51 Comments »

1. 

   We are far to quick to condemn. Out Family caught calls rumour “Evidence” Translate a “Fear” into a major hazard, and feelings into facts. Little wonder men loose so heavily there.

   Comment by Gwaihir — Thu 12th April 2012 @ 11:26 pm

2. 

   Reply to MurrayBacon

   And I am going to say this loud and clear to all concerned….. Every decent,loving and compassionate western man that is still living in a western ‘Gestapo’ feminist state…

   Don’t go near a western women anymore….Don’t even touch them…Don’t date them….Don’t marry them…And for heaven’s sake don’t become a Father …

   Get out and live in a Country that hasn’t been totally corrupted by them man/father hating Gestapo vile and evil feminists

   Kind regards John Dutchie Free at last

   Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 13th April 2012 @ 5:11 am

3. 

   Dear John, I believe that your message is increasing being understood by young men, maybe not loud and clear, but certainly under the skin.
   I recall hearing someone comment that all the separated men were going out with asian women. I was about to open my mouth to argue and it hit me that I was going out with a foreign lady (polish), not for lack of trying with NZ women. So, substitute foreign for asian and there is much truth in it. The small number of white NZ ladies were not prepared to spend any time with my children and apparently saw them as a diversion of funds from where they might want to spend.
   However, the self centred style is more recently just as visible in young men too, I suspect?
   If we pass laws that encourage (financially incentivise) breakup of relationships, then we are just getting what we asked for. Is it right to blame people who are just responding to the incentives that we force onto them?
   Surely the solution is to rethink legislation and this time do a better job?
   MurrayBacon.

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 13th April 2012 @ 10:05 am

4. 

   Primary teachers and Plunket nurses are backing Labour’s bill to extend paid parental leave which the government will veto. Good legislation or bad? What are the ramifications for father?

   Comment by Down Under — Fri 13th April 2012 @ 11:18 am

5. 

   I suggest that the bill will have generally good results for children, probably much more so than most parents realise. Generally more time spent between all family members should result in better bonding and improved relationships right through life. (Where there are some minor or more serious mental illness issues, then it is even more important that all parents play a larger part in the parenting of these children. So, if it was the mother who had more serious mental health issues, then encouraging the father to spend more time with the children while they are very young gives a substantial degree of mental health protection for these children. And, vice versa in the same way.)

   Maybe if housing was more affordable, then we could put higher priority on better parenting?

   However, will this greater paid parental leave be taken up by the mother or by the father?
   Will it be taken up by the parent with weaker or stronger mental health?

   Economics favours one parent working and one caring for the children.

   Good parenting (and good child protection too), when we look at healthy child development, requires parents to much more equally share the tasks of parenting (especially if one or both have mental health issues). Thus good parenting is quite in conflict with making the most money for the family.
   Which is more important for most parents?

   These issues suggest that young men should consider how their family finances would stack up, if they were forced to care for the children and the wife was forced to work, by child protection issues. Curiously, this argument seems to put more pressure onto women, to develop a career….. This may be difficult, if the woman has some degree of mental health problems.

   Quite a separate issue is funding. Should the bill just guarantee the holding of the job for the parent and they accept this time unpaid, or should this time be Government funded?
   If it costs the family more, for the father to take time away from work, will many fathers be willing to do this?
   Even leaving money aside, I suspect that quite a few men wouldn’t be keen to spend this time with their own children, alas. I believe that we need to show fathers that their involvement in the growing up of their children is important and may be critically important, if the mother has some problems with parenting.

   I did spend some time with my own children when they were very small. I seem to remember working full time also, partly during the day and through to the early hours of the morning, through the grace of a reluctant but tolerant employer. I don’t remember any Government funding, except for paying child support for the priviledge… Sorry about my tasteless moaning!!!

   There are lots of ways of skinning a cat and we must look carefully at all options.

   I suspect that a cost effectiveness analysis would support Government funding, but my guess is it would be economically marginal. If the funding was based on Government funding for the parent with stronger mental health, then my guess is it would have a reasonably attractive cost benefit for Government. (If we trimmed solo parents benefits just a little, then $150 million would be available very quickly. Maybe the solo parent’s benefits should be mental health and parenting skill tested? This is to protect their children, more than just to save money.)

   In my opinion, Government funding is the small issue. The larger issue is job protection, for caring for children. Also I believe that close neighbourhood shared care options offer more security and value for children and parents, than Government funding of nuclear powered families. We should be encouraging mutual support, rather than incentivising the nuclear option for families. However, developing the relationships needed to setup and maintain mutual family support requires stable and good mental health…. The Government is working to improve mental health support, even for men.

   In the discussion above, please note that impacts onto children occur at lower levels of mental health issues, than needed for a formal diagnosis. Also mental health issues are usually intermittent, they come and go. Thus if a parent isn’t formally diagnosed with a mental health issue, this doesn’t mean that there will be no problems for the children. If the other parent plays a significant role in the care and development of the children, then the risks for the children’s development are much reduced. Formal diagnosis of a mental health issue is set at a level reflecting adult self care competence. A much better level of mental health is required, to take care of and develop children properly, with minimal risk of the children developing mental health problems.

   Cooklin, A. (2006) Children of Parents with Mental Illness, Chapter 12, pp. 265-291. In, From Children in Family Contexts, Second Edition: Perspectives on Treatment, edited by Lee Combrinck-Graham. (2006) The Guilford Press, UK

   http://familyandparenting.web-platform.net/Filestore/Documents/PC2008/Workshops/AlanCooklin/Combrinck-GrahamCh12.pdf

   I have cautiously expressed my guess. More to the point, I hope I can stimulate your debate!
   Thanks, MurrayBacon.

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 13th April 2012 @ 1:20 pm

6. 

   Reply to Down Under# 4

   Your post…’What are the ramifications for father?’…And when did Fathers issues were ever considered in ‘The Republic of ‘Gestapo’ social engineered Feminist N.Z’..Zero..Nothing..

   The only use for a Father in NZ is to be used as a walking sperm donor/s and a walking ATM machine for the Gestapo hell hole Feminist state,and for them poor down trodden Kiwi women

   Kind regards John Dutchie Free at last

   Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 13th April 2012 @ 1:21 pm

7. 

   Reply to MurrayBacon#3

   Interesting post and some very interesting question/s you have asked MurrayBacon,however

   Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 13th April 2012 @ 1:27 pm

8. 

   Whoopsie hit the key….However I will reply later as I now have to go…

   Tongue in cheek…’No rest for the wicked’…Hang on,I forgot that I don’t abode in NZ anymore, hence I not considered to be a wicked and evil Father

   Kind regards to you MurrayBacon…stay strong good sir

   John Dutchie Free at Last

   Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 13th April 2012 @ 1:32 pm

9. 

   With the increasing number of female graduates and decreasing number of male graduates from tertiary institutions the concept of paid parental leave will eventually become unaffordable. Weight of numbers as was the case with the DPB over a period of time. The government being such a large and increasing employer of female graduates will eventually move to recover that cost from fathers and will extend the same benefit as a subsidy to business. All this would require is a different tax code for married men and a change of percentage in child support for separated men, with the state retaining a percentage rather than passing the full amount on to the mother. Feminism isn’t a viable economic model, it has to be paid for and the more that it is implemented, the higher the cost that will be met by fathers. Any perceived benefits to children or mental health are anecdotal and irrelevant distractions.

   Comment by Down Under — Fri 13th April 2012 @ 2:41 pm

10. 

    Dear Down Under, you are looking at these issues in adult focussed mode and suggest that child benefits are anecdotal or irrelevant distractions.

    I am scared that you could easily be right, if the political debate is adult focussed only. The history of the DPB is a very unfortunate (and astonishingly expensive) example of failing to distinguish between the parent’s interest and the children’s interest.

    To try to avoid such a failure occurring again, I am suggesting that we try to look carefully at value delivered to the children, by whom. This is as hard as performance based pay in schoolteaching and almost as fraught with methodological problems.

    If we wish to protect children’s right to a healthy development environment and healthy development too, then we must address this measurement challenge. If we fail, then probably we fail to properly protect our children.

    We already have 3 decades of experience with the irrelevant and incompetent familycaught$, so lets try to aim to succeed this time around. We must try to not prejudge by the sex of parents, but look at what they essentially deliver for their children, in each individual specific case. This approach will tread on fairly powerful vested interests and sacred cows, but this is the world that we operate in.

