Shared parenting – Do you think children have a right to a relationship with both mum and dad?
Lately I have been receiving e-mails from mothers introducing themselves as being in a shared parenting arrangement. It is nice for me to hear this because after 2/3 generations not very good at sharing, we have a new generation mediating between each other well.
I am worried though, because I have been to a radical feminist meeting where they’ve said fathers who use the family court as a means to be in their children’s lives just want control of women, and I know here in New Zealand we do have a national group of radical feminists who lobby against shared parenting.
My worry has turned to fear by the actions of radical feminists and their radical socialist male supporters in Australia where father’s groups worked hard to change the law in 2006 so fathers could share their children and be a part of their lives as they grow up instead of just paying child tax to the mothers.
I like what Australian journalist Angela Shanahan of the The Australian newspaper had to say on how feminists are depriving children of their fathers. I’d enjoy reading YOUR opinion and perhaps having some discussion over this; Do you think children have a right to a relationship with both mum and dad?
Angela tells us, … according to Australian newspapers, shared parenting is “on the way out,” to be “rolled back,” considered to “bring little change” and “failed children”. This is due to radical feminist’s anti male ideology and their tax paid lobby.
She starts her article by mentioning two stories that hit the headlines where feminists went nuts. The first was the hysterical reaction to Tony Abbott’s Women’s Weekly interview where he says fathers are responsible for children (other than paying child tax) ……. and the second over family law reforms in 2006 that father’s groups worked hard for. ……She says:
The reaction is puzzling since it goes against a supposed feminist notion of equality: that fathers and mothers have equal responsibilities and roles in their children’s upbringing.
She is right to be puzzled. Feminism WAS believed to be about equality. Women and men were both supposed to challenge their gender roles of the past. Women were encouraged and welcomed (by most men) to enter the workforce while men were supposed to be encouraged and welcomed (by most women) to enter the home to share the responsibility of raising their children. Feminists denying fathers to raise their children is far from standing for equality. …..Angela continues,
Adding fuel to this is a report by Richard Chisholm and a psychologist, Jennifer McIntosh, that concludes the reforms of 2006 have not benefited children, especially in acrimonious situations, which one might have thought was obvious.
Since only 16 per cent of parents practise shared parenting — and, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, most arrangements work well — one wonders what Chisholm is talking about. To work well, they must be non-acrimonious.
There is a reason for the difference in the reports. The Australian Institute of Family Studies most likely would use statistics through collected data while feminists make their report based on work they do in the community. Because they work with men and women in dysfunctional relationships, they’d be expected to say shared parenting doesn’t work in acrimonious situations.
Feminists including Psychologists follow radical feminist ideology which is, man = perpetrator, woman = victim. They send men to prison and women to refuges. The only reason they would say shared parenting doesn’t work for children is because they don’t believe heterosexual relationships are any good. Radical lesbians are major leaders of the radical feminist movement. They say to love a woman is to hate a man. I believe they mean men are competition for female sex.
…Back to Angela….
But there is more. According to Chisholm many parents — read mothers who still are the main carers of children post-separation – are being “coerced” into shared arrangements by fear, and by a presumption on the part of the father that shared parenting equals 50-50 shared time.
In other words, Chisholm is saying mothers are being coerced by the law to share their child with the other parent, being the father, when it goes to the family court and she must obey the law in fear there may be consequences. You see, Australia unlike New Zealand holds (some) mothers accountable if they alienate a child when shared parenting has been ordered.
Chisholm can’t be talking about women fearing shared parenting unless it goes to court because there is no law to say parents who work things out themselves or women who have for real been abused must share their children.
Also Chris is saying it is wrong for a father to presume he is one parent of two and that sharing between two = 50%. I can see this being a problem for a mother if she is wanting a higher rate of child tax from a father.
According to Chisholm, an unacceptable number of children in court-mandated shared care are exposed to unnecessary levels of acrimony and possible violence.
I’m not so gullible to guilt trips these days. As much as I don’t like the idea of a child being harmed I can’t be suckered into thinking one child is one too many (so to speak) when I know the alternative has thousands of children suffering. It just doesn’t make sense to me to destroy every father and child relationship because a few fathers could possibly harm their children.
I personally get sick of all this possible abuse being an acceptable excuse. As the saying goes, anything and everything is possible. You just can’t go around in a healthy society putting everyone at a disadvantage because they could possibly do something negative. Either fathers are abusive or they are not. If they are, arrest them, and proceed in the criminal court. If they are not or you’re dealing with a far fetched possibility based on someone’s gender, set them free.
However the legislation is clear that where shared care has been ordered by a court, the presumption of shared care is dependent on there being no violence; putting a child into a possibly violent situation contradicts the law. So what is all this about?
Shared care and domestic violence are separate issues. Children should not be exposed at any level. But there is definitely a risk of violence to children due to family breakdown and not simply from the father, but from the mother and other males.
Well, this is it. Radical feminists believe children should never trust a man, be he a father, policeman, teacher or church minister. Their work to destroy relationships between fathers and children is way off the mark. It is the dysfunction in a break up that harms the children and instead of society allowing radical feminists and their socialist male supporters to negatively affect every man, woman and child, society should be concentrating on helping families through this difficult time with education, support and encouragement.
If we want to fix child abuse that is another issue. Mothers are more commonly perpetrators of child deaths than fathers, and boyfriends are six times more likely to be perpetrators of physical and sexual violence than biological fathers.
She makes a great argument pointing out domestic violence and shared parenting are two different issues while giving some facts about child abuse. She’s correct that biological fathers are the least likely to abuse their children.
It could be that mothers spending more time with children than fathers makes the difference but if this is even slightly correct, fathers are no more of a threat to children than mothers.
Mother’s lovers are a worry and biological fathers have a right to care because it’s their child being harmed. Sometimes a mother is piggie in the middle of two sides that war for her attention. Sometimes the new lover will use his adult strength to force a child to step in line while sometimes the new lover becomes sexually attracted to the daughter or son. The children are not connected to the new lover the way fathers are.
But I’ll tell you that we have thousands of adults in New Zealand who have stories of abusive step mothers and dad’s lover. The abuse of children is not only a men’s issue. …..Angela goes on …..
None of this bothers those who want the 2006 reforms abolished. For them mothers must have autonomy even at the expense of a child’s relationship with its father.
The sad reality we are faced with is that radical feminist ideology is about women supremacy. The last thing radical feminism will allow is discussion where women supremacy is threatened.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland has said the catalyst for the Chisholm report was the death of little Darcey Freeman last year, allegedly at the hands of her father. According to this newspaper, her mother was intimidated into surrendering her.
