MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Stay at home dads are Dangerous!

Filed under: General — triassic @ 10:50 am Thu 4th June 2015

This story of exposing the price of the marriage break up of Janet and Paul will resonant with many fathers but for a different reason and their side of the story will have little interest in the main stream media it seems. A ‘stay at home dad’ is demonised once again. Journalism here of the lowest form is illustrated by a one sided story. Was it violence in the home that drove Paul into the arms of another woman? I would have thought it an important part of the story considering its relevance. The author of this article, Lucy Cavendish, has deviated from the normal drill with these stories, that being the person with the money, always has the power and automatically abuses that power for control via abuse, hence, defined as violence against the care giver of the children. The thought that Paul could be a victim is beyond Cavendish’s comprehension. It is also, I contend, beyond the editor of the NZ herald who commissioned this biased article denigrating the many fathers who love and care for their off spring and offer to stay at home to bring them up.

If I was to interview Paul I am sure I could write a tear jerking story about the abuse endured by stay at home fathers by their partners and the devastation of their predicament as after sacrificing their own career they now will have to live on bread crumbs for the rest of their life.

Jill Goldstone puts another perspective on the subject and points out that Lucy Cavendish is a Neanderthal Philistine.

38 Responses to “Stay at home dads are Dangerous!”

  1. Downunder says:

    It’s not surprising that modern marriages fail given the social environment and financial pressure under which they exist.

    This isn’t media, it’s journalist judgement.

    It’s nothing more than a petty journalist attributing blame to men for what has always happened throughout the centuries.

    It’s more obvious, more acceptable, more visible, more likely to be discovered, and more likely to result in divorce rather than being dealt with inside the marriage.

    There is no obligation on anyone to abandon their marriage, rather than resolve the differences, but it appears this is the more likely outcome these days.

    Still the same bullshit. Blame the bloke.

  2. Colin says:

    “He took the house, half my pension, half my salary – and, what’s worse, the children,” she says.

    Doesn’t this sound familiar? She is lucky she has got off that lightly!

  3. David says:

    The problem is the system and the belief that 1 parent has to be the main caregiver. This inevitably leads to parent alienation and injustice.

    If the system just woke up to the fact that both parents should be equally responsible for their offspring then you could do away with DPB and all number of problems.

    Quite a simple fix i would have thought.

    Also of course he is going to have an affair. The kids are at school lots of available divorced women around the schools and as they say idle hands do the devils work.

  4. Seamus says:

    There was a follow up article today that basically slammed the original.

  5. Paulo says:

    Neglectful executive husband drives his stay-at-home wife to an affair, it’s his fault. Neglectful executive wife drives her stay-at-home husband to an affair, it’s his fault. Feminist logic once again. The affair has nothing to do with the persons gender, but everything to do with being neglected.

  6. Downunder says:

    Got a link to the follow up.

  7. Downunder says:

    @ Colin

    I recall a conversation with a 1980s feminist that went roughly like this.

    Any man who goes out and does his own thing and just expects his wife to sit at home and look after the kids and run the house is treating her like a doormat.

    If you’re being treated like a doormat you should get rid of him, take him for everything you can get and move on.

  8. Downunder says:

    Janet certainly feels her punishment was unduly harsh. Although Paul broke their marriage contract, as he was also the main caregiver and she was seen as the breadwinner who was rarely at home, she lost everything.

    This is the key piece in the article.

  9. Doug says:

    Hilarious. Men don’t normally get a front seat to women’s get-together-and complain-about-men sessions so I welcome the insights. Keep them coming!

    I love the raw spite in this one, reminds me of some of the crap I’ve heard from my ex:
    “She was vulnerable,” says Janet. “I guess he liked that. It made him feel like a hero.”. Um, aren’t partners supposed to make each other feel special? Could that be the real reason he went and found someone else?

    Then we get this expert Dr Helen Fisher, human behaviour researcher:
    “The type of man who chooses to stay at home is biologically wired to have an affair,”. Seriously? Obviously she’s not a doctor of anything that requires any real brain power.