    Anecdotal –

    http://www.networkmosaic.org.nz/Cache/Pictures/1171075/Trish_Gledhill_Addiction_paper.pdf
    Introduction
    There is now a great deal of research available regarding the experiences and
    outcomes for children living with addiction. Despite recognition of some of the
    limitations of earlier research, and some conflicting evidence regarding risk, it is
    generally accepted that children of alcoholics are more at risk of developing alcohol
    problems later in life or to experience other psychiatric, behavioural disorders or
    interpersonal difficulties (Casswell, 1996; Jansen, Fitzgerald, Ham & Zucker, 1995;
    Green, MacIntyre, West & Ecob, 1991; Velleman, 1992).
    Our understanding of the effects of alcohol problems has continued to develop
    as later research attempts to more accurately define those factors which adversely
    affect children’s functioning and their development as adults. More recent research
    focuses specifically on the dynamics within a family and the quality of interactions
    within the family.
    By recognising the majority of children who do not develop major difficulties,
    research has begun to suggest factors that promote resilience in a child’s functioning
    and the mechanisms by which these protective factors are able to limit the effects of
    risk (Werner, 1986; Wolin & Wolin, 1995).
    Recent literature, however, continues to highlight the needs of these children
    and the lack of services available (Lindstein, 1996; Brisby, Baker, & Hedderwick,
    1997; Coface & Eurocare, 1998).
    This paper will briefly refer to alcohol and drug related harm in New Zealand
    followed by a definition of addiction as it impacts on family members. A description
    is provided of some of the characteristics of families living with addiction and some
    of the negative outcomes for children as they relate to key areas of children’s wellbeing.
    The topic of resilience is explored with suggestions as to how we may apply
    this construct to working with children and young people living in these
    environments. Implications for practice and policy are described, followed by a brief
    outline of the Hawke’s Bay Addiction Services Children’s Programme.

    http://www.barnardos.org.uk/family_minded_report.pdf
    (This is a services marketing document put out by Barnardoes, to help sell their costly services.)
    How does parental mental illness affect children and families?
    Mental illnesses may be as varied as physical illnesses in their presentation and
    impact. The type, severity and duration of a parent’s mental illness infl uences the
    impact on children3. Children can become isolated from friends and wider family;
    they are often burdened by caring responsibilities, and can feel embarrassed or
    ashamed because of the stigma of mental illness and discrimination associated
    with it. But with the right support and clear information4 children can be helped to
    cope with what is happening.
    Most parents with mental illness go on caring with great love and commitment
    for their children. But their situation can be made more diffi cult than it should
    be if they do not receive the understanding and support they need – such as
    appropriate care packages, fi nancial support, practical support and advocacy in
    decision-making. They are also more at risk of unemployment or low pay and the
    poverty that goes with this5.
    We also know that since women are still overwhelmingly the primary carers for
    children, especially in the early years, the mental illness of a mother is likely to have
    a particular impact on children6.

    Natalie Heijm at Massey University, Albany has published a thesis:
    http://www.sfauckland.org.nz/site/supportingfamilies/files/Information//Research_Project_December_2011%20Final%20version.pdf
    Supporting Families in Mental Illness:
    A Qualitative, Exploratory Study into the Views and Needs of Parents who Experience Mental Illness Regarding Parenting Programmes
    Her thesis is mainly parent need focussed, but somewhat covers the territory that I am trying to illustrate.

    Parents with mental illness:
    The effect of parental mental illness on child development is an area of rigorous debate (Reupert and Maybery, 2007). Mowbray, Bybee, Hollingsworth, Goodkind and Oyserman (2005) found that serious mental illness in mothers is associated with inadequate parenting ability. According to Phelan, Lee, Howe and Walter (2006), aspects of functioning associated with poor parenting are communication, impulse control and motivation. Importance is placed on how well a person is able to manage their illness whilst undertaking parenting duties (Mowbray et al., 2005). Different mental illnesses are commonly discussed; depression is linked to lacking emotional availability for children and pychotic disorders may produce inappropriate parenting responses (Craig, 2004). Phelan, Lee, Howe and Walter (2006) argue that mental illness is not a predictor of parenting capacity and many people parent effectively despite having a mental illness. It is acknowledged that parenting can be a challenge regardless of psychiatric diagnosis (Clarke, 2010).
    Ackerson (2003) interviewed 13 parents regarding the dual demands of serious mental illness and parenting. Thematic analysis identified: problems with treatment and diagnosis; stigma and discrimination; chaotic interpersonal relationships; strain of single parenthood; custody issues; relationship with children and social support. Support from family and friends was mentioned more often than formal support, but this was practical in nature, not always emotional support. Ackerson also found that ‘parents were aware of a need for help in areas such as discipline and relationships with their children’ (p.118). Similarly Reupert and Mayberry (2007) found that for mothers with mental illness caring for their children is ‘rewarding and central to their lives, even though the demands of parenting are considerable’ (p.365). Much research into parenting has focused on the mothering role; however fathering is gaining interest (COPMI National Initiative, 2011).
    From an ecological perspective, the interplay of home environment and the parent-child relationship collectively are more important than a parent’s psychiatric diagnosis (Phelan et al., 2006). It is also said that social adversity poses a greater risk to children than the direct impact of mental illness (Rutter 1981 cited in Reupert & Maybery, 2007). A worrying trend for FaPMI is their propensity for increased levels of family discord and socioeconomic adversity (Vostanis, Graves, Meltzer, Goodman, Jenkins & Brugha, 2006). In Aotearoa New Zealand, poor outcomes have been linked to stigma and discrimination in society towards people with mental illness and are an underlying cause of economic and social barriers, unemployment, isolation and poverty (Barnett & Barnes, 2010). The stigma surrounding mental illness is associated with parents’ fears that if they seek support with their parenting they may lose custody of their children (Reupert & Maybery, 2007). An American study found that Asian-Americans were less likely to seek treatment than the general population. This was attributed to stigma, language barrier for Asian immigrants, lack of culturally appropriate services and different cultural explanations for the problems (U.S. Surgeon General, 2009 quoted in Garvin, 2011).
    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    I am not trying to add to stigma, but to keep children’s proper needs in the equation. I am not saying that children’s needs are or should be paramount, but they should be kept in proper perspective with the needs of all involved parties.

    I believe that I have seen more directly useful quotes than those above, but I haven’t been able to quickly find them. As I recall, probably the greatest hazard is from parents who are depressed, even to only a moderate degree. This weakens their responding to their children and the children often react in ways that make the relationship even more difficult. Most people just say, snap out of it, but we should be taking these situations more seriously.

    Thanks for your challenges. MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 13th April 2012 @ 4:06 pm

11. 

    @Murray. I think you missed my point. I’m not saying the children are irrelevant, only irrelevant to the men’s argument. When you look at this as a money issue someone has to pay. Now, it is either the tax payer or business, but it won’t stay that way. You’re saying it is great for children, support for parents. To me that’s buying the feminist line. That’s one more thing ticked off the list were mother and father do not have to co operate budget and agree on how to fund THIER offspring. It’s another LOW [liberation of women] BLOW against men.

    Comment by Down Under — Sat 14th April 2012 @ 8:23 am

12. 

    Dear Down Under, I have not focussed on the father’s argument, others already do this. I do see your point that the funding cost could easily be lumped onto fathers, as you suggest. In the same way, I would point out that no fault, no responsibility and no proven parenting skills DPB has put huge costs directly onto taxpayers and fathers. In the longer term, also huge social costs resulting from many young solo mother’s poor parenting skills (or at least parenting skills insufficient to the solo role that they have taken for themself).

    I am focussing on protecting the children, when parents are considering separation or having mental health problems, even at a low level. By protecting the children, we are also protecting society from the long term costs of damage to the children, these being huge. (Thus my focus could be viewed as preventing long term costs, rather than allocating costs.)

    I am also pointing at that the level of mental illness, to be formally diagnosed, is based on adult functioning and self care.

    However, when children and a parenting relationship is involved, then the level of mental illness that we need to be concerned about, is much lower. While parents work together and complement each other, this isn’t making a problem for the children. When parents want to separate, then this low level mental illness may turn into a major problem for the children. Presently, we are not managing these risks, in a way that successfully protects the children from these easily foreseeable problems. Relevant legislation was passed in 1968 and 2004, but isn’t yet working to protect children effectively.

    I am presenting a child focussed issue, because I suspect that many mothers and fathers don’t (or cannot?) fully consider these issues. However, it might be that some aspects of this child focussed issue, may give some useful strength to advocating for father’s issues….

    Also, in many cases following through the child’s interests may lend strong support to more equal shared care (ie put the lie to many move away or relocation proposals submitted by PAS mothers) as it brings out the critical need to maintain the child’s relationships with both mother and father and their wider families.

