MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

2 Comments »

1. 

   When Etta Ann Urdiales was murdered in Colorado, two completely different juries convicted two different people of the crime. Both juries believed there was only one murderer. One convicted Bobbie Hogan, a woman. The other convicted Jess Jacobs, a man. She got 10 years in prison. He was put to death.

   The Article continues …

   Others attribute the problem to the devaluing of male lives.

   But addressing the causes does little good when the public does not even recognize the problem. One reason we don’t is that the task forces we appoint to investigate the problem are just as biased as the legal system they are supposed to monitor, so a full picture of the bias never gets drawn.

   In 1980, the National Organization for Women and the National Association of Women Judges formed the National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts (NJEP). In 1986, they wrote “Operating a Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts: A Manual for Action,” which became the manual used by gender bias task forces nationwide. The manual opens by stating that gender bias operates more frequently against women and that it is not a contradiction for task forces to focus primarily on bias against women in courts.

   As one might guess, this is exactly what the task forces do.

   “None of (the commissions) study bias against men,” said Ramanathan.

   For example, even though men are more likely to get prison and women to get probation for the same crime, a New York task force claimed that it is women who were discriminated against because – get this – they receive longer probation periods.

   This is a good article ….. well worth the read for the in between bits.
   http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0423a.html

   Comment by julie — Sun 28th December 2008 @ 8:25 pm

2. 

   We do not need to look so far away from home as Texas, to see the effects of turning a blind or stupid eye towards women offending against boy children.

   A few years ago, if I recall correctly, there was an article in NZ Herald, where IRD admitted they were chasing over 100 boys, who were under 16 at the time of conception, for DPB recovery (child support). IRD were not interested in the issue of whether the boys were victims of sexual predators, or of DPB predators!

   I have not heard of any change in IRD’s rather blinkered attitude, so all we can do is to warn our boy children not to fall into such a hole, as the printed legislation about sex offenses is no defense for a male.

   There is still a bit of that attitude around in “judges”, that boys don’t need protection from sex offenders, as “men” want sex. This leads to very very young “men” being denied the protection of the law!!!!!

   Don’t take these laws seriously, we all have to live in the real world.

   If these laws will not work, in IRD or in the caughts, we must warn our children, to protect themselves at all costs. To not bluntly warn our children, is to act very irresponsibly.

   Moaning afterwards, only shows how ill informed we are about reality.

   I recall my ex-wife, when she was a social worker, talking about women foster parents being moved on, after sex offenses came to light. Similarly for men foster parents, when it hadn’t become widely known and fed to the caughts if it had become widely known. Unbelievable, sickening if we would choose to believe it. Its a lot easier to not believe it and just turn a stupid eye.

   While it is treated as a joke and swept under a carpet, the situation keeps getting worse.

   At least we are slowly starting to take these issues seriously, for some of our children anyway.

   When I have asked people with experience of dealing with boy’s who have been through such situations, they have said:

   1. some boys have been traumatised, if the coercion was threatening.

   2. some boys see it as a joke, but these have been led into treating sex as quick gratification, rather than as part of a careful and caring relationship. These associations are not as easy to throw off, as many people may suggest. In other words, it is not a joke.

   3. if the relationship was hidden by lies, then usually these will have harmed the boy’s relationships with other people. These behaviours are likely to weaken future relationships, as well as present relationships.

   I expect that IRD’s behaviours would have added to the traumatisation?

   In the absence of further information, it appears that IRD are continuing to traumatise young boys in this manner?

   The financial penalties being imposed onto these children must be part of the mythical $billion of penalties owed?

   How big would this unpaid “child support/DPB recovery” bill be, if the wrongly assessed bills were taken out?

   We might be caring for our babies better, if we allowed these underage fathers to care for these babies, rather than just chasing them down as “non custodial” parents – without even finding out whether they are skilled at taking care of babies?

   Cheers, MurrayBacon.

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 30th December 2008 @ 7:29 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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.