Violence will Increase as Fatherlessness Increases – says Family First
Family First NZ says that violence in our community and towards people of authority such as the police will increase as long as we downplay the significance and benefits of strong marriages and committed fathers.
“The response of governments, even today, has been more money and more laws. Yet this fails to deal with the root causes of what is happening. Fatherlessness is a major contributor to increasing rates of juvenile violence,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“Scientific research is unanimous on a number of conclusions regarding family structure — that strong marriages increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children and lowers the risk of alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and child abuse,”
“Conversely, parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of delinquent and criminal behaviour, amongst other factors. One only needs to observe proceedings at the Youth Court to see the effect of fatherlessness.”
“According to The Heritage Foundation, an influential US research institute, an analysis of social science literature over 30 years shows that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. A state-bystate analysis indicated that a 10% increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes lead typically to a 17% increase in juvenile crime. The research found that criminal behaviour has its roots in habitual deprivation of parental love and affection going back to early infancy.”
“Research has shown time after time that the father’s authority and involvement in raising his children are great buffers against a life of crime,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“There are other factors such as violence in the media, the ‘rights’ culture being fed to young people, and the undermining of parental authority which are contributors, but family structure is a crucial place to start.”
“Violent crime will continue to increase as long as we downplay the importance and significance of having two parents, a mum and a dad, committed to each other and to their children.”
………………………..
Auckland Single Parents took part in a documentary the Japanese Government asked for on social issues in Western Countries. They were looking at several issues with one of them being single parenting. We were chosen because New Zealand was (just a few years ago) the highest rate per capital in the world. NZ still might be.
…………………………
A report from Warwick Pudney called, “Fathering our City” gives some good information on New Zealand’s work on fathers and statistics for New Zealand on fatherlessness. Below are part of the report.
Things that may happen when Fathers are Absent:
- Children may feel unprotected. There is increased risk of abuse from new partners, strangers and the mother. (Farrel, 2001)
- Boys may lack the clear, more black and white boundaries that males tend to hold.
- Boys have more trouble with the police and law and anti-social behaviour. 90% of West Auckland police-involved youth are fatherless. (Interview Nov.2005)
- Boys are more inclined to suicide and have poor mental health.
- Fatherless males are 5 times more likely to suicide. 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. ( McCann 1999)
- Boys will be more dependent on mothers. The intensified relationship can make adolescent separation more troublesome and adversarial.
- Boys are likely to transfer that dependency to a woman partner.
- Under-fathered men are more likely to be violent to their partners. (Man Alive 1996)
- Under-fathered girls are more likely to become pregnant. (N.Z. and U.S., 2 to 8 times Ellis, 2003)
- The under-fathered child is more likely to use drugs. Fatherless boys are 10 times more likely to abuse chemicals. (McCann1999)
- Fatherless boys may feel angry and cheated.
- Male authority figures may receive a lot of the projected anger felt for the absent father.
- Fatherless boys are 14 times more likely to rape. (McCann 1999)
- Fatherless boys are 20 times more likely to end up in prison. (McCann 1999)
- Some boys will feel the duty to be ‘the man’ and may become prematurely adultified.
- Truancy may increase. Fatherless boys are 9 times more likely to drop out of high school. They are 71% of high school dropouts. (US), (McCann 1999)
- Poverty is more common. Single parent families are about 3 times more likely to experience poverty than a 2 parent home.
- Educational achievements may be reduced. 90% of referrals to Resource Teachers of Learning and Behaviour are Boys. (Pudney 2000)
- 90% of all homeless and runaway children come from fatherless homes. (US), (McCann1999)
- There may be difficulty feeling confident with males in later life for both boys and girls.
- Physical health tends to be reduced.
Some Reasons why Fathers are Important:
- Fathers give experience of everything that is masculine: body, behaviour, manner, thinking, action, energy, play, voice, smell etc. this builds confidence and skill at coexisting with half the world’s population.
- Children and others put importance on ‘real’ fathers as those who are blood or genetic. This is an important part of establishing where I come from, my identity, and my whakapapa.
- Fathers are responsible for building positive self esteem in sons and daughters that originates from a man. Failure to do this can make the child and adult vulnerable to not feeling good when with men, or for a boy, as a man.
- For sons, affirmation by father is critical for a solid positive male identity. Hating father may end in hating self.
- Fathers need to touch children in affirming and nonsexual ways. For both sons and daughters sex and affection may become confused if they do not. Touching develops greater personal love and respect for children’s bodies and a sense of being loveable by men. Boys especially need hugging, holding, and wrestling.
- The father may develop a sense of adventure and confidence in the non domestic world. They encourage outward looking action in children.
- The father appears to have an important connection with the outdoors and wild places.
- The father’s positive presence and guidance imparts a sense of internal structure, discipline and rigor. Concentration and focus may become difficult in a world that lacks balance and boundary.
- Fathers often have a more rigid sense of boundary that especially helps boys find an order that engenders trust and security.
- For daughters it is important in teen years to learn how to relate to a man in a safe, confident, affirming and boundary-setting manner. Loving approval from a father may prevent dependence and vulnerability in male relationships.
- Fathers can teach daughters to deal strongly with men’s sexuality.
- For a son, a trusted and affirming father prevents unhealthy dependence on, and use of, women for approval, identity, companionship and support.
- For both boys and girls, love and dependency can become confused without a father.
- Fathers represent greater safety from an adverse world and build a sense of safety and purpose in the child that allows them to get on with other things like learning.
- Fathers tend to promote a sense of risk-taking and excitement in children.
- Fathers play and explore physical space.
- Fathers teach things about the world, especially in the realm of the rational and spatial relationships.
- Fathers have a powerful opportunity to demonstrate a respectful, loving and equal relationship with a woman.
- Fathers can back up mothers and show respect for women.
- Fathers support mothers and give two parents to interact with.
- Mothers and fathers demonstrate through their modelling how to have relationships.
- Father interrupts that intensity between the mother and the child, which builds the individuality of the person. He points to the world beyond the mother. Fathers double the extended family and teach families to work together in common cause.
- Fathers can teach that it is manly to feel.
- Fathers can teach respect for males and men.
- Fathers teach love from a man in a world that currently objectifies men as work, protection and power objects.
- Fathers show how to compartmentalise and separate from the surrounding world and think abstractly.
- Children want to be loved by their fathers. Sons particularly need the guidance and the strength of the father to direct their own strength.
- Fathers protect the family when needed and are generally prepared to die for their children and for the mother of their children.
- Fathers bring a physical strength, rigour and discipline.
- Fathers can model support of mothers.
- Fathers often give confidence that things can be fixed.
- Fathers affirm endeavour and physical achievement.
- Fathers hold aspiration for their children and so give a sense of future.
- Fathers, cross-culturally assume a role as a primary provider for the resourcing of their family.
- Fathers, as the most influential model of men in a child’s life, have the opportunity to change the next generation for the benefit of our society and the planet’s future.
- Children treat fathers differently from mothers.
- What ever a father does, whether it is the things above, or other things, — it is important that a child experiences a man doing it.
Good to see there’s some work on this issue in NZ.
I was a kid during the heyday of the patriarchy. Because of my extended family I had much exposure to politicians, community (mens)groups like Lions and Rotary, YMCA, sports clubs and associations. It was the heartland of the “patriarchy”.
