6 Comments »

1. 

   Probably in the men’s movement we had a group of leaders, and no followers! I don’t wan’t to name anybody. However putting people down won’t march to the beat of your drum, is not a good leadership technique. I am very aware of men who have destroyed their own health while trying in all good faith to use this system. The particular person at the same time was raising a child? Considering all those he fed and otherwise helped, I see a shortage of men at his side. OK so I’m not there! I happen to live around 500KM away, see my problem!

   Comment by Gwahir — Sat 11th August 2012 @ 5:14 pm

2. 

   The above post was merely meant to provoke thought and was in no way intended to criticise any person or group. I was attempting bring about debate and hopefully change. However, it is a fact that apart from a small number of changes to the law, which judges have the ability to ignore, there has been no change in the outcome for separated fathers in decades.

   In the TED talk, Jonathan Haidt give us an insight to Darwin’s theory of group selection. He goes on to say that groups who do not show empathy within the group and therefore lack coherency, are bound to fail. I don’t have the time to go into detail but a study of the male and his competitive nature will give you a good indicator of why our group lacks the power held by other movements, in particular the feminists. It is not in our nature to feel pride in being a victim. This leads us wanting to put family court drama behind us and move on. If a male does decide to fight this feminine institution he will take on an adversary that makes the Taliban look like wimps. 

   In times of war men will die for each other and the bond of friendships developed under fire last for a life time. When men see a clearly defined enemy and can work as a group they become extremely powerful and even feel that in their death their spirit carries on the fight with their comrades.  I don’t profess to have the answer to the dilemma but am interested in any debate on how we can change the male characteristic so he cares for his fellow man in a war against dogma and bigotry prevalent in our system thereby obstructing our reasonable access to our children.  I too am absent from NZ being some 20,000 km away but I am sure there are many in NZ willing to follow a coherent group.

   Comment by triassic — Mon 13th August 2012 @ 1:55 pm

3. 

   What part of the shared parenting legislation don’t you understand?

   Comment by Wow — Fri 17th August 2012 @ 6:18 pm

4. 

   Dear Wow, are you referring to shared parenting legislation in some USA states? or perhaps in Belgium?

   The clause in Care of Children Act 2004 that guardians should share decisions about the children don’t seem to be actually acted on in NZ familycaught$!

   Triassic’s comments about fathers usually failing to work together, unfortunately has been very correct. However, this isn’t totally true now and I hope that teamwork is being built up.

   Cheers, MurrayBacon.

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Fri 17th August 2012 @ 8:35 pm

5. 

   Wow….badly written law results in bad decisions in the courts. Judicial activism is rampant where holes as big as buses exist. The pessimist in me tends to believe this is deliberately done so that many people, like yourself, are easily fooled into believing that progress is being made. Have you ever yourself seen or heard a sound argument as to why, where possible, equal shared care can not be a default position? I have heard many poor inductive arguments put forward by academics who should know better. If you have a valid sound argument lets hear it? I’m sure it will help the hundreds of bewildered fathers who have problems sleeping trying to work out why they have to pay money to go to a court to obtain what would appear to most fair minded, child focused and family orientated people, to be a natural process.

   Comment by triassic — Sun 19th August 2012 @ 11:40 am

6. 

   Feminists have been hugely successful, I think you will all agree, in infiltrating academic and state institutions and controlling thinking and policy. There are genuine reasons and benefits but the extreme views ride in on the coat tails of the moderate views and get included in policies and thinking as well. When any species gains dominance over a territory they will fight to prevent the intrusion of other species they see as a threat.
   Any men’s group is seen as a threat and will be driven off by the dominant group, to the extent that most men are scared to put their hands up in public and say hang on this isn’t fair. That, I think, is the main reason why men’s groups don’t flourish in the public arena.

   Comment by Dan — Wed 22nd August 2012 @ 11:24 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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

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

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