Jim Bagnall but not a Republican ??
I see Jim is a candidate for Mt Albert by election. However he is not flying a Republican banner, what gives?
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
78 Comments »
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.
Radio NZ says Jim is standing for UoF – GO – http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/05/19/1245b041e401
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Not a clue, I just hope Jim gets some good milage for men out of the campaign.
Comment by Alastair — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 6:40 pm
Oh, gosh. I love this guy so much.
He never expects to get anything. All he does is try to make men’s voices heard.
Doesn’t anyone understand that Jim Bagnall IS the leader of the men’s movement?
Comment by julie — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 8:27 pm
Actually…. (oopsy) … I think if all men voted including Maori groups, he would be the men’s leader.
Comment by julie — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 8:41 pm
Go Jim! You Rock!
Comment by xsryder — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 9:09 pm
I agree Julie. I have ALWAYS received a courteous and helpful reply from Jim. As far as Child Support goes, to me, he is the expert.
Unfortunately he is bedevilled by the malaise of the whole moovement. Most refuse to accept his leadership and expertise.
I hope we have many members in Mt Albert to vote for him.
Comment by Alastair — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 9:11 pm
Are you serious? Like who doesn’t accept his leadership?
Comment by julie — Tue 19th May 2009 @ 10:19 pm
NO HE IS NOT.
Jim is bloody good man, but the movement has not elected him – or anybody else for that matter – as its leader.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Wed 20th May 2009 @ 10:27 am
MOST OF US, as he has not been elected leader, and some of us have beenactive for over 20 years.
Sorry Julie, but you are NOT our kingmaker!
Comment by Darryl Ward — Wed 20th May 2009 @ 10:29 am
I should add that I am on no way demeaning the work of Jim, but he (along with many others) is A leader of the movement, not THE leader, and I reckon that Jim would be highly embarrassed if he knew that one or two people were calling him THE leader of the movement!
Comment by Darryl Ward — Wed 20th May 2009 @ 12:54 pm
I don’t accept his leadership as I don’t believe we have a “leader”.
Comment by Scott B — Wed 20th May 2009 @ 1:11 pm
I think I should have said ‘A’ leader Darryl.
I think Warwick is also considered ‘A’ leader.
I wish I knew all the people who are on the men’s side. I guess they too are ‘A’ leader.
Comment by julie — Wed 20th May 2009 @ 1:43 pm
That totally changes the meaning Julie, and I would have no difficulty accepting that Jim’s efforts over the years have demonstrated that he is one of a number of leaders within the movement.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Wed 20th May 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Movement?
All I see is a large disconnected assortment of hurting parents screaming out for a leader…but anyone who steps forward is shot to hell…anyone who suggests a leader is shot to hell…and anyone who gets frustrated with this and sets out on his.her own with initiatives is shot to hell.
Why do you think people like me sink back into anonymity?…sick of being shot at.
Laugh at me, swear at me, redicule me, call me names, even hate me…but I beleive nothing will change until this assortment of hurting parents gets organised with leadership and structure…I can see the leader now….he’s the one with target on his back.
Comment by xsryder — Wed 20th May 2009 @ 8:21 pm
Dear Julie,
Jim Bagnall is the “Leader” of the movement in NZ.
YES HE IS.
His credentials speak for himself, no election requires this status.
When the media look for a response from a downtrodden male perspective, they turn to Jim.
Jim has not the been in this Circus for as many years as some, but has validated his tenure to be called “Leader” by achievement.
McKenzie Friend well past the first century.
Historic precedence of being McKenzie Friend to both Applicant and Respondent to the largest case file of the Manukau Family Court which was thus amicably resolved.
National President of “UOF” and many other auspices give credence to this leadership.
Jim thus from physical result is foremost “Leader”.
John Potter is a leader.
Jim Bailey is a leader.
Wayne Pruden is a leader.
Ben Easton is a leader.
Murray Bacon is a leader.
Kerry Bevin is a leader.
Some even say I provide leadership.
I know personally why the above should be classified as leaders.
Many others are leaders by way of their conduct, exposing the sham of “Family Law”.
[Personal attack deleted by moderator, please treat each other respectfully.]
I get sick and tired of wafflers who provide no realistic input and neither a physical remedy to perhaps a desperate visitor to MENZ seeking some type of guidance to problem thrust upon them.
I Always Remain in Kindest Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09) 271-3020
Comment by Paul Catton — Wed 20th May 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Paul – Nice to be mentioned in the top 8 – However there are many missing – The most important are those doing and /or attempting to Parent their Kids, most obscure – The many who have committed suicide or suffer terribly in deprecision and or ill health due to the stess and injustice layed on them for trying to Parent their Kids – Many have never heard of us or we of them – Without reference to order – What about the work of Rex McCann, Warwick pudney, Paul Calister, Stuart Birks, Phil (From Nelson), Peter Burns, Bruce Tichbon, Alan Harvey, Alan Candy, Bevan Berg, Bruce Cheriton, Daryl (Tauranga Match), David Ferguson, Rob Murray, Viv and the Napier team, The Invercargill team, The New Plymouth team, Paul Robertson (Pauls News), Chuck Bird – The many who have chucked in the towel as we have bitched and moaned at each other – Steven Gee, and on and on it goes – Shame so many have done so much – FOR WHAT? – Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 3:13 am
xsryder,
I couldn’t have said that better myself.