Yet the enduring lesson I learned from that “patriarchy”, in direct contrast with feminist exhortations of male selfishness, was that one should use ones gifts for the benefit of others.
During my lifetime I watched not only fathers being increasingly expelled from the lives of the children I’ve also observed the reshaping of many of those formerly male centres of connection into strictly neutral territory. Whilst many of those bodies and institutions still exist they are constantly scolded to be be more than welcoming to women and girls. Their role as focal points for collective male endeavour, leadership, mentoring and pure intimacy have been lost.
At every level you choose to examine any male contact with or influence over kids and young folk has been, at best, discouraged and, at worst, demonised. Our kids get warned in great detail about the bad things men do – and that boys are genetically predetermined to become – and are never allowed to see the good that men do.
Seriously, what did they expect?
Comment by gwallan — Sun 28th February 2010 @ 2:39 pm
A remarkable article, thank you. I relayed similar facts to Peter Dunne just two weeks ago via email, but of course he has not replied. This was of course in an endeavour to persuade him that we need urgent changes to the unfair ‘child support’ system.
Comment by Morris — Sun 28th February 2010 @ 3:16 pm
I’d like to hear from someone that has ACTUALLY had a reply from Peter Dunne Nothing, though getting replies and actually doing something are 2 different things.
We need to start focussing on politicians that want to do something, rather than those who don’t. Peter Dunne Nothing has been on the gravy train for quite a while now. His time to help passed long ago.
Comment by noconfidence — Sun 28th February 2010 @ 4:33 pm
I’ve had a reply from Peter Dunne. I wrote to him over men and paternity tests. He said he doesn’t like to have the government in people’s lives and felt paternity testing from birth was intruding on people’s privacy.
There was a female politician in the same party as him who didn’t get elected last elections. She had a bill waiting to be picked where men would get paternity testing in the courts and that a judge could ask for it. It’s a shame she didn’t make it because she supported men’s rights.
Comment by julie — Sun 28th February 2010 @ 11:10 pm
Thank-you for the compliment Morris.
Comment by julie — Sun 28th February 2010 @ 11:14 pm
I remember the lion’s club in Victoria. They did a lot for children and men gave their time taking children to all sorts of events as volunteers.
Comment by julie — Sun 28th February 2010 @ 11:18 pm
Excellent article Jools.
You know where else to post it, don’t you.
Gwallen’s comment is very pertinent.
Comment by amfortas — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 12:27 am
Re: Violence … fatherless …etc.
1) This lists how bastardization of our kids destroys society.
2) In spite of being excellent, it will have almost zero impact because of no fighters who will give it as a leaflet in public places, to recruit new fighters.
3) The fight for equality will start when the fighter #1 meets #2, and they start talking seriously about our feminist dictatorship. And he will meet #2 when he starts looking for him.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 5:38 am
Thanks for that Jules.
What a crock of sh*t from the guy who has been part of governments doing exactly that!
I’ll go find out who the woman was you mentioned. Maybe we can motivate her to take over the leadership!
Comment by noconfidence — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 8:21 am
Morris,
Peter Dunne has know these facts for years. He has done nothing.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 8:48 am
Then what happened? Female only gyms etc.. oh but they’re not sexist! Grrrr
Comment by Scott B — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 8:48 am
Reply to Scott B
‘Then what happened? Female only gyms etc.. oh but they’re not sexist! Grrrr’…Very correct..Yes Scott the ‘Double standards’ have been truly established by the Kiwi Feminazi Feminists here in New Zealand.
But on a lighter note….A funny story relating to this subject,it might be so called label, as ‘Provocative’…so be it…
Last year,my young Adult Son and with his best friend as a ‘Dare’, went to a so called Woman’s only Gym..and asked if they could join…And were sternly told by the ‘Butch’ receptionist this is Woman’s only gym….
My Son said to the reception ‘Isn’t that ‘Sexual discrimination’….?????? …No answer came the Receptionist on that one…
‘Tongue in Cheek’ …And just ‘Stirring the Pot’…. I am not surprised……New Zealand is only concerned about Woman’s rights
But I can guarantee if we had here in New Zealand as in, so called only ‘Men’s’ gyms… I can already hear in this in the media,from ‘banshee’ screams from the Kiwi ‘Feminazi’ Feminists mouthing off the usual…..’Sexual discrimination against Womanhood’…
Kind regards to you Scott B…John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 12:19 pm
If you (or anyone else) suspects that a Females Only Gym is discriminatory against males and/or trans-genders then you can send an email to the Human Rights Commission asking for a legal opinion. You can then submit a complaint if that legal opinion confirms your suspicions. I’ve done that within the past week and found them to be very friendly and helpful.
Email your request for a legal opinion or submit a complaint to: [email protected]
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 1:13 pm
It is pointless a pointing at Feminazi this and that. Because that is everything and nothing.
The culprit here is the Family Court and its cohort of senseless judges, which using dubious means laws and various ‘specialists’ throws a man out of his family home and children’s life.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 4:36 pm
Violence will not increase. It is already happening.
Family Court, Womens Refuge ans Cyfs are the triangle of violence in New Zealand. They are the brain behind all the youth violence occurring in new Zealand. Removing by force a father from his children is a criminal deed. The Family Court does this every day which results in traumatized and abused children. All it it takes a woman to cut the children from their father is a call to Woman’s Refuge. She will be provided with ‘prove’ and evidence of violence, a benefit, the family house and other assets. She will be told to cut entirely the man from her life with zero communication.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 4:59 pm
It’s great to finally read some groups bring the issue of fatherless out into the light.
Comment by Dave — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 5:44 pm
Feminist lies have served to break up families by vicimising the woman, making her a goddess, removing the father at the woman’s whim and depriving the children of a proper family and relationship with their father. The spin off is huge budgets of tax payer’s money for court workers and all others on the gravy train for more of their useless work that is never the answer to the problem they have caused.
Comment by Larry — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 5:45 pm
I’ve found the HRC to be very sexiest and racist. Another quango formed by the government, for the government…
Comment by noconfidence — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 5:56 pm
The Axis of Social Evil
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 9:17 pm
When I went to visit the Human Rights Commission a few weeks ago, they had a huge poster of the “mate, show you’re against violence towards women” they had for the white ribbon campaign. I complained loudly about their sexism, because of course the campaign through omission implies that violence against men isn’t important emough to mention.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 9:21 pm
I would like to start a men’s movement newspaper, perhaps an echo of the feminist “Broadsheet” that was so influential. As I have previously shown, there are numerous stories most days that if rewritten highlight widespread misandry and also celebrate men’s real contribution. For example, this article from the NZ Herald entitled “Child Killer Becomes Sex Pest” talks about two female journalists going to Junior Kurariki’s home then alleging he exposed himself to them and groped them. The story could be retitled “Female Journalists Prey On Junior Kurariki” and tell the sordid story of the journalists’ exploitation of this prison-damaged young man for their own profit through a spicy story, which of course they duly obtained. Or this story headlined as “Man Injured After Frightening Birds” could be retold in a more accurate form under “Another Man Seriously Injured in the Workplace” because the man in fact was scaring birds in his working role at a vineyard. The article could highlight the fact that men make up 100% of NZ workplace deaths most years and the majority of serious injuries while women complain bitterly that they earn 12% less than men on average in their jobs.