    The mothers who try hardest to destroy the children’s relationship with the father, are in fact insecure women, often with a moderate degree of depression and frustration with the world. Maybe not diagnosable personality disorder, but certainly enough problems that the children should not be left alone with them or in their majority care. To protect the children’s healthy development, it is essential that these children spend MOST of their time in the care of their other parent.

    But what does the familycaught$ do in such cases? Frequently they reward such mothers, both financially through child [and spousal] support and also bolster them as the essential or only parent!

    I am suggesting that child development through mental health issues research in fact emphasises that children in these situations must have the relationship with the more mentally healthy parent strongly protected. In a married situation, if the father is more mentally healthy than the mother, then seeing him to some extent every day and for many hours in weekends too, this will provide the children with a substantial degree of protection from the mother’s problems. (This works equally the other way around too.) The Care of Children Act espouses these principles, so why is it that the familycaught$ CANNOT follow these principles?

    But if such a mother then wants to separate and prevent the children seeing the father frequently, she is dramatically increasing the chances of these children developing mental health problems too. If she wants to cutoff the children’s relationship with the father completely, then the risks for the children are much higher still.

    From the point of view of protecting the children, any proposal which dramatically reduces contact with the parent not making the proposal, is most likely dangerous for the children. Accordingly, they should be approved only after very careful checking and infrequently.

    It was suggested to me that such mothers and fathers who try to cutoff contact with the other parent are jealous of the more natural and constructive relationship between the children and the more healthy parent. I think there is some truth in this. I suspect that it is more basically instinctual, related to driving the male away in evolutionary theory. Primevil forces must be respected, but where they dis-serve then we need to work to prevent them damaging our lives (in particular our children’s lives) in the urban jungle.

    Either way, such behaviour is dangerous for the children and ultimately the damage done is hugely expensive for society too. When the familycaught$ falls for these arguments, they are the lowest possible form of ignorant relationship vandals.

    My other worry, is that many men don’t understand that if such issues apply in their own situation, then it is critical for the children that they can make themselves available for the children. I am worried that too few men are willing to do this?

    I have known several men who have, in the situation where the mother was making severe problems with the children, taken on the parenting role. They both reported quite a lot of un-support, both from neighbourhood and Government departments. They were caught in crossfire between CYFs and IRD-CS. They felt that the issues of stepping in for the children at short notice were hard enough, but the effort wasted by “good meaning” incompetent Government departments just made it much harder. (I am not “blaming” the mother, they were victims of their own parents. What is important is that we know our limitations, get help and work safely within our limits.)

    The outcomes were not as good as desirable for these children, as the decisions were far too delayed. We must be willing to make decisions to protect the children much earlier, if we want to actually protect the children.

    What changes should we be making, to improve our protection of children, from well meaning but less competent parents?
    Usually the incompetent are unaware of what they don’t know, this is certainly true in parenting.

    I would guess that it is equally true in familycaught$ staffing. In a non-competitive environment, they are protected from being evaluated on the up-to-dateness of their performance, on the quality of their performance and its relevance to the family. In other words, it is my fault and your fault that they are and continue to be incompetent!
    The familycaught uses legal process, precedents. This is like driving a car in reverse, looking out the back window.. No wonder they find it difficult to impossible to deliver useful judgements. They don’t look forwards, in a meaningful way!
    Like all incompetents, they simply don’t know any better and they will stay there, drawing an inordinate salary for their performance, until we take action to put them into roles for which they could be successful, such as drawing unemployment benefit.

    I suspect that if we protected the children’s interests effectively through separation, then quite a few men and women would hesitate and perhaps not go through with separation. Looking more carefully at all of these issues, before making decisions which are often not possible to undo, could only be a good thing. These stresses and problems reflect the rather poor support that we offer to young parents, in particular when there are known high risk issues present, such as death of a child or birth or low level mental health issues. Secrecy and glossy images send us down dangerous paths. Openness, admitting our problems and asking for help would protect children and parents alike, far better.

    Too many decisions are based on self deluded illusions, that in the long run serve noone. (Isn’t this just another reflection of mental health issues?)

    All is fair, in love and war – but not if you want to protect your children.

    If we want to keep within our competent limits, we must know what these limits are. This is not easy for us to know, so will usually require outside intervention. Professionals who know that some aspects of their work is outside of their training or experience, will pay for a review of their work, by someone who is known to be competent in the area of concern. Principals employing professionals, in large scale projects, will require regular outside reviews to be carried out. Usually insurance companies will also require independant reviews. This is why relatively few buildings fall down, or dams burst, but why the familycaught$ makes mistake after debacle, but still no constructive changes! Medical practitioners are also used to making decisions, where outcomes could include suffering or death at higher risk rates than familycaught$. They too will often seek review of their proposed decisions, to reduce the risk of overlooking something, or making errors.

    Although familycaught$ decisions generally are lower risk than doctors or engineers work, there are risks of causing mental health problems for children, driving people to suicide or murder. If these risks were professionally managed, then we could have saved about 1 or 2,000 lives, of fathers, children and mothers in the last 30 years in NZ. This level of risk is enough that professional responsibilities should be taken seriously in familycaught$ too.

    We must make sure that these interveners DO know what they are doing. The existing familycaught$ gives us an extremely detailed model, of what we should never do again!
    MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 14th April 2012 @ 10:27 am

13. 

    To understand the mistreatment of men and their families, we have to remind ourselves that we live in a feminist dictatorship.
    Feminists hate men so much, they would ruin 2 women in order to ruin 1 man.
    We can see that clearly in divorce courts, when women who depend on him, like his mom, sister, 2nd wife etc give testimonies, but only the testimony of his revengegul ex-wife is accepted, and other women are shafted.

    The legal fight of Jacky Onassis for the wealth of her husband was not a fight for women’s rights, but simply a fight against his daughter Christina Onassis. All other alleged fights for women’s rights are actually fights against other women, if we analyse correctly. Because, one way or another, it’s always women who inherit what men accumulate.

    GENERAL RULE OF GENDER RELATIONS AND FEMINISM

    All women depend on exploitation of men and men are proud to be exploited (to provide and protect). Women consume more than produce and the difference is covered by exploitation of men, in form of husbands, taxpayers etc.

    Feminism can’t increase exploitation of men, it can only re-distribute among women the surpluss value produced by men, so that one woman gets more at the expense of oher women. The only way exploitation of men can be increased is to increase productivity of men. However, our feminist dictatorship decreases productivity of men, so all women loose (because they have less to exploit).

    Feminism rips off average woman in the United States for maybe US $ 1,000,000 in her lifetime, if we add up all costs of feminism correctly.

    Comment by Ivan Zverkov — Sun 15th April 2012 @ 7:43 am

14. 

    Reply to MurrayBacon #3

    your comment… ‘I believe that your message is increasing being understood by young men, maybe not loud and clear, but certainly under the skin.’

    The last two years before I left NZ to impose my self t5o a exile of this Gestapo feminist state ,I notice a lot of young,decent intelligent kiwi men in the age bracket of mid twenties to late thirties were either dating or in relationships/married with foreign women such as Eastern European, Asian, Indian and South American…

    But MurrayBacon what as truly shock me as in a pleasant way, where I now abode in this fine Asian Country is the huge amount of young, highly intelligent,decent and honorable western European men that have now permanently living here,they have married local Asian women started families,and most of them have started very successful business…

    The feed back I get from these young European men is there pure loathing of there ‘feminist’ dominated countries..They truly despise feminism…And ‘Yes’ I can relate to there thoughts and opinions of Feminism…I too, loathe ‘Feminism’..

    Oh, and there lot of western European male school teachers employed in this Asian country too…No way would I even dare entertain the idea of my son, or myself of becoming a Male school teacher in the Gestapo feminists state of NZ…I remember to well of them beloved Kiwi women Gestapo Feminist successful ‘Salem’ witch hunt of ‘Peter Ellis’……

    Your comment’ Surely the solution is to rethink legislation and this time do a better job?’…

    Sorry if I sound so negative and pessimistic here to all concerned, but the Feminists have to much power,influence and are indirectly controlling a lot NZ Government departments…

    And what I have witness in the last thirty years of N.Z Male politicians and there policymakers…They are ‘gutless’ and ‘clueless’ and they don’t give a damn whats so ever in whats been happening to destroyed Fathers…

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 15th April 2012 @ 2:36 pm

15. 

    Whoopsie my mistake

    I meant to say this

    ‘The last two years before I left NZ to impose my self to a exile from this Gestapo feminist state called NZ’

    Comment by John Dutchie — Sun 15th April 2012 @ 2:40 pm

16. 

