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

Men’s issues for 2009

Filed under: General — Julie @ 5:05 pm Sun 7th June 2009

I was trolling men’s sites (as one does when one has some time on their hands) and came across Bernard Chapin on MND.

Of course I love the guy because there will never, ever be another human being like him to ever walk this earth. (even though he wears a different football jersey each time I watch his U tubes, lol)

OK, I just HAD to add the team stuff. Not much loyalty to a team if you wear different colours. But there is always a lesson when you judge. One finger pointed out and 3 coming back at you. (embarrassing)

Anyhow, this is political since feminism (misandry – man hate) is political. And although 3 fingers come back at men, 3 fingers go back to women. Men MUST speak up. If they don’t do it now, another generation is going to suffer or 2 or 3.


We have a new government and we have new people in the family commission and children’s commission. Try, try again they say.

But 40 years of hate and all funded by men’s tax money is a lot to change. I added the tax money bit because quite frankly men paid to be hated over the past 40 years. That to me allows men to ask for redress from the Government. But hey, I am speaking morally not legally. Legally, I am not sure.

Anyhow, back to Bernard. He has written about an article going back 4 years and refers to the policy of airlines to discriminate against men.

Dr Mapp told the Herald the airlines’ policy was an example of political correctness that had got out of hand. “I think this is a gross over-reaction by the airlines. What do they think men are going to do that women won’t? It is the same as saying men shouldn’t sit beside children on a bus.” A Qantas spokesman confirmed the Australian airline, which operates domestic flights in New Zealand, does not allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men. The spokesman said the airline believed it was what customers wanted.

Air New Zealand spokeswoman Rosie Paul said the airline had a similar policy to that of Qantas’. “Airlines are temporary guardians of unaccompanied minors so we have preferred seating for them.” Ms Paul said Air New Zealand tried to seat children near a crew area so crew could keep an eye on them and, when possible, children were seated next to an empty seat. “Sometimes this isn’t possible, so the preference is to seat a female passenger next door to an unaccompanied minor.” When the Herald asked her if the airline considered male passengers to be dangerous to children, Ms Paul replied: “That’s not what I said.” When it was put to her that that was the implication of the policy, she repeated: “No, that’s not what I said.” Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she commended the airlines for putting thought into the policy and for endeavouring to keep children safe.

Man hating Cindy (they had a doll as a role model for women under that name) has gone. Maybe it is time to ask the new commissioner whether men are BAD, BAD, BAD.

Maybe it is time to ask the families commission AGAIN if men are BAD, BAD, BAD.

Maybe it is time to ask our new ministers in parliament if men are BAD, BAD, BAD.

Maybe it is time to ask again for men to have the right to know if a child is his before he pays 19 years of child support. How many men have paid women and then learnt when the child turns 16 and consents themselves to a DNA test that they were conned out of 100’s of 1000’s of dollars.

Soooo, what do you think about making a new list of priorities for a new turn of governance?

It is all good that we run our own races and write about our own cases. But let’s be honest here. 40 years of your money has done so much damage to men and their children that you need to start somewhere as a group to redress this.

What should be the beginning? What are the priorities? TO YOU?

Please take the time to comment.



  1. I believe that misguided airline campaign was seemingly dealt with – Or should that read swept unter the carpet.

    The first of the Families Acts I want to see addressed is the DVA. It’s to much like using a sledge hammer to c`rack a nut.

    Followed closely by the CYPF act (and its associated Department.

    Third, Either abolish the ministry of womans affairs, or restructure it `as a ministry of Gender affairs to include men.

    Forth, probably the Families commission along with it’s sychophant the commissioner for children.

    The Family court needs a thorough turn over as well.

    Thats only a start and my top 5.

    Who can do better?

    Comment by Alastair — Sun 7th June 2009 @ 6:00 pm

  2. Thanks Alistair, great contribution.

    I do have bad news about the airline. I tried that one under the HRC. The airlines are being staunch to their policy. Maybe research needs to be done on exactly how many travelers want such a horrid biased stand.

    For others….


    1. to make amends for
    2. to adjust in order to make fair or equal: to redress the balance

    3. compensation or reparation
    4. the setting right of a wrong

    Comment by julie — Sun 7th June 2009 @ 6:44 pm

  3. I am told by our national carrier that they are just following IATA guidelines (maybe rules). International Airline Transit Agreement.

    IATA’s “Inflight Management Manual” (IMM), designed to assist airlines in
    compiling their own company service manuals. Section 4 covers a range of
    special needs passengers, including expectant mothers, unaccompanied minors
    and visually/hearing impaired and autistic passengers.

    I asked them to send me a copy but they claimed by inquiry was just vexatious and refused. Maybe someone else should try.