Curiously the intimation is that only fathers who intimidate pose a risk. They don’t. When Gabriela Garcia jumped off the same Melbourne bridge with her baby later last year, no one began an inquiry.
These deaths are tragedies, the product of despair and madness, not a catalyst for gender wars.
Isn’t this amazing. Both a man and a woman at separate times kill their child on the same bridge and yet society allows an over powered, seriously ill interest group to change the law and destroy thousands of children’s relationships with fathers by selecting one child’s life to matter while the other child’s death is hidden.
There are many more words Angela wrote that is of interest. I’ll just leave with her ending.
As Patrick Parkinson, a principal author of the reforms, has said, “In the past 30 years, we have sown the wind in the revolution in attitudes to sex, procreation and marriage. We are now reaping the whirlwind. The societal problems which this has caused are problems that no law can resolve.”
Family breakdown contributes to child abuse; shared care does not..
I guess we are only good enough to go to war… LOL
See my previous post about about how I’m struggling to keep a shared parenting arrangement working but failing due to the controlling mother and state constructs. As a result my children are being abused. I’m probably not in the best mood to comment further on radical feminists as it will just come out in a torrent of foul abuse…..
Comment by noconfidence — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 9:12 am
Absolutely. My 2 were what we would now call “Share Parented” My son is doing well, hapily married. A side benefit I saw from not excluding the other parent – If (When?) a new relationship started the other parent still loved and trusted by the child(ren) through what can be a traumatic time of their lives. What also is essential is communication between the adults and boundries for a new parent. This communication and trust becomes essential to stop children playing one parent off against the other.
50/50 shared parenting is the best for all parties.
Less agency intervention is better.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 9:45 am
i have a shared care situation…works well when 1 particular party stopped playing games and i can relate to all the accusations of control and alterior motives…what a fucked up last 15 yrs ive had
Comment by ford — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 9:50 am
Equality doesn’t require enforced legislation. You just have to BE equal. You have to believe that you ARE equal.
Extremist Feminists prey on those displaying serious self-doubt issues that are best rectified by Psychologists, Counselors and in some cases pharmaceuticals and psychiatrists.
Of course every child is entitled to have a relationship with Dad, Mum and the rest of his or her extended family members.
Since when should farked-in-the-head family-terrorist lesbian-man-haters influence the mental health of our children and out future society? These militant domestic terrorists should be declared a hate group and criminalised, apprehended and treated.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 10:09 am
…And then you hear the Southern hemisphere Western European Woman cry in despair…. where have all the Good Men gone….!!!!!…Heavens forbid …
It so obvious,why the is a so called Man drought ….Australia and New Zealand Men are starting to form relationships/marring with other woman from different nationalities…That haven’t been corrupted by this feminazi brainwashing of this social engineering Feminism …..
Thailand here I come again in 2.5 years time…Yes…Again I am in count down mode and I will never have to put up with this Evil Empire (A Direct quote from ‘Erin Pizzey’) of this Western European Socail Engineering Feminism….
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 10:41 am
My experience of sharing was that I had to sign on for it longterm or nothing. I found that the law was brought out time and again to punish me if I did not get as involved as was expected. Pressure was brought to bear at all angles and there was no let up.
I cracked and ran for it. My son lost his father but I gained my sanity. I was depresseed and out of sorts for YEARS, it was terrible but I put my foot down and said enough.
My ex hates my guts and is only civil when it’s in her interest, sharing? I think not.
I would probably check first for sharing ability befor getting started…
I like to think I am pretty reasonable but in the heat of the moment it’s hard to stay on task. I found that I was dragged into the sharing zone and told to “just do it”. My brain just switched off and things were terrible.
I am not a loser and I have had to face up to what I have created but hells teeth I got the stick enough to make me change my tune…
Sharing, it’s not equal, just fractional.
Rob.
Comment by Robert — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 10:45 am
I think that should be a colon after sharing…
Comment by Robert — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 10:51 am
A Femily Court judge told me that I have NO RIGHTS in his court and shared parenting was impossible. I told that same judge what has happened since I was shut out of my childrens’ lives and he ran away saying ” I don’t care”. I WILL GET EVEN with the scum feminist driven court of male hatred.
Comment by dad4justice — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 11:23 am
Reply to Dad4justice
….Yes,I have heard exactly the same remark from a Family Court Judge when I was in the Family Court giving moral support to a very good Friend of mine who was going though sheer ‘Hell’ in the Family Courts…
And Good Sir the best form of ‘getting even’ or ‘revenge’ is having a happy and successful for-fulling Life…….
Please Good Sir,don’t let them awful emotions consume you…I nearly went down that road myself..And I am so glad I didn’t ….Now I use ‘Tongue in Cheek’ my ‘provocative S@#t Stirring’ sense of humor when debating with banshee screaming kiwi social engineering Feminazi feminists…And do I get them Feminazi Feminists ‘Frothing at Mouth’ …???…Yep..!!!.Damn straight I do.!!..L.O.L…
Kind regards to you Good Sir….John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 11:42 am
From what I have read, objective research shows that shared care usually significantly reduces acrimony between separated parents even where such acriomony existed before the commencement of shared care. Of course, there will be exceptions.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 11:54 am
I would support that Hans, and that was my experience. The less the use of “Agreements” etc. the better it works. In my case the children were 7 & 9 at the start and left to go flatting!
Comment by Alastair — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 12:00 pm
I am married to a man who has 50/50 shared parenting of his daughter . We have had it for 5 years now. The parents communication is minimal but the arrangement works really well and the daughter is doing well at school and is thriving with having time with both parents. The only thing we struggle with is the logic that despite shared parenting we have to pay child support. This seems ridiculous. Let’s hope the extremists stay out of the way to a process that works really well from our experience and indeed other same arrangements we’ve observed.
Comment by Annieb — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 12:07 pm
and if you are stuck with an ex that can’t do anything without legal agreements (including for a $40 goldfish aquarium! – i’m not kidding here)
Comment by noconfidence — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Sounds great, though I know what you mean about child care. I just had yet another letter from IRD telling me to forget my job-seekers allowance cause they want it all for child care – ha! What are they going to eat at my house?!
Applied for DPB and failed because WINZ staff can’t see that 45% shared parenting is actually ABOVE the 40% threshold. Duh!