    Reply to Ivan #13

    Your comment Ivan of ‘Feminism rips off average woman in the United States for maybe US $ 1,000,000 in her lifetime, if we add up all costs of feminism correctly.’..

    I showed your comment Ivan to a couple of my very astute highly intelligent america work colleges..

    They concur with you,however as one America divorced father sadly commented ..’What price can you put the western European women feminists agenda of there plan of the destruction of the family unit’…?????

    Would like add a few more words from my previous post#14

    .And what I have witness in the last thirty years of N.Z Male politicians and there policymakers”¦They are ‘gutless’ and ‘clueless’ and they don’t give a damn whats so ever in whats been happening to destroyed Fathers”¦And even more important ‘The destroyed families’

    Kind regards John Dutchie..Free at long last…..

    Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 24th April 2012 @ 11:52 am

17. 

    Reply to Murraybacon#3

    Your comment Good Sir of ‘Dear John, I believe that your message is increasing being understood by young men, maybe not loud and clear, but certainly under the skin.’

    Actually I think you and I are mistaken here Murraybacon….I starting to get the impression that a lot of young Men are starting to get the message ‘loud and and clear’…

    Have a read below…..

    ‘SOBER DOWN UNDER

    ABOUT
    Red Pill Red Flag
    The Smart Men Have Left The Building
    by sober down under

    I had to laugh this morning on Stuff to find the following headline: Where have all the smart men gone?

    He’s 35 years old, boasts a bachelor’s degree, earns more than the average wage, lives in a New Zealand city, and he’s single. Has anyone seen this man?

    We’ve all heard of the man drought – 57,000 more women than men are aged 25 to 49. But a new study shows a second man drought has emerged.

    Not only are we short of men, but we’re lacking the brightest ones – there’s an educated-man drought in that age group, a time when people are most likely to get together and start a family.

    The highlight of this article is that it is proof positive of female hypergamy, but the concept is the elephant in the room.

    The smart men have realised that working hard doesn’t necessarily get you anywhere with women. During their twenties girls are slutting it up on the cock carousel while ignoring the “smart men”. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

    The smartest guys I know have already left the building. They realise that a relationship with a New Zealand woman is far more trouble than it is worth. Yes, some of them are gorgeous and really nice. But they are definitely in the minority.

    The funny thing about “women are getting more qualified now” is that most of them end up in industries dependent on the government. The legal industry, the professions, medicine, public service, non-profit agencies and the like. Their success is being subsidised yet they are still thinking they are really successfully on their own.

    Roosh has written about how more education leads to less femininity. That is so true in New Zealand. All of the girls I know who have become qualified lawyers have major issues.

    Our education system discriminates against boys. Young guys suffer the most from the current economic environment with a lack of training for trades and industry specific skills. Businesses aren’t hiring so many can’t even earn an income, let alone compete in a hypergamous environment.

    What will this lead to over the next few decades? Based on what I have read with regard to increasing productivity, the middle class and working class will be further hollowed out. Girls will continue to choose the best genes for their kids, not caring about the father’s involvement.

    Guys who are quite beta will retreat to HD porn, escorts, video games, drinking with the boys, one night stands, short term relationships and never making the idiotic decision to move in with a female.

    In theory, increased female success shouldn’t have harmed male success. But because the wider economic forces at work – economic policy benefits the top 1% – the rate of growth in female participation has outstripped the rate of new job creation so the labour market has become “zero sum” where females win at the expense of males.

    No matter how feminists try and spin this, this is the truth. Some of them even advocate genocide for beta males, such is their hatred of them.’

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 24th April 2012 @ 1:32 pm

18. 

    More of the article concerning ‘SOBER DOWN UNDER

    ABOUT
    Red Pill Red Flag
    The Smart Men Have Left The Building
    by sober down under

    ‘No matter how feminists try and spin this, this is the truth. Some of them even advocate genocide for beta males, such is their hatred of them. But the smart men have left the building.

    New Zealand’s alpha males will benefit for sure – already we don’t need to commit and can participate in the hookup culture as we please. And nearly every guy like me I know is planning to leave New Zealand in the next few years as soon as we can afford it.

    Career woman + single mothers + lots of working class guys + a handful of “attractive” guys. That’s the new New Zealand population equation courtesy of feminism.’

    Doesn’t this article make ‘sober’ reading….

    So Kiwi women and Kiwi feminists,and the Kiwi Feminists employed at the ‘The Ministry of Women’s affairs’….Happy and contented now…????

    You are succeeding beyond your wildest expectation

    Kind regards John Dutchie… Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 25th April 2012 @ 8:04 am

19. 

    Drumming up hatred against the female population based on some of the economic and other theories voiced on this site is akin to Hitler drumming up hatred of the Jews.This was also at the peak of economic crisis and uncertainty.
    John Duthie:-If you are so happy with your foreign wife and happily living in another country why are you still vitriolic?Its a good question I think.
    I see many happy couples in NZ.Some are my family.The women are educated,smart,hardworking as are the men.They work through any problems.They grow together and raise children the best they can.Sure there are problems…thats life.Many men from other countries like NZ women because many are tough and can be independent.

    Comment by Free — Thu 26th April 2012 @ 7:27 am

20. 

    @Free. You are talking about people who haven’t been subjected to a particular experience, whereas John is talking to people who are being subjected to his experience. As far as drawing comparisons with the behaviour of the Third Reich; if you actually understood what this site was about, you would realise your place in that picture would be a Nazi sympathizer.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 26th April 2012 @ 8:54 am

21. 

    I do understand what this site is about.And I sympathise with some of the stories that the men here tell.Writing off all NZ women is ignorant & foolish.Also the stories are one sided and coloured by a lot of powerlessness and anger.That is not to minimise the pain and suffering that people go through.This is me looking back at my own story which has a much in common with the stories on this site.I have a different view than I had even 10 years ago.

    Comment by Free — Thu 26th April 2012 @ 9:04 am

22. 

    Free (#21): I agree with you that writing off all NZ women is extreme, though I note there has been some balance such as “Yes, some (NZ women) are gorgeous and really nice…”. Such balance is seriously lacking in the anti-male hate speech we read on many feminist sites. In relation to Nazi-type regimes, many western countries have passed laws that blatantly discriminate against men and favour women. You won’t find a single example of any western law in the last five decades that supports men as a gender, much less that discriminate against women. Women have happily joined the war against men, continue to jump up and down about any situation in which women might feel they are not being advantaged, yet turn the blind eye of denial concerning inequality that disadvantages men. Much of that inequality dates back well before the feminist era, and a great deal more has been brought about by feminist demands.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 26th April 2012 @ 9:38 am

23. 

    So the way you escaped from your situation was through sympathy and that’s what you’ve learned to give back – you emasculated little mangina – ten years on, is that all it takes to lose your empathetic reality. No, you can’t right off all New Zealand women. There are some who have been vilified, attacked and even lost their jobs for failing to toe the feminist line. There are even some that have chosen to leave this country because they refuse to be party to this form of social contract, but the women you are getting all sympathetic about are the ignorant and foolish who are content taking the do nothing option. I have a different point of view than I did view than I did ten years ago too, but at least my mind hasn’t gone lame in the process.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 26th April 2012 @ 10:10 am

24. 

    Free, thank you for your comments. This thread has spun way off topic, maybe even out of the intended scope of this website? The defeatism expressed, if it has any relevance to being alive, might be relevant under:
    http://menz.org.nz/2012/hope-springs-eternal/ ?

    It horrifies me that people can portray themselves as being so powerless, so feminine.
    Why were we so unprepared, so ignorant of how the world works?

    Even if I felt like this, would I admit it, in public?
    (That I ask the question, shows I am a liar!)

    There are stories of NZ men, that have survived triumphantly through these abuses. I appreciate their positive, solid examples. Unfortunately, many don’t want their story told too publicly……

    If we lose sight of our own contributions into our failures, then we lose sight of the issues that we can control and that we might be able to improve.

    I suppose that when my frustrations get too much, for a little too long, I just lash out. I enjoy taking the innocents a bit more, even though it isn’t really fair.

    Still, any response is better than just accepting it, passively or self destructively, MurrayBacon can’t stop himself axe-murderer.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 26th April 2012 @ 10:18 am

25. 

    Reply to MurrayBacon#24

    Your comment ‘This thread has spun way off topic,’…This my fault MurrayBacon,and I do apologize for this…

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at last…..

    Comment by John Dutchie — Thu 26th April 2012 @ 2:15 pm

26. 