  10. Doug says:

    Maybe I was a little harsh, many of us have been in the same boat and don’t have a good word to say about the ex so I can feel some sympathy for her in some aspects. Bet our story wouldn’t get printed in a magazine and then reprinted in a national newspaper though.

  11. Paul says:

    It’s really great to go to some of the dating sites and to see the volume of single 35 plus women out there who want to meet their soul mate, walk hand in hand along the beach, watch sunsets whilst having a night on the couch with their new soul mate after walking hand in hand along the beach.

    Most have children, what are their chances, really?
    The soul mate, what are the chances? Often they advertise their height as five foot nothing and their weight at 10 stone, a mere size 16.
    They go on to say that they are opinionated, call a spade a spade and show a picture of their bloody cat.

    What are their chances?
    I bet they are so happy, the ex bastard, sperm doner has gone (bastard worked too hard – had to go)
    They get to get her with their coffee club man hating mates where they console each other and have competitions as to who had the biggest bastard.

    I guess they have what they wanted – minus the company and walks along the beach.

  12. MurrayBacon says:

    Thanks triassic, for the two articles of opposing views.

    I don’t buy the argument that stay at home dads are more likely to be unfaithful. The evidence that is claimed is far less than might be needed to make any such proof. Jill Goldson makes this point.

    More to the point, the high paid worker has more opportunity and the dynamics of this lifestyle tend to boost factors which increase risk of affairs. Power boosts testosterone, in women, in a similar way to in men. In both, this lift increases vulnerability to unfaithfulness.

    Spending time with children and caring for them, on average leads to more awareness of the damage done to children by broken relationships. This perhaps would lead to more caution about affairs and less actual affairs?

    I remember reading about the surprise than ornithologists had, when they DNA tested chicks of birds known for monotonous relationships. There were about 10% chicks to a different father. Known unfaithful birds the figure was about 30%. So, it seems that to check on faithfulness, extremely close bird watching is necessary. Fun for a while and then extremely monotonous! People aren’t much different, fruits from roughly the same tree.

    “Most men don’t have affairs,” says Marshall.

    “But they stray when they are desperate, when they feel unheard, un-listened to. It is demeaning to say they need their ego stroked, but when you step off the primrose path – and by this I mean the usual path most go down – you need to do a lot of talking.

    “If a man feels emasculated and as if he has lost his purpose in his life, he needs to ask himself some hard and difficult questions: ‘Who am I? What gives my life meaning?’ The easy question is: ‘Do I fancy this other woman?’ The simple answer to that is often ‘yes’.”

    Reading those words, I thought it could apply roughly equally both ways about the sexes.

    Sure, men may often have stronger libidos, or they aren’t so loud if they don’t? But women can fall into the same traps as supposedly Dr. Helen Fisher says men are vulnerable to.

    I think that Lucy Cavendish’s article is entertaining, just right to fill space in the profit media, 100% evidence-free! Got a discussion going, so thanks to her.

    But if we are to be influenced in how we lead our lives and care for our children, then lets be careful to stay closer to evidence based decisions, as per Jill Goldson.

    So, I suggest that there might overall be less affairs if more men cared more for children. Long run, large benefit to children, even more than for the parents.

  13. MurrayBacon says:

    comments by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

    The NPO website has many good articles on it.

  14. triassic says:

    Good spotting Murray. On the point of faithfulness between partners one also has to consider the libido of both genders. Nature has men with a much larger sex drive which means they are under more pressure to remain monogamous. This they can achieve due to their superior will power. If female libido was as high as their desire for junk food then their affairs would outstrip males by a long shot. My experience of female will power is that they are absolutely hopeless at self control, be it in spending money, picking at food all day, gossiping and looking at themselves endlessly.

