No Progress Evident
Our new government seems to be off to a good start. Instant protection orders to ensure thousands more children are disconnected from their fathers, DNA to be taken from anyone arrested on suspicion of a crime, and more prisons to be built to throw men into.
well, john key never had a father, whats the big deal…
depends on what your thoughts of john key are i guess ?
Both Key and Obama have no father input in their lives. Obama has obviously thought about the issue as illustrated by his Father’s Day speech.
Key is an unknown quantity from his words to date.
Both Simon Power and Judith Collins have been anti-father in their early comments and Key has had nothing to say.
And the real point is the kids here, not the parents. John Key did not have a choice in the matter, his father passed away early. Where there is a choice, it is the children being victimised. The reason i am happy about my situation is that i know i am not the culprit, i have a clear conscience to my efforts to date. The children being the innocent maybe needs to be addressed in greater emphasis rather than fathers crying foul all the time, which is not an un – natural way to conduct affairs, but it doesn’t seem to gain much traction whether they are ‘off the wall’ comments like mine at times, or more thoughtful comments like more dedicated people trying to make real progress.
My research this evening shows John Key’s Father died when he was nearly 8 years old. That hopefully means a pretty strong father influence in his formative years.
From memory, there was an interview on t.v. where john key said that he did not remember his father apart from one occasion when he was given a toy car, also there may have been an unhappy relationship between john key father and mother where the father was not welcome in the house-hold, i think this was in new zealand herald article. So if this is correct information, John Key had no choice in the matter, to be without a Dad. (because of the mother’s influence)
The Key family did seperate but only a short time (weeks) before George Key died. The lack of memory relates to his young age and probably the fact that mum did little to keep the memory of Dad alive in her children. The hearld story highlights an alcohol issue which may be real or may be family exageration.
The fact that a child’s father is not significant in their memory isn’t a question of choice but is a significant feature of the way they view life and issues.
When the government makes it illegal for a alledged father to take DNA for testing.
There is a golden opportunity for a huge protest.
All that is needed is for about 1,000 alledged fathers to break the law and stand together as a united front.
#7 There is talk in Australia of doing excatly that.
If one man breaks a law like that it is an illegal act, if 1000 men break that same law it is a political action
I have seen Obama’s Fathers Day speech. While he does a very good job of acknowledging the consequences of fatherlessness to children and the bad outcomes fatherless children have, he then goes on to berate all men in feminist style for being deadbeat dads who abandon their children. What he should have asked is why it is overwhelmingly women who are ending marriages and who are using lawyers and judges to remove fathers from the family, often with no good reason. He might also wonder why it is that so many women choose to by-pass good men and get pregnant to ‘bad boys’: men with criminal records, addictions as well as malingerers and those with violent behaviour. Is it because they know full well that there are no consequences to what was regarded through all previous time as extremely foolish and risky behaviour, because now they can make the rest of society financially responsible for their bad choices? While men are so often portrayed as being selfish, are women not being selfish when they choose to mate with a total loser and providing the children without any chance of a good father?
That’s a brilliant piece of commentary.
Concise, erudite and provocative.
Sorry to hear you guys over in NZ look set to be shafted with instant protection orders. It seems things are going from bad to worse there for men.
I was hoping that maybe National would get away from the “Nabour” and “Lational” with only a men’s political party being good enough once the elections are over.
The Protection orders National is implementing is about the whole judicial system and has been for happening for some time while well researched … It is not meant as an attack on men and fathers.
This is actually a very successful program. The orders are given by the police discretion to keep a person safe from another person. Then mediation is offered to discuss the issue between the victim and perpetrator. The victim and perpetrator are all sorts of people at all sorts of ages. Anger management is given to both men and women.
There is no point sitting back and judging someone else’s work. Women in NZ are already being put on high for caring for men and NZ is not going to come looking for men to make policies. No-one has the time.
If men are unhappy about something, they will speak up. If men want to be a part of the decision making they will reach out and network. It is not National’s responsibility to make men happy nor to make laws for them if they don’t care to work the system and progress themselves.
I don’t know if you are in NZ but you can find out all about this program with fathers because NZ is doing it also.
Your questions on “Why do women choose bad men”, could be question to put to a trusting women’s group. It is not as cut and dry as women “Choose”.
Anyhow, I just hope we don’t make John Keys our enemy before the term starts.
Esay to claim success as you dont define success or provide supporting data.