It is exceedingly frustrating to continue to read all the war stories, knowing there is a HUGE injustice, and all we do is carp and snipe, and there appears to be no cohesive unit, organisation or campaign that seeks to take a holistic look, do a holistic analysis and/or is prepared to embark upon a crusade to fix it. The frustration is such that I frequently have to refrain from seeking out the injustices and digging deeper because it just drives me to despair. It feels as if we are not getting anywhere….but at the same time we cannot give up. The Tall Poppy Syndrome is something else we have to overcome it seems. G.
Comment by glenn — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 9:44 am
The criminal offence of domestic violence is turned into a civil offense so that family court “lawyers” can monetize the accusation, which is of course, what motivates them to make so many false accusations. Add to that the virtual guarantee of an instant custody win by a female accuser, and you have one of the corner stones of the national family court scam industry.
Besides they could never process their massive volume of false accusations through the criminal courts.
It’s a “public/private” partnership!
Yep. Between complicit judges and their crony lawyer friends.
Comment by Ian — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 9:53 am
Jim Bagnall is THE most amazing man I have ever met in my life. Except for my grandfather who IS equivalent to King Solomon as the wisest man to ever live. And if you had the privilege to meet my grandfather, you would understand.
Jim is wise to all that has happened and he knows why. He is one of those very clever men who don’t need to prove their masculinity because they know in themselves who and what they are.
Jim has found the peace that souls can search a life time for.
He is funny, very creative, wise, understanding, passionate, compassionate, tolerant, confident, unbiased, sympathetic, has class and style, believes in people, is helpful, encouraging, ….. I could go on for much longer.
Men like this are a rarity in society. A rare gem in a mountain of rock. And he is himself a rock.
And yet, he has seen parts of this society of ours that would send you around the bend and wanting to give up and take your life.
He is strong enough to lead us all and unselfish (did I forget to mention that important trait) enough to let us all try and fail and try again.
He doesn’t preach, “I am man, hear me roar” but preaches “love”. Love is something missing from this world and damn it, we cannot continue on without it. “Love” has no boundaries, “love” has no fear. It is pure and the man Jim Bagnall has it. So much so does he have it, that you can’t help but feel it in his presence.
Very few people have what Jim Bagnall has. I have seen one woman with it. And she melts the hard core people, the truly dispicable who have to work hard to claw their way back to sanity. You only ever meet these types of people when you prove yourself worthy to be in their presense.
Comment by julie — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 10:59 am
The whole men’s movement is blessed to have such a man who has given his whole being and all he possesses to fathers and families plight.
He has walked through it all and I mean “ALL OF IT”.
He even cares so much that he tries to encourage others to learn from his own experience and to do better for themselves. He is definitely not a user. He doesn’t want to take from you unless you are able to give. And he will even teach you to give, without it costing as IT did him. He is a role model.
Xsryder walked to Wellington with a pram. Where does that happen in society? And what he received was, “Forget about the women who care for men. Us men must do this ourselves”.
No!. Jim Bagnall would never do that. This is OUR society. All of ours. It does not belong to men alone and it does not belong to women alone.
But, anyhow, I just wanted to say all this and took the opportunity.
Jim is sooo humble that he wouldn’t care to prove himself.
It kind of reminds me of my grandmother’s frustration. She used to say, “We sit amongst all the know alls in society and my husbands knows more than the lot. Yet he never speaks out. ” She would get frustrated at him (words) but he didn’t care.
Comment by julie — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 11:23 am
Anyhow, raving on …. (lol), we should all get behind him. I have quite a number of awesome booklets to give out when Jim is on the road. I want to help.
And I am sure lots of others want to help too. My cell phone number is
027 250 9751
And I am on a plan to txt 2 thousand txts per month for $10.
Txt me if you want to help. All donations are tax deductible and your time considered precious.
Comment by julie — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 11:30 am
I thought some time ago you posted on this website saying you would no longer be posting.lol
kind of funny you are still her
Kind of nice to now seeing what you look like your quite pleasing to the eye lol
Comment by Sam — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 11:53 am
Jim Bagnall on RadioNZ this morning 21st May-09
Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 2:40 pm
I am disappointed at some recent posts in this thread. I wish to comment on organisations, leaders and leaderships. I will probably disappoint most as I intend neither to promote nor condemn any of the suggested leaders
To make any organisation run, we need the planter or starter, the person who gets the idea, enthuses others and runs with it, them leaves it for the others, only returning to help boost it along.
We also need visionaries to guide people ahead and warn of the pitfalls.
Then there is the advertising department, they are necessary to “Sell” our product
The trainers must not be forgotten, to teach our workers and the wider public about our organisations philosophies.
Finally there must be our welfare department, the first aiders to care for the wounded both in body and mind.
We look at this hypothetical organisation. It is senseless having the world’s best advertising if the product is faulty. In our case, it makes no sense having a spokesman if they lack facts to back up what they say. It makes absolutely no sense having a men’s organisation unless we can help those virtually destroyed by the system.(Our welfare department) This organisation would founder without the despised money men (Bean counters) to stop us spending more than we have.
No part is higher (Or lower) than any other.