Is anyone interested in working with me on this one? Time is all I need, from competent people. Editorial suggestions and draft articles are welcome.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 9:51 pm
I don’t think I could help. I am too stressed, but i support the idea, and when better will help.
Comment by Scott B — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 9:55 pm
I like the idea, pioneered by some Auckland colleagues, of providing the paper to college boys to warn them of what’s ahead for them in our male-enslavement society.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 9:57 pm
Go for it, Hans.
The writing aspect is the small problem. Then there is layout and presentation. Big problems. Reproduction and distribution are the really Big Two.
‘Factory’ (MRA) has a e-journal. MRm!
Two issues done and out so far.
But your re-write idea is grand.
Comment by amfortas — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 10:19 pm
That was fast !!
What a Star you are.
Comment by amfortas — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 10:22 pm
I reckon your idea is excellent Hans. I can offer my time once I’ve moved residence which I’m in the midst of organising. I’ve got the time and desire although I’m not confident that I’m articulate enough. I should be settled in Otaki in three to four-ish weeks which is when I’ll have more free time.
Suggestion: http://cyfswatch.org/ have a nice layout using WordPress. I have no experience with administering WordPress software. All of my experience is limited to administering vBulletin software (licenses are very expensive these days) or creating my own layouts using html (cheapest option – no purchase of software is necessary).
There are pros and cons for all of the different options available. The option selected really depends on the features required.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 1st March 2010 @ 10:43 pm
Larry, Hans and Amfortas have correct thinking.
They realize the magnitude of violence against men and their kids in our feminist dictatorship.
They need one more step: to summarize all crimes inflicted on men and their kids by man-haters and their collaborators. And to mention how women also lost best things in life, that stolen money can’t buy and their judges can’t order. Summarize it on one page and start distributing it.
The leaflet has to be brief to be effective. Current leaflets are long, confusing texts that nobody understands. I know it, because I distributed a few and I asked readers to repeat what was written.
I will be the first to go to public places and give it to everyone, until police arrests me.
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 4:38 am
We have a men’s magazine that is already up and running.
http://fatherandchild.org.nz/magazine/
Plus any men’s group can get funding for a magazine just like every other group can. It would be better to get the funding, I think, rather than have it come out of personal pockets. Plus, once you’ve set up a group doing something like this, you can get support and funding to start programs from feedback and you can do research, which is lacking for men and boys.
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 5:07 am
How many pamphlets would you like Ivan? Where would you like to hand them out? What area do you live in?
Is this pamphlet good enough?
Men simply don’t count for much
Edit: Ooops, hope it’s not too much questioning.
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 5:11 am
Hehehe, not bad service, eh?
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 5:23 am
Do you think it would be a good idea if there was men’s advocates doing presentations to judges and such on behalf of fathers?
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 5:26 am
I will print million copies and distribute to people who, I think, would read it. Like some sects do in public places. I will not disclose my location now, media will do it for me later.
Your sample pamphlet is great, we can take a lot from it. But, it is mainly for the converted. And it has to include term “feminist dictatorship”, otherwise it’s unclear. And it has to include what we want: Equaliy. Or another clear goal. This size is ok, I think it would fit on one page. I will now print it, to analyze it better.
Job for Julie, Amfortas, Larry and Hans : summarize why we have to fight against our feminist dictatorship, so everyone understands. At least everyone who can understand newspapers. You have to spell out main crimes of these heterophobic man-haters, so pregnantly that no word is wasted. Every word has to have a punch.
You already blogged hundred pages, now try to condense it to one page.
Writing briefly is an art that few have. Writing long narrations is easier. Plus, a pamphlet mobilizes more fighters than a book.
Today, 1 March 2010, am issuing a fatwa: “Every man has to fight, every man has to become a soldier. Bring to justice feminist barbarians and collaborators. To pay for all ruined men, their killed babies and bastardized children. To pay for the blood they spilled. And wimps will be tried for cowardice.”
Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 7:43 am
A interesting article that was sent to me by my Ex Brother in law….opinions….?????
Reply to Hans.
An excellent idea Good Sir,concerning your ‘men’s movement paper’,I am going have a word with my highly astute,highly intelligent,and with excellent English skills both in written and oral..my Warehouse Manager who is also deeply concerned, as in what has been happening here in New Zealand with all this Feminists Social engineering crap……
I think this post is probably the most provocative thing I have ever read regarding the state of modern day relationships, mostly because it was written by a professional woman.
I think # 17 is the most meaningful to me what do you all think about this article?
This is a re-post from Dr Tara J. Palmatier, PsyD
And this is the article in it’s entirety;
“I’ve been writing this blog for almost a year now. In that time, I’ve noticed many double standards and gender inequities in relationships that are culturally acceptable. Here are some of my observations for women to consider in terms of their own behavior and for men to consider in terms of their own enlightenment when it comes to women and relationships. The following points don’t apply to all women, however, they apply to enough of them that they’re part of our faulty cultural belief system. Hey ladies (and you know who you are):
1. You are not a princess. You do not deserve to be treated like royalty just by virtue of your sex. You deserve to be treated no better or worse than you treat others.
2. You are not any more “special” nor any more “entitled” than anyone else. You don’t deserve special privileges and nobody “owes” you anything by virtue of who you are or because of your gender.
3. You are just as “lucky” to have found your husband/boyfriend as he was to find you. Have you ever considered that there are times when you are lucky that he puts up with and tolerates you?
4. Men have feelings, too. They hurt just as much as you do when you criticize, reject, dismiss, ignore, make fun of, disrespect, invalidate and/or mock them. In fact, they may hurt more because they don’t have as many emotional outlets as you–especially if you tell him his feelings “don’t count” or to “be a man” when he expresses his feelings that you mistakenly claim he doesn’t have and/or is “wrong” for having. He has feelings and he has a right to them even when they’re not the same as yours and/or are expressed differently than you express yours.
5. If it’s okay for you to have male friends and maintain friendships with your exes, it’s also okay for your husband/boyfriend to have female friends and maintain friendships with his exes. It is not different for you because “you’re a woman.” It’s faulty logic to suppose women are inherently more trustworthy than men. This is called a double standard and it’s not okay. Otherwise, the culturally acceptable pronouncement, “Men are all dogs” should be met with “Women are all ****es” (i.e., female dogs) and should be equally culturally acceptable.
6. A father is just as important in a child’s life as a mother. Period. Just because you have a uterus doesn’t make you the better parent by default.
7. Children are not “hers” and “his” objects. The correct possessive pronoun is “ours.”
8. Your husband/boyfriend does not “owe” you. He shouldn’t be expected to financially support you and shower you with gifts unless you’re willing to reciprocate and equally support him without question or complaint. You’re neither his child nor his dependent. You’re supposed to be his equal partner.
9. Your husband’s/boyfriend’s desires, needs, wishes, feelings, likes and dislikes are just as important as yours. It’s not all about you all the time. You’re supposedly in a mutual and reciprocal relationship; not a service industry/client-vendor relationship.
10. If you’re not willing to make changes in yourself and your behavior, you’ve no right to demand that your husband/boyfriend do so. Nor is it reasonable to demand or expect your husband/boyfriend to make all the changes you want first before you’re willing to do your own work.