This is just more persecution of men, more of the same, the cops will continue to throw only men out of the house, BAD WOMEN will abuse these laws totally to control men, we will feel even MORE insecure in bad marriages, i think that MENZ will have lots more members in 2009. LEGAL WORKERS WILL GET WORK TOO , no doubt
Damn Scrap. (laughing)
OK, I will support my claim. As Schwarzenegger says, “I’ll be back”.
Its allowing a police officer the power to issue an interim injunction at his / her discretion.
This is a power that should be reserved for Judges and rarely used.
Martin, it is even likely that overtime this type of order will become part of the evry day toolkit to ensure compliance to their wishes.
Further eroding fundemntal human rights like the freedom of assocation and freedom of movement has historically had terrible societal consequences.
Instant Banning Orders from a policeman now what African Country does that sound like? I wont even start on the theme of “innocent until proven guilty”.
An elder lady’s husband died and the eldest step daughter wanted to basically kick her to the curb and gain what her father owned prior to the marriage. The marriage was around 30-40 years and this elder women raised 2 girls of his as well as their own 2 after the original mother died. OK, just a conflict one might say. But it became far more than a conflict when the daughter started threatening to accuse the step mother as a child molester and to burn the house down with her in it. It was severe enough that the police wanted to put a protection order on the daughter but stated their hands were tied because of the system.
A tresspass order was used instead but it is limited to only the property.
The mediation team set out to resolve this conflict through their work and study yet the mother wouldn’t have it. “I have put up with this woman, who is not a child but 50+ years old and I have to put my foot down”. No mediation in this case but 12 weeks of anger management.
Another story. 2 women flatting. A conflict starts out and the police are phoned. The police take the side of the perpetrator as she is the victim in this and cared for her safety not the woman who phoned. Mediation helped this situation. BTW, a protection order was more suitable since the woman who ploned was the one whose name was on the rental deed.
Also SAVE – students against violence everywhere is promoting the same sort of program. OK, an overseas site but we will have similar here soon enough.
Point is that John Keys cannot be expected to change all this because of fathers losing out because women’s groups are more organised and have anti men policies.
This is the menz responsibility. The political party didn’t work and 4 years will pass till the next elections. Maybe something new is needed. Maybe being a apart of the system will help rather than being on the outside.
I had already spoke up about the women’s refuge in Auckland holding a meeting for men. I know that Waitakere family violence is disappointed at the lack of speakers for men. But this is still not John Keys responsibility.
John Keys is Prime Minister of course he is responsible for what the Goverment brings into legislation.
As to stories you quote, thats hardly quality research. Your lost on the dance floor when you need to be on the balcony.
Scrap, you are so right!!!!! I have no quality research and without it I have no say. I may have done all the hard yards every other man here has done but I can never be a man. I can never agree with what men want fully. I am not MAN, I an NOT POLITICAL, I am NOT INTO POWER and I am not into REVOLUTION to throw the power.
The years here have passed fast and my children grew up in the meantime. My parenting issues are OVER. A career is what I seek now.
I have a wonderful story with CYFS. I have wonderful hands on knowledge that is appreciated and job offers. It may not pay well at first but then I am thinking of where I am going to be in 20 years also.
I like what Kiwi1960 and Alistair are doing. They started with the men and seem to be a branch of the work. I also like what Family First is doing. I believe in what they are doing.
If YOU can’t get this sorted then I don’t know who can. And “Your way or the highway is fine with me”.
You know I am here when you need an Indian.
Post #12 says
It’s most unlikely that police “protection” orders will be given to keep a person safe from someone else. The police will use them, almost always against men, to ensure they don’t get called out again to any domestic argument. Women will call the police readily when their husbands dare to disagree with them about something, claiming the husband raised his voice and the woman is frightened etc. The man will then be immediately banned from his own home that he will nevertheless still have to pay for.
The poster’s use of the words “victim” and “perpetrator” begs the question. Only a proper investigation and trial where allegations and evidence are tested can possibly determine with any accuracy who was in fact the perpetrator and who was the victim, or indeed whether either existed. If police are able to make those judgements so simply then we may as well not bother with any trials, just let the police sentence whomsoever they wish directly.
So-called anger management isn’t given, it’s ordered, and under current legislation it amounts to weekly periodic detention without trial. That such periodic detention is at feminist indoctrination courses makes the whole thing even more sinister and totalitarian. Whether or not some inmates find some aspects of these programmes useful is irrelevant; they are an abomination of justice and civil rights.