Equally the best leaders are the best at delegating responsibility, watching as each piece, no matter how small functions, not to criticise, but to praise when they do the job well. The best leaders never seek to “Blame”. If it doesn’t work, the work out what they can do better NEXT TIME.. Possibly the greatest leader the world has ever known once said “I joined to serve, not to be served”. A good leader is also very familiar with the adage “The only place success comes before work is the dictionary”
I hope we can all give up tearing down others. Rather encourage those that try.
It is for this reason Jim Bagnal is to be commended for his attempt to gain a seat in the house. We may differ from Jim’s methods; however I am certain we all fully support his goal. If we all get behind him his likelihood of success is much improved.
I read the other day a story about a person who constantly criticised and lied about another person. The time came when they realised they were wrong and came to apologise.
The one being criticised asked the other first to get a feather pillow, cut it then scatter the feathers to the wind. The apologetic person did so and asked “Is my apology now accepted?”
“No” said the first, “Not until you collect up all those feathers and put them back in the pillow”
“But that’s impossible” was the reply.
“I know. Those feathers are your words. Once scattered you can never take them back”
Something to think about?
Comment by Alastair — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 10:51 pm
Jim,
Are you part of Jim Bagnal’s election campaign? If yes, in what capacity?
Comment by Alastair — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 10:58 pm
I am only an encourager for James these days – Kerry Bevan spends many hours in the truck with him – I am flat tack with Ration Shed Stuff which has grown beyond my wildest dreams in all of its many aspects – By the way I need a good HandsOnMcKenzie Freind for a guy in New Plymouth – Got anybody out that way – The 2 I had have left the country for greener pastures – Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 21st May 2009 @ 11:05 pm
The problem is , is that “leaders” usually become dictators, power corrupts. What we just need is an organiser, a chief spokesman for men in NZ.
Comment by Ian — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 12:03 am
Ian – I agree with your ideas in post 17 – However the greater danger is simply that there is NO Man that can speak for all Men – Its quite rediculus to even conceive of it – In fact its down right insulting to ALL Men that such a thing is possible.
We need ALL Men, paticularily FATHERS to Stand and YELL about there lot and to turn NZ FAMILY Law and Social Policy on its head – For toooo long NZ FAMILY Orientated MEN have allowed the MP’s who make Law and Social Policy to do what they like with the creation of Law and Social Policy.
How to enthuse the masses out of APATHY is really the issue – I have done as much if not more front line work than most, from DEMO’s, to hundreds of letters and visits with MP’s, senior Bureacrats and local so called powerful people and for what?
I started when it was made obvious that my Sons Mother was about to use her pregnacy with him to traffic the situation for her own self centtred gain – My Son is now 13 – I fought all the way with a degree of support from the so called Men and their FAMILIES Movement but at the end of the day he lives with mum because the so called Men and their FAMILIES movement has no teeth.
Leadership will only change this in small area’s that the Leader sees.
There is much wrong with NZ Law and Social Policy.
Most of it deliberatly designed to damage if not distroy the **Whole Natural Biological FAMILY** and fund the Legal and Bureacratic fraturnities to do the dirty work.
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 6:51 am
Making Icons of any particular leader is ackin to Idol Worship, Julie
If we are going to Worship anybody let it be the God of our understanding – In my case the Creator and Savior of all that there is
To add a few more to the list of the many who have put themselves forward to acheive good things for the **Whole Natural Biological FAMILY**.
I must add – Craig Jackson, Andrew Wooton, Peter Zohrab, Bill Boyle, John Brett, Colin Chester, John Cooney, Martin Crosby, Peter Crosland, Craig Davis, Graeme Dingle, Tim Draper, Anthony Farrell, John Finn, Ian Grant, John Groom, Warren Heap, Ron hepworth, Peter Hug, Paul Ireland, James Kelso, the Knight Brothers, William Croon, Kobus and the many others from Tauranga, Frazer and the many others from Hamilton, the many from Christchurch and of course the many who have joined us in the last few years, the list goes on and on and on.
I have just opened the August 2000 book that I made and distributed of those in the then **FATHER Friendly Data-Base?** NOW the **FAMILY Friendly Data-Base?** which began in 1995 – The book then contained 73 pages averaging 24 per page and is even now far from complete – I notice that at that time I had not discovered Daryl Carlin nor Andrew Wooton nor Dave Llewell nor Murray Bacon etc so just shows how many have stood for so many years yet things continue to go backwards.
We MUST graple with this issue and find answers ASAP
In the meantime our list of Kids who have only one or NO Parent grows by the hour – The last time i did some calculations on this some years back it was around 300,000 – Mark Shipman yet another front line worker reckons it now exceed 400,000+
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 7:29 am
Hi Ian
As I see it (and this is just my humble opinion), the movement has evolved into two major but distinct functions: providing pastoral care for excluded fathers and other men; and lobbying for political change.
To the best of my knowledge, no organisation in the movement totally focusses on one or the other.
The women’s movement has many spokespersons, and the spokesperson for AAW can not represent CWI and so forth.
Meanwhile, in the men’s movement, much of the best work is done by those that do not seek attention for themselves (and are therefore probably not known to many of you).
We have in the past tried to set up national structures (e.g. FARE), and UOF is probably our only real national organsisation, but it this stage, it would seem that we are in not in the place where somebody can speak for anybody.
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 8:04 am
Either way, (idol or not) I hope Jim gets to see all his work mean something while he walks this earth.