  15. joseph says:

    David I couldnt agree more I dont believe in 1 main care giver.I think both should be given EQUAL rights towards the children from the get go.Specially if theres never been any hint of foul play or abuse prior to seperation.
    Locking out one Parent without due course is too common.Both still have equal rights until proven otherwise. It would certainly stop PAS with BOTH parents still able to intereact, Able to question any issues and stop children form PAS.

  16. MurrayBacon says:

    Search for nz legislation. At the Government legislation website, search for Care of Children Act:

    5 Principles relating to child’s welfare and best interests

    The principles relating to a child’s welfare and best interests are that-
    (a)a child’s safety must be protected and, in particular, a child must be protected from all forms of violence (as defined in section 3(2) to (5) of the Domestic Violence Act 1995) from all persons, including members of the child’s family, family group, whānau, hapÅ«, and iwi:

    (b)a child’s care, development, and upbringing should be primarily the responsibility of his or her parents and guardians:

    (c)a child’s care, development, and upbringing should be facilitated by ongoing consultation and co-operation between his or her parents, guardians, and any other person having a role in his or her care under a parenting or guardianship order:

    (d)a child should have continuity in his or her care, development, and upbringing:

    (e)a child should continue to have a relationship with both of his or her parents, and that a child’s relationship with his or her family group, whānau, hapÅ«, or iwi should be preserved and strengthened:

    (f)a child’s identity (including, without limitation, his or her culture, language, and religious denomination and practice) should be preserved and strengthened.

    Section 5: replaced, on 31 March 2014, by section 4 of the Care of Children Amendment Act (No 2) 2013 (2013 No 74).

    That has been NZ law since 2004. I have seen it work, on rare occasions, but not with most judges. Most judges were trained under Guardianship Act 1968, which had strict custodial and non-custodial parents. This was a very profitable concept.

    Have a few laughs…….
    Don’t take it too seriously, or you are likely to damage yourself…….

    Remember that its your money that they are after.
    They just can’t help themselves, from helping themselves to your money.

    Familycaught$ only hurts people who take it seriously.
    History Protection Orders – The Quantitative Figures.

    But most of all, protect your children in the real world.

  17. Paul says:

    This is difficult, shared care or not as a matter of right for the child.

    There Is not question that the children do become tools in some situations, tools for the mothers spite and control I say in my view.
    I have paid, ensured that the homework has been done, brought the clothes, done the activities. Our daughter was doing ballet, I took her, the mother wouldn’t take her or let me take her when in her care. When there was an exam or show there were extra rehersals which fell on the mothers care day. She would not take her or let me take her. This was the same with all of the children’s activities.

    I applied to the court so that the children could attend these activities, they liked them and received benefits.
    A judge who I was really impressed with made the directions
    The mother didn’t make the children available as per the orders.
    I went back to court and applied for the children to come into my care more. A different judge
    This judge removed the directions re extra curricular activities which were put in place by the previous judge only 12 months prior. This was removed on the basis that communication re extra curricular actives stressed out the mother.

    What about the children I say these are their activities?

    Shared care as a matter of course does not go far enough.
    Most of us would say how come the second judge didn’t just do what it says on the bottom of the court order, fine, award more time to the other parent etc?

    Did the children enjoy the actives, receive benefits? Yes.
    Does the mother have a history of not adhering to directions?

    I missed one access visit in 11 years
    The mother cancelled 30 in one year (more than one child)

    Nothing happens to her though except more legal aid.

    People don’t believe you when you tell them unless they have been through the court process.
    Fathers if you are wondering if you should give up, then do so, get a life, forget parenting in NZ the odds are stacked against you even after shared care.

    Adept judges can see what sort of difficulties lie ahead given the dynamics of the parents. The difficulties mentioned re activities are and we’re predictable and as long as the court are not going to censure the parent for not adhering to directions nothing will change.

    Ever got a court order re access or care, the mother has not had the children available, you contact the lawyer and say ” hey you know the 4 grand I spent getting to see the children, well the mother hasn’t made them available.