11. You are not a better human being by virtue of being a woman. You’re not a goddess. You’re not a sacred cow. You don’t “rule.” You’re a person, just like your husband/boyfriend is a person. You both deserve to be treated with equal dignity and respect when you act and treat each other with dignity and respect.
12. It’s a lie and a manipulation to say you “sacrificed” your career when you never really wanted to work in the first place. If you see your husband/boyfriend as your ticket to freedom from being a wage slave, be honest with yourself and your husband/boyfriend and most important of all, BE GRATEFUL. Having another person pay your way through life is not an inalienable right; it’s an enormous gift for which you should express gratitude on a regular basis.
13. It is wrong to use your child(ren) to hurt, control or extort money from your husband/boyfriend/ex. In fact, it borders on child abuse. Children are not pawns or human shields to be used for your own selfish reasons. They’re people who will later grow to resent you for using them in this fashion and will likely develop psychological problems of their own as a result.
14. It is wrong to expect or demand that your ex continue to financially support you after the relationship ends. The children are entitled to support until they become adults at the age of 18. You’re already an adult and, as such, you’re capable of and should legally be expected to take care of yourself– unless you’re willing to continue to support your ex by doing his grocery shopping, cooking cleaning, errands, etc. If your obligations to your husband are finished after a divorce, his obligations to you should also be finished.
15. Your husband/boyfriend is not responsible for your happiness. It isn’t his job to make you happy; that’s your job. Just as he is responsible for his own happiness. He’s supposed to be your equal partner, not your emotional wet nurse.
16. The desire for sex in a committed, loving relationship is healthy and natural. Using sex to control, shame or hurt your husband/boyfriend by withholding affection or making sex transactional is unhealthy and wrong.
17. Your husband/boyfriend should be more important to you than your child(ren) just as you should be more important to your husband than the child(ren). In other words, you should be each others’ first priorities; children second. You don’t need a husband if your sole desire is to have children–unless you see the man as a source of income for yourself and the children. If you can’t support yourself, you probably shouldn’t be having children. Marriage is a bond between two grown adults; not a bond between parent and child (Marc Rudov, 2008). You vow to honor your spouse and put him or her before all others, this includes your children. Children eventually fly the coop. If you make them the focus and raison d’être of your marriage, don’t be surprised when you no longer have much of a marriage as the years pass.
18. You are only entitled to what you earn or produce. Men are neither beasts of burden nor “working boys” to be pimped out in the service of their partners or ex-partners. No one owes you a living. As an adult, you’re not entitled to be taken care of by another party unless you have documented cognitive or physical disabilities that prohibit you from working. Last time I checked, being a wife, ex-wife, girlfriend, ex-girlfriend, mistress, ex-mistress, mother and/or simply a woman wasn’t considered a disability.
19. It is just as ABUSIVE when a woman slaps, kicks, hits, spits at, scratches, shoves, pushes, punches, pulls hair, uses a weapon, swings a golf club at or throws objects at a man. It isn’t funny, cute, justifiable or deserved. It is indefensible, inexcusable, criminal and just as prosecutable as when a man acts violently toward a woman. Period.
20. The same goes for emotional abuse. It is unacceptable.
21. It is neither “normal” nor “acceptable” adult female behavior to throw temper tantrums, withhold sex, cry, rage, pout, have disproportionate reactions to events or be unable to control emotions and behaviors. At the very least, these are signs of emotional lability and poor impulse control; at worst, these are indicators of serious pathology and quite possibly some kind of personality disorder.
22. It is not okay to divert money from your joint checking/savings account(s) or open credit cards in your husband’s/boyfriend’s name without his knowledge and explicit permission. The first instance is stealing and the second is considered identity theft and fraud. Signing your husband’s/boyfriend’s signature to financial and legal documents is forgery. All of these actions are illegal.
23. It is irresponsible to live beyond your means and abusive to expect your husband/boyfriend to foot the bill or go into debt to cover your expenses. If you can’t responsibly use a credit/debit card then, much like a child, you shouldn’t have one.
24. It is never acceptable or permissible to threaten to deny your husband/boyfriend/ex access to the children you share. It is not okay to make up abuse allegations because you’re feeling angry, hurt or out of control. This is an act of slander (spoken) or libel (written) and if you swear to it in court, it’s also an act of perjury.
25. It is not fair to commit to or marry a man and then try to change him. If you don’t accept him as he is, just like you expect him to accept you and your faults, then you have no business being with him. Everyone has a right to feel accepted for who he or she is in a relationship. If he’s “not good enough” for you from the get go; keep looking and cut him loose so he can be with a woman who appreciates him.
All of these observations seem self-evident to me, which leads me to ponder how did we get here?”
by Dr Tara J. Palmatier, PsyD
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 7:57 am
Ivan,
If you’re willing to do this, I would distribute a few thousand.
But why do you think you have to fight? Have you found it hard to build?
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 8:01 am
To John Dutchie,
Very nice post from Dr Tara J. Palmatier, PsyD,. She is a wonderful asset to the MRM.
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 8:15 am
Reply to Julie
‘But why do you think you have to fight? Have you found it hard to build?’
..Wow….!!!Beautifully said Julie,and as per usual…you are correct …It was very softly spoken…..But Whoa…!!! Packs a real hard punch….
Kind regards to you Julie ..John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 10:13 am
Thanks JD. You build my confidence with your kind words.
I just mentioned the word ‘fought’ in my next thread and am hoping it doesn’t make me sound contradictory to the comment I made.
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 10:36 am
I agree with you there Julie, the post from Dr Tara is as good as your original post and if you read the two together…well, I guess it becomes easier to see where things are going badly wrong.
One thing though, consider how a single parent may bring up children compared to the loving dual parent family scenario. They say that the family who plays together stays together, and that means family outings, camping trips, fishing, boating and sports activities etc. Now a single parent mostly doesn’t have the time. Two parents working together make quick work of household chores and therefore leisure time is available. A single parent does not have that luxury, hence limited leisure time.
So if the single working parent is duly twice as busy with household chores, then what are the kids doing in the meantime…TV, computers, Playstations, Ipods, cellphones. Can the single parent devote the same attention to children as a married couple can? No.
I almost fell into this trap. Away from home for 14 hours a day for four days of day/night shiftwork while ex and her partner looked after my son. Then coping with the tiredness and having to lux and clean and look after gardens and lawns and cook meals for the next 4 days while my son is in my care, as well keep up with school activities…it is exhausting. Leisure time…almost nonexistant.
I saw the change in my son as a result. He thought I didn’t have time to spend with him and help him with his schoolwork or his problems, and there was never much time to go fishing or the like.
I adapted for his sake. I learned to sleep for only six hours a night. My (now) 12 year old helps me with housework and gardens and cooking. And by working together we found we could go away on holiday and do the things father and son should do together…fishing and boating, walking, travelling and maintaining relationships with our relatives.
Yes it costs me heaps and my section is constantly in a state of disarray, but better that than have my son go wayward like so many other teen boys.
The payoff for me is seeing my boy happy and the big one is to see him go to Uni and grow up healthy and successful and happy.
On the downside, I’m getting old, and I well know I could easily end up in financial strife and hardship in the years to come through my committment to my son.
