Judging our judges
In books about Human Experimentation, the point is made that when experimenting on humans, it should be done with informed consent.
If we don’t have a good idea of what outcomes are expected, then we are experimenting.
If we are experimenting, then we should investigate our proposal carefully, before the start of the experiment and monitor outcomes as the experiment unfolds. This enables us, if the outcomes turn out different to what we expected, to terminate the experiment, alter it and to arrange suitable treatment, for the victims of the experiment. (Lets hope we didn’t kill them?)
These points are well brought out, at the very end of the following article:
How my mother’s fanatical views tore us apart By REBECCA WALKER
Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.
But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them – as I have learned to my cost. I don’t want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.
After 30 years of relationship vandalism, the familycaught and Government have not yet carried out even the simplest, most basic evaluation of the performance of this arm of the civil service.
I have tried to evaluate DV Act, in a post by Scrap:
protection-orders-the-quantitative-figures
In more detail
The issues are fraught and not as straightforward as we might like. Should I leave the last word to a woman?
Camille Paglia wrote:
‘Masculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible. It is also the most creative cultural force in history. Women must reorient themselves toward the elemental powers of sex, which can strengthen or destroy.’
‘There is no female Mozart, because there is no female Jack the Ripper’
The guts is, how much truth is there and how much untruth?
Do put in your effort, to give our children the best.
Best regards, MurrayBacon – insatiable axe-murderer.
It’s very disturbing reality we have here in N.Z.
Like all other country affected by feminism movement this country will suffer dearly.
I do not know why government have not yet reevaluate some family Laws like Marry Bacon stated above DV.
Is Government simply ignoring unfairness of these legislation just win Woman s Vote?
Or Do they really believe all Women are Victim of Patriarchy.
If nothing will change in these few years I think All men be more likely to become slave of Women as laws in NZ only seems to protect women when it comes to gender conflict.
Comment by Shin Hee Yi — Thu 19th January 2012 @ 3:43 pm
Dear Shin Hee Yi, thank you for your response. It isn’t really a battle between women and men, it is a matter of protecting human families from greedy, self-important, self-valuable, value-less heartless, zombie legal-workers, who choose to believe that any legal bill is realistic, that any manipulation of a family dispute is ethically acceptable. When I first heard people comparing these murderers to Nazis, I thought the comparison was offensive. Time has gone by and now I suspect that the Nazis weren’t all so bad, by comparisons to the traitors amongst us.
If you are willing, please contact me directly (09)6387275.
Lots of kisses and care, MurrayBacon – unpredictable axe-murderer.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 19th January 2012 @ 5:23 pm
Ya It be good if I could talk to someone about this gender issue.
As I lived in N.Z for 15 years since 1996 and felt there are lot of gender issue.
Unfairness toward men.
Gee Are you seriousness about introducing your self MurrayBacon – unpredictable axe-murderer
if you let me know your mobile on I would like ot talk to sometime.
If you have skype it be much better choice of communication.
Comment by Shin Hee Yi — Fri 20th January 2012 @ 5:47 am
Phone book says> 34 Valley Rd Mt Eden, or (09)6387275 or 021 537196 (<actually 2degrees)
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 20th January 2012 @ 6:55 am
“Camille Paglia wrote:
‘Masculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible. It is also the most creative cultural force in history. Women must reorient themselves toward the elemental powers of sex, which can strengthen or destroy.’
.
‘There is no female Mozart, because there is no female Jack the Ripper’
.
This idiot doesn’t seem to realise that “Jack the Ripper” was never identified, therefore “he” could have been a woman. Of course she also ignores ALL examples of female violence, and a cursory search through newspapers both past and present would have given her numerous examples.
.
She is correct on one point. “There is no female Mozart,” nor is there any other example of significant cultural, scientific, or inventive genius expressed by women.
.
In the past they could hide behind a lack of education, but with 60% of college graduates now being female, we should be seeing the majority of advancements in cultural, scientific and inventive areas taking place because of women; this is not happening.
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 20th January 2012 @ 2:52 pm
Shin Hee states (1): “I do not know why government have not yet reevaluate some family Laws like Marry Bacon stated above DV.”
.
Unfortunately the answer is simple. Governments benefit dramatically from instituting policy in line with feminist indoctrination. Governments have exploded in their size, power, reach and the amount of money they control since the slaughter of the family unit. Given this, they are unlikely to deviate from the support of feminism until they are forced to do so. Follow the money and it all becomes clear.
.
.