Poster #12 seems very concerned to support the National party rather than to recognize National’s immediate assaults on men’s welfare. With National’s attitude we can doubtless look forward to much more of the same to come.
Poster #17, your stories don’t seem relevant to the issue of police protection orders. The cases you describe could have used current protection order legislation. There are cases that justify the current use of this legislation but only because that’s the only thing on offer. It’s rife with injustice and there is no good evidence it actually keeps anyone safer. Some kind of non-contact order may well be helpful and acceptable but it would have to be very different from the current legislation. For example, any such temporary orders would need to expire automaticaly rather than be made permanent by default unless challenged. Any permanent order would need to be based on a fair trial that included corroborating evidence beyond allegations. There would need to be a ban on using any such orders as evidence in other matters. The person applying for the order would have to be the one to move out of the home unless by mutual agreement otherwise. With these and a few other changes, the current protection order legislation might be acceptable to men. In its current form it is not acceptable, and extending the current nonsense to police whims is little more than blatant male persecution. Come on men, stand up and be counted! We must march strongly and loudly against this, at least call for major changes to make National’s proposed legislation halfway reasonable.
Hans, do you not have any friends in the police force? Do you not consider them an asset to you at all?
Is it really one small group of men against the world?
Hans please ignore my comment#22. I know you are a great candidate as a speaker for the MRM as well as an asset in other areas you have pursued.
I am on a learning track right now and something good has come to my attention that might be of interest to you also.
The Uneasy Male: The American Men’s Movement, 1970-2000 was published in 2005 through iUniverse and written by Professor Gambill.
Here’s a quote from the preface of Gambill’s book:
During the nineteen-seventies and eighties, the mass media perceived the men’s movement as primarily consisting of pro-feminist, men’s rights, or fathers’ rights groups. Sometimes touted as vanguards of a massive upheaval, such groups actually attracted only a small fraction of the membership found in feminist associations, had far less political influence, and constituted only a dim counterpart of the women’s movement in public consciousness. Other male ventures in the nineties that were spiritual or religious endeavours had more participants, if sometimes only at the intellectual level, spawned more extensive media coverage, and left a more indelible public impression. However, the mythopoetic phenomenon epitomised by Robert Bly and Promise Keepers’ rallies launched by Bill McCartney waned almost as quickly as they arose.
Much of the historical roots of the “Men’s Movement” can be found in his book. You may glean this even from the chapter titles:
Chapter 1 Groundswell
Chapter 2 Nocm/Nomas
Chapter 3 Divorce Reform/Fathers’ Rights
Chapter 4 Men’s Rights/Unification
Chapter 5 Custody
Chapter 6 Support/Visitation
Chapter 7 Mythopoetic
Chapter 8 Promises
Chapter 9 Black
Chapter 10 In A Woman’s World
Chapter 11 Political Postscript
From what Mike LaSalle has read so far; Dr. Gambill’s book is a very well constructed academic assertion. The monograph deserves significant deconstruction.
Readers should also read Richard Doyle’s Save the Males for its profound insights and contrasts.
Amazon links available below:
The Uneasy Male: The American Men’s Movement, 1970-2000
Save the Males.
Another quote ….
Whether liberal or conservative, pro-feminist or antifeminist, black or white, religious or secular, American males in the late twentieth century were challenged by a world in which traditional gender roles had been thrown into flux. The causes were manifold: the Vietnam war raised doubts about the merits of men identifying themselves as protectors or warriors; a burgeoning feminist movement and changing structure of the business world challenged males’ perceptions of themselves as self-reliant individualists and providers; and the growing chasm between home and work and lessening of fathers’ contacts with their children as a result of divorce seriously impaired their roles as mentors and disciplinarians. Given such social solvents, many American males often appeared as missiles in search of a mission. But that they pursued different paths in their quest and arrived at different solutions should not detract from the fact they were engaged in a common enterprise.
You appear to want it both ways. To eat your cake and keep it too.
You want a police force with the power to convict without trial
by peers people (given the decades of feminist misandric indoctrination of the masses of men being THE violent sex and women being THE victims – assuredly most often men) to what Hans rightly describes involuntary periodic detention.
You then try to come over as all compassionate towards men with links to books on men’s issues WITHOUT DETRACTING YOUR SUPPORT FOR INSTANT PROTECTION ORDERS.
My view is that you show your stripes all to clearly.
to me you appear to be a duplicitous enemy of men.