Still, we don’t live forever. I might very well suffer in the future, but then if I discontinue my efforts, I could lose my son one way or another. If I lose my son, either thru his suicide or drugs or boy racing, or for a multiple of other reasons, then I will have lost the one person in life who means so much to me. That would likely lead to my demise.
I don’t seem to have much of a choice..isn’t this what good parenting is all about…you put your children’s best interests before your own? I laugh becuase my ex puts her personal best interests as high priority..who is the better parent? Who is the better person?
Yes…Dr Tara’s post should be read by all women I think. I wonder what the cost would be of having both revelatory articles published on a full page ad in every NZ newspaper?
Sorry I have gotten a bit off track, but for me its a good way of letting of steam.
Comment by Morris — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 10:19 pm
I’ve enjoyed reading this. Feel free to get off track more often. 😉
Comment by julie — Tue 2nd March 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Reply to Morris
A awesome post Morris …And I concur with everything you have written….Well done Good Sir…..
Yes I understand,nothing wrong with ‘letting of Steam’……I have done many a times here on the Menz forum site…And do I feel better for it…Yep…!!!!
Kind regards to you Morris…John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 8:38 am
Julie,
Judges who need power point presentations to ‘understand’ are just not what I will call a judge.
Julie, to be frank, I do not believe men need advocates or father groups.
Fathers, men who have been violently abused by the Family Court need to protest every day in front of the Family Court. That will not happen tomorrow. How many people intervene in this site? just a few. You will be mesmerized at the number of protection order qualified men graduate from the Family Court every day. A staggering number , with its unsung stories of trauma caused mainly to the children and the father.
I question and I am deeply disturbed by the violent act of removing a father from his home, out of his children sight because the misses is not happy anymore.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 10:35 am
Im with Tren on this one.
I agree that all these lawyers, judges, counsellors, advocates, on and on and on are just more tiers of people willing to make their living out of the misery inflicted by the family caught. We dont need more people getting involved. We need the ones thast are there already audited by an independent body to see wether they are doing their job. Its a relationship breakdown for gods sake its not rocket science. Instead of fueling the fire with more people and their own adgendas in the godawful family caught we should be asking for those that are already there to be held accountable for their actions and do their jobs without the bias and predjudice.
phew cheers rant over
Mits
Comment by mits — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 4:07 pm
Thx John.
Even such a lone response gives some heart to continue to write.But I told the truth of my situation and I know there are probably 100’s of other damn good dads out there who are in my situation. Most of them are not even aware of this site, and most of them are far worse off than I am.
There are certain ways to raise awareness about the issues. God help me if I start the process off. My fear here is I will become so engrossed (infatuated) that my rapport with my son will deteriorate. Yes it sounds like a cop out, but the last thing I need to do now is to become so involved that it will affect whatever lifetstyle my son and I have together. He is 12, and yes, at the puberty stage, he is changing.
In my view it would not cost the earth to publicise our concerns. I am willing to contibute around $4000 toward a campaign. It is a start. At least. Newspapers to the tune of $4000 wont get that far, but perhaps at least it might raise awareness and we might have enough people to start something realistic. I mean we might save some lives here.
Well, we know what the issues are and how they are interelated. Small beginnings could easily lead to other international groups who might help. I hate donating funds to charities, but maybe we could set up something safe to help NZ dads and their kids, and to help save lives…..yes we would be doing what Peter Dunne was supposed to do, but we could raise funds thru public awarewess.
We talk, but we achieve nothing really. Comments? I have seen some great articles recently and some heavy facts, but until the general public view them, then this quiet discussion carries no weight. We need a celebrity to recognise what is happening, and TV ads. John Kirwan has advertised, but our need far outweighs his campaign..think about that. Sean & Martin? How many lives could those two savE?
Just think about for a while…it sounds silly, but think about for a while. Think about male teenage violence,the Police getting killed,the drugs, and where our kids are going…I say..where the hell are the parents and why is the Govt not reacting to the suicides and violence and mayhem when studies clearly show the the lack of PARENTING is directly involved.
So again I say Peter Dunne should face the Courts. How many kids and teenagers
Comment by Morris — Thu 4th March 2010 @ 12:07 am
Morris,
Oh my. Did I hear a donation?
I’ve got an idea. (see end of comment but read middle bit first)
Every charity group can be on the front page of a newspaper. Every charity should have a journalist of their own. Journalists of newspapers generally have a list of charity groups they work with.
You’ve just reminded me that I have a news article to be published from contacting a male journalist by confusing the name of our journalist.
I seem to have got as far as him asking me for advice on child support for his brother and I gave him this site. I didn’t book an interview even though he said he would gladly write about men’s issues.
……….
I think you need to be reminded that most of us here, right now, are in the same position as you. We all have to take care of our lives and our children’s lives. This is all voluntary work on the side.
Maybe you and all of us can come up with some ways to reach the public and we can all brainstorm suggestions on how and then look at what we can do for free and what will cost money.
Comment by julie — Thu 4th March 2010 @ 1:51 am
To Morris,
I hope my above comment was appropriate in your eyes. I am always looking at opportunities to progress in a positive light and was thinking that if you really did want to put some money towards activism, you could have a say in how it is spent.
Comment by julie — Thu 4th March 2010 @ 6:59 am
Um, yeah, as I’ve said before, I’m pretty sure narcissists and borderlines come in both genders.
Comment by Angela — Thu 4th March 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Reply to Angela
For once,I do have to concur with you,Angela …However the ‘system’ here in N.Z still as following beliefs…e.g …Like the ‘Family Courts’
Man/Father = Always the Abuser/s
Woman/Mother = Always the Victim/s
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Thu 4th March 2010 @ 3:58 pm
Reply to Morris
Morris your comment on ‘I know there are probably 100’s of other damn good dads out there who are in my situation.’
With no disrespect to your above comment Morris,I really do beg to differ with that…. Just my humble opinion ….More like in ‘1000’s’ instead of the ‘100’s’….
Enjoy reading your posts and I agree with ‘Julie’…You are most welcome to go off on a different tangent .
Hope you post more often Morris…Kind regards to you Good Sir
John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 12:41 pm
But that’s simply not true – it’s not ALWAYS. What exactly do men want? You want to go back to the days when women weren’t considered persons under the law but instead the property of their fathers or husbands? The website you referred in another thread hardly mentioned men. Where are the anti-male websites you all speak of – NOT blogs but proper organisations spouting anti-male rhetoric. Why not try to stamp out hatred in general? You want more male primary school teachers? Pay them more. Install cameras. Social engineering has always happened – they’re called rules and laws. False allegations are made about everything not just sexual assaults – it’s called libel or slander. What exact changes do you want? And I don’t mean just you Mr John Dutchie.
Comment by Angela — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 12:43 pm
Angela, you ask some pertinent questions but preface them with this :
Which is just silly and frankly insulting. If you want to be taken seriously then this sort of histrionic nonesense is not the way to go about it.