    Reply to Down Under#23

    Your comment of ….’There are some who have been vilified, attacked and even lost their jobs for failing to toe the feminist line. There are even some that have chosen to leave this country because they refuse to be party to this’

    You are very correct ‘Down Under’…

    I can validate this from my own personal experience….My Daughter had to leave a particular university in N.Z,and she decided the best outcome for her was to leave N.Z and continue her masters degree in a Male friendly European that hasn’t been hi-jacked by a Man hating Feminism culture, this was all caused by when my daughter lock horns with Feminists students and with feminists lecturers who then decide to make life very difficult for her…

    My Son who has successfully completed a Degree relating to a medical field,also encountered a female gender bias agenda,and a under current of a hostile mentality towards Male university students…

    However, He managed this situation quite well for he just grin and bear it, and my Son has left N.Z to work and abode in Malaysia with his Malaysian Wife

    Kind regards John Dutchie ..Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Thu 26th April 2012 @ 2:38 pm

27. 

    Reply to Free #19

    Your comment Free of ‘Drumming up hatred against the female population’…Hate is a such a wasted emotion Free,I leave the real ‘Hate’ to the Feminist movement …And below, is a direct quote from a world famous and a revered Feminist…..

    “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
    Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

    And I don’t ‘hate’…However I won’t mince my words here Free… I truly loathe and despise on what Feminism as now become in western European society …

    Here below is website for you Free, to read and appraise…..

    mensaffairs.orconhosting.net.nz/home.html

    Kind regards to you Free…John Dutchie Free at long last….

    Comment by John Dutchie — Thu 26th April 2012 @ 3:16 pm

28. 

    This is for you Free…

    Read the comment concerning this article…And wait for it Free…Written by a very astute Kiwi women…….
    …
    And you think Free,I am the only one that as a so called problem with Kiwi women…Hmmmmm….I think not…

    I suspect that this Kiwi women is a very well travel person,like I am …

    And I have to agree with everything she as written…And Free, do you honestly think I take great pleasure in saying this …..No…!!! Far from it Free, I was born here Free…!!!!

    ‘By Melissa Davies

    On the face of it, the metro-sexual man is more attractive to a Kiwi woman than a rugged Kiwi bloke.

    A psychologist at a university in Scotland has surveyed women worldwide and found that 62 percent of New Zealand women prefer a man with feminine features, compared to 38 percent who prefer a more masculine face.

    The results have surprised even Kiwi women themselves.

    ‘Yes I think that’s disappointing,’ says Sue Blake. ‘You know, I think it’s quite important that we’re different from men,’ says Ms Blake.
    Survey participants were shown different faces, one of which had been altered to look more feminine.

    According to the study, a woman’s preference depends on the healthcare system where she lives.

    In countries where disease is rampant, women preferred masculine men with a square jaw, low brow and thin lips because of a perception of stronger genes and healthier offspring.

    Every woman we spoke to today in Newmarket was able to tell the difference. Two out of five preferred the effeminate version.

    Louise Fitzgerald thinks they look friendlier.

    ‘Softer sort of personality maybe, not so staunch,’ says Ms Fitzgerald.

    But not everyone agrees.

    ‘Men should look like men,’ says Carol Baker.

    ‘I like the wider jaw so it would definitely be more masculine, more of your prince charming, typical male character I guess,’ says Chanelle Barlow.

    But she’s in the minority, according to research.

    KIWI CHICK wrote:
    62 % of Kiwi Women are perhaps too busy trying to be men…Figures really! They are told all men are Evil and Dangerous and that women need to be domineering and Powerful…No wonder Kiwi Women like wimps and pansies.

    They don’t want a Challange and a powerful person for a partner.

    Figures really… And so we have Kiwi women in their prime birthing years with the chance of an 80 Year old of getting a Man!!
    Perhaps that is due to the incredible rate that Kiwi Men are running from kiwi Women that are somewhat less than Feminine in any way. Dispite more kiwi boys being born than women!
    Kiwi women’s femininity seems more of a trick than a characteristic to many.

    See the stats on Kiwi women marrying foreign born men…Don’t happen much. But Check out the stats on Kiwi men marrying foreign born women. It is a bit of a eye opener really!
    The Kiwi blokes are not very attracted to our Kiwi Chicks.
    Figures really, our Kiwi women are about the most dangerous thing you could marry with the chance they divorce you Way Way higher than a man divorcing a women.
    3-4 times as likely they quit a relationship as a man.
    Who screwed on who? no correlation!
    Women
    Scared of commitment?…. Only permanent ones.
    Men
    Scared of commitment…. Only temporary ones.
    So they don’t marry Kiwi women so often as Kiwi women seek.
    dispite them being the born majority.

    So the ‘Cougars’ Yuck! Waiting to become lonely familyless (or with family that see them only as their biological parent that sent them to day care) old independent women.
    There are day care schemes for old women too.. It is called a retirement home. Well at least that keeps them independent as they always wanted.
    And Kids will happily apply their child hood learning as soon as they can.

    Bring on the Euthenasia. Independence perfected! Valueless meaning useless…with no more reason to live than to make a corporation rich….best pull the plug if worthless.

    Is that really what we have to come to…?

    Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/NZ-women-prefer-men-with-feminine-features-/tabid/420/articleID/147166/Default.aspx#ixzz1t7slo6Ke

    Comment by John Dutchie — Thu 26th April 2012 @ 7:00 pm

29. 

    Are you sure the person who wrote this is a Kiwi?I would say that English is a second language for them if they are.

    Comment by Free — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 1:34 am

30. 

    Reply to Free #29

    …….L.O.L…Pardon…???…Excuse me as in your Kiwi feminist woman delusion comment of ‘her English is a second language’

    Always the same feminist tactics’s from most Kiwi women feminists….Deny…Deny…Spin…Spin …And yet more spin….

    Hans from his post #22 sum it up perfecting….

    ‘Women have happily joined the war against men, continue to jump up and down about any situation in which women might feel they are not being advantaged, yet turn the blind eye of denial concerning inequality that disadvantages men. Much of that inequality dates back well before the feminist era, and a great deal more has been brought about by feminist demands.’

    So I eagerly await for you Free, as a Kiwi woman feminist to reply to Hans comments,but of course done with your usual Kiwi feminist woman ‘Deny’…’Deny’ .. ‘Spin doctoring shaming tactics against Manhood and Fatherhood ‘…

    But you won’t ..Am I correct Free…?????

    Oh Free, a genuine question for you,since N.Z as ‘The ministry of women’s affairs’pray tell me, where is the ‘The ministry of Men’s affairs’ for NZ Men…?????

    Kind regards to you Free…John Dutchie Free at long last from this Feminist hell hole called the ‘The republic of social engineered Gestapo Feminist state New Zealand’

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 6:46 am

31. 

    So…English is a second language?

    Comment by Free — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 7:22 am

32. 

    Reply to Free#31

    So as I predicted ….You haven’t, nor will you reply to ‘Hans’ post of #22…..

    …End of discussion …

    Kind regards to you Free…John Dutchie Free at long last…

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 8:20 am

33. 

    Reply to Free #31….

    Enjoy the read of these two links below Free…

    http://www.rooshv.com/today-is-day-zero-in-the-destruction-of-man

    http://soberdownunder.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/day-zero-roosh-and-new-zealand-culture/

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at last…

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 8:31 am

34. 

    I will save you trouble Free here is the

    http://soberdownunder.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/day-zero-roosh-and-new-zealand-culture/

    SOBER DOWN UNDER

    ABOUT
    Red Pill Red Flag
    Day Zero, Roosh And New Zealand Culture
    by sober down under

    I look into the future for guys like us and all I see is darkness. It’s not getting better anywhere. There is no place where women are becoming more feminine, where worker power over industry is increasing, or where people put aside technology to interact more with their fellow man. This means we have no choice but to become flexible and location independent, moving from one pile of rubble to the next, trying to squeeze out the remaining ounces of happiness that the world is capable of giving us. Baby boomer men have lived in what was perhaps the best time to have been a man on earth, where they could marry a real woman and build a family while working a stable job, all in the same place. That’s over, and it will never improve. Loot while you can.

    Roosh has written probably his best post yet on how things aren’t going to get better for guys.

    I live in New Zealand, a country that is one of the most feminist countries in the world. The New Zealand culture celebrates female achievement, encourages hook-ups, rewards single motherhood as a career choice and simultaneously punishes men for being men.

    I have no real problem with women going out into the workforce and having children out of wedlock. The truth is that feminism benefits guys like me who are just looking for sex and not commitment. But in other ways it harms us greatly. How so?

    Well, take the workplace. Last year over 60% of bachelor’s degrees were awarded to females. During the global financial crisis, female-centric industries have received increased government support while male-centric industries like the trades and industry have been suffering terribly.