I can’t say anything to this. It is YOUR view and I trust you know what you are talking about. I have been wondering the same thing to be honest.
Hey skeptic, on second thoughts.
That is an insult to me. The day I allow that to happen … is the day I will protest outside the TV station.
OK, Skeptic, on third thought.
If you can prove this well enough for me to use, I will do 3 things.
I will send e-mails to every barrister and lawyer I can find! I will send e-mails to the business men!
I will send this to every politician.
John Keys is a listener of those with credibility. (just playing the game)
Have these temporary P.Os been tried in any other country’s ? What was the outcome ? or maybe the international “legal community” is just using NZ as a guinea pig
In theory they sound a good idea, but in reality, once a woman knows she can control her partner and get the police around, she will start to use them to abuse him. It is more of the same , persecute 90% of innocent men to control the violent 10% badboys who these mainly sluttish women have voluntarily chosen as their partner.
If women know they can get a free house and DPB and free legal costs, they have little financial interest in maintaining the relationship. Men do not have that choice under these laws, so much for sexual EQUALITY !
I think that they have been tried in Australia
I think even our current “protection” orders will contravene some UN charter to which NZ has signed up, because they impose sentences (i.e. periodic detention at feminist indoctrination centres) without trial. The NZ government of course will deny this is a sentence but I would argue that it is a judicial response to a “finding” that a person has offended under the Domestic Violence Act, and that because it involves the temporary deprivation of liberty it amounts to a sentence for a crime that has not been subject to due process. I would like someone to complain to the UN. That may have some positive influence on the design of the proposed police protection orders. Unfortunately such a complaint is beyond my time available for the requisite research etc.
It is always helpful to have some example, to partly show the way.
A NZ father who was accused of sexual abuse of his children, in the context of a custody dispute, made a complaint to the UN about the excessively slow complaint resolution process of familycaught. (In the father’s opinion, the slowness was in breach of Care of Children Act. see Clause 4(5)a, look it up for yourself at http://www.legislation.co.nz.)
The complaint was submitted by his legal worker “Tony Ellis”.
This was reported in newspapers a couple of years ago. I haven’t heard of any response by the NZ Government. Legal workers quote UN in familycaught, when it suits them, but it seems that NZ Government is quite happy to ignore the UN.
Anyway, we have just replaced the Government of that time, so maybe these issues need to be brought up again. (Some discretion may be required, we don’t know the details of the case.)
Try a Google search for “united nations” human rights
One of the options should be:
This is the UN Human Rights Commissioner’s website. Looks good?
At the top right of this page, is a search box. Into it, type “tony ellis”.
One of the options will be:
United Nations Human Rights Website – Treaty Bodies Database …
… Communication No. 1368/2005. Submitted by: EB (represented by counsel, Mr. Tony
Ellis) … The author is represented by counsel, Mr. Tony Ellis. Factual background. …
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/db75d42e27c8d0a4c1257307004af6a7?Opendocument – 66k – Cached
My appreciation to Wendy for showing me this report.
I admit that I have tried to make it look quick and easy. In practice, there are several options to check through and this does take time. The search above has the found the output, not the documents and method for submitting to UN Human Rights Commisioner. I assume that this information will be available on the UN HR Commissioner’s website, which is given above……..
If a group of people can work together on this, then we should be able to bring together the required resources.
It is important that men do act to defend their rights. All rights, if not actively defended, corrode and dissipate slowly away. Worse still, sometimes they can be stripped away suddenly and completely.
Only idiots would stand back and moan to the moon forever, when the option to do something about it is quicker and easier.
UN complaints have value. However, surely it is every bit as important to make workable submissions to our own Parliament and to support the political parties that we hope will protect and support our own interests…….
I have never seen any music on MENZ, it’s relevant !
The Eagles – Busy Being Fabulous http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BfGgoFz9EUw
Dixie Chicks – Good Bye Earl http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GovJ4jAnr14
And has anyone ever read this book ? It is my ex wife to a tee !
When you are young at university, you work hard studying Science with mainly males, you don’t really know how evil women can be, you think ALL women are like a young version of your own mum, BUT THERE ARE REALLY SHE DEVIL BITCHES OUT THERE ! Beware men
I think men need some sort of education about how terrible SOME women can be, we are just so unprotected, all us NICE guys anyway.
Julie, here’s a story for you,
The mother tells the father, who was stay-at-home parent for thier infant, “I’ve met another man, and I’m leaving you and taking our son”.
