step out and discuss their own health, relationships, sexuality etc, until we can come to terms with the most simple male understanding of who we are and take responsibilty for our health and relationship needs, this disappearing dad disorder will continue for other generations. Please stick to the subject do not get into continual debates with feminist, there are many women out there who agree with the state of mens role in NZ society, however we need to have the confidence to get that balance back, this is a fight for equal rights on all gender issues, not a continual comparison of genders.
(NO MAN, FOR ANY CONSIDERABLE PERIOD CAN WEAR ONE FACE TO HIMSELF, AND ANOTHER TO THE MULTITUDE,WITHOUT FINALLY GETTING BEWILDERED AS TO WHICH MAY BE TRUE. (Nathaniel Hawthorne 1840-1864).
Comment by Llew — Mon 23rd July 2007 @ 9:51 am
Thanks Llew,
it’s good to know that I only have to stand proud as a man shoulder to shoulder with my brothers, carry on speaking deeply and personally about my experience of injustice, stop naming feminists and all will be good in the land of milk, honey and flannel shirts.
Comment by Stephen — Mon 23rd July 2007 @ 10:24 am
Thanks for the sarcasim, it achieves a lot. for some I guess things need to be verbally beaten to death before we realise that this is a mans issue to have the good fight, I don’t wear flannel shirts, I’m not a wine drinking hand squeezing Woeman (woeful man) I take this seriously, and actively speak out at every opportunity for mens rights. your sarcasim only jusifies my comments, if you actually took the time to think about what i and many other men are saying you might get out there and face the challenge in person rather than attacking others (on the key board) who also have an opinion that you may not agree with. The feminist fight is a boring subject which I would rather leave to the women to fight it out, men have their own battles which we need to have with government not feminisim. I am certainly not going to be sarcastic and get into little bitchy sessions on such an important subject.
Comment by Llew — Mon 23rd July 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Llew.
the irony was obviously lost so I’ll spell it out more clearly.
I’ve tried for many years to do what you’re advocating to no avail.
It’s all well and good to have positive intent and think we should stop griping at one another and just club together and press our points to govmint who will dutifully listen.
However in my many years experience at the coalface I have found that’s naive.
No, the realpolitic of nz is much uglier than that my friend and feminists must be named and outed to make headway.
Rhetorically speaking – do you think the Brittish shirked from calling nazzis what they were – nazzis?
I think not.
Also I believe men must debate the best way forward for themselves, strongly sometimes (as you’ve recently witnessed) lest we fall into line with charismatic men and screw things up akin to the way feminists did.
On the contrary I reckon you can liken it to a clearing operation – house by house.
Ugly? Yes.
Hard Slog? Undoubtedly.
Necessary? absolutely.
I have little time and patience for those who try selling me the old ways I used rehashed as wisdom but which have proven to lead to failure.
Comment by Stephen — Mon 23rd July 2007 @ 7:53 pm
No there is nothing lost at all, I don’t disagree with you about having a militant approach. I to have spent many years at the coal face and still am there putting up with white middle class sexist females who dominate every meeting I have to attend, generally dealing with issues relating to young men. However the point I would like to make again is that men are their own worst block. I like many others see the distruction for the role of a father. We all know it has many parrells to the feminine/sexist movement, unless men take that responsibility collectivly even the most militant will lose ie nazisim. To date there has been no mens movement of any substance only continual small groups taking up the fight. We have no Germaine Greer,Stone, Lucy (1818-93). , Pankhurst, Emmeline (1858-1928). Collins, Martha Layne (born 1963), Chopin, Kate (1851-1904), point is, try and name any man in the last 30 years who has managed to capture the reality of the discrimination in this country..Stephen I like you am a very fustrated man and am extremely impatient and intolerant of the imbalance. Can you ever get two sides of an argument heard if they are both fighting for the same thing but for a different purpose? I don’t think so.. however I apologise for interupting your discussion. I will continue my battle here in my small community for what I beleive will end with better acknowledgement for men in our district.
Good luck
Comment by Llew — Mon 23rd July 2007 @ 8:44 pm
And thats how revolutions begin.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 24th July 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Stephen,
I thought your letter to Judy Turner says a huge amount about contemporary NZ.
Good on you.
Comment by Dave — Wed 25th July 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Good to read you Dave Ll…
Hope things are well
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 26th July 2007 @ 8:49 am
Thanks David.
Let’s hope she can influence some of her female supremacist peers to take a humanitarian approach to menfolk with it.
Llew,
Good luck with your struggle at the grassroots.
Comment by Stephen — Thu 26th July 2007 @ 9:38 am