As you may tell.. I’m having a bad day…
Comment by noconfidence — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 12:14 pm
I don’t know whether your information regarding those thresholds is correct or not … but… whenever I’ve received a poor service from a Public Servant whom I believe has seriously erred I’ve phoned the relevant Minister’s Secretary in Parliament and with excellent results every single time. I’ve done this at least half a dozen times within the past two years. They have been very helpful each and every time. Give it a go!
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 1:49 pm
Reply to Annieb
‘Kudos’ to you fine Lady…As in been married to Man that as Children from a past relationship….That is on the whole is not a easy situation for you to be in sometimes…
Especially if the Ex partner decides to use the Children as pawns because she is so jealous and spiteful that her ex partner is in a happy and committed relation with another partner….Hope both of you have great marriage and a happy Life together…
Kind regards to to both of you….John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Annieb, I am in the same position as you except I am single. I care for my son much more than 50/50 though as my high paying shift work job allows me to take time off during every set of school holidays. So I provide morning care while my ex works. She is also living with a high income partner in a flash house. My home has half the rateable value of hers and needs repairs. She has a fairly new car…mine is 12 years old.
I usually take my boy away on holiday. My ex never has. I buy him clothes and help pay for his educational needs.
Even so, I still pay my ex $418 a month. Why? It means I pay far more to my ex than she needs to raise him when he is in her care. She pockets the remaining money after feeding him. She does’nt bathe him. Her partner has been verbally abusing him which is why I won 50/50 shared care plus a bit more.
Basically I deal with a very greedy woman who cares more about the money and her partner than she does her own child.
The answer to the question is YES..I DO BELIEVE KIDS HAVE A RIGHT TO A RELATIONSHIP WITH BOTH MUM AND DAD, but I believe costs should be equally shared as well instead of this rip off Income Based outdated system which parents exploit to their advantage.
I say a lot of parents exploit their children for financial advantage.
Yes, I have tried to work things out with my ex, but she claims poverty after her $800 cat was killed by a dog, not her dog even though she owns two.Guess my Child Support will pay for a new exotic cat.
Comment by Morris — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 3:59 pm
Actually the failed experiment was what went before in the previous four decades. After three years they’re saying the new approach has failed?
For decades we have been stripping children of their fathers. All the while every piece of demographic research demonstrates that the safest and most productive place for any child is with their natural father. Those pushing this reversion are trying to return us to a proven, genuine failure of our children. A “dark ages” for children and their fathers.
In Australia the “Stolen Generations” – aboriginal children taken from their parents during the early/mid 20th century – has been one of the biggest issues in the land for over thirty years. It’s been the source of royal commissions and even a formal apology by PM Ruddikins on behalf of all Australians.
In the future this phase in our history will be viewed as another creator of stolen generations. Generations of children robbed of the love and care and guidance of their fathers. For what? For the appeasement of angry, hateful women?
As an aside the folk pushing us back to the old custody system are also the same folk who push the gender wage gap myth. Here and now they are visibly trying to dismantle one of the things that may contribute towards a narrowing of that “gap”. They are either helplessly naive or acutely hypocritical.
Comment by gwallan — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 5:03 pm
My sympathy for you Morris. I understand exactly where you are coming from.
Email me and I will try to give you some tips on how to get a better deal on child support. I can’t wait until the ‘Dunne’ nothing minister is replaced and nor should you. [email removed by moderator]
Comment by noconfidence — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 5:09 pm
Annieb;
Totally agree with John Dutchie’s point. Hope you and your husband enjoy life together.
Comment by noconfidence — Fri 12th February 2010 @ 5:15 pm
The magnitude of stolen aboriginal generations in United States, Canada, Mexico, Australia etc pales in comparison with the magnitude of stolen generations in feminist dictatorships.
Millions of men jailed or plundered of their life savings, millions of their babies killed, millions of children bastardized, even women lost big: they lost best things in life that stolen money can’t buy and their heterophobic judges and police can’t order.
Yes, as Julie points, some relations work. Because woman is reasonable in her exploitation of man. But, all depends on her. Men are helpless. All men in relations with women are helpless, in case she gets angry. The relation can exist only if he successfully pleases her non stop. Because she has monopoly on violence, she has guns and jails. It does not matter if she will use her power; just the fact that she has it means that men are slaves. Every heterosexual relationship has been turned into a master-slave relationship.
Feminists are biggest criminals in history. We are witnessing the destruction of our society.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 5:49 am
Ivan Zverkov says… “Feminists are biggest criminals in history. We are witnessing the destruction of our society.” and
“Every heterosexual relationship has been turned into a master-slave relationship.” and
“The relation can exist only if he successfully pleases her non stop.”
All these statements are stemming from your illogical view of women. You condemn all women simply because of some feminists?
I don’t know where people like you come from and how you can comfortably excrete such extreme female-hating hypocrisy and try to resemble a person with common sense. The last time I checked the laws of the society was made by both men and women. In most parts of the world today, feminist do not run the show. They never have. They never will.
Like many of us that can’t make sense with the grief of loss of the very existence of the sane family unit in western society today, you will go through the 5 stages of grief starting with denial… and denial can be longer or shorter depending on how stupid you choose to be.
Comment by onewomanDV — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 11:04 am
“Eliminating 1 parent, grandparents, cousins and other half of the family = child abuse”
True or false?
Try asking women if depriving kids of half of their family is abuse! You’ll get the following statistics:
99% of women would pretend they don’t understand this question. They would answer unasked questions or switch the subject. And all men will answer: It is abuse.
1% of women would have the courage to say the truth.
Discussion
The reason for women avoiding this question is obvious:
All women, even the dumbest one, know that abusing his kids hurts him most. And all women like to have that big club to punish him. Just in case they want it. It’s her monopoly to violence that feminist barbarians have given to every woman: the biggest club, together with her right to kill his babies, plunder his assets and make him bonded labourer for her – and all this supported by feminist guns and jails.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 11:42 am
Ivan says…
Ivan also says…
You are spreading so much anti-female sentiment that I can’t even dignify your comment with any answer…
You are automatically discarded from any kind of logical argument with your generalization of ALL WOMEN. Your mum must have dropped you on your head when you were a baby and the logical part of it is broken…
Don’t post back please… spare me the trouble of engaging in any kind of discussion with you… I am already so tired of you Ivan… go crawl back to Russia or something…
Comment by onewomanDV — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 1:08 pm
Reply to OnewomanDV and Ivan
Ivan….Have a good long hard think on what I am saying here
I do agree with oneWomanDV opinion ….I have spoken to a number of New Zealand Elderly Woman …Who are also deeply concerned on what as been happening in N.Z concerning extreme feminism
….Approximately one month ago, one lovely and a very sincere,genuine Elderly Kiwi woman told me with tears in her eyes, that her Eldest Daughter as turn into a ranting and raving Extreme Man hating Feminist..Saying to her Mother and Father ‘All Men are nothing more then Rapists’……
But you Sir,as in saying that ‘All Woman’ is very wrong and again Sir,you have just insulted my very close and dear Thai Lady friends by your ‘All Woman’ statement..That I will not tolerate, or accept..