    Standard answer from the lawyer, perhaps you could apply for an order to endorse the order. A what you say?
    An order to enforce the order.
    Why, what is that you say but we have a court order, remember I paid you 4,000 for your work to get it.
    Yeh but you will need an order to enforce that if the mother is to be compelled to adhere to the court order, mind you says the lawyer, there are no guarantees that you will get it, and it will cost about 2,000 and take about 3 months.

    You say but you never told me tha this order is not enforcable.

    Get the picture guys?

    Still keen?

  18. MurrayBacon says:

    Sounds like relationship vandals?
    How could anyone be so stupid? Because they take home easy money, with no accountability……
    Sorry for being negative. Being positive is replacing them with competent, honest, sensible, sot self important people.

  19. Lukenz says:

    Yes Murray”¦. There is such a thing as relationship vandals. Those vandals used to be called spinsters. Encouraging woman who are in a relationship to end it so the spinster won’t be lonely anymore.

    I have seen how that turns out for the a woman who left her long term partner. You know the grass always looks greener but in time it will need a mow and weeding. As in the case it did.

    After two years what was broken could not be fixed. Life savings gone, family home gone, back to renting, having to start again. And the spinster moves on to her next victim.

  20. triassic says:

    Paul, my heart goes out to you mate. Just so many good dads are shafted by this system. I was brought up in a home where my mother and father respected each other. I had sisters who I respected so never had a sense of superiority over women. Then one day…..BANG! I end up in the family court with a female judge who’s distaste for me on the basis I was male blew me away. What that piece of shit put into action shook my faith in life itself. They don’t really care about the children at all. It’s is all about feminist dogma to them. They stink more than the scum from a sewage pond. For a long time I struggled along like you, believing a fair shake would come my way, but no, there was only deep disapointment and despair. I lost faith in the system altogether and as Murray says, it’s only a circus run by clowns. Females in society today are dangerous, period. I don’t have sons but if I did I would struggle to be happy if they had children. If a family court judge was to be shot or beaten up I would rejoice both for myself and the thousands of kids they have harmed.

  21. hornet says:

    Divide and Rule gentlemen and women – its all about DIVIDE and Rule – introduce Religion, race, mum v dad, father v mother – it matters not about what is right or wrong – its all about creating CONFLICT between PARENTS in this instance….

    The best way to beat this is to REFUSE to engage in the trap set for you – refuse to engage in the deliberately created CONFLICT…..

    When parents – mums and dads unite for the benefit of their children – your children – then and only then will there be effective change……

    CR(ISIS) – CONFLICT – CONTROL ……..over and over and over again – and many here on this site – take the bait every time….

    A passing comment -have you all notices how we are losing so many HUMAN RIGHTS – Changes to Constitutions in secret, Changes to BILL of RIGHTS and RIGHTS to DUE PROCESS – removal of rights to PRIVACY, RIGHTS to FREEDOM, RIGHTS to OWN PROPERTY…..

    it is my contention this is all coming about because we are no longer RULED BY PEOPLE – as we once were – if RULED by PEOPLE you have HUMAN RIGHTS – because they are living breathing human beings……

    So what has changed over the last few decades – and is gearing up to change even more????

    CORPORATIONS now rule over you – A corporation may be legally permitted to ACT as a HUMAN BEING – but it is NOT a HUMAN BEING – A Corporation does not BREATH, it Does not have feelings or emotions and it certainly has NO HUMILITY – if you understand this = you can see that if ruled by an INANIMATE NON LIVING ENTITY – Legally ACTING as if it were HUMAN – then you should all be able to see why this entity will NEVER GIVE out HUMAN RIGHTS = because it is NOT HUMAN…….

    I worked in the POLICE =- when we were a PUBLIC SERVICE to PEOPLE – Today – the POLICE is a CORPORATION driven by PROFIT – if you start to understand this – then and only then will you see why HUMAN rights are being taken away…..