The next day the father, who is stay-at-home parent and full time caregiver applies for custody of the infant.
The next day the mother arrives home from work and finds the Court papers in the mail box, so she picks up the child and phones 111 claiming that the father “physically abused” her.
When the police arrive, the mother admits that she lied to get them there, and the father exlains that he is primary caregiver, had applied for custody, and because the child had undergone open heart surgery just three weeks earlier, it was unsafe to remove the child from his primary caregiver and home.
The police ignore the mother’s lie, the father’s pleadings, and the child’s health, and escort mother and child to a women’s refuge.
The police supervise the abduction of a child from his primary caregiver and the father ends up with a police record of Domestic Violence (despite the mother admitting her claim was false!)
Now Julie, please explain how the Police dishing out Protection orders will not be biased against fathers and how they will be in the best interest of children.
“It is not meant as an attack on men and fathers. ”
That is debatable but what is certain is that it will be implemented as an attack on men and particularly on fathers. Thousands more children will become fatherless for no good reason as a result.
Nice to hear form you Wayne.
I am not saying that fathers will not be targeted. And why? Because of the women’s policies.
John Keys is not the enemy. The young Nats are not the enemy. Neither are the police.
Sometimes my business study asks for an assignment on the councils and government in NZ. Everything is done on paper now. But we all now that bureaucracy has been going on for many years.
One thing John Keys is targeting for change is all this red tape and all the unnecessary jobs paying up to one million $$$ PA.
Menz has heaps of stuff to do. We have great guys collecting research. We have men with courage. We have very educated and prestigious men.
The ball is in the menz court. And we have 4 years to work with after 11 years of anti male government.
BTW, great info Murray. Edit: And Wendy. I am pleased she is still involved..
And Hans, I think you are wonderful to be in this. If you can focus, you have many who will put the work into anything you put forward.
Some states in Austrailia use them – From memory a couple of US staes also.
As to success criteria for the implemention of perental banning orders as the sucess criteria are not clear, judging sucess is problematic.
My reading suggests that they are positoned as part of a social engineering package that to “reduce domestic violence” This is the tip of the iceberg of a long term soical engineering experiment in “reducing domestic violence.
They were created out of the mindset that men are the perpretrators of violence and women and children the victims.
Why does no-one care about fathers? It’s quite simple really, a father not involved and not raising his children is free to work, pay taxes and child support. We are simply wallets for the government to abuse as they try cover up the mess that they have made of the benefits & welfare system. They are worried that both parents claim DPB, which is what the government does NOT want.
This “PLAN” was devised in USA and copied throughout the world, Fathers and Kids have to pay the price
The government will want to cling onto these laws for dear life despite the severe negative effects on society.
Martin, don’t take all this too seriously if you can help it. New Zealanders do love fathers. It is just … well, it is really rough days and nothing is what it seems most of the time.
But it can take you down to a place of no return from what I see. It would be very sad to see you reach that place.
About the DNA testing.
Government PDF, BTW
The new law Hans is describing, will allow the database to collect more DNA samples by forcing people who are charged to be tested.
Seems we are not the only ones who have taken this route.
governments only love men when there is a war, or to raise taxes. It is VERY VERY obvious that it is all about money to me and to anyone who studies why all this crap is happening to men. And it is nothing to do with NZ either, NZ just follows the rest of the industrial world in it’s laws. England & Wales have been taken DNA samples for years, it is only because there is a superior court, the European Court, that these laws were repealed. NZ is a small country and has no higher court
Much of what you say in your last post is correct I believe.
However you could also have added that seeing as women outlive men by about 6 years in NZ they form by a significant number the largest voting block in NZ.
Politicians know this and pander to women for their votes leaving men’s issues and needs marginalised whilst giving women greater and greater privilege – to the point now where men are an endangered minority sub-class who continue to fill up our jails, treatment centres, probation offices, cardiac wards, and ranks of the homeless and suicides. Men are are the sub-class who are devoid of reproductive rights and lacking in anywhere near the degree of state support in health, education and welfare that women take for granted (Ministry wimmin’s affairs, wimmin’s studies, breast and cervical prevention and treatment programs, women’s refuge, etc).
So demographically superior are women in fact that under the models of democracy we have in the anglosphere they can form the tyranny of the majority.
More than that though as marginalised and disadvantaged men and their beleaguered men’s rights activist representatives would in fact have had a higher court to turn to had the feminist Clarke government not severed ties to the privvy council under the guise of it being a mark of NZs independence.