Let me clear something here to everybody ,I want to make this plain and clear to all concerned and I hope you young ‘Angela’ are reading this too…
I will always ‘honor’ and ‘love’ ‘Womanhood’ and more importantly also ‘Motherhood’…But radical Feminism…No..!!!!.I won’t mince my words here…I truly despise it,and over my dead body will I bow down to it, or submit to it……I have seen the awful damage it as done in N.Z to the ‘Family unit’ …..
Have a good long hard think here Ivan….
Kind regards to you OnewomanDV…John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 2:17 pm
More importantly Ivan….with your ‘All Woman’ you also have insulted and degraded my three Dutch Lady police friends who rush to N.Z to aid me, and they ‘saved my bacon’ when I had false sexual allegations charges brought against me…….
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 2:36 pm
Bringing things back to the main topic.
Children have more than just a right to both parents. It is every parents obligation to enable children to have plenty(where possible) of contact with both parents…. anything less is a violation of child rights/human rights and give way to the formation of dysfunctional members of future generations.
It is a shame that this is even a question…. It should be obvious….
Where possible children should also witness the love between parents… but then again that is Utopian talk to angry parents…
Comment by onewomanDV — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 3:29 pm
Totally agree.
However, why isn’t that right enshrined into NZ law ?
There are attempts to get it enshrined into Canadian law and that is a country more radically feminist that our own.
If you agree, lobby your MP.
Comment by noconfidence — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 3:40 pm
Q. “Do you think children have a right to a relationship with both mum and dad?”
A. No.
Let me explain.
Children SHOULD have a right to a right to a relationship with both mum and dad.
Children have been saying for decades (in their own ways) that they WANT a right to a relationship with both mum and dad.
Children DO NOT have a right to a relationship with both mum and dad.
I have concluded that children WILL NOT have a right to a relationship with both mum and dad within the next 15 years in NZ (and probably the rest of the western world). Even if they did it will not be enforced.
I do believe that eventually one day children will have a right to a relationship with both mum and dad. I wont be at all surprised if this occurs because enough women say it should be so.
Comment by Dave — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 6:39 pm
Cheeky technicality. 😉 Nice call.
Comment by julie — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 8:00 pm
Nice comment onewomanDV. Thank-you.
Comment by julie — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 8:04 pm
This is a good point. Thanks. Feminists complain that 2 decades of their work on domestic violence is a spit in the bucket compared to human life. And yet here they are condemning something after 3 years.
It says something about their characters, IMO.
Comment by julie — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 8:09 pm
My internet connection is slow today so comments are taking a long time. Thank-you everyone for your comments.
Comment by julie — Sat 13th February 2010 @ 8:18 pm
What a nice confirmation of my statement that 99% of women would avoid answering or switch the subject or insult the person who asks.
Q: Is elimination of 1/2 family abuse of kids?
A: “You are spreading anti-female sentiment” (Instead of giving the only possible answer – yes.)
If you ask at the court information desk about eliminating father. The lady will answer along these lines: “Judges will not cut access for trivial reasons, but for fear of serious harm, rape or murder.”
And then, if you continue: “And cut 1/2 family?”
She will probably say, in every feminist country, “Please leave, or I will call police”.
When the Russians liberated Eastern European countries, they executed all heads of states, their cabinets and all members of their parliaments. After we liberate the world of feminists, I would like to see ALL feminists hang on lamp posts, not only the ruling feminist class. Because they are real criminals.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 2:38 am
Broadband is employed by Telecom. Telecom does not pay it enough. Therefore the Union has declared a go slow! Good discussion anyway, thanks Julie!
Comment by Alastair — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 6:59 am
Reply to Ivan
Excuse me…!!!!….Russia so called liberated those Eastern European Countries…Oh please…. Spare me that crap…..!!!!!!
A bit of history for you Ivan, on your so called Russia Liberation theory…… Remember when Stalin made the ‘Non Aggression Pact’ with Hitler, and then Stalin proceeded to invade Poland in 1939 as an ‘Allie’ of that Evil Demoniac monster called ‘Hitler’,and ‘Stalin’ wasn’t much better either ‘Hitler’ either…..Both of them were Evil Demoniac Psychopaths
‘Tongue in Cheek’ to you,Ivan would you please kindly take a hike of the nearest cliff face …I think you would be doing the World a big favour if did….thank you…
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 8:53 am
Neither of these two characters would have been able to do what they did without FINANCE. The true Evil Psychopaths are the financiers who gave these two rotten men the ability to do what they did. Incidentally, those same financiers also backed feminism. It is no wonder that feminist extremism conjures up thoughts of Nazism. They both share a common denominator.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 9:08 am
Ok John, put “liberate”. Those heads of states executed by Russians were probly innocent, they just wanted national survival under the occupation. They thought collaboration was the only choice, and millions of their citizens believed the same. It was war after all.
But, feminists are not innocent. They know they have a choice. They can say: Stop plundering and jailing men, stop killing their babies, stop bastardizing their kids!
Women have managed to exploit men for the last million years, securing a better and longer life for women. Cavemen bones show violent and shorter life.
All men agreed to be exploited and to sacrfice themselves for women, up to a point that we have passed now.
Machist dictatorship never existed in any degree. Our feminist dictatorship is a proof that women are not suitable for ruling men, because they punish and ruin men. All women are unhappy with men today as before: all think men are not trying hard enough to please women. But now, women have guns and jails to punish men. And they do it. Women have monopoly on violence.
We are going to end this, make women reasonable and bring feminists to justice, to pay for their crimes, to pay for the blood they spilled.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 12:55 pm
Hi Julie,
To my comment on 18. you have said…
Thanks 🙂
And to this comment from Dave…
You say…
I don’t get it…. what is your comment about the question of the topic…?
Do you think children have a right to a relationship with both mum and dad?