    The modern apprenticeships scheme which trains builders, plumbers, electricians and the like has had its funding cut. Over 100,000 young Kiwis are not in education, employment or training. Most of them are young males.

    One of the reasons behind marriage back in the day was that a man’s income was required in order to raise a family. This is no longer the case. Women between the ages of 18 and 35 earn higher incomes than men. Many of them work in the public sector, which has a 22% wage premium over the private sector. This means their incomes are insulated from the vagaries of the marketplace.

    For the average New Zealand guy this has completely changed the life equation. With the modifications to the Property Relationships Act and family court interference in what used to be private matters, their are enormous legal and financial risks involved not just in marrying and having children but especially in co-habitating and long term relationships.

    To illustrate this, the devastating consequences of divorce no longer apply solely to married men. They can apply just as easily to guys who live with their partners, their girlfriends or even guys who live separately but hold themselves out in public as a couple.

    The gun-to-the-head marriage shit test is a death sentence for the average New Zealand male. Why? Because our culture is completely wired for hypergamy. Just look at how young girls went crazy over Sonny Bill Williams shirt coming off during an All Blacks test match. Just look at how only the top 20% of guys get any female attention at all.

    New Zealand is an extremely hypergamous society because many high achieving Kiwi males have already left. They go on their OEs and never return. If they settle down, they settle down with sweeter, more feminine foreign partners. I have a very large number of male cousins. None of them have married a New Zealand girl. All of their partners are either South American, European or Asian.

    In Roosh’s classification of countries, New Zealand fits the bill perfectly as a country becoming wholly inhospitable to men. One of the amusing things about the manosphere is the adherence to game.

    Funny thing is, the gap between alphas and betas in New Zealand is extremely wide. I know so many guys who play COD4 and don’t go anywhere near nightclubs. Of the ones that do go to nightclubs, I could count on one hand the guys who get one night stands.

    Foreigners who come to New Zealand absolutely clean up, albeit with sub-par quality girls. Foreign girls who come to New Zealand get absolutely swamped because they are such a breath of fresh air.

    Another major problem in New Zealand is how anti-male the education system is. All through my time in the school system, teachers made throwaway comments about how boys were stupid and how the girls were smarter. I even did not get a scholarship when I deserved one because all of the scholarships were ‘girls only’. No jokes.

    When you get to university the environment is even worse. Having a penis is criminal and more and more guys get the message that they aren’t wanted. They are superfluous to requirements. But that’s only until the strong, independent New Zealand women want to settle down and have children.

    I’ve had this discussion with quite a few female friends in their late teens and early twenties. They quite openly say things like:

    I just want to have fun and travel before settling down with someone who’ll be a good dad

    I believe that the manosphere under-estimates how onto it women are. They know exactly what they want out of life and exactly how to go about getting it. And because so many men haven’t taken the red pill and are still operating on a 1950″²s playing field they will find willing victims.

    Dalrock found some statistic that by the age of 40 over 90% of women had married at least once. I can’t be bothered finding similar statistics for New Zealand but I know that even though marriage rates are falling, cohabitation and other arrangements are replacing them. This means that only the guys who have taken the red pill are not settling down.

    Male median income adjusted for inflation has stagnated since about the mid 1970″²s and female median income has increased significantly. What will society look like when many of the high earning jobs are held by females? Well, obviously hypergamy will increase. If you are at the top in New Zealand you will do very well.

    But anyone who has travelled overseas knows how bad a deal New Zealand is. I don’t know anyone who is planning to stay here long-term. Not only are the wages absolute crap, the cost of living is very high and housing prices are extortionate.

    Roosh’s advice to ‘loot while you can’ is definitely true here. Take advantage of the Durex condom survey’s ‘most promiscuous women in the world’ with an average of 20 sexual partners if you so can. Be a drunken, drug taking douchebag.

    But only do this until you’ve saved up enough to expatriate. Then, never, ever, return.

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 11:59 am

35. 

    And finally the last one for you Free…

    http://www.rooshv.com/today-is-day-zero-in-the-destruction-of-man

    Today Is Day Zero In The Destruction Of Man
    By Roosh
    From this day forward it will only get worse. The march of Western civilization will spoil and ruin everything that can make man naturally happy. Countries that are ruined will continue to degrade. Other countries that are still capable of allowing men to enjoy life will only worsen. Consider today as the start of a race where forces you cannot control will work to strip away anything good and human.

    Technology and globalization will make man more idle, unable to find meaning of his place in the world. He will have no need to work the earth or understand nature. He will be in front of computers all day and televisions at night. Entertainment and shiny tablets will be shoved down his throat, making him complacent, dumb, anxious, and entitled. Man is being turned into obsessive-compulsive victims who are nothing more than glorified pushers of smartphone buttons, unable to live without the constant distraction of beeps, noises, and moving images.

    The elite will own your mind and body. The parasite class sees you as nothing but a little machine to generate their wealth, and they will suck you dry until there is nothing left but bone and dust. The 20th century workers revolution was just a speed bump in their march to dominate you. Full employment and an ever increasing standard of living will not be realized. The unemployed masses will only swell. You will be living from check to check, on the brink of starvation, if that’s not already happening to you now.

    The West will continue their destruction of the humale male until society itself collapses. No longer are there incentives for you to reproduce in a Western country, and doing so could lead to your ruin and even imprisonment. The future is a minority of white men ruling over the proletariat, not for the purpose of human good but for controlling power. Orwell’s boot is above all of our heads, ready to stomp down.

    Women will become more masculine until the word ‘woman’ no longer has any meaning. They are losing the ability to act like women and maintain a household at a pace faster than even I could have imagined. The end game is an Androgynous World Order like what they have in Scandinavia, where there is no ‘girl’ or ‘boy,’ and any behavior that one gender can do is also acceptable by the other. Criticism against gender and race is not allowed. Conformity in thought must be maintained at all times.

    Countries go through a cycle on their path towards male destruction:

    1. Alpha Man Paradise. These are corrupt societies where a successful man can set up his own little harem, not unlike those of ancient Aztec or Chinese civilizations. Average men are resigned to picking up scraps. Example countries: Russia, Iran.

    2. Good Man Environment. A country where men are still respected by both government and women (Poland, Colombia).

    3. Man Destruction Pending. These countries have been injected with the destruction virus. Advancement to the final stage is possible within our lifetimes (Brazil, Spain, Germany).

    4. Men Being Actively Destroyed. Wholly inhospitable environments for men. Rampant false-rape charges and financial rape in divorce court. Being an alpha male is already a crime or soon will be (United States, England, Australia, Scandinavia).

    Japan is a great example of end game where men simply cease to reproduce, resigning themselves to sex dolls and comics. In 100 years, all Japan will be known for is producing strange pornography.

    It pains me to put Brazil in category three, but my eyes don’t lie. I was surprised at the progresso Brazil was making between my trips there, spaced only within two years. While Rio and Sao Paulo will give you five times more happiness than Chicago or Washington DC, it’s becoming increasingly less so. Even in Poland, the amount of smartphone and corresponding bitch face of women using them increased within only six months once T Mobile opened up shop here. For countries in a state of man decline, it will be necessary to visit their second or even third-tier cities where the ills of ‘progress’ have not yet influenced the populace. For those men yet to be born, the only way for them to experience the feminine women that sexpats like me currently take for granted will be to step inside luddite towns with populations under 25,000 people.

    I look into the future for guys like us and all I see is darkness. It’s not getting better anywhere. There is no place where women are becoming more feminine, where worker power over industry is increasing, or where people put aside technology to interact more with their fellow man. This means we have no choice but to become flexible and location independent, moving from one pile of rubble to the next, trying to squeeze out the remaining ounces of happiness that the world is capable of giving us. Baby boomer men have lived in what was perhaps the best time to have been a man on earth, where they could marry a real woman and build a family while working a stable job, all in the same place. That’s over, and it will never improve. Loot while you can.

    Both articles are ‘sober’ reading don’t you think think Free….????…So are you going to call the above two Authors ‘Women haters’ too Free…??????

    Murreybacon again I do apologize, for changing the subject of your original post ….

    Kind regards John Dutchie….. Free at last…

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 12:12 pm

36. 

    Judging by the quality of posts here (high) I think this radio show is going to be very interesting for guys looking for ways out of the feminist matrix.