See the following articles:
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyGovernmentsLoveFeminism.htm
.
http://menz.org.nz/2010/why-western-governments-will-never-back-down-from-the-feminist-agenda/
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 20th January 2012 @ 3:09 pm
Dear Phoenix, thank you for your sharp analysis. Camille Paglia enjoys being very provocative. I suspect that her comments were meant to enrage feminists and any bites from men are just extra entertainment. In essence, she was probably not being literal, but noting that generally genetics throws men much more widely across bell curves, both sides. She was happily acknowledging women’s deficit in scientific research and culture.
I suggest that nature gambles more cruelly with men, in the sense that they are able to be treated more disposably, for evolution.
There is a suggestion, never put down to malice, what can be put down to incompetence. I don’t always follow, but usually try to. In this instance, Government hasn’t devoted enough resources and also it can take a lot of analysis, to finally throw off decisions made by emotion, such a sympathy, or greed.
Besides, almost all of these policies have been voted on by groups including more than 50% males. So we must examine our own role in the debacles, dammit!
As Rebecca said, lets evaluate and then sort out the messes we made…..
Thanks, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 20th January 2012 @ 3:51 pm
Thank you phoenix for your explanation to my question.
Sound like we man in N.Z are on the edgy.
So as far as Family law and court issue go we man have no chance of winning against Women regardless of who was Victim. IT very say reality we man have no other choice but to submit to women as no authority support male in this century.
I wonder this gender unfairness will ever change.
Comment by Shin Hee Yi — Fri 20th January 2012 @ 6:34 pm
ho By the way Murry Bacon
I sent you a txt message saying hello on this number you gave me +6421537196
Comment by Shin Hee Yi — Fri 20th January 2012 @ 6:44 pm
Shin Hee Yi (#8): Oh it will change all right. Some of us are committed to ensuring this happens. At present, feminist law and misandry continues to deepen in western societies but the pace has slowed largely due to the efforts of the men’s movement. We can slow the pace and indeed turn the direction.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 20th January 2012 @ 6:47 pm
Like this woman, many women now try to ensure they have children without having to lower themselves to put up with a male in their lives, able to maintain their misandrist views or their unrealistic expectations of the perfect man whom they will of course never find. Plenty of men oblige by donating sperm or agreeing to have sex on the basis of a woman’s promise that she is on the pill or that she wants a committed relationship. I would like to see a campaign against sperm donation and surrogacy except specifically for stable couples who cannot have children for biological reasons. It is child abuse deliberately to bring a child into the world or to try to raise a child without the full involvement of the child’s father. I would like to see a law passed to make it illegal for a woman to become deliberately pregnant in the absence of a stable marriage or marriage-type relationship. I would like to see marriage being a contract with real consequences for any breach.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 20th January 2012 @ 6:55 pm
Hans
I really hope that day will come.
Yes I agree with you of your idea against sperm donation.
I bet there are lot of women who take advantage of family law to rip man off or his hard earned estate.
Women Claiming for child support and separation or divorce when they where not even married.
Comment by Shin Hee Yi — Fri 20th January 2012 @ 7:02 pm
@ Shin – I don’t know if it will change. I’m not sure advance of misandry has slowed so much from activism by men or from a declining economy and collapse of civilization as a result of misandry and marginalization of men themselves or both.
In most instances in which fathers who were still employed and hadn’t lost their jobs in response to the accelerated decline of the US economy during the past five years were still paying at least part of their child support (as much as they could), their driver and professional licenses and passports were still suspended because of the arrears. So, if they hadn’t lost their jobs as a direct result of the acceleration in decline of the economy, then they lost them because an increased cost of living was not matched by any comparable increase in pay and arrears either began or increased.
In the US, more than two-million men have been jailed for child support arrears during the past forty years. Almost all of these men have no ability to pay the child support ordered because those orders exceed their ability to pay. So, they are not guilty of contempt of the order. They are simply unable to pay. Cost for jailing these men approximates $30,000 per year. The more men the country jails, the greater the cost of jailing them is put on tax-payers and the less chance they have of finding employment and the less chance the country has of recovering any arrears. And the more hardship is imposed on taxpayers in a declining economy.
In addition to jailing men, their driver and professional licenses and passports have been suspended. Before decline of our economy began accelerating five years ago, approximately 25% of fathers were in arrears. Almost none of those arrears were deliberate but a function simply of the excessive order for child support and the inability of father’s to comply with the entire order. But they still complied with it in part. Today, since decline of the economy began accelerating, an estimated 50% of fathers throughout the US are currently in arrears (approximately eight-million men or between eight- and nine-percent of the adult male population).