Comment by onewomanDV — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 1:48 pm
You are joking right Ivan?
Do you expect anyone to take you seriously with comments like…
Women have managed to exploit men for the last million years
Notice how the comments just stopped coming in…. after something as hilarious as that…
‘All women are unhappy with men today as before’
My my you sure know how to use those generalizations…
‘All men agreed to be exploited and to sacrifice themselves for women‘
I mean am I reading this wrong or should we all be asking the same logical question which is
What planet do you come from?
Comment by onewomanDV — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 1:56 pm
The Question Posed: Do you think children have a right to a relationship with both mum and dad?
I think Dave is suggesting that children don’t currently enjoy the right to have a relationship with both Mum and Dad however he believes that they should have that right.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 2:01 pm
Thank you SickofNZ for clearing that for me…
I was more looking for Julie’s view on the matter …
Comment by onewomanDV — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 2:04 pm
Ivan! You know compassion is a wonderous thing. Over time I hope you will allow it back into your life again. After all, life is so short.
Comment by Dave — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 2:33 pm
Hi onewomanDV,
Ah, very good question. (apology for the long answer, up front)
I was reading the comments and then came to Dave’s. I was surprised he answered NO! but then he explained;
As you know, I asked “Do you think children have a right to a relationship with both mum and dad?” … and technically (I used the word technically because Dave was stating a fact) children don’t have this right. I used the word ‘cheeky’ because Dave took the sentence away from the context and by doing so, his answer is correct.
Judges, lawyer for children, CYFS, and psychologists all trained in feminist ideology have the right to decide what is best for children.
The feminist empire just as the religious empires it is replacing believe parents have responsibilities but feminists unlike religions don’t believe biological parents and extended biological families have this responsibility. They say the community has the responsibility and by saying this they are able to tick off one of their goals (from the 70’s) being, ‘all children should be raised by psychologists’.
The more single mothers by choice and lesbians using sperm donation, single fathers by choice and gays using surrogate mothers, CYFS giving children to gay/lesbian couples, gay/lesbian adoption, …. the more they take away children from biological parents and extended families.
Children under feminist ideology are the property of the state because feminists use the state, and are the state. Prior to feminism, religion had it’s hierarchy with the church being the power. In the same way feminism uses a hierarchy, with the government being the priests and the UN being the pope. Instead of religious people having leadership, powerful bankers, rich and powerful business men and women and rich and powerful interest groups will run the world.
The human rights commission, children’s commission and family commission run by feminists and following radical feminist ideology decide what rights children can have. They have carefully worked it so that heterosexual women and lesbians, gays and all mixed genders trump children’s rights. Men are not including in rights.
Feminism after all is communism.
Comment by julie — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 4:25 pm
Lol Alistair about telecom. Thanks to you also for your input. It’s interesting to read.
Comment by julie — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 6:59 pm
Rude comments to a poster whose opinion you disagree with in no way substitutes for reasoned argument.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 8:53 pm
Personal abuse is against the rules on this site. Aside from that, I would prefer to read good arguments in rebuttal rather than insults.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 9:03 pm
And your request for Ivan not to post back will of course not be met because you have no say in whether a person replies to your abuse. Expecting to be able to hurl insults as the last word in a “debate” is a strategy I have often seen used by feminists.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 9:07 pm
Rude comments?
… … …
Let’s get our goggles out and scrutinize the drastically rude comments here?….
Rude comments? mmmm….
Oh!… wait is that one…. no no luck there…
Hanz I guess we don’t all read English through Russian spectacles like you and Ivan.
Regards
ONE
Comment by onewomanDV — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 9:09 pm
Do you think your violent, offensive abuse towards Ivan is either mature or intelligent, John?
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 9:10 pm
My name is Hans. And your comments to Ivan have been utterly rude. Pretending this was not so does you no credit. You have every right of course to disagree with his strident comments, but I would prefer that you made your case rather than make personal attacks.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 9:14 pm
I can see how you will rush to the aid of your Russian comrade… so I am not impressed by your comfortable blindness to his distinctly confused perspective…
I have compassion for you both…
Please stick to the topic of the thread and stop baiting the information sharing process by venting personal grievances… there are shrinks for that sort of thing…
regards
one
Comment by onewomanDV — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 9:14 pm
Hans;
Can you give an example ?
I don’t see what rude comment OnewomanDV has made.
Comment by noconfidence — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 9:22 pm
Hans;
Do you think what Ivan has written has:
1. Much basis in fact ? IMO … NO
2. See the abuse that Ivan has been writing ?
3. Really believe that comments like Ivan’s are acceptable on this forum and OnewomanDV’s aren’t ?
I value positive comments on the site. There are too many here that can only slag of others or one gender.
I appreciate onewomandv contributing on here. I have seen nothing from her but helpful comments.
Comment by noconfidence — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 9:28 pm
sure noconfidence, that’s easy. All of the following are rude comments. They were simply personal denigration. They were accompanied by very few attempts at rebuttal or reasoned argument concerning the opinions Ivan offered.
“you are joking right Ivan”
“Do you expect anyone to take you seriously…”
“…after something as hilarious as that…”
“What planet do you come from?”
“All these statements are stemming from your illogical view of women.”
“I don’t know where people like you come from and how you can comfortably excrete such extreme female-hating hypocrisy and try to resemble a person with common sense.”
“…depending on how stupid you choose to be.”
“…I can’t even dignify your comment with any answer…”
“You are automatically discarded from any kind of logical argument…”
“Your mum must have dropped you on your head when you were a baby and the logical part of it is broken…”
“Don’t post back please… spare me the trouble of engaging in any kind of discussion with you… I am already so tired of you Ivan… go crawl back to Russia or something…”
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 9:40 pm
noconfidence, Ivan has made strident comments but they do not involve personal attacks against another poster. In reply, onewomanDV has offered little except personal attacks and insults directed against Ivan, and now continues this trend including misguided racist jibes towards me.
Yes I do believe that Ivan’s comments are acceptable here. Whether anyone agrees with them is irrelevant to their acceptability. By offering strongly stated opinions or even by claiming facts that may not be proven by objective research, he breaks no site rules. However, personal attacks are against the rules here and onewomanDV’s responses are not acceptable for this and other reasons, in my opinion.
I note that in his strong social commentary Ivan mainly refers to feminists, not all women, as responsible for the ills he highlights.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 10:01 pm
I do appreciate that Hans wants to defend his friend. But in the case of Ivan and Hans it ends up being a case of the blind leading the blind. Hans if you feel offended because of my comments, don’t be… there truly is not intention of malice on my part.