Comment by amfortas — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Reply to Angela…
Excellent post young Lady and now We can have civilized debate Angela…
Firstly Angela, I will not denied that there was some appalling laws that were made against Womanhood and Motherhood in the past.!!!!..And do you think, if those so called Laws still existed today in New Zealand….That I would sit here quietly and do nothing..!!!…..Like hell I would…Young Lady I would fight even harder to have equal rights for you,as a Woman/Mother but more importantly as a ‘Human being’…
. False allegations are made about everything not just sexual assaults …Yes,correct… but False sexual allegation can totally destroy a decent Human being life for good…
Both as in Man and Woman…I seen the effects of a False Allegation ripped and destroyed a good and decent loving Family unit apart…That experience I would not wish upon on my worst enemy…
‘Social engineering has always happened — they’re called rules and laws.’….Pardon.!!..What..!!!!…Sorry,just my humble opinion, what a ‘Crook of S@#t’ that statement is….Decent Rules and Decent Laws should be made for the common good for the Human race,and made by both Man and Woman…….
‘but proper organizations spouting anti-male rhetoric’…..Oh really young Lady…??? Then, might I kindly suggest you do a Google search on Feminist quotes…that one should surprise you…!!!…Oh while you are at it…Do a Google search ‘S.C.U.M’…That one one will really surprise you young Lady….!!
Have to go,work calls…I fill finish this post on Saturday
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 1:10 pm
Angela;
Firstly, I agree with the word ALWAYS; it should of course be ‘ALMOST ALWAYS’.
Secondly; are you really THAT naive or are you just pretending to be ?
Almost every man (I say almost as I am sure there are some that don’t) want EQUALITY. Equality being when it doesn’t matter which gender is doing what.
With regard to anti-male websites; oh, how big a list do you want ? I can start one but it would just get very silly in the end as I know other contributors on here would just add to it. Get your head out of the sand and take a look for yourself!
With regard to male school teachers, I’m sorry but no amount of money would ensure they are protected from abuse claims. Slander/libel ? Get real, in New Zealand we have had so many cases of false allegations that most people don’t even bat an eye any more. We even have a secret court that promotes the use of false allegations, since its job is not to prosecute for perjury.
Changes I want ?
The law to be changed so it meets our requirements on the human rights charter that we are a signatory of; for government agencies to understand that there are fathers who want to be part of their children’s lifes. For our rotting police and NGOs to accept the DV is caused REGARDLESS of gender.
I’d like to be treated like a human being. How about that for starters …
Comment by noconfidence — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 1:44 pm
So are you suggesting we’re making this all up Angela? Sounds like it.
Please show us where men on this site have suggested we go back to when women (do you prefer wimmin?) were the ones disadvantaged by society/laws/government.
It is not difficult to find evidence, just go looking. I doubt you will as you never answer questions on here, you just make silly statements intended to get us angry.
I think if you actually took the time to read this site you would see that most/all of us are trying to stamp out hatred, but it’s not just about hatred!
Paying men more to go and teach won’t work. I wouldn’t do it if you paid me ten times what I am getting now. Plus I hope you’re not suggesting we pay male teachers more just because they’re male? That would be sexist!
Install cameras? Ok where? Can the cameras be everywhere? See everything? Hear everything?
Why single John D out?
Oh and you never answered my question as to why exactly you are on this site.
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Oh yes, and try looking up the Ministry of Men’s Affairs as well… you know the organisation that reports to the government on how to improve the well being of mens lives?
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 1:54 pm
Equality as a person, as a parent and for our sons educations. The law provides for equality however feminism opposes it.
Will you work to eradicate hate groups or will you defend them? Feminism is a hate group.
An increase in pay for Peter Ellis wouldn’t have prevented his wicked journey, courtesy of feminism. We don’t need cameras. We need feminism to be honest.
– they’re also called manipulations and abuses of innocent people to satisfy the agenda of another party, often feminism.
Please research the cost involved with prosecuting someone for either of these crimes … and then go ‘duh’.
I want you to answer questions posed to you rather than you continuing to ask questions of others while ignoring answering others questions. There is a power & control mechanism apparent in your conduct here.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 3:56 pm
amfortras or whatever your handle is, this is not histrionics. This is history. Women were not considered “persons” under the law. Anyone else care to comment on that?
I even have a paper copy of an historic NZ statute giving women the right to practice law. You’d better get your facts straight. Difficult to examine the present or speculate on the future without an understanding of the past.
Comment by Angela — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 4:27 pm
Angela,
Armfortas got it spot on.
If you want to be treated seriously you need to cut out the histrionics.
You aren’t even near accurate with your depiction of days gone by either. Your knowledge of history is an appallingly naive feminist version. For a much more factual version you can go here
You can view this short video also. Watch it right to the end and you’ll be amazed at how twisted history has ben rendered by feminists to suit thier own agenda.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 4:34 pm
sorry bad link.
Try again – go here -> Were women oppressed in the west?
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 4:38 pm
Ok, I looked up S.C.U.M. The founder was a sexually abused psycho misandrist who tried to kill Andy Warhol and I for one would be embarrassed to call her a feminist. That is not what feminism is about. Google “feminism” – Wikipedia will do.
Is slander a criminal or civil offence. If it’s not criminal it should be – then the police would prosecute – not much cost there? Time.
And thanks for your support of sane, intelligent women who like men who like them and don’t limit themselves by silly ideas that they shouldn’t do something because girls don’t do that, like maybe play rugby … feminists in my opinion
Comment by Angela — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Angela, or whatever your handle is, you have not known a time when women were ‘owned’ by a man in any english-origin nation. No-one alive today has.
Perhaps you look back with blinkers so you do not see the time when men were ‘owned’ by their ‘Lord of the Manor’. But do you hear any Men’s rights advocate hark back to that as though we were about to revisit it or that it has any relevance to today.
And I have a reference to the most Senior Judge on the Supreme Court of Seattle in 1909 being a woman. So what?
Does your ‘historic statute’ have words to the effect that ‘We, The Wicked, Oppressive, Woman-Hating Patriarchy, hearby license women to practice Law, aganst the very best interests of We, the undersigned Neanderthals who have been dragged, kicking and wailing to this historic occasion’.
If not, shove it.
Comment by amfortas — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 4:43 pm
What about a Department of Human Affairs subdivided into men’s and women’s sections. The Declaration of the Rights of Man(kind) could be its raison d’etre.
Comment by Angela — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 4:45 pm
Sick:
1. That is not what feminism is about.
2. That is not feminism – that is misandry – I do not hate my dad or brother; far from it. My grandmother always said you should never use the word hate.
3. Peter Ellis – I don’t know enough to comment. Funnily enough, remember the days of the school marm – OK I’m thinking Little House on the Prairie here but the teachers were always female then – the only jobs beside wife or whore for unmarried women were teachers or nurses – or nuns too I guess.
4. Try substituting feminism for capitalism – today, in most cases “they” have twice the work force to support the same number of humans … feminism has certainly been good for the owners of the means of production et al
5. Commented above to John D
6. Yeah, as a female and feminist who shaves her legs and other bits too, I want y’all to stop stereotyping all feminists as Nazis, better dead than alive, etc. I recently read that most couples experience 20% more conflict after children arrive – instead of a full pre-nup agreement how about a pre-child agreement including such things as, say, we will/will not use corporal punishment; I (male) will spend no more than, say 1 or 2 in 4 Sundays per month fishing, playing golf, or whatever; I (female) will be the one to get up at night with the baby but daytime naps will not then be considered a luxury of a woman who “doesn’t have to work”. Just some ideas,
So again, there’s a concrete idea – I’ve asked for some concrete ideas of how to get male teachers back in schools but have only had abstract comments. You can’t lobby with that.