Comment by julie — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 9:42 am
#20 “Meanwhile, in the men’s movement, much of the best work is done by those that do not seek attention for themselves (and are therefore probably not known to many of you).”
Another reason for posting using a pseudonym
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Agreed Skeptik… plus JB has a pretty bad rep outside the mens movement. If you talk to people who know little about the situation/topic they know who he is, which is good, but then they always have a negative view of him.
Comment by Scott B — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 12:36 pm
Others forgot to add Bob McCoskrie from Family First to the list of leaders.
(Just saying).
Comment by julie — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 4:26 pm
#21: “Another reason for posting using a pseudonym”
The use of pseudonyms does concern me. There are many that post on this site that have a reasonable profile within the movement yet hide behind pseudonyms. This raises issues of credibility.
Obviously, there are valid reasons for anonymity, such as when one is being victimised by the system and is seeking confidential advice. There should always be provision for anonymity in such circumstances
However, when people that have been named as ‘leaders’ in the movement are not prepared to use their real names when engaging in debate with others in the movement, the inevitable question is why.
Kind regards
Darryl Ward (my real name)
Comment by Darryl Ward — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Bob is a top man as are many more, and now has 5700 people receiving his Emag – About ten times more than the Men and their Families movement that float around, MENZ, Paul and Chucks News.
Bob on his own would acheive more lobby in one day than all of us put together in a year.
Now you are talking leadership.
The lobby that Rex McCann acheived with his speech to ALL Family Court Staff from reception to Boshier, 3,000+ probably acheived in one speech more than we acheive in a year. OOPs and written BOOKS and given 100’s of persuasive lectures to University Feminists to honour Men and especially Fathers.
Now you are talking Leadership
Warwick Pudney, 3/4 Books, Mens studies AUT, Founder ManAlive, Chair and committee on many a Man and or FAMILY group, warring with the DV industry for integrity instead of destrustice all Men are bastards aproach.
Now we are talking Leadership.
Paul Callister, Stuart Birks, Richard Eames, 100.s of lectures and years of Select Committee work
Now you are talking Leadership
Ian and Mary Grant over the years have encouraged 1000’s of Parents and been invited to effect change within Family Law and Social Policy and in that have lobbied indirectly for 30+ years.
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Remember Scott, there are two Jim B’s in the mens movement. It is easy to get them confused. Both have the correct goal in sight. Unfortunately they have very different methods of getting there. Unfortunately it can be easy to confuse them.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 5:18 pm
jim,
Thanks for the post.
Holy shit!
All that leasership and we’re still barely above the bottom of the cliff!
tick..tick..tick…
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 8:09 pm
Jim,
Thanks for the post.
Holy shit!
All that leasership and we’re still barely above the
bottom of the cliff!
There’s food for thought.
tick..tick..tick…
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Daryl,
I’m really clear that I use a psuedonym because I got terribly shafted
by feminists and thier friends.
I’m therefore trying to be careful that I don’t leave myself open to
being damaged further.
If you can’t empathise with that too bad.
Skeptik (not my real name)
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 8:18 pm
As I said, skeptic, anonymity has its place, such as when people have been victimised and can only share safely when it is done anonymously.
From what you have said, this includes you.
However, I also have seen anonymity being misused by cowards in order to attack others in the movement while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, and these include people that have been named in this thread as so-called leaders of the movement, and I have seen mass use of pseudonyms to bully people whom do not identify with a particular bloc.
Anonymity has its place, but it should not be abused.
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Fri 22nd May 2009 @ 8:38 pm
What a dilemma…
I use a pseudonym because I work in a female dominated area of public health and I value my job and the important role I play in the community. In fact I was the first male in New Zealand to be employed in this role, and I liaise with female psychologists, social workers, nurses, doctors, and sometimes even heads of government departments and DHBs, all of whom give me excellent feed back about my character and work ethics (imagine if I was to take on the Family Court judges and psychologists again with these people now behind me…). I do discuss the issues raised in this forum and my own Family Court nightmare with women in the field, but I am very careful who I talk to and what I say. To date every woman I have ever discussed the issues with supports me (us) one hundred percent, and I know that I would get their support should I be involved in a public campaign in the future, such as the earlier Walk to Wellington. The problem I have is, the moment any of them discover I have close ties to people that appear to be anti-feminists, women haters, hippies (sorry *** but that was the common comment), anti-leaders, swastika sign wavers, verbal abusers etc, my support is lost, credibility shot, and my employment impacted.
I find it ironic that despite being included in the above list of fathers with potential leadership qualities, and my name still being mentioned years after my last public action and newspaper mention, my calls for the disjointed assortment of hurting parents to get organised and get leadership continues to fall on deaf ears, and the anti-leadership brigade still shout loudest and tear down those who see good leadership and organisation as vital to moving forward.
I still believe that one well planned event that appeared to be supported by all persons who want the Family Court cleaned out or abolished altogether, would be all it would take, yet that can only be achieved with unity, good planning and great leadership. It is important to remember that most of the signatories to the Wellington Walk petition were women…so it is vital that any self appointed spokesperson under the “no leadership” style of campaign does not speak in way that destroys that vital support or just as importantly, does not echo the sentiments of the majority of Family Court victims.