It would be great if it all stayed on topic so we can reach a great place of learning and information sharing.
Tell you what Hans and Ivan… in the name of learning… let’s put it all aside and shift to a place where we can learn from one another?
What do you say?
Regards
ONE 🙂
Comment by onewomanDV — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 10:08 pm
Um…. well, apart from the last 2 which probably were more personal I think you are trying to find fault where there isn’t any.
Comment by noconfidence — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Hans. Since you want to remind us of the rules, I’ll append the one that I think you are referring to
I’m happy for you to ask JohnP about the remarks.
OnewomanDV has requested with move on. Lets do that otherwise we’ll be here for a long time pointing the finger.
Comment by noconfidence — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 10:55 pm
Well put Dave. Forgiveness is a trait that does wonders for your health. As both Hans and onewoman are well known to me I know though not having anglo-saxon names you are both very intellegent and articulate!
This subject is a good one to debate.
Comment by Alastair — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 10:59 pm
Has no confidence become a moderator of this group?
two people who I respect having a strong discussion and in steps someone who wants to “Tell” Jim Baily refers to this as gatekeeping!
Real Moderators deal with this situation OFF GROUP!
Comment by Alastair — Sun 14th February 2010 @ 11:11 pm
Reply Hans
……Hans …Have a think on this one please Good Sir..If my so called ‘violent, offensive abusiveness’…is offensive to you…So be it…But some points I would like to raise here, Good Sir.
Remember History Hans….???…Maybe if Good People stood up to ‘Hitler’ and ‘Stalin’ a lot earlier….and both of this ‘Evil Insane Beasts’ were taken out a lot sooner
Like Winston Churchill wanted to and He didn’t exactly mince his words, concerning his views on Hitler did he…?????…The way Winston Churchill described Hitler could also be termed ‘violent, offensive abusiveness’….?????
And if Good People would have listen to Winston Churchill dire warnings on Hitler, as well as the other Good Germans who were giving loud and clear warnings to the rest of the World relating to Hitler long term evil plans…Millions upon millions of innocent Lives could have been saved….????
Like you Hans,half of my Dutch Family on both sides of as in my Mother and Father were killed by the Nazis in The Netherlands…trying to get the Jews out The Netherlands under the Nazi occupation….
I take extreme exception and I personally find his views on ‘All Woman’…..extremely bias and dangerous…I find Ivan postings reminds me of Hitlers rants and raves on the ‘Jews.’…
Ivan ‘labels’ all Woman the same …That is so wrong,and I will not accept that…Same as I will not accept Extreme Feminists opinions ‘That all Men are Rapists’……
Kind regards to you Hans….John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 15th February 2010 @ 6:05 am
Reply to Hans
“What planet do you come from?”….I have to agree with OnewomanDV opinion……And do I find that so called that comment rude…No…Far from it….In fact OnewomanDV contained herself with remarkable dignity
But I won’t contain myself here Hans,in fact Hans you will find my comment extremely ‘Rude’,’Offensive’,and ‘Blunt’…..I have finished reading all of Ivan postings ……..And my opinion is the following….. Ivan needs help……
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 15th February 2010 @ 6:20 am
Thanks Alastair. You know I don’t think I even have to forgive some people. I just try to show compassion towards all the rest. In my view, you can still be a compassionate person even though some other people’s actions are unforgivable.
I can’t forgive Pol Pot but I can be quite a different person than he was.
Comment by Dave — Mon 15th February 2010 @ 7:14 pm
Instead of attacking me, I suggest you attack my allegations.
For example, you can disagree with me like this:
1) No, Ivan, you are wrong: The analysis of prehistoric bones show more injuries and shorter life for women over the last million years.
2) All documents and research on contemporary primitive societes show that men always expect women to hunt, dig wells and sacrifice their lives when enemies attack.
3) Women, on the contrary, are very modest. They only want a brief sexual intercourses from men.
4) Men are voracious in terms expectations of goods and services from women. She has never enough time, money and attention for men.
5) Men focus on money most, they use all their creativity, kids, courts, police … to extract money from women.
6) Machist dictatorship is still a reality: women are expected to pay before, during and after the marriage.
7) Men deny their kids half the family, fathers kill babies and rape their own kids, so women have to run and live with different boyfriends for a better protection. Single moms’ ghettoes are islands of tranquility.
8) Men have monopoly on violence: every woman is a phone call away form total ruin. He can jail her 100 easier than v.v.
9) You say all women, I say x% of women etc.
This is the form of reply I am dying to read, itemized, clear, and no personal attacks. Because other readers are profiting from your arguments more than from reading your invectives.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Tue 16th February 2010 @ 11:35 am
Reply to Ivan
Ivan..Excuse my bluntness and forthrightness in my previous posts towards you it not meant to taken as an personal attack at all…..
But..Here is the big but,I didn’t like your comment,nor will I accept your opinion on ‘All Woman’ and I do take a real exception to that,I have met, associated and experienced many different Cultures in my Life’s journey and I known some amazing and genuine,sincere and very strong as in ‘Femininity’ Woman….Not the Banshee screaming Western European Feminist/s who view ‘All Men are Rapists’…
I will say this publicly on this Forum, I will not dare to form ever again a relation with a Kiwi Woman….I truly fear them……
I know what they can do,and Kiwi Woman know full well,the ‘System’ is totally on there side and they are not scared to use either…..
Hence that is the reason I will eventually leave New Zealand….Sorry Julie and OnewomanDV but that is how I feel…….And I am not joking here…I truly fear Kiwi Woman…..
Ivan,sorry to say but you did mentioned in one of your Posts ‘All Woman’,not a x%…….
Kind regards to you
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 16th February 2010 @ 2:57 pm
Re: She punishes him with the abuse of his kids
I said “all women, even the dumbest, know that child abuse of taking 1/2 family from his kids is the most painful punishment for him”. All those child protection ladies KNOW it’s the biggest abuse of kids. And that’s why they like it, because all hate men more than they love kids or women.
If you and Onewoman disagree, you can say “not all, only …% of women know it’s abuse ….”. I respect your different percentage, I will not call you names.
We still don’t know your opinion, we would all appreciate if you contribute. By attacking me personally, you are not contributing to a discussion about an important, if not most important subject in lives of all us.