However there is as other writers have pointed out a higher court of human rights that can be appealed to at the United Nations. It would be very interesting to see the response to a plea/pleas to such a court if and when a police officer in NZ is given authority to issue an on the spot protection order and effectively as Hans has so erruditely descibed it without trial and due process judge and sentence a man/men to periodic detention (20 weeks of anger management counselling).
Also to say NZ just follows other industrial nations in it’s laws is plain wrong. I can think of many laws it doesn’t follow with. For example one blindingly obvious one should be how it’s nuclear free policy is in stark contrast to ALL the major industrial superpowers laws in USA, UK, Germany, France, Russia and China which permit huge nuclear power industries and arsenals.
I think that you will find that in NZ, males outnumber females in every age group under 65, which is the case in every industrial country in the world. I don’t think that government policy will really be directed to cater for over 65 women, many of whom do not vote anyway. What Julie said is NOT CORRECT AT ALL !
And you said it yourself about the Nuclear Free issue, that is more of a government “policy”, than a “law”.
you minimize the importance of the grey voting block. A huge and very politically engaged and increasing populace in the anglosphere’s aging societies where baby boomers move into retirement as we speak.
Therefore I think it’s reasonable to stand by what I said previously.
It’s interesting to see the CIA’s population breakdown differs from that given by the NZ census bureaux and in turn the Daily Herald.
Also call them laws, policies, or purple spotted dishrags. It amounts to the same. ALL the industrial superpowers, apart from Japan often have different laws or interpret their laws in different ways to NZ.
please forgive me.
i should have been clearer in what i wrote.
What I meant to say was that ALL the industrial superpowers except one (Japan) have laws which allow them nuclear power and weaponry.
Therefore Julie can’t support her blanket statement that NZ just follows industrial nations laws with proof.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.
I disagree, basic NZ laws come from English law, most other legislation like family law are copied from other nations, in particular the draconian Child Support/Protection Order/Domestic Violence stuff originated in the USA in order to recoup burgeoning social security payments to single mothers. It all seems to be an international agreement , like the Hague Accords.
You miss the point Martin.
Julie was trying to assert that NZ follows ALL laws enacted by industrial nations that’s all. I am correcting that by discussing just one example of how NZ DOESN’T follow virtually every major industrial nations laws which allow for those nations to have nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.
I do agree the kind of NZ family law you refer to does tend to reflect that in USA.
you seem very confused skeptik , men must be concise and accurate when dealing with women
“New Zealanders do love fathers.”
What a surprising statement!
Where is your evidence? I’d be surprised if you can justify this claim.
There is of course plenty of evidence to the contrary most of which I assume you are aware of already.
My counter claim is that New Zealand is a hostile place to be a father. I can provide evidence to back up this claim.
I think that is the funniest thing I have heard on this site. Perseus is right.
Yes, Skeptic… start understanding women. (Ok, I know I am going to cop it for this but it is going to be worth it)
Dave, # 48 ..you have been in this …how long?
Wayne Pruden made a walk (2005) from …. now get a grip to this…
Hamilton to Wellington with an empty pram.
Seriously, he did that. And he made a petition which many of us got signatures for. And he got so many from women.
When it was over, some of the men here where angry because they don’t want fairness. They wanted blood. Or …they wanted ownership of women and children.
Seriously. Seriously. I am not kidding you.
The decent moderate men have only just gained the ground.
The MRM hated Wayne far more than the women did. Far more than mainstream NZ did.
Q. “Dave, # 48 ..you have been in this …how long?”
A. Nine years.
You can write me your apology for implying otherwise below.
“Wayne Pruden made a walk”
Yes I met and helped Wayne long before he made this walk. I tracked his walk and supported him.
This doesn’t really support your assertion that “New Zealanders do love fathers.”
In fact, if you were knowledgeable about all of Wayne’s story you would know it illustrates the opposite. His life experiences certainly illustrate my contention that NZ is a very hostile place for fathers.
Or perhaps your point is that there is the odd New Zealander that loves fathers.
Dave # 51. Shit. I didn’t know you were that Dave.
I seriously refuse to make an apology.
How about we just say that fathers are hated in NZ for the purpose of … whatever. Maybe this site and the support it can give to fathers.
I try to be helpful to Julie pointing out that she got it wrong in her statement earlier in the thread that NZ always follows industrial nations laws.