How many years have the anti-leadership brigade been campaigning without success, and will they ever consider changing their style or strategy? It may be that fathers and children will have to wait some years until the anti-leadership brigade pass on and hand the campaign over to new blood who will value the importance of leadership, and deal with the issues in one well planned and executed national action.
I should probably now disappear back into silence, and perhaps return in another year or two to see if the so-called “movement” has matured enough to realise the importance of leadership and a united voice.
Take care all of you, and best of luck.
xsryder
Comment by xsryder — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 5:49 am
I can sympathise with your situation to some degree, but a leader in the movement cannot remain anonymous. He or she needs to demonstrate the courage of his or her convictions.
I worked in the health sytem until a few months ago. I was the only male in my organisation when I started, and I was relucant at first to discuss men’s issues with colleagues.
However, by being me, by being reasonable, and by demonstrating with my words and actions actions that what we want is reasonable and matter of social justice, I won over a lot of people.
What we want IS reasonable, but there are too many nutters on the fringe that want glory for themselves and are ruining our public image, and you have discovered this yourself, given that you are reluctant to be associated with swastika-wavers, and frankly who can blame you.
The nutter fringe seems to think it is world news when they get a meeting with a backbench MP, yet many of us have been working hard behind the scenes for years, and getting results, but not big-noting about it.
It is the quiet achievers and not the glory-seekers that get things done, and I cite the examples of Alastair Laing, Bruce Tichbon and Allan Harvey as people who put principles ahead of personalities.
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 7:53 am
Thank you for the undeserved compliment Darryl. Also to Xsryder. All this demonstrates that the seeming moderates make gains. Our goals MUST be realistic. For example abolition of the family court is not realistic. Maybe having it “Cleaned out” is. However to say that we call for a full and open public enquiry into it (And CYF also for that matter) is realistic. To offer a seeming practical alternative is positive and forward looking. The days of walks are gone. to often have they not been genuine – riding between towns in cars! Unfortunately the genuine one gets lost in cacophany of noise of the fakes. To be successful a stunt must have the general public “On board.” How often are “Walks” even of thousands laughed at. Yet one with a little old lady (Now deceased)
and a child at the head remembered – and listened to. Yet “Occupations” create only resentment and opposition.
Take a look at the Union of Fathers, a registered name BTW, not to be misused as some have. They are constantly chipping away from within. This organisation deserves far more support than it tends tp receive.
I look at the nominees of leaders. Most I have never heard of. Those I have tend to be only in a negative context. One or two may make the cut.
A good leader is humble (Teachable) they wish to help – not take an ego trip. I think we all remember Mahatma Ghandi. A humble servant of his people. The great leaders of history all had this quality.
Comment by Alastair — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 9:02 am
I see you are talking about me as part of the radical fringe Darryl for writing things on the net other than one board. (that you don’t approve of)
I don’t find the net to be anything more than a place people either let their frustrations out on, pass on information or chat. So I put a few things I have done on a few sites? What did it achieve except to get up men in NZ’s nose and elsewhere? If anything, maybe others will strive to do better just to knock me out! (that can’t be all bad, lol)
But other than that, it does NOTHING. It doesn’t DO anything.
Doers do. Writers write.
But this whole men’s rights thing is a lonely place to be. Everyone who is anyone knows that men don’t get a fair deal. Most who are in the social scene know that men have not organised their side and they know there has been conflict between men who are OK with women’s rights and are reasonable and men who think women should have never had a chance to challenge their gender roles in NZ.
When we were all writing about Psychologists and others, finding the faults in them …. they were getting upset reading the comments. They wanted you (a men’s movement) to come talk with them so you could understand their position and how they can’t come up with one size fits all.
The University heads and lecturers said, “We don’t have men’s studies as a paper because we wouldn’t get the numbers of men doing it. If men want it they need to ask and show us.”
But they did say, “The next decade will be about men”.
Women have tons and tons of research. Men have sooo little because sooo few are doing it.
Paul Catton was one of the best men to come here for a number of reasons. But for one; He started to question things by e-mailing the researchers who were quoted in newspapers. He came back to tell us what was written was not what they are about.
The whole men’s movement in NZ is about men. Only men. Men who come to you and others for assistance and once you give it they move on.
Xsryder is right. There is no enemy among most women. There is hardly an enemy in the community groups. Hardly even a politician. But this movement goes on and on about how unfair everything is.
Even judge Boshier said, “Show me fathers are important!” And I can’t understand how the men’s movement can’t do that.
Comment by julie — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 9:45 am
I see plenty NOT facing reality above – Blaming the lack of progress on those who have NOT supported a particular way forward is a bit old hat and really nonsence when you think about.
I see above some claiming that there have been gains
WHAT BULLSHIT
Some may need to do this to FEEEEL Good
Fact is there are MORE Kids without BOTH Parents today May-23-09 and thus half of their FAMILY
Fact is there are MORE Kids without ONE Parent today May-23-09 and thus NO Family
Fact is there are MORE Kids in CYFScare heading towards being further screwed up by a usually Anti-FAMILY brigade.
Fact is WINZ continue to damage the **Whole Natural Biological FAMILY**. MEN – FATHERS are on the back foot in WINZ by legislation and Bureacratic Womenz first staff.
Fact is those of us who deal up front and LOUD have LOST heaps personally because those who hide behind anonymity think they have someting more precious than those who STAND.