You say “I fear her ….”. Yes, I understand what you say. We all fear women because they have monopoly on violence. Whether she uses her guns and jails, depends on her. You are helpless. You just hope you are one of those 50% of husbands who kept their marriages by appeasing their wives or who have modest wives and whose kids enjoy both parents.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 2:44 am
Reply to Ivan
…Ivan …Firstly get over the ‘Personal Attacks’ syndrome mentally…You starting to sound like ‘I the Victim’…Harden up for heavens sake……If you can’t take the Heat,then stay out of the Kitchen Ivan!!!!!!
Wrong Ivan, I said I truly fear ‘Kiwi Woman’…Not ‘All Woman’ …Your statement… ‘We all fear women because they have monopoly on violence’…Again Ivan,you are making a classic mistake of ‘Labeling’ all Woman on this Forum site Ivan,that is totally ‘Left Field’….And I can not, and I will not concur or accept that statement…
I have know and met some extremely violent Men that are not fit be so called Fathers,let alone to be a Husband to a decent Lady……..
What..to your comment..!!!..’We still don’t know your opinion,’….Oh Lord please give me some patience….Quite simple Ivan… I despise all the Socail Engineering Extreme Feminism that as been occurring in N.Z for the last 25 years ..And it been happening in the following Countries too….
1/ Canada
2/ America
3/ Sweden
4/ Britain…This includes Scotland and Ireland
5/ New Zealand
6/ Australia
7/ A new Country that is experiencing Extreme F …Spain..But the Spanish Men are starting to fight hard back…Good on them too…….
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 7:41 am
reply to ivan…dont worry ivy…ditchie already had a moan at me about how i worded a post..then someone else suggested i need help..lol…they sound the typical kiwi women themselves…exopecting ppl to do/say things their way…
Comment by ford — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 9:24 am
1) ALL women will threaten and abuse us and our kids if they have monopoly on violence. If they have guns and jails as they do now.
2) Our main enemies are not feminists, in spite of us using the term “feminist dictatorship”. Our enemies are women who plunder and jail us, kill our babies and bastardize our children. These bad women are not feminists, strictly speaking. They have no feminist books in their homes, only colorful women’s magazines. Feminists gave these women licence to kill and plunder. We want to cancel female licence to violence. We don’t want to defencelesly face female violence any more.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 9:38 am
i agree with ivan…take any woman happy 1 day…in a divorce the nxt…they will turn ugly and nasty…play all the games…use the system to dish out what they believe is fair punishment on the man for whatever reason they use to justify their shit…and look at the financial rewards they can receive for doing so…man stands up and states the truth then gets told hes a liar trying to defend himself…and the list goes on….
Comment by ford — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 10:05 am
Ford; perhaps you and Ivan can start a loving relationship that you both can enjoy. You have both labelled 3.5 billion of the worlds population with the same brush.
In reply to Ivan:
I say:
The incorrect word in your sentance is ‘will’. it needs to be changed to ‘could’. For example…
1) ALL MEN could threaten and abuse us and our kids if they have monopoly on violence
I agree with the fact that we have a situation in western countries where feminists have managed to pull the wool over all our eyes and create this unjust situation. And yes, some (not all, some) women use this uneven playing field to their advantage. BUT, if the indoctrination, the support systems to enable this weren’t there then we’d have less of this.
I do not believe our fight is with ALL women as you and ford seem to believe. It is about the unfairness of an uneven playing field. We must strive for equality for both sexes where possible (there are exceptions due to psychical differences between us).
To do this we must move on from the hurt it has caused us, expose these untruths, and lobby hard with those in power to see reason.
Comment by noconfidence — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 10:37 am
John Dutchie said…
Worst of the lot currently may be India. Husbands AND THEIR RELATIVES are arrested based on a mere allegation by a woman in that country.
Mexico’s DV laws are such that, for men, saying “no” to their wife’s demands for sex could land them in prison for up to five years. Mexican men effectively have no right to consent.
During the most recent Israeli incursion into Palestinian territory I watched a lengthy interview with a senior UN official who was “on the spot”. In the course of the interview in reference to those effected the official referred to “women” twelve times, “women and children” once and men not at all. Maybe all the men scarpered and left the women to their fate? In the recent Haiti earthquake disaster official agencies created the necessary political conditions and then the actuality of an open denial of food aid based on gender. A couple of years ago the World health Organisation and Amnesty hailed news that women now have greater life expectancies in every country as being a success. Over Oz way check out my state’s Health and Community web resource. Notice anything missing?
Misandry is going global. It’s spread from the english speaking world into all peak global bodies. See the World Economic Forum’s “Global Gender Gap Report” – which defies it’s own name and only reports on gaps disadvantaging women and girls whilst treating any disadvantage for men or boys as “parity” – for a taste of the future direction.
It has the rank smell of evil in all it’s true, glorious banality. An accumulation of do-gooders all blind to the indifferences they continually perpetrate.
Comment by gwallan — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 11:22 am
Reply to gwallan
…..I don’t doubt at you at all Gwallen….This spreading of global ‘misandry’ and I am very serious here,is starting too ‘Truly scare the S@#t out of me’……
More importantly Gwallen, heavens forbid on the future outcome concerning our Children of this Evil Social Engineering Agenda of Extreme Feminism ….
Thank you Gwallen for your Link to ‘Health and Community’ in your state…I will check it out….
Oh,speaking off as in Australia ,do you know any Men/Fathers support websites in Australia ….????
…The reason why I asked,I think it time for all Decent Men/ Decent Fathers from all over the World to start net working with each other….!!!!…
Thoughts and opinions most welcome by everyone……Even by Julie and OnewomanDV…..
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 12:48 pm
Reply to Ford
Ford I haven’t had a so called Moan at you…You fact I don’t Moan..If I have something to say…I will say it…Loud and clear….
Now regarding your comment……’They sound the typical kiwi women themselves’…. My reply to you Good Sir is ‘Laughing my ass off’….
Yeah What ever Ford..Personally, I don’t give a ‘Rats Ass’ on what you think or say …You can say what ever you want too…..But I will never accept,or concur the ‘All Woman’ attitude from you or Ivan
Kind regards to you ‘Ford’…’Tongue in Cheek’…Rather have a ‘Holden’ then a ‘Ford’…L.O.L
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 1:02 pm
Reply to noconfidence
…Well said Good Sir….I will repeat this I still ‘honour’ and ‘Love’ Womanhood and Motherhood…..But I won’t mince my words ,The results of ‘Feminism’ I have seen, and witness in a Country I still deeply love and cherish…. I truly despise it….