Comment by Angela — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:06 pm
Sorry… were my questions too difficult to answer?
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:10 pm
So you get to pick and choose who are feminists and who aren’t? So much for the right to choose!
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:11 pm
you’ve missed the point. The point is we don’t need a department for men and a deparment for women or one that consists of both, because that is what the government is meant to be for!
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:12 pm
amortas, a simple, “You’re right, I’m wrong” would have sufficed. And yes, I know full well of the feudal system … the lower classes, regardless of race or gender being prohibited from learning to read, the effects of the Industrial Revolution, etc, etc
Comment by Angela — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:13 pm
Scott B, my verbal reasoning skills according to high school testing were at the 99th percentile, so, if I don’t answer a question it’s because I don’t have time (I do have a life) or I consider the question to be not worthy of a response.
Comment by Angela — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:16 pm
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:16 pm
so which was it? Too busy or my questions weren’t worthy enough?
If they weren’t worthy enough, please let me know so I may improve in the future.
I trust you aren’t too busy responding to other peoples worth-while questions to respond to these two.
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:20 pm
Lots of other guys on here seem to want one for men.
Comment by Angela — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:40 pm
Sketpic, Oh, come on, Angry Harry? That’s your reference? I see a lion on the home page. I don’t for a second seriously compare the behaviour of animals to humans but were you aware that when a new male takes over a pride he kills all the cubs so that the lionesses come into heat and can bear his cubs sooner.
Comment by Angela — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:48 pm
Skeptic… you forgot to ask Angela who would be ok to reference! Silly mistake. Still at least your post is WORTHY of a response! 😛
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 5:51 pm
Angela,
#1 You may believe that feminism does not oppose equality for males however there is much evidence to refute your assertion.
#2 Misandry was spewed from the loins of feminist extremists.
#3 Please review the following link that explains the deliberate hostility of feminists towards male teachers and their manipulations to Socially Engineer our children with feminist ideology. It would be useful, for your understanding of the male fear of teaching, if you would study the case of Peter Ellis. He was/is clearly an innocent victim of feminist agenda.
#4 I believe you’re on the right track with #4 however I don’t agree that a System (capitalism) has conducted or can conduct any Social Engineering but rather individuals or groups of people do. My research reveals manipulations from elitists, both male and female being responsible, for the apparent enmity between women and men using feminism as a method to foster that result.
#6 Pre-domestic contracts are disregarded in favour of women’s privilege in our Family Courts. They’re expensive nappy wipes. No-fault-divorce nullifies any Marriage Contract.
Most couples that I’ve known have shared and negotiated their domestic chores. If a contract is necessary then the relationship is not worth having in my opinion.
I was raised to believe that I must always clean up any mess that I’ve made myself and to not leave that mess for others to clean up. Please see #3 and advise the sisterhood to clean up the mess that they’ve left behind. Also, the unresolved Peter Ellis saga prohibits many men from placing themselves at risk of becoming a teacher. Misandry emanating from magazines, TV, movies, Women’s Refuge, CYFS, the Family Court, Corporations and feminist extremists cause men to become very wary of placing themselves at risk. There is too much hysterical discrimination against males for them to be able to make a healthy contribution where it is needed most, Teaching.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Angela,
Yes,Angry Harry is my reference.
He’s a qualified psychologist, not that that matters terribly. What should get your attention however is that he has been and continues to be read by MILLIONS of men and women who very often agree with him.
He’s also endorsed by Men’s movement heavyweight thinkers like Warren Farrel and Mike Lesalle.
I notice you’ve done the usual feminist thing of simply scoffing at Angry Harry being given as a reference without commenting on the webpage and the video embedded there, before going off on a tangent to avoid the issue with some male-baiting comments about lions.
It’s great to have you on this website.
It gives many of us wonderful opportunities to educate feminists about reality.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 6:28 pm
Oh dear Angela.
You tell us that you don’t compare with animals and then do just that.
And incorrectly too.
There is a myth that male lions kill and eat cubs but there has NEVER been a documented observation of male lions killing cubs. I am aware of the myth but not of any proof. There has however been a FILMED incident of a female lion killing the cubs of two other lionesses. She was ‘outside’ the pride and the two males of the pride had been killed defending the females and the cubs. Both mothers were off hunting, leaving the babies unguarded. The film-makers from the Kruger National Park were horrified.
Many animal females kill their cubs. Meercat matriarchs regularly kill the cubs of even their own daughters. It is quite common for mothers to kill and eat ‘runts’ and even accidently kill their young when ‘cleaning’ them. Lions have very rough tongues and have been known to accidently ‘skin’ baby lions. Cheeta females will kill their cubs rather than defend them from a lion.
Comment by amfortas — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 7:18 pm
By the way, Angela. Not only is Angry Harry a psychologist (PhD) but so is Bernard Chapin, so is Carey Roberts (Professor), so is Dr Tara at MND, and Dr Helen (and both women to boot), and Gordon Finlay, and Paul Elam.
And so am I for that matter.
I could go on and name three or four others too, all fine MRAs who try very hard to get through to women who will listen.
I have to say that the psychology industry has been fed very well by feminism. This female creed has produced more mental health and relationship problems, social and educational problems, drug abuse and violence problems than a Titanic full of cocaine.
Comment by amfortas — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 7:31 pm
99th percentile. Wow, Angela. That’s around 170 IQ. You are in the same league as Dr Amy Bishop who murdered three University colleagues and wounded several others. She had previously tried to fire-bomb another colleague who didn’t support her demand for tenure. When she was younger (19, not 3) she ‘accidently’ shot her brother – THREE times – then held up the manager of a car show-room so she could steal a get-away car.
She didn’t have to bother with answering questions either.
Thank the Lord I only have an IQ of a mere 149.
Comment by amfortas — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 7:47 pm
The reason Angela doesn’t like him is because…
A: He is a man?
B: He is not a feminist?
C: He is not spreading feminist propoganda?
D: He is telling the truth?
E: No answer will satisfy her?
F: All of the above? (and possibly more)
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 8:42 pm
Oh dear, Angela doesn’t have time or considers the questions/comments above to be not worthy of a response.
OMG. What a classic. Angela; if you don’t want to debate then go play with your female friends, instead of trying to bait people. This site is for discussion and if you can’t discuss the opinions on here then you definitely shouldn’t be on discussion sites at all !
Comment by noconfidence — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 9:02 pm
99th percentile? Who cares? Really?
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 9:26 pm
I have four siblings of which 3 earn 6 figure incomes and all own unencumbered homes (1 of the 4 is deceased). They all have average IQs. Apparently my IQ is 163 and I’m on the DPB, perpetually broke and live in a Housing New Zealand unit in Porirua. I’m unsure whether I would wish for a lower IQ and be more like my siblings or wish for a higher IQ and be more like you and Clayton Weatherston.
If you don’t have the time to answer questions posed to you then maybe you should also refrain from asking questions of those who you deem unworthy of your time.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 10:03 pm
Beginning to think Angela works for the family court as a judge! That’s the kind of arrogance I have encountered whenever I have had the misfortune of being inside their cold rooms!
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 10:29 pm
.