Fact is the Empire of Injustice expands daily
Fact is the DV Industry expands daily
Who is decieving who here?
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 10:01 am
Julie,
To clarify my point of view, I certainly see you on the list of nominees as a leader or at the very least spokesman. When I entered this debate I resolved to avoid naming people. Sorry if I have broken that resolution, but I felt you could do with a little encouragement from at least one man who respects you.
Comment by Alastair — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 10:04 am
Alistair, I appreciate you saying something nice to me about leadership. But the truth is that many women are out there in society caring for men and many are frustrated at feminists.
But the reason for men’s woes does not sit on feminists shoulders alone.
And women can’t do much. In fact, it would be wrong for women to take leadership positions.
I follow the families movement because it includes single parents. And I do want to get more involved in CYFSTALK. But at the same time I do hear from mothers of boys about things being wrong in our schools.
I have heard the men’s movement will snowball once it gets organised. And I have seen a small part of this off-line. I guess until the politics within are solved, round and round and round we all go.
Comment by julie — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 10:27 am
The problem is this Jim.
You complain to leaders in society. Then they go to work to find a solution.
When you were complaining about WINZ (3 years ago) I asked them about your situation. They said they were working on it and it was expected a plan would be in action in 5 years. They are showing progress and they still have 2 years left.
YOU get help from WINZ. You haven’t lost out. But a DPB wasn’t halved and 2 DPBs weren’t given. They found other ways to help you.
Sooooo, your way doesn’t work.
What could work is men being part of the solution. Sitting down and finding ways to progress with healthy men and women by teaching men and women.
Feminists have already destroyed the marriage ways of the past. Now is the time to rebuild it. And people are doing it for themselves. They have changed their vows to suit both of them which include things like weight and romance. They are working a different way and they are succeeding. Marriage is up.
Comment by julie — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 10:53 am
Agreed Julie. The current way men are going about it is obviously not working and needs to be changed.
Comment by Scott B — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 11:15 am
I think there is a lot of good men are doing behind the scenes. Rome wasn’t built in a day, lol.
Only these men who are leaders know what everyone else can do.
Comment by julie — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 1:13 pm
To clarify, **Julie’s claims because Julie knows my situation better than I do**
**You complain to leaders in society.** YES since mid 2000
**Then they go to work to find a solution.** (No evidence)
**When you were complaining about WINZ (3 years ago) I asked them about your situation.**
My complaining to WINZ started in 2000 – Your ask is one of many – Mostly from coleagues overseas who have since won their battles with the support of F4J and others – Jimmy and Kerry at least supported me in many of the meetings and in fact were asked to leave several meetings because they were so outspoken – We were also moved on from protests outside WINZ Takapuna several times by the Police because the local council is so deeply effected by the Womenz Movement that they would not give us permitts.
**They said they were working on it and it was expected a plan would be in action in 5 years. They are showing progress and they still have 2 years left.** I have no evidence of any of these 2 statements
**YOU get help from WINZ.** I have NEVER received any help from WINZ toward FATHERING or careing for Javan. Yet his Mother sunbathed on the beach week about while he was with me.
**But a DPB wasn’t halved and 2 DPBs weren’t given**
I never asked for half the DPB in fact I beleive the DPB should be scaped under its current legislation. My Benefit is Invalids because of my reduced heart function and serious reflex issues – If they want to support Mother for doing half of a job thats their problem. I asked for half of ALL money alicated to fund Javan. So in other words I asked for half of what is because I did half the job – I never asked for more and certainly not the DPB.
**They found other ways to help you** News to me – Even if they did, how would that advance **Equal Parenting**?
The rest of your message has no foundation
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Jim, all I can say is that I have only known about your plight for 3 years.
Comment by julie — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Julie Et al – This is not aimed at Julie who’s heart I believe to be in the right place
However the above exchange exposes a major reason why we lose power in much of what many of us do.
I and eventually with the support of Jim Bagnall and Kerry Bevin bring an important issue which affects 1000’s of Men and their FAMILIES to MP’s and the authority concerned in forced to negotiate. We push them as hard as we know how – Along comes somebody with an ounce of info – Negotiates with a different set of officials – Is told a load of porkies – The person who believes they are on our side believes these lies and spreads them around with no reference to the original negotiator.
We all lose and the officials including MP’s are off the hook.
The negotiators start again and the current KID loses his Dads influence.
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 3:16 pm
I hope ALL FAMILY Orientated Folk get to see ALL their good work mean something while they live in this world – Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 4:13 pm
Dear Julie
I was not thinking of you at all when I wrote about the ‘radical fringe’.
I accept the term is harsh, but it is an unfortunate reality that there are those who like to make lots of noise but lack the ability to think — and act — strategically.
As for ‘doers’, the most effective ones are those that gain significant results behind the scenes but do not blow their own trumpets. To give but one example, I think of the Shared Parenting Bill. Although it was ultimately defeated in the house, it was a milestone, and it came about largely as a result of the tireless lobbying of one member of the movement, someone who is more interested in effecting change than in being a hero.
It is people like him that are the real leaders of the movement, people that know how to think — and act — strategically.