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sun 7th June 2009 @ 7:46 pm

  4. Julie,
    Here’s a list of priorities that if put in place would mean a much fairer go for men in NZ.

    In no particular order, but all very important…..
    1. Abolish no fault divorce laws.
    2. Allow couples to write their own marriage contracts which clearly spell out under what circumstances the marriage can be annulled
    (adultery, violence etc) and who gets what in the event of a divorce.
    The contract should be made legally binding by law with a new bill of
    parliament to back it up as such if neccessary.
    3. Scale back the family court to deal with (3) above
    4. Abolish the ministry of women’s affairs and hand over research into men’s and women’s issues to universities who’s research is by contract to be rigorously and regularly monitored by public groups and academic peers.
    5. Either increase Research and development funds for treatment of testicular and prostate cancer to be on a par with what is spent on breast and cervical cancer or scale back the latter until parity is achieved.
    6. Make the family courts totally open to public scrutiny as the district courts are wth a public space within them so that justice can be seen to be done.
    7. Amend domestic violence laws such that no protection orders are issued without corroborated evidence of domestic violence having actually taken place.
    8. Scrap rape shield law which keeps the accuser anonymous whilst not doing the same for the accused.
    9. End any and all publically funded campaigns which only portray men as abusive.
    10. Brig in legislation which means that any child support paid is based on bothe parties circumstances and may in fact not even happen due the contract negotiated
    in (2).
    (11) Set up a commission of enquiry to report to government on the dearth of male teachers particularly in pre-school, primary and intermediate schools AND the growing disengagement of males in education.
    (12) Set up a commission of enquiry charged with the task of reviewing ALL statues and legislative practices which disadvantage men (for instance the aforementioned domestic violence campaigns, the ‘male assaults female’ criminal charge, boys and adolescent male’s lack of male role models, Air NZs and male seating policy etc)
    (13) The commissions mentioned in (12) and (13) should have to consult first and foremeost with men (individual men and groups) for feedback about the issues they are charged to deal with AND to recommend to government any redress financial, moral and legal (As the waitangi tribunal has done for Maori.
    (14)Abolish the War Act which stipulates males only being drafted in time of war.
    (15)Make DNA paternity testing legal.
    (16)Join with other countries in creating an international effort to bring the male pill into being sooner.
    This is just off the top of y head I’ll let you know of any more ideas I come up with.

    Comment by Skeptik — Sun 7th June 2009 @ 11:25 pm

  5. Sorry but can anyone tell me how to ask a question in the forum section. I have looked and looked on the website but it has elluded me. I have just joined and I can’t find any link to start a new discussion. Thanks (clearly this is site designed by Men for Men and it’s Women proof!)

    Comment by Deborah — Mon 8th June 2009 @ 1:59 pm

  6. Hi Deborah,
    No It’s not woman proof, the reality is unlike the womens movement Mens groups welcome ladies.

    To start a thread you have to be an “Author”

    To become one, in the top right hand corner, there is a section headed “Contribute”

    Read and follow the links 🙂

    Comment by Alastair — Mon 8th June 2009 @ 3:34 pm

  7. What we really need is some leadership to address the real pressing social problems which are non-PC. However some specific items are listed below:

    1. Scrap the current child tax and replace it with a child support scheme based on real shared costs of raising a child.
    2. Default shared parenting in family law
    3. Replace the DVA.
    4. A complete overhaul of the family court process with much less discretion and much more open.
    5. DNA paternity testing compulsory at birth except by court order.
    6. I am beginning to come around to the view that a Ministry of Men and their children is desirable. There is so much social policy, inequality and negative outcomes that perhaps such an insitution is required. Take male education and health for examples.

    Note: University social research is highly feminist and peer reviewed by feminists so pervious poster’s idea in this area would not work without targeted funding. It requires government policy to be targeted towards noble PC sounding objective such as “gender equality in health and education”. This then becomes acceptable targeted funding.

    Comment by Dave — Mon 8th June 2009 @ 5:09 pm

  8. Thanks Dave,
    I like your ideas.
    I’m aware that universities are too often femmie enclaves which wouldn’t
    do proper objective research into men’s issues. That’s why
    I’m also suggesting that public groups also need to be involved.
    That way the university fems get scrutinised too!!

    To all readers – sorry about all the typos in the previous posting which
    I did in a hurry.

    Comment by Skeptik — Tue 9th June 2009 @ 2:34 am

  9. Thanks Skeptic, Dave and Allan for your ideas and contributing. I didn’t want to say thanks too early just in case it would stop men’s conversation.

    This is all good. Cheers.

    Comment by julie — Tue 9th June 2009 @ 4:06 am

  10. Thats OK Skeptic. The person who never has typos in their posts hasn’t done much posting!

    Comment by Alastair — Tue 9th June 2009 @ 9:52 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.

Skip to toolbar