    And it will only get worse when the CORPORATION – the NON HUMAN ACTING as a person = owns JAILS – that demand MORE CUSTOMERS – and Social Services which demand PROFIT over providing SERVICES…….

    This affects EVERYONE – even the people defending and working for the CORPORATION – the NON HUMAN ENTITY…..

  22. hornet says:

    WHATS the SOLUTION – IN NORWAY – I worked with a CORPORATION – a partner company that employed all staff on the SAME SALARY ……yes you heard that right – everyone was on the exact same WAGE – the Toilet cleaner was PAID the same as the CEO………

    Why is this important????

    Because here was a CORPORATION being managed by people and which still retained its HUMANITY – its HUMAN INPUT and CONTROL.

    Will we ever see this in NZ??

    Is this a revolutionary idea? Treating EVERYONE as EQUALS…………….

  23. Man X Norton says:

    hornet (#21): You worked in the police. I’m wanting to find some evidence of police policies regarding domestic violence call outs. Regardless of who appears to be the aggressor or the primary aggressor, police have for a long time usually told the man to leave the house and advised the woman to apply for a protection order. More recently, police have made ‘Safety Orders’ almost always against men forcing them to leave their homes for a time.

    Do you or anyone else who was in the police recall policies issued to them about how to manage domestic call-outs, e.g. notices or emails? Or do you think it’s just an informal culture followed by police?

  24. joseph says:

    17# Paul totally agree great post

    The cost is too much I too jumped through every hoop and got nowhere
    After suffering a major break down after banging my head against wall after wall.
    Losing someone very close to me because she just could not cope with the courts, denied access the actual cost of disappointments year after year completely closing her out and my stepsons missing out.We still remain very close as I loved her two boys.

    Then the final straw my eldest Daughter been sexually abused by the ex partners new boy friend and removed into foster care without my knowledge I lost it.

    The one shining light was been told that Rehab might help towards my cause.
    I was so angry at the time I refused to jump through that hoop.Fortunately I have an amazing partner, friends and Family that pursued me to get help. Which saved my life.

    Hamner springs and Taha Maori change my life forever. I did both. recognising that I also had issues concerning my Culture and needed to re connect I applied and got a longer extention knowing I need more help in understanding and dealing with ALL my issues.

    The childrens Mother was invited and paid for conferences, which of course was declined

    It never got my children back, it never stopped stinking thinking, it never stopped me from getting angry, it never stopped me from feeling victimized by this whole bloody process.

    What it did do was educate me on getting out and letting go for my own safety.

    Many see this as a cop out…well they can GO F themselves I was heading for a rope.Those judgemental A holes just push people over the edge and then walk away saying WOW whats going on there.

    Two very sad events not long after I stepped out was a close neighbour a friend of my Parents another child I grew up with hung himself going through the same process over his kids. Ivan Young and then a week later my Father passing my greatest ever support.

    I cried when I found out that idiotic unethical uneducated people in power stopped the funding of Hamner Spring and Taha Maori and they closed the doors to one of the most successful rehads in New Zealand history. It was also Internationally renowned.

    It was never my choice to walk away. It was thrust upon me for self preservation.
    Because of the lack of support an the courts, Lawyers the cost accociated many years of absence from the children. I own my part that I made that choice to leave.

    That choice does not haunt me even through my girls are suffering from PAS. On here I get to share about what I went through it matters not if Im challenge ” like really” lol.

    What matters is that after My eldest Daughter made contact after many many years.We now communicate and Im taking it one step at a time

    . All Fathers out there if you have intergrated with you children had a loving relationship even alienated for a longtime be asured that your children do REMEMBER this…They do.

    Years and years of abuse about you to the children by the mother and others does one thing…
    It simply never ever adds up…specially when they are adults.
    Take my word for it it never stacks up and Kids who turn adults in this situation are alot smarter than Parents think.