During the past forty years, approximately 1.1-million men have suicided. Approximately 250,000 of those suicides are a direct response to the draconian consequences of divorce and child support. Dead men don’t pay child support. They also don’t work and contribute their labor to the economy. Remember Thomas Ball who died for our children.
More than six-million men are currently self-exiled. Many more during the past forty years. How many of those are a direct response of divorce and child support is unknown, but my experience overseas is that a large proportion of them are.
So, many fathers who could be paying something because they were still employed despite the accelerated decline ended up losing their jobs anyway because of the aggressive and heavy-handed and irrational child-support enforcement bureaucracy and can no longer pay. If these men are in jail, cost of jailing them is on tax-payers, who are already strapped, and the problem accelerates decline of our economy. If they are not in jail, they are ineligible for any public assistance and live in poverty and become a public health problem or reservoir for insurrection or live in exile and contibute their labor to other countries. But they are not contributing their labor to our economy. Or they are dead and contribute nothing. Dead men don’t pay child support.
The system has been contributing to its own dysfunction and accelerated decline of the economy and destabilizing national security (idiots!). The more fathers the bureacracy puts out of work in its aggressive pursuit of arrears (that they can’t and never could possibly pay and never should have been forced to pay in the first place), even though they were paying something (and never really should have been paying anything as the entire concept of child support is nothing but a scam and a Ponzi scheme), the fewer working fathers there are (8-9% of all adult males who are eligible for work are in arrears) and the fewer fathers there are who are allowed to work and the harder it becomes for our country to raise GDP to a level that exceeds our debt and the faster decline of our economy accelerates.
There are three possible outcomes to these developments that I see: (1) Either all these men (fathers) will be sacrificed by their neighbors and their country to exile, prison, homelessness and/or death, and the country’s economy will recover on their backs as it no longer supports them financially and has marginalized them and the US will have descended into complete fascism, or (2) the economy will not recover despite sacrifice of these men because their labor was so important to the economy and they gave more than they took from it and the economy will collapse and there will be anarchy (as opposed to fascism), or (3) these men and their supporters will pursue revolution and the Constitution and democracy will be restored and we will be a civilized country again. I’m betting on number “(1)”.
Although I am an enthusiastic supporter of MRA’s and the MRM (and civilization for that matter), I do not believe there to be a critical mass of numbers or support for them because our predisposition for more primitive social organizing prevents seven-billion people in the world from coordinating in a civilized way and they become easy prey for malignant narcissists to enslave us under a fascist regime. John the Other at A Voice for Men recently presented an article about “socialized psychopathy” which is a great summary of my thoughts.
Remember Thomas Ball who died for our children. Dead men don’t pay child support.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 21st January 2012 @ 4:16 am
Although dead men don’t pay child support, their arrears continue to accumulate and remain listed on our country’s budget as an asset. Terrific. Can’t wait to see how that one turns out.
Comment by Darryl X — Sat 21st January 2012 @ 4:24 am
The Herald seems to be on another feminist campaign, this time supporting the production of more fatherless children. The lucrative fertility industry has run out of sperm and 90% of their clients are now women who can’t be bothered establishing stable relationships with male partners. I have written a letter to the editor urging men to stop donating sperm because otherwise they are contributing to men’s own devaluation and redundancy as well as child abuse by those who deliberately choose to raise children with no father in their lives.
Note the article claims that the single women wanting sperm without fathers for the children are “educated, successful women who know they can care for a child and wish to become mothers”. Yeah right. If they are educated then why don’t they know about the research showing the deleterious effects of father absence. Many of these educated successful women will go on the DPB, getting between $500 and $1000 per week paid for by us all.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 21st January 2012 @ 11:29 am
This from The New Zealand Fertility Associates’ Medical director Dr Mary Birdsall –
“”But really, we just want keen guys who want to do a good thing. While many of our donors once were university students, I think now we’d like them to be possibly a little bit maturer, worldlier and to be able to think through the implications of what donating might mean.”
What she’s inferring is that up until now the NZFAM has not been bothered whether or not sperm donors were mature enough to think through the implications of what donating sperm might mean. In other words they’ve often preyed on young naive men often desperate to pay off student loans.
What a creepy business she runs.
Comment by Skeptic — Sat 21st January 2012 @ 1:31 pm
Dear Skeptic, I am scared that you are being too kind, to the dear Dr. who profits from selling reproduction to 1/2 parents, who cannot attract a joint parent, for both sharing developmental care of the child and also sharing financial/resource responsibility. Even if we turned a blind eye to the resources/financial issue (which we should not), then the most important issue is the quality of parental care for the resulting baby.