    Link – http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2012/04/27/men-going-their-own-way

    Precis –
    A Voice For Men Radio: Men going their own way

    Where are the good men going? The answer being, obviously, the same place good men have always gone: to an early grave, or a nicely appointed cage. Bad men, on the other hand, are going somewhere else. Anywhere else, in fact, wherever they want, without concern for who tells them no. Men going tier own way, and Zeta Masculinity, the modern paths to male self actualization without necessary self sacrifice on behalf of those who hate them are the topics for the 26 April 2012 episode of AVFM Radio. GirlWritesWhat, Johntheother, and TyphonBlue will be wrestling with what it takes to shake off the mental shackles of a society which discounts male humanity and values only male utility. The social contract between men and women is broken, burned and bombed into rubble, and those who’ve bombed it provide no replacement except a cage for men. What will replace this contract is still largely unknown, but a few ideas are currently in beta-test now.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 12:26 pm

37. 

    Reply to Skeptic #36

    As per usual Skeptic, wise words you have spoken good sir ,however your comment of ‘The social contract between men and women is broken, burned and bombed into rubble,’

    If you are talking about western European society,then its a astounding and a affirmative ‘YES’…. you are correct..

    Where I now abode and work in this Asian Country the ‘social contract’ between Man and Woman and also the strength of the family unit is incredible strong…

    The Asian people of this country know exactly whats going on in western European society, concerning the poisoning and the destruction of the ‘family unit’ by western European Feminism .

    These Asian people from all walks of life are far from ‘stupid’ or ‘naive’ …As many western European feminists discovered when they tried there Gestapo Feminist propaganda in this Asian country …They were very lucky to escape from this Asian country with lives …Yes, I am deadly serious on what I have just said…Are you reading this ‘Free’…??????

    However the western European feminists are trying a different tactical approach… which I won’t reveal on here…But ‘we’ are on to there game plan….

    And I vow upon my blood, I will fight them vile western European women Gestapo feminists to the death

    Kind regards to you Skeptic …John Dutchie Free at long last from this Gestapo Feminist Hell hole called New Zealand

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 1:07 pm

38. 

    Reply to all

    Below is a website for the definition of a ‘Zeta male’…You to ‘Free’,you will love it….

    Male Identity – Definition of a Zeta Male |
    http://www.maskedwriter.com/?p=1608

    Kind regards John Dutchie Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 3:01 pm

39. 

    This is for you Free….

    Insightful Quote

    “It is the women . . . who dominate all of American life. The men are interested in nothing at all; they work, work as I haven’t seen anyone work anywhere else. For the rest, they are toy dogs for their wives, who spend the money in the most excessive fashion and who shroud themselves in a veil of extravagance.”

    Albert Einstein

    Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 27th April 2012 @ 3:04 pm

40. 

    My final reply to Free #21

    Have read of this article Free…And guess what Free…??? written by a very astute Kiwi woman

    Dr Muriel Newman….The feminist agenda three decades on

    http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly12.htm

    10 December 05
    The feminist agenda three decades on

    Printer friendly version (PDF) View >>>

    ‘Last month, when the public furore erupted over an airline policy that bans men from sitting next to unaccompanied children, I wondered whether the feminists were celebrating. A few years ago, the mere suggestion that a man on a plane could be a likely child molester, would have been greeted with derision. Now, however, not only has the concept been taken seriously by the airlines, but some public servants – including the Commissioner for Children – have said it’s a good idea.

    Stuart Birks, Director of the Centre for Public Policy Evaluation at Massey University, explores the emergence of this worrying trend towards the denigration of men, in our guest opinion piece in this week’s NZCPD Forum (click here to view).

    The unfortunate situation we are in today can be traced back to the agenda set in place by radical feminists some thirty years ago. While the key objective of most of the women who have enthusiastically joined the women’s liberation movement has been equality for women, the movement appears to have been taken over by those who want to pursue a socialist agenda.

    A booklet entitled A Strategy for Women’s Liberation produced in 1974, explains:

    “The socialist who is not a Feminist lacks breadth. The Feminist who is not a Socialist is lacking in strategy. To the narrow-minded Socialist who says: ‘Socialism is a working class movement for the freedom of the working class, with woman as woman we have nothing to do,’ the far-sighted Feminist will reply: ‘the Socialist movement is the only means whereby woman as woman can obtain real freedom. Therefore I must work for it.’

    The booklet outlined the rationale behind the feminist movement:

    “The oppression of women began with the origin of the patriarchal family, private property and the state. Anthropological evidence has shown that in the primitive communal society, women held a respected and important position. The basic economic unit was the maternal gens or clan, in which the family as we know it did not exist. In this clan, goods were shared among members equally. Women played an important role in the providing of food and shelter and were not tied to individual men economically, nor was there any compulsion to remain with one sexual partner.”

    “With the development of an economic surplus and the individual accumulation of this surplus as private property, the clan system gave way to the setting up of separate households. This was the beginning of class society and the patriarchal family. Women became isolated from communal activity, and monogamy for the wife was strictly enforced to ensure legitimate heirs.”

    “Today, the nuclear family unit remains as the basic economic cell of class society and women continue to be isolated in individual households, dependent on individual men for economic survival. The family also serves to perpetuate capitalist rule by inculcating in children the values of the private property system.”

    Radical feminists believed that the only way to achieve true equality for women was through liberating them from the bonds of husband and family. Further, they could see that if women were freed from the traditional requirement to remain loyal to one partner, the whole system of private property rights – which relies on the creation of legitimate heirs and is a fundamental tenet of a democratic free market economy – would ultimately collapse.

    The Labour Government of the day embraced these feminist goals and introduced the Domestic Purposes Benefit as a vehicle for change.

    The effect of the DPB was to pay women to separate from their husbands and partners. It paid them more money to have more children, and it didn’t matter how many different fathers were involved. In fact, it was not even necessary for the woman to name a father on a child’s birth certificate.

    The DPB also encouraged single women to have children on their own, to the extent that the number of women now receiving the benefit who have never married, has eclipsed the number of women who were married but separated. This shows that rather than helping women to adjust from failed marriages, the DPB has created single-parent families.

    Further, as the DPB has caused parenting and inheritance lines to become increasingly blurred, men have been prevented from using modern DNA technology to establish paternity – unless the mother agrees. But the consequence of placing all of the power and control in the hands of the mother is a continuing erosion of the fundamental rights of fatherhood.

    Thirty years on, with state funding what was essentially a radical feminist agenda, the family unit has been significantly undermined, transforming society in a way that is putting our children at risk.

    Throughout the ages, the nuclear family has traditionally been the safest environment in which to raise children. Yet, with the DPB effectively incentivising family breakdown, child abuse and neglect have escalated to the point where it is estimated that almost 50,000 children will be referred to our child welfare service this year alone. With literally tens of thousands of children now living in dangerous family situations, governments have clearly sacrificed the safety and wellbeing of children in order to satisfy the on-going demands of radical feminists.

    And radical it is. Back in 1974, feminist leaders warned: “With its thrust against the family institution, the women’s liberation movement is profoundly revolutionary”.

    These women put in place a well-organised plan of action some thirty years ago (click here to view details of their policy programme). The changes have been introduced incrementally and they are now well on the way to achieving their key goal which is the replacement of the traditional patriarchal family.’

    Now a question for you Free… Are you now going to say Dr Muriel Newman is ‘Drumming up hatred against the female population’….?????

    I don’t have to say anymore do I…

    Kind regards to you Free…John Dutchie..Free at long last…..

    Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 1st May 2012 @ 12:50 pm

41. 

    Yes, Drs Frank and Muriel Newman have operated the New Zealand Centre for political research for many years since she was squeezed out of parliament by political subterfuge. While I find what they far to the right, it is helpful and certainly better than the marxist ravings of Sue Bradford.

    Comment by Gwaihir — Tue 1st May 2012 @ 1:28 pm

42. 

    Reply to Gwaihir #41

    Yes Gwaihir well said Good sir..As Down Under#23 said previously,and he is very correct there have been some very fine Kiwi woman ‘hammered to hell’ and back on there stance and opinions on’Feminism’ that as gone to far and the harm it is doing to N.Z society…Are you reading this Free…????

    Yesterday my partner and I met, and had dinner with a fine very intelligent young Kiwi women who is a very well respected English/physics/Maths teacher in this Asian Country…

    She told me in no uncertain terms that she had to virtually flee N.Z because she vehemently argue and totally disagreed with the ‘agenda’ of feminists in the education department…They in turn, purposely destroyed her career as a teacher in N.Z…

    Hence she now abodes and works here as teacher,and she is passionate teacher too might I add..

    A question for you ‘Free’…Did I ever state on here at Menz, the word … ‘All’… Kiwi women are Gestapo feminists….????? ..No…!!!!

    Kind regards to you Gwaihir,hope all is well with you, and your child/children..John Dutchie Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 1st May 2012 @ 1:53 pm

43. 