Then get you saying I’m confused.
Julie,no need to spit the dummy luv.
In which post number did she say about the “industrial nations laws” ? I cannot find it
# 51 + 52
Dear Dave, … Ahem … I apologise for thinking you would have been in this movement for less than 3 years.
And I do understand that NZ has been and is ‘unloving to fathers’.
They say that everything after the ‘BUT’ is BS, so instead of a butt, I just want to add that I considered and still consider Wayne’s walk to be a lesson that society itself, being the men and women in it, do see the bias and do love fathers.
I know it was something that some thought a waste of time but I thought it something very special that could have opened doors with the public. Yet, at the same time I am aware that some men felt they had already tried that.
Hard to know the right way but all roads lead to the same destiny.
Oh my god.
Now you want me to help you read….. sigh
was that an answer , or are you drunk AND blind ?
are you a female troll by any chance ?
Yes I get the distinction you are making between NZ systems and it’s people.
I agree that society, men and women, does see the bias of the family caught.
I also agree that there are some men and women in NZ that love fathers. You are right, in that Wayne’s walk did illustrate that.
As a whole though I don’t agree that NZ society loves fathers. Most people don’t hate fathers either. They just don’t value fathers all that highly.
Half of the next generation don’t even have an active father in their lives.
I also agree that what is needed is to “open doors to the public”. I don’t think there is a “right way” to do that. I think all ways are right. From reading your posts I think you might agree with me there.
I can’t think of a non-violent approach that hasn’t been tried by some individual or group. Yet the title of this thread is “no progress evident”. Which says it all.
Looking back I see that you were just trying to offer hope and encouragement. I didn’t mean to stifle your efforts so I hope you didn’t take my posts that way. Keep up the good work.
Perseus, your choice of words to Skeptik makes your comments priceless. (I am a mean bitch, sometimes) But I have to pull it up before it gets out of hand. He is a long time soldier in this and he himself is priceless.
The both of you should shake hands and work together.
OK Julie, for the cause, sniff, i know men have to learn to emotionally work together so that we can get our kids back, so i will work with this idiot, sorry comrade-in-arms, then ok
It was Martin who said the things he is rabbitting on about , not you, i did tell him that men have to be precise too
I think it will take a brave single country trying a different tack with family laws to change all this SHIT we are facing. Maybe a Scandanavian country, France, or a rogue US state (Texas ?) ! Basically all the family law is feminist-marxist , i.e nothing to do with common sense, open to complete abuse and doomed to failure.
The decay in society is getting quite serious in England really , due to lack of fathers.
Hey, don’t get me wrong. I don’t want men in NZ to be emotional. Excuse me while I just throw up over the thought. NZ will be doomed on that day for sure.
But then I know when a man shares society needs to listen.
I just don’t want to be the reason for the for the disagreement. And I certainly don’t want to lose good men in this fight.
As I understand it the Scandinavian countries are extremely feminist and socialist.
I gather attitudes and laws in Russia are quite different. Although it’s hardly a picnic for men there in other respects.
Yes i think so too about Scandanavian women, but many international social changes start there, but i think that most real family orientated women know that there is a grave problem with the family laws and they are affecting society in a very bad way,it is just the governments do not want to change the status quo.
They are VERY scared that Mum AND Dad will want to claim DPB . They want the man to pay tay and the child support, hence the draconian laws and punishments
I think that the mens’ movement needs 1 or 2 martyrs really , to really get the public attention. And maybe start to do some more “direct action” too, as a previous poster said, 1 man who breaks the law will be arrested, but 1000 men will be committing political actionm or something like that, lol
Do you want to know where this is leading?
Here is America’s High School curriculum.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not anti any of the 11 genders under the UN. But I do think it terrible that this is the leftist end plan.
Heterosexuals misery is tomorrow’s destiny.
my humble apology.
You were right. i was wrong.
The statement Julie made that NZ just follows industrial nations laws was
not made on this thread. She made it elsewhere.
Sorry for the confusion.
Good luck in fighting misandry in NZ.
It’s a shameful endictment of how appallingly bad things are for men in NZ
that this thread is soooooooo loooong.
Like some others who’ve posted their views on this thread I don’t believe
for a moment that if National brings in on-the-spot protection orders they won’t be used as a crude instrument to terrorize and abuse men with.
I’m sure somewhere along the line this will have been feminist inspired too.
Feminists don’t just exist in the Labour Party.