Should we be facilitating children to be born, for parents who lack the graces and social skill to find a responsible partner?
The Medical Director is prepared to grease the way, with words like “keen guys” …. “do a good thing”, marketing talk on the buying side, instead of the selling side. Can’t she do it by herself?
Given that these men could easily be charged child support, these depraved/stupid/gullible men are in the longer run jeopardising their own future freedom to have children with a woman of their own choice.
We should be offering counselling, to help these good keen men to protect themselves from the Mudusa’s that line the streets, to protect their own future family possibilities.
Should we be selling chastity padlocks for men? Who would we give the key to?
Welded is better….
Maybe milking machines can find more uses, in the winter time?
I am getting the feeling that it is all backwards?
How could it have got to this?
Remember, any mongrel can bear a child, but it seems rarer to be able to bring up a wise, stable, secure, empathic child. We should be putting more care (and money) into improving the quality of our care for babies and children and less toward helping single parents to bring more children into the world.
Good luck. We are going to need it.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 21st January 2012 @ 2:41 pm
Ya Murray Bacon
I agree with you.
I was thinking the same thing if women knows owner of the sperm she has every authority and law enforcement to claim her child support.
I believe all men who donating their sperms should know they are risking by doing it.
I already think New Zealand is already became feminazy empire.
The only way out is Revolution against feminism by force if necessary.
I really hope more kiwi man in our and younger generation to have insight what feminism is doing to damage our right as man.
I know it will take few 10 years to get to that point but Feminism really needs to be excluded from out society at least the radical feminism and misandry family law and legislation got to go.
Comment by Shin Hee Yi — Sat 21st January 2012 @ 5:21 pm
“Donors could place some restrictions on who they would like their donation to go to, but could not give sperm without accepting their child would be able to eventually learn their identity when they became legally old enough to apply for donation records.”
– what this says is that a record of the father is kept. You need to be very foolish to fail to realise that it only takes a stroke of a pen to make a donor liable for child support.
HOwever I think you guys have also missed a key point here. With IVF it is no longer necessary to have a woman in your life if you want to raise a child as a single father. This is the only way that you can have a reasonable level fo assurance of maintaining a relatiosnhip with your own child.
Comment by Vman — Sun 22nd January 2012 @ 12:40 am
Vman (#19): How can a man use IVF to father a child without a woman being involved? If this is done on a surrogacy basis, the woman can still change her mind at any time and demand to be involved with the child, apply for custody etc.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 22nd January 2012 @ 9:19 am
Hans #20, use a surogate in India or Ukraine. You surrogacy contract protects you under their laws.
Comment by Vman — Fri 10th February 2012 @ 6:23 pm
I understand that my letter to the editor was published by the NZ Herald, and received one or more offended replies. I now reproduce my letter for your interest:
Dear Editor
NZ Fertility Associates received good advertising in your story about a shortage of sperm donors to meet a high demand from single women who can’t be bothered developing a stable relationship. I urge all men to refuse to donate sperm that are likely to lead to fatherless children. Deliberately choosing to raise children without the full involvement of a father amounts to child abuse. Donating sperm for these purposes helps to devalue male energy, wisdom and roles. It is like donating to a fund for machines to make men redundant. Wake up men and stop colluding with the feminist war against men.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 11th February 2012 @ 10:33 pm
The judges should be evaluated by an independant psychologist, and their own family histories should be part of the evaluation process, what type of relationship did they have with their father and mother and what are their own personal views regarding shared custody.
Lex De Jong is a person and a judge who is renowned for gender bias against fathers, and in my personal experience with him this has proven to be true. The same holds true of McHardy, and one of the two has had more of his decisions reversed by higher court judges then anyone else.
The Act changed and was revised to reflect research in childhood devlopment which has shown the importance of the role of fathers in a child’s life, unfortunately some of these judges like the afore mentioned ones, have worked a long time in the system with the old legislation, and some of the judges have these old attitudes ingrained and is reflected in their decison making.
I had vastly different diametrically opposed results in outcome in my case depending what judge I had and also what lawyer for child I had on the case. Wendy Galvin was a person who perverted the course of justice and actively mislead the judges in my case. I would advise dealing carefully and in a clever way with any of the individuals I mentioned.
Comment by Veritas — Tue 14th February 2012 @ 1:58 pm