    My daughter has disowned her Mother for a short period which was great for us both.She did not want any interferance.The Mother is just so desperate over her lies and behaviour

    yet now its were it the trash.So guess whos having unrestricted access to his Daughter and Grand children.
    God I just wish it hadnt come at such a higher cost for others.

    RIP Dad I miss u.

  25. hornet says:

    #23 – Man x – when I was first in the police in 1986 we were trained to ALWAYS assess and approach domestic incidents carefully – domestic call outs for police rank as one of the most dangerous incidents they have to attend – I recall in training we were reminded of the numerous deaths of police attending Domestic incidents.

    The worst and most frequent were during a wet weekend – usually on a Sunday night when tension has come to a head – and everyone has been locked inside – it was common to attend to see sunday nights dinner smashed into the walls and ceilings – with kids crying and mum and dad arguing in front of them……weapons were a cause for concern – I have had to deal with people waving knives and machetes ….had beer bottles thrown at my head, saw other officers cut and bleeding …. and we were just there to HELP…..

    Changes occurred during my time = where policy was created to always arrest an offender for domestic violence if that was noted on the night – prior to that we had the power of discretion as attending police. What motivated this change? – the numerous times in the past – where attending police had issued warnings – and after they left – more serious injuries and even death resulted – so the compulsory arrest and remove police was primarily driven by SAFETY for all concerned.

    There was NOTHING more disturbing in that time – to have to arrest a father in front of his kids – because he had assaulted the mother – who had injuries and was clearly in distress – the kids I always felt the most sorry for – no child should have to see the police in their home -let alone see police remove a parent. That creates a lasting memory for them and its not good.

    Whos at fault ?? It takes two to argue -we all know this – and as much as women can get under a mans skin – they know which buttons to push – and vice versa – the main point is – NEVER REACT – have self control – walk away and calm down……

    Unfortunately in the majority of cases it is the man who causes the most harm to a women when violence is involved – yes woman can kick and punch and use weapons with the best of them – but lets face it – a real man should not react to it.
    BOth parents if they genuinely care for their kids should have self control.

    I have attended a number of deaths where women were punched out and died – that is not something anyone needs to see…….

    Whats the solution???? Social decay, forced poverty, hopeless governments not providing OPPORTUNITY and CARE are all ingredients that manifest into unhappy homes and parents in conflict…….that is a big part of it all……we all now know since 2008 – that MONEY is printed out of thin air – so there is really nothing stopping Govts if they really wanted – to ensure EVERYONE had a better quality of life…..less financial stress, less forced CONFLICT….more opportunity instead of deliberately sending more and more businesses and jobs offshore…..the entire CRISIS – CONFLICT – CONTROL dynamic has to end if we are to embrace a better society for everyone – not just a few.

    Hope that helps – the police do not go into these callouts with a predisposed agenda to take down fathers – least we did not in my day….

    the police as I have said – were historically there to just HELP prevent INJURY – Protect life and property as it was in our day…..

  26. Man X Norton says:

    Thanks for that hornet. I realise that police will want to ensure safety from violence and won’t have a predisposed agenda to ‘take down fathers’. But why then are at least 89% of ‘safety orders’ issued against men when we know physical violence by intimate partners is committed relatively equally by men and women? This must be a policy that was made for police and I’m trying to find out how this policy was communicated to police officers.

    What I read between your lines is that the discriminatory use of safety orders against men is based on the belief that men are more capable of committing the most serious harm, regardless of who has already committed violence in any one domestic situation. Is that correct?

    What I mainly want to find out is what orders or policies were issued to police that leads them to issue most orders against men, even when the woman has clearly been the only aggressor.

  27. joseph says:

    Hornet respect mate and great post. Under trying circumstances the Police do the best they can.
    Ive always respected the Police there position while acknowledging they are not marriage councilors where Domestic Violence is evident Physical of mental.

    I witnessed violent legal addiction with grog and seen the outcome from that violence.Sons taking on Fathers to protect their Mums,getting beaten senseless while it was been watched by All family members who through the normality of it simply never intervened,Out of fear or because back in the day it was just normal.