Have your days of calling yourself a feminist ended?
# Skeptic # 66,
That is sad. I would never use the term “Industrial Nations”. Now it is me who feels stupid.
Enough of this crap. I heard once that ex feminist men were the best for the fight. Exactly what sort of men was I listening to?
Ok, this is one of those Kodak moments.
Now we call them “You’ve been punked“. I sure have.
I was right all along, Skeptik was drunk and a little blind.
Look everywhere for a long haired scandanavian troll with “glass bottom” spectacles, i guess he sounds at least 70 too (Alzheimers ?)
You’re wrong this time.
The description you offer of me is only partly correct.
still calling yourself a feminist then, eh?
Skeptic, you are making some unusual assumptions from a post.
If you are referring to my first post on this site 2-3 years ago then: “No! I don’t call myself a feminist any more”.
As other writers here believe so do I – that the proposed on the spot protection order regime will give the feminists yet another tool to bludgeon NZ men with.
Nowadays any NZ woman can too easily get a protection order against a man with no evidence at all. She only has to say she’s fearful of him and bang, he’s removed from his home, can’t see his kids, the victim of the local gossiping classes who’ll often say “he must have done something abusive because there’s no smoke without fire”. Such gossip is no small thing either as women who use it will know. It can lead to whole communities turning away from an innocent man, even to his job loss.
I’ve seen all of the above up close.
Now imagine how easy it will be for a woman to turn on a few crocodile tears and raise the tone of her voice seemingly in distress the moment the police arrive to a household. The police will then take that as all the ‘evidence’ they need for a protection order to stick. The woman then gets to have a laugh down at the local cafe/pub/club with her mates about how she played the system and got the hapless chump evicted from his own home, sentenced to 20 weeks of periodic detention (anger management)and gets to keep the house and kids to herself.
How many guys have come across women who’d do such a thing like that eh? (rhetorical question)
So Julie, despite all the good work you do in support of NZ mens rights, whilst you remain conspicuously unsupportive of shooting down the draconian idea of on the spot protection orders I’m afraid you can expect to be under suspicion of being a feminist in MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) clothing.
Sorry I didn’t spell this out more clearly earlier, but there it is.
Oh and in case you think I’m singling you out too much Julie, I hold the same view of anyone else who knows of the on the spot protection order idea yet is conspicuously unsupportive of shooting it down.
One final thing.
Some years ago I myself was pro-feminist.
I went through a quite protracted period of saying I was no longer such, but unwittingly at first I still held many feminist views. It would have been entirely fitting therefore for others to question my assertion of no longer being feminist.
So you see Julie, calling yourself non feminist isn’t as simple as uttering the words. You don’t just get to stick a new label on yourself and that’s the end of the issue.
It is (to use the words of addiction recovery you’ll be familiar with) a case of “making a thorough moral and ONGOING moral inventory”.
That means rooting out every last remnant of our attachment (and reattachment/ relapse) to feminism.
Feminism had its place once.
Now it is an infantile self absorbed hate movement, long past it’s use by date and should be superceded by a maturer view of issues which considers all people not just women.
Skeptic, I agree that having a protection order placed on a man without him having a chance to defend it harmful.
The female can clean the house out while he is locked up for even a weekend.
“Yes, back to the drawing board”, I say.
Having both sexes working things out is the best way rather than just one side having all the say.
Strange how the law itself is not sexist.
In the case of men being communised, well, I do think this is a worry.
Julie does your comment above mean your going to actively work to see instant protection orders don’t become enshrined in NZ law or make sympathetic noises and sit on the fence on this issue?
I’m sure I’m not the only one interested in your answer so best make
it absolutely clear. No vague language or quibbling.
That way you won’t suffer being under suspicion of being some kind of closet feminist.
Clear answer: NO.
Thanks for your honesty.
Such moral cowardice engenders no respect from me.
I have my own name for people like you, but we can draw our own conclusions about your motives and whether you’re a closeted trojan horse feminist.
One like many a modern woman I’ve met who’ll make the occasional sympathetic noise in support of men’s rights whilst sitting back passively and watching those rights stripped from men.
The all too typical passive aggressive tactics of another modern woman.
Mind you I bet it’ll be a different story if ever the draconian idea of
on-the-spot protection orders comes to pass and a few women get it
used falsely against them.
I’ll bet then you’ll be first in the queue to complain.
Better hope some fembot doesn’t stitch up one of your male kin with a false accusation either.