¿u?op ?p?sdn s?u??? ?o? osl? pu? `???n?u?l ??? ??ods no? ?? ?suods?? ?????q ? ??? plno? no? ?q???
Comment by SicKofNZ — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 10:45 pm
I can’t, cause I’m not worthy.
Comment by Scott B — Sat 6th March 2010 @ 9:07 am
Reply to Angela
‘If I don’t answer a question it’s because I don’t have time (I do have a life) or I consider the question to be not worthy of a response.’..
What a ‘Crook of verbal Diarrhea’,this reminds me of the typical Feminist Arrogance that exists in Western Society…
What total ‘Arrogance’ you have display here young Lady,you will do extremely well to be employed at ‘The ministry of Woman’s affairs’ here in New Zealand..I call that particular government department ‘The ministry of ‘Evil Feminazi’ social engineering affairs’…!!!
Well Lady you might have a so call high ‘I.Q’….But your so called ‘I.Q’ in the common sense department and as in ‘manners’ is deplorable….
My attitude towards you young lady ,is as such …You are definitely not worthy of even a civil response too, let alone to be acknowledged …….
Kind regards to you, Miss Socail engineering ‘Feminazi’ Feminist John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Sat 6th March 2010 @ 11:08 am
Reply to Angela…Whoa….!!!!!!!!!!
4. Try substituting feminism for capitalism — today, in most cases “they” have twice the work force to support the same number of humans … feminism has certainly been good for the owners of the means of production et al
..Pardon….Excuse me.!!!!….What ‘insane bizarre planet’ are you on Miss Feminist…..??????…..Oh please spare me this ‘Verbal Diarrhea’ of this typical brainwashing ‘Feminazi’ social engineering propaganda crap..!!!!!!!
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Sat 6th March 2010 @ 11:46 am
Reply to SicKofNZ
……..Beautiful said Good Sir….Kudos to you…
Kind regards to you,Good Sir… John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Sat 6th March 2010 @ 11:50 am
Angela said…
Dear Angela,
When you are capable of combining your claimed “verbal reasoning skills” with an accurate knowledge base regarding the world and it’s history you may be worth listening to. At that point we can determine whether or not YOU are worthy of a response.
Get back to me when you’ve grown out of this childish arrogance.
The truly wise understand how little they know. The foolishly unwise open their traps and prove it.
Comment by gwallan — Sat 6th March 2010 @ 1:32 pm
Touche
Comment by Angela — Sat 6th March 2010 @ 6:42 pm
Reply to Angela..
Hmmmmmmmmmmm…Touche am I.???..Try this one Angela for size Angela..Since you proclaim you are a Feminist…
Could you ‘Enlighten’ me and what the true meaning of this ‘quote’ relating to Men by a famous Australian Feminist called ‘Germaine Greer’…
In fact Angela, might I kindly suggest you read more of this charming Feminazi Feminist quotes…After all ‘Germaine Greer’ is considered to be a ‘Goddess’ to you feminazi Feminists…..!!!!!
One of many quotes from ‘Germaine Greer’…… ‘For a male child to become a man, he has to reject his mother. It’s an essential part of masculinisation.’
And just my humble opinion of the above quote from Germaine Greer….More feminist/s social engineering spin of this Evil Feminazi brainwashing propaganda crap……..!!!!!!
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 7th March 2010 @ 10:03 am
blame the women i say women only gyms are sexist
women are quite sexist of all people its disgusting they want equal rights but yet their total disregard to the whole issue of rights
maybe their would be more fathers if girls werent so slutty and such a**holes girls need to rethink their behaviour before blaming men.
tbh i reckon f**k women.
Comment by jeff — Mon 8th March 2010 @ 2:00 pm
and btw f**k feminsts their just glorified lesbos.
Comment by jeff — Mon 8th March 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Feminism is all lies dsigned to destroy Western culture. The blue print was writtem by Karl Marx who was funded by Nathan Rothschild. Feminism is a dishonest movement driven mostly by homosexual women who offered sexual ‘freedom’, independance from men and who did everything they could to create a gender war. It is attractive to selfish ignorant whores. Rockefellers and Rothchilds now have personal wealth of about $600 trillion dollars.
Karl Marx
“The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.
In this New World Order the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.”
– Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, ‘La Revue de Paris’, p.574, June 1, 1928
Comment by Larry — Mon 8th March 2010 @ 3:21 pm
That’s very interesting Larry. I was just reading an article that included much of what you just posted: How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women
Comment by SicKofNZ — Mon 8th March 2010 @ 3:32 pm
For angela and any other feminists who don’t believe/pretend feminsim isn’t about hating men… oh and look at the gender of the person reading it… a FEMALE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmqwENQwNR8
Comment by Scott B — Tue 9th March 2010 @ 9:58 am
Thanks for that Scott B, and it’s good to see a young woman expose the hate ideology that is feminism. The amazing thing though is that so many feminists could produce so much sexist hate speech yet be allowed to get away with it. On the other hand, any man who says anything that remotely looks like it denigrates women, just watch the p.c. forces jump on him!
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 9th March 2010 @ 10:23 am
Agreed Hans, I think it’s time books/blogs/whatever like that, that promote hate to be banned from NZ! (And the rest of the world, but let’s start in our own back yard!) Imagine writing a book/blog/whatever like that about a race of people, this is worse, this is half the populatio… of the world!
Comment by Scott B — Tue 9th March 2010 @ 10:41 am
I don’t have a problem with female only environments. Where we go wrong is denying the equivalent to men.
Just as a male entering an all female environment changes the dynamic the same is true for male environments.
Comment by gwallan — Tue 6th April 2010 @ 5:27 pm
Really Angela. Did you know that female lions kill the children of antelopes, zebras and all sorts of other species just to give their own cubs a leg-up in the race for gene immortality?
Talk about clutching at convenient gender arguments!
Did you know that human females kill their own children far more frequently than is publicly known, and that the crime of ‘infanticide’ is specifically invoked so that mothers can evade the harsher penalties of murder? That newspapers often don’t report infanticides? Can you see how embedded into the justice system is the notion of women not being responsible for their own actions, and being basically unable to stop themselves behaving like females of other species that kill their own?
Why do you think the law always looks for a man to prosecute whenever a crime involving a woman perpetrator occurs, and once located, that man always catches the more severe penalty, no matter how minor his role?
Whilst the government and other agencies are forever telling us that women are more capable and not getting the opportunities and rewards that are their due, our legal system quietly plods on tacitly admitting that women are indeed irresponsible and can’t be expected to answer for their own behaviour in the same manner that men are.
Why are their specific ‘male assaults female’ laws with harsher penalties than common assault, if not because the law believes men are actually responsive to penalties – ie, they are more capable of learning from consequences than are women?
Whilst it’s easy to rationalize anything, it always amuses me that women never speak out against the way they get such easy treatment before the law. At its heart nothing could be more condescending – it is the state saying unequivocally that women can’t handle it like men. Sure, we’ll tell the little ladies how capable they are, how brilliant they must be because they’re good at school, how they can multi-task, communicate, empathise, whatever – at the end of the day we can’t hold them to account like we can men. Women are light-weights – and that’s the official view.
And what’s more, you agree with it. You won’t do a thing to change it – not even object.
Comment by rc — Tue 6th April 2010 @ 7:40 pm