    Women did suffer in this era and they did it in silence and almost always to protect the kids.
    There was no escape, no relocation, no havens, no refuge other than Family where they were brow beaten if they threatened to leave, no DPB…no Social services other than the Church nothing.

    Police werent called and if they happened to arrive or be called people faced a backlash.

    Cheap housing in the 60s saw towns emerge from nothing farming communities saw their children move to Cities for labour entensive work following higher educated children.

    The late 70s saw the emergence of children that were caught up in domestive violence at a young age drift into Gangs like the Mongrel Mob,then the split that saw the Black Power emerge.
    Back in the day when you called your neighbours Mr and Mrs all your lives out of respect neighbours that could kick you in the behind for been naughty or disrepectful.The same people that kept out of family disputes out of violent family confrontations as a form of misguided respect.

    With the 70s and 80s came plenty of work oppitunities very few were unemployed most were by choice.
    Social change took off.Campaigns took off ,Law and Policy reform was introduced and suddenly Domestic Violence came out and emerge with all its ugly demons.No longer were people prepared to suffer in silence specially woman and children and good on them a watershed moment.

    You served in this era, this social change where Violence in the community and family was been challenged by people with a higher understanding of the law and enforcement.People were encourage to speak out and long may that continue.Suddenly the lid came off and domestic Violence was fully exposed as the number one violent offence. A tough era to serve in.

    Been a product of this era I saw change suddenly people were getting arrested and taken away, processed and profiled.Suddenly my friends and relations werent hiding or turning up to crash at my Parents house as a haven for safety.
    Yet for me because of Social change in attitude and Law enforcement Violence became another animal altogether.
    I tell you Hornet I investigated becoming a Policemen had my hearing been up to it I would have loved the idea of walking out at Porirua Police college after a short few years transfering from the Army.
    Honestly Im gad that never happened, having freinds and relatives that served in the Police force
    I cant tell you it takes a very special kind of person to last a career in the Police force, With what they face day to day its no wonder they have the highest figures for divorce,stress,injury mental health and suicides.
    As I said respect Hornet ,what world would it be without the Police.

  28. Hornet says:

    #27. Joseph . Thank you…. You understand….

    #26 man x…. Another example…. In a game of rugby if someone gives you a clip and you retaliate…. Who does the ref see???? Always the one who threw the second punch…..

    Sadly in our society …. When a “few” cause serious problems…. we all suffer….. Another example….Auckland City land mark lookouts…. A few cause problems and we all suffer as the entire place is then shut down and locked up so no one gets to enjoy the night time city views…..this is how govts deal with problems…..take away everyone’s rights to solve a problem…..

    I can’t speak for present day police attendance…..the culture has changed since I was in there….. What has not changed is that you still get very young officers with little experience thrown into the deep end to deal with all the horrors life has to offer…. Perhaps you should go out for a night with the police and witness first hand how they deal with each incident…… Remember they deal with so many different incidents in any one shift…. A death an assault a domestic a burglary a lost child…. You never know what’s coming…. And more importantly they deal with each event as they see it… it presents….. And no two incidents are the same……

    Is there a bias towards men? I don’t think so at the first contact phase….. Are we persecuted by the family courts as we seek rights to see our own kids ?? Most definitely…..

    Do we need to be very careful we don’t get caught or Entrapped as a domestic violence offender? Yes most definitely….for that’s what the system wants….. So you lose credibility …… given that…. in any arguement or conflict walk away…..don’t retaliate!!!!!!. Engaging means you lose…..your the man……you are physically stronger in ever respect so of course men will be placed in a no win situation if he engages in physical conflict with a women…. Yes even if they start it…… We all know a man can easily finish it….. But that’s not the point is it…..

    Read my blog…..