But I will not ‘label’ or ‘Judge’ all Woman as Evil Social engineering Feminist…
I met a awesome and very charming young,but also a very ‘Forthright’ America Lady at my Gym this late morning,This Lady told me, and in no ‘uncertain terms’,She also has had enough of this Political Correctness crap…I told her about this Menz forum site and I also told her, please feel free to comment and debate with us Guys…And I hope she does too……
Kind regards to you Good Sir John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 1:16 pm
dutchie…considering i dont give a rats arse about u or ya female mates…we understand each loud and clear
Comment by ford — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 1:32 pm
noconfidence…ill tar whoever i like with whatever size brush i can find…dont give a shit if you like it or not either
Comment by ford — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 1:36 pm
Reply to Ford
..Excellent and I understand you perfectly well ….And you are very correct Good Sir, I do have some awesome ‘Female’ Mates as well as some extremely awesome and wonderful Kiwi Female ‘Maori’ mates as well……
Kind regards to you Ford…John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Reply to Ford
‘man stands up and states the truth then gets told hes a liar trying to defend himself…and the list goes on….’
….Yep,been there too,has as my ex brother in Law…..Sad to say this,quite a bit of truth in that statement….
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 17th February 2010 @ 2:38 pm
Another right that children should be awarded is the right to know who their biological parents are. Paternal testing at birth should be compulsory. This is for the child’s rights – it is not up to the parents. It is the child’s DNA and the child’s right to know where that DNA came from.
The only right parents have is that an alleged father has the right to decide if he will participate in such testing. He has control over his own DNA.
In other words unless an alleged father refuses to have the test then it is compulsory.
Comment by Dave — Wed 24th March 2010 @ 11:47 am
Im with you there Dave
I mean the child does have a right to know who the biological parents are.
Where would be the harm in compulsory DNA testing.
We would only be confirming what the mother is already telling us as to who is the father of the child. Indeed if the mother was somewhat confused as to the father then this would clear up the confusion.
Along those lines Ive always thought that where a mother has claimed child tax from a father and subsequent testing has shown that this is not the case. Then the mother should be charged with “using a document for Pecuniary advantage” or some such charge as she has knowingly accepted monies for which she is not entitled.
I mean at the very least the mother would be aware that there could be cause for doubt in who she has named as father to the child.
I believe that in the majority of cases mothers know who it is that fathered the children and if she doesnt know then she would need to admit that there is doubt to who is the biological father and compusory testing would remove this doubt.
Who wouldnt want it?
Comment by mits — Wed 24th March 2010 @ 1:45 pm
I can see that there are some complications with surrogacy. However in those cases the biological parents could be kept on file to be made known once the child turns 18. So not really a big deal. The test could still be performed so there is no false allegation of paternity (or maternity for that matter).
Comment by Dave — Wed 24th March 2010 @ 2:04 pm
This I read today and was reduced to tears. Too close to the NZ situation for comfort.
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 12th May 2010 @ 10:50 pm
It sure is sad and people’s stories sure can bring tears to your eyes.
The man who had to read my CYFS file before I received it told me he cried while reading it. I’m glad we had the opportunity to talk with each other because not only did he get to feel happy when he got to the end of the file but talk with the person whose story had touched him. And I was able to explain to him that there was only up and up and up for this family.
I’d love to hear how the father who wrote this letter is doing today. I can imagine what life has been like for him, but because he is associated with a men’s group, I think he would have had the support to come out the other end and that’s always the best part of a persons story IMO.
Comment by julie — Thu 13th May 2010 @ 11:30 am
Wow, that’s a common modern father’s story very well told. Excerpts could be included in a new pamphlet to be distributed in boy’s schools warning them against romantic relationships under current misandrist law.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 13th May 2010 @ 11:18 pm
Hi Hans,
Do you mean that such a pamphlet is about to be distributed in Boy’s schools? I certianly hope so!
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 13th May 2010 @ 11:24 pm
Is this the pamphlet that cost you the ability to see someone of importance during the latter days of the reign of Helengrad?
How is it funded? Distributed?
Comment by Alastair — Fri 14th May 2010 @ 1:32 am
No it’s not that pamphlet. Those who were punished by being snubbed by the so-called Families Commission (might we call that snubbery?) had nothing to do with any previous pamphlet. Maybe we’re looking at a case of the crime now being done to justify a punishment previously applied.
Regardless, I always thought the pamphlet idea was a good one. What do others think?
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 14th May 2010 @ 11:38 am
I definitely think we should be going into schools and explaining to the senior boys how the law works and how it is applied. They need to know this before they get some girl pregnant. I would wrap it up inside a safe sex for boys veneer so as to make it politically correct enough to get funding and get it implemented inside schools.
Comment by Dave — Fri 14th May 2010 @ 1:41 pm
Hans,
You ask what do others think.
Well, I think there’s definitely a need for male youth to understand how the law works and is applied to men in relationships with women in NZ.
However as I think feminists regularly visit this site I’m not comfortable talking strategy on a thread here. No sense in forewarning feminists of strategy.
If you give me your e-mail address I’ll discuss such matters offline.
I urge other non-feminist MRAs to do likewise.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 14th May 2010 @ 4:10 pm
I think dropping off pamphlets and other activism is a good thing to do. Men sure seem to enjoy seeing someone actively taking an interest in men’s rights and most comments back from them when I’ve done things is, “About time!” and “It’s good to see something finally happening”. Even the young guys get excited when they see you doing things…. I’d say the environment in NZ is ripe for men’s moves. (IMHO)
If anyone in the Auckland area wants some support (only Indians, no chiefs) I’ll assist. I’ve got pamphlets but I don’t mind dropping other types. It’s a fun thing to do, IMO.
Comment by julie — Sat 15th May 2010 @ 9:16 am
I cam accross this website today.
If you look down the left column there is an adaptation of the severely flawed misandric Duluth model Power and Control wheel. It may be worth including on a pamphlet as a quick guide for things young males should be able to spot in relationships with women.
The site itself seems interesting too.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 15th May 2010 @ 8:02 pm
Useful MRA website!
As I’ve stated earlier in this thread I came accross this website today.
I’ve since discovered something else about this site want folks to know it has a wealth of downloadable PDF documents, aparently well researched and filed as clickable links.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 15th May 2010 @ 8:13 pm
Awesome find.
This is a great thing you’re doing. I hope the pamphlet gets shown on this site, even if it’s after they’ve been delivered.
Comment by julie — Sun 16th May 2010 @ 10:04 am