Kind regards
Darryl
Comment by Darryl Ward — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 4:34 pm
The plight as you call it goes on – I will NEVER give up – Javan was **Equal Parented** week about in time for 11 years – 9 of those on a Single Persons Invalids Benefit with NO help from WINZ (ABUSE) and a hell of a lot of ABUSE from the so called NZ Men and their FAMILIES Movement which floats around Pauls and Chucks News and MENZ, luckily others stood with me.
I finally gave up when he was going crasy with the differences a few weeks after the Police were called to a scape between him and his Mum and I had become more unwell due to being tricked back to work thinking I would raise enough money to continue the Claytons **Equal Parenting**.
One of us had to let go – She was never going to as she needs to traffic him to stay on the DPB.
He knows the reasons he has to live with mum and is often here.
God help her, WINZ staff, her religious mates, those in the NZMen and their FAMILIES Movement that ABUSED me and those who never had the courage to support us when he finds the strength to say it as it is – I don’t envy any of you – His passion is far more powerful than mine ever was.
I only hope he learns early to temper it to progress for others in time to be useful.
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 4:39 pm
The Shared Parenting Bill presented NZ Parliament was never going to solve the real issues of **Equal Parenting** nor drive the Womenz and legal fraturnity toward integrity – It may have helped the Kids of the Rich and Famous have **Equal Parenting** but little else – It may have been a starting point, although I doubt it.
The Bill expresses one good leaders ideas and leaves an awful lot out.
We would of been very exsited for a little while but would have soon found ourselves in a worse situation as have the Australians.
Thinking I doubt it
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Sorry Jim, No! Just tell him to be wary of a lawyer called Paul Shearer. (Govette Quilliam) He over charges to the max, gives bad advice, then sends huge accounts!
Comment by Alastair — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 5:52 pm
OK – Thanks – Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 6:10 pm
With all due respect Jim, the SP Bill would have ensured that 50/50 was the starting point for care of children whose parents separated, and your comments about it supposedly only helping the “rich and famous” are quite remarkable. How on earth do you justify this view?
The SP Bill recognised that children have the right to love and care from BOTH of their parents.
The movement has never achieved anything else like this, before or after.
I was in the public gallery the night it was voted down and I will never ever forget it.
Kind regards
Darryl
Please enlighten us about the Australian system. I don’t pretend to know very much about it, but I have been told it is a vast improvement on what we have, so I would be interested to learn what you find wrong with it.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Darryl says
Thanks for this Darryl. I guess I just related to what you were saying.
I also think the shared parenting bill was a massive movement for men in NZ.
Comment by julie — Sat 23rd May 2009 @ 8:47 pm
What are you doing Jim? We have a group dedicated to helping CYF victims? There is a crying need for more in Auckland. Unfortunately the site has been hacked and is down at present. We have our Techs very active at present. This of course is the downside of being forced to have ourown overseas derver. Do you create this level of concern with any department. I should add there is a section for WINZ along with other problems in society. I don’t see you trying to help?
Comment by Alastair — Sun 24th May 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Alastair, Go to http://ration-shed-4-tier-foodbank.blogspot.com You will see what I am doing – I hardly have time to fart let alone obey my doctor who wants me to smell the roses – Blood tests in the morning in prep for more heart procedure it seems – Does that answer your question? Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Sun 24th May 2009 @ 10:14 pm
Back to the original subject:
Was this Jim? Somehow I doubt it but …….
More disruption at latest Mt Albert by-election debate
New 3:59PM Monday May 25, 2009
There has been a sticky interruption at a debate between the Mt Albert by-election candidates.
National’s Melissa Lee, the Greens’ Russel Norman, Labour’s David Shearer and ACT’s John Boscawen took part in the debate at Unitec Institute of Technology.
Debate chairman Greg Powell says there was one interruption when Mr Boscawen was speaking. He says an independent candidate slipped behind him and slapped a lamington on his head.
Mr Powell says the debate was an opportunity for students to find out who can best represent Mt Albert.
Comment by Alastair — Mon 25th May 2009 @ 5:24 pm
HAHA that’s classic. I wonder why a lamington???
Comment by Scott B — Mon 25th May 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Sadly it was not Jimmy who was messy with the lemington – He was not invited to the debate – Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 25th May 2009 @ 6:03 pm
Full of cream I guess! Though he should consider himself licke it wasn’t the more common egg. It could then be argued that he was an egg!
Comment by Alastair — Mon 25th May 2009 @ 6:12 pm
The definitive final on the mystery of who creamed the ACT Candidate. Today’s Dominion reveals him as Malcolm France, representing the people before proffits party. Interestingly the article also mention the group of candidates invited to participate in the debate. It did not include Malcome France!
Comment by Alastair — Tue 26th May 2009 @ 11:24 am
Which feminists and their friends?
Comment by Linda Callahan — Tue 26th May 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Neither was Malcome France! He went anyway and certasinly made a mark.
Comment by Alastair — Tue 26th May 2009 @ 1:45 pm
You all may wish to visit: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/politics/2441983/Candidate-gets-lamington-on-head?comment_msg=posted#post_comment
You can comment here on Jims ommission! The more the merrier.
Comment by Alastair — Tue 26th May 2009 @ 2:40 pm
How did you get terribly shafted by feminists and their friends? What is the false allegation of abuse against you Skeptic?