    One Kiwi Woman, presently “Hammered to the ground” and who has not been sen here for some time is “Julie” A lady in every sense of the word. Gave of her all, now ???????

    We can only offer good wishes that she has nor been mortally wounded by the the Feminist Clobbering machine.

    Best wishes Julie. Look forward to your return.

    Comment by Gwaihir — Tue 1st May 2012 @ 2:07 pm

44. 

    Reply to Gwaihir#43

    Yes Gwaihir,I remember ‘Julie’ very well, and you are correct good sir,’Julie’ was very fine Lady ,a couple of years ago I used to post on here at Menz, and I can admit this… I was a very angry Man…And my posts showed it too…

    But when I permanently left N.Z and imposed a self exile on myself and once I arrived in this Asian country ‘A very dark and black cloud lifted from me’….And now I permanently abode and work in this fine Again country I have found true inner peace and ‘life’ is good…In fact Life is Brilliant…

    Another fine and awesome Lady who use to post on here at Menz,was ‘onewomanDV’ …So if any gentlemen whom both know personally ‘Julie’ and ‘onewomanDV’ please send them both my warmest and sincerest regards to them…

    Kind regards… John Dutchie …..Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 1st May 2012 @ 3:29 pm

45. 

    Look at the latest tripe (Lies?) ut out by the fems.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/love-sex/6837194/How-to-spot-a-misogynist

    Comment by Gwaihir — Tue 1st May 2012 @ 4:01 pm

46. 

    Reply to Gwaihir#45

    Thanks Gwaihir and this is what I posted on http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/love-sex/6837194/How-to-spot-a-misogynist,see below …..Here is a excellent opportunity for all concerned to say his piece….

    Excellent so we have a feminist having a rant about ‘equality’…

    We then miss feminist, could you please explain to me these famous quotes made by ‘your’ revered,prominent and well renowned Feminist that you as a feminist adore and worship….

    Hateful Quotes From Feminists
    These are actual quotes from a variety of mainstream feminists, stating their opinions and positions. The one common denominator is the obvious and blatant hatred of men. No reputable Father’s Rights advocate could get away with making statements such as these- any man daring to say these kinds of things about women would instantly be branded a “gender-supremacist”.

    “In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, p. 129..

    “I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” From Robin Morgan, “Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape” in “Going too Far,” 1974. .

    “When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…” Sheila Jeffrys .

    “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” Andrea Dworkin

    “Sex is the cross on which women are crucified … Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape.” Hodee Edwards, ‘Rape defines Sex’

    “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” Hillary Clinton, First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador

    Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 1st May 2012 @ 4:21 pm

47. 

    Reply to Gwaihir#45

    Wow Gwaihir…have you read some the comments …She is getting ‘whipped to pieces’

    Good job too…It looks like some Kiwi men are starting to get there ‘testicles’ back and are starting to fight back…

    Kind regards John Dutchie….. Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 1st May 2012 @ 4:36 pm

48. 

    #46..im not really sure what ‘group consent’ means and it seems to me sheila jeffrys gets off on the man being in charge

    Comment by ford — Wed 2nd May 2012 @ 10:41 am

49. 

    Reply to Ford#48

    Your comment Ford ‘im not really sure what ‘group consent”That makes two us there Ford….

    But read carefully below what this liberated Feminist said….To me it demonstrates a under current of her ‘entitlement’ status and her ‘victim-hood’ mentality because she was a ‘oppressed’ western European women caused by the patriarchy system that so called ‘Manhood’ created…

    No wonder ‘Peter Ellis’ was burnt at the stake as evil heathen

    And then Kiwi women wonder why there is a so called Men drought…Hello…Wakey…Wakey …

    Its this type of Western European women mindset, that keep me thinking… Thank goodness I am out this Feminist Gestapo hell hole

    ‘How to spot a misogynist

    CLEMENTINE FORD

    Second is the accusatory tone. Now, I’m no statistician, but I’d estimate that 98.76% of people outraged over feminism’s ‘failure’ to ‘protect’ their brown sisters from the oppression of their Muslim Male Masters (because let’s not forget, this is about racism too) are doing exactly zero to agitate for women’s liberation anywhere, let alone in the Middle East. But even though they hate feminism and all who dwell therein, they still think they know how to do it better than you do. This is because misogynists see themselves as Upper Management – which is precisely why we need to get more women into executive roles.

    Finally, liberation and change aren’t beholden to hierarchies of need. It’s possible to seek the liberation of oppressed groups everywhere, at the same time! Asking comparatively privileged women (many of whom also live in the Middle East – it is not a vacuum) to be satisfied with ‘good enough’ just reinforces the patriarchal hierarchy of power that needs to be dismantled.

    5. Men are oppressed too, therefore women aren’t! Or something.

    ‘If feminists really cared about equality, they’d be addressing all the inequality that faces men. Like, why do feminists only care about breast cancer and not prostate cancer? Why aren’t feminists advocating for single dads? Why won’t women sleep with me when I’m a really nice guy and I’ve made a particular effort to be nice to them, particularly? Until feminism can answer that, I’m afraid I don’t really see it as being legitimate.”

    ‘This is the last bastion of the misogynist’s argument – their self-fancying checkmate, if you will. What these people are basically saying is that, despite the overwhelming evidence of entrenched sexual, physical and ideological oppression of women, the only way feminism can really be fair is if it first identifies and solves all of the ways in which the patriarchy also oppresses men.

    To be more specific, women who agitate for their own liberation are only allowed to do so once they’ve fixed all the things that make men sad, thus making them stronger and even more powerful.’

    See below which I consider to be one of best response to this poor oppressed western European Feminist woman article

    ‘Ron #260 05:02 pm May 01 2012
    Who band women from public bars? Who forced the pubs to close at 6pm while their men were at the First World War? Who band the consumption of food with alcohol? Who controls a women’s fertility? What are her choices for contraception? How many women are forced to be parents? How many women are forced to be parents but are never allowed to see their children? How many women lose half their assets and are forced to pay for children they never see or have a hand in their upbringing? How many women get to see their relationship with their children replaced by a stranger? Even before the inception of the family court, family split-ups were governed by the ‘clean break principle’ were mum gets the kids and dad get to see them every second weekend at mums fancy. Who came up with that principle? I spent 22 years in New Zealand using the power of my brain and body to raise my two children and consider it my privilege. I spent 13 years doing that on my own. Their mother earned money for three of those 22 years. Under the research that was used to give us the Relationship Property Act I had “lived a life of power and privilege”! It was ANZAC day 1995 that I decided that I would never enter into another relationship in NZ under feminist dominated law and social policy. I am now a statistic in NZ’s man drought and having the time of my life.’

    Kind regards to you Ford John Dutchie …Free at long last from the Gestapo Feminist state called N.Z… Now happily rejoice ‘Kiwi women’ for you don’t have put with another western European man that so called ‘oppresses’ you

    Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 2nd May 2012 @ 3:22 pm

50. 

    Here is another good reply to the article ‘How to spot a misogynist

    CLEMENTINE FORD

    ‘Joseph #241 04:36 pm May 01 2012
    I was raised to be “a gentleman”. That probably reflects the age in which I grew up – chivalry doesn’t seem to be fashionable these days. I was told that I should open doors for women and let them go first, offer them my seat on the bus, pull out their chairs at the table, remain standing until all the women in the room were seated, all that stuff. It was my mother who taught me these things. Obviously she was a misogynist and passed these tendencies on to me.

    I still remember the time I offered to help a woman change a flat tyre and was berated with the most foul language for making the assumption that she wasn’t capable of changing it herself. I therefore found it hilarious that she called the AA as she didn’t know how to do it. Still, she got to exercise her right to choose to ask for help, and her uniquely feminist right to be rude to a man for offering it.’

    Carry on Kiwi feminist women at ‘The ministry of Women affairs”….Aren’t you happy and contented on what your feminist agenda is slowly achieving…????…Well done…!!!!!!

    Kind regards to you beloved Kiwi Feminists John Dutchie Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 2nd May 2012 @ 3:36 pm

51. 

    Reply to MurrayBacon

    Hans, you might be interested in this article ….

    Well….Well…what do we have here… ‘A voice for Men’ have done a very interesting article concerning Australia on ‘women/digging-for-gold/have a read

    ..’Tongue in cheek’ And here I thought ‘Kiwi’ and ‘Australia’ women were ..As ‘Free #19’ proudly said ‘are tough and can be independent.’

    Kind regards…… John Dutchie… Free at long last

    Comment by John Dutchie — Tue 8th May 2012 @ 2:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