Comment by Linda Callahan — Tue 26th May 2009 @ 5:33 pm
NZ – Mt Albert Bi-Election – My Favorite Men and our FAMILIES advocate gets a mention
GO – http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0906/S00169.htm
Comment by Jim Bailey — Mon 15th June 2009 @ 4:59 pm
I read that he that he wanted do a Neighbours cameo :O. Not sure how true this is, has anyone else heard it? There’s a part of me that sort of wishes this is not true lol.
Comment by Alexandra Borge — Fri 8th January 2010 @ 11:23 am
Julie for goodness sake I wish you’d stop and think before you sound off with shameful and illogical stuff like –
“Doers do. Writers write.”
Writing IS an action. An action IS something being DONE! Duh!
Where would we be without the great writings that have spread ideas and helped create civilization!
And this which is absolutely outrageous!……
“men who are OK with women’s rights and are reasonable and men who think women should have never had a chance to challenge their gender roles in NZ“.
That’s one hell of an insult you give men there Julie.
What you’re claiming is that men who aren’t OK with NZ women’s now decades old ‘right’ to all sorts of perks that NZ men don’t get whilst NZ men don’t even get the full set of rights their entitled to (which make NZ women a dangerous law unto themselves) are somehow being unreasonable.
I reckon YOU are the one who comes across as an unreasonable and feminist.
I can well believe however, the flimsy excuses you say you got from academics about not initiating Men’s studies. They resonate with everything I know from many years of watching these folks in NZ.
But you don’t say who the University heads and lecturer’s were.
Please enlighten us.
And then there’s this gem of an observation –
“Women have tons and tons of research. Men have sooo little because sooo few are doing it”.
Er, yes, that’s true. Most academics I’ve met over the years couldn’t give a shit about men’s issues, with notable superb exceptions such as Stuarte Birke at Massey University.
I thought this statement bizarre, contradictory and very insulting –
“They (academics) wanted you (a men’s movement) to come talk with them so you could understand their position and how they can’t come up with one size fits all”.
So it seems that academics were saying don’t come to us to help us understand men’s issues from a men’s movement perspective, but come to us so we can make our flimsy excuses.
By the way many such NZ academics I know are strong advocates of diversity (But not when it applies to men and their issues it seems!)
Just imagine a university department head saying to a women, Pacific Islanders or Maori
“We want you to come and talk to us so we can tell you why we’re not interested in studying your group and it’s issues!!!!”
Holy shit!
If you were a member of the group hearing that you’d feel rightly insulted, alienated and discriminated against.
You go on to say –
“The whole men’s movement in NZ is about men. Only men.”
That’s a bitter and twisted thing to say about the men’s rights movement in NZ.
Sure it’s fair to say we want long overdue rights for men, but we’re not morons who don’t recognize that getting such rights will impact on women and children too.
Case in point.
If men deservedly get the right to being treated as innocent until PROVEN guilty under DV law instead of being criminalized soley on the word of a woman with NO corroborative evidence, in other words get due process, there will be a knock on effect for women and children.
I don’t agree with this statement either Julie –
“There is no enemy among most women, community groups, politicians”.
In over 20 years of living in NZ I’ve often seen women of all walks of life being confronted about their privileged position vis-a-vis men HAS NOT resulted in those women actively championing the cause of righting this social injustice and bringing about fairness and balance for their menfolk.
By contrast the vast majority of NZ women I know will first argue like hell with you until convinced that men deserve a fair shake there, then agree with you in private that men deserve human rights BUT ALWAYS find excuses for being passive and inactive in changing things.
An example would be the countless nurses I’ve spoken to over the years who acknowledge that testicular and prostate cancer treatment and research don’t get anywhere near the funding thrown at breast and cervical cancer. And they do sweet F A to change that situation.
That’s called being passive aggressive in my book, and when folks can agree (talk) that I’m oppressed, have the capacity to help me move out of oppression, yet willfully remain passively disengaged from DOING anything to help then I consider them to be behaving as enemies.
You provide perhaps the most glaring example of this with your final statement –
“Even judge Boshier said, “Show me fathers are important!” And I can’t understand how the men’s movement can’t do that”.
So in other words we have to go to Boshier and plead with him that fathers are important!
That takes an awful lot of digesting Julie.
Imagine Pacific Islanders or Maori or women being told by some senior professional in NZ that they must show they’re of any importance!
Such is what I’ve come to expect from misandric NZ.
What saddens me further is how you seem to oscillate from saying wonderfully supportive things in favour of men’s rights in NZ to the kind of simplistic feminist insults I’ve outlined above.
I now wait to see if I’ll get flamed by you yet again for challenging you or whether you’ll be mature enough to respond without further insult and false accusation.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 8th January 2010 @ 6:37 pm
Umm.. I don’t know Julie personally but from her work (she is a doer and a writer) she strives for equality IMO. I think that’s what we all want. Skeptik; you seem to want to start a fight with everyone at the moment.
Comment by noconfidence — Fri 8th January 2010 @ 10:20 pm
Hi, I am the father in a faimly, with my wife of five. Two of our children are mine, from a previous relationship. I also have two other children I have barely seen… no I have no criminal records etc. I recieve the minimum child support for my two boys, about $70 a month. I pay out about $450 a month for my two other children. That is based on an income of $60,000 per year. My children at home are missing out even with our working for families income. I have had an administrative review done, and IRD and the courts feel all is well. Does anyone think different to them as I do?
Comment by stacy — Sun 4th July 2010 @ 12:33 pm