    Link on the hornet logo……

  29. Ant says:

    From memory the policy to arrest men or to remove them from the home regardless of circmstance was adopted from lectures or sermons preached by two Waikato University lecturers, possibly adopting the Duluth model

  30. triassic says:

    Correct, the Deluth Model is derived from research at the Deluth University in Minnesota USA during the early 80’s and is described as:

    the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States.[2] It is based in feminist theory positing that “domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners”.[2] Critics argue that the method can be ineffective as it was developed without minority communities in mind and can fail to address root psychological or emotional causes of abuse


    It is now an ancient theory, proven over time to be biased, and now clearly dated and no longer relevant. It is time our system took note of this FACT and moved to modern, empirically established, modes of intimate partner behaviours. Of course this is unlikely to happen because it flys in the face of feminist dogma. This pernicious dogma permeates every area of family law and associated departments.

  31. MurrayBacon says:

    #23 Man X Norton asked about NZ Police policies regarding always removing the man from the house after a domestic violence callout.

    This doesn’t quite answer the question, but for what it is worth….

    USA research background, that led to “mandatory arrest policies” in USA and to a large degree in NZ:
    What was the Research Justification for DV Act?

    The Police Arrest studies were groundbreaking research, for their time. They were not intended to be the end of research into these topics, just another stepping stone in the path of ongoing research.

    However, unfortunately large scale, practical, real world based DV research stopped after those studies had been completed. There were several reasons for the cessation of further police/court type studies:

    (a) ethical difficulties regarding using the public as non-consenting participants in compulsorily applied research, caused real fear in university ethical committees. These problems had been partly overlooked for the original studies, due to the lack of workable alternative approaches. However, as time went on, ethical standards were enforced more vigorously, as USA became a more vexatiously litigious country. Administrators were too scared of the liability in terms of damages and reputational issues.

    (b) Advocacy organisations took the results from the intial studies and wanted to apply them without any further delay. They put no pressure to continue the studies, they were happy with what they had already got. Actually, they were happy with running with a simplified version of the results, without taking on board the total conclusions from the studies.

    Simple version: Mandatory arrest the man, remove him from the house.

    Complete conclusions, that were carefully ignored!:
    1. Removing the man worked well for men without antisocial personality disorder.
    2. It was totally inappropriate if the woman was the only violent or drunk party.
    3. If mandatory arrest was applied wrongly to a man or woman with antisocial personality disorder (everyday language a criminal record), the outcomes could be way out of proportion to the original incident and tragic for everyone. In the end, a small number of such incidents could cause more harm than the good achieved by a larger number of removals of somewhat violent men from houses.

    In others words – don’t use unthinking mandatory arrest and removal – apply sanctions that are relevant and proportional to what is happening. (This concept in justice is now thousands of years old. Somehow, it needs to need to be learned again and again, every few years……)

  32. joseph says:

    Personally I dont have a problem with men been removed from a situation that could develop into tragic circumstances. Even if physical violence, drugs or Alcohol are not involved. Tragic as it may seem its not the removal thats the issue.

    In my opinion most men would sooner leave taking shelter at a friends, family or even a mens shelter rather than see the Mother and children out on the streets or just been taken away.

    *The main issue is what transpires after, or what the police issue when removal has taken place.*

    * Complete lockout for me that follows with a removal is the main issue *

    Men need to get really educated on what the process is concerning developing relationship problems between the Mother of there children and what could happen to them directly after.
    While living in ignorance believing it would never happen to them

    It is my belief that when confrontation takes place to the point police are present
    Men may not realise or have failed to recognise.

    1.* That the on going problems in the relationship has already been finalized.*

    2. That Woman are far more educated by the systerm more in touch and most probably have been guided by your closet allies in how to deal with what takes place that leads the mother into a powerful position.

    3 Suddenly your whole relationship has changed, the whole concept of the family unit has shifted
    She now has complete control with choosing to continue or terminating that relationship all at the tip of her fingers backed by the law.
    Which includes,Law enforcement,Police, Parents,Family and Friends your own included
    Men are not in a 50/50 shared situation about anything including the children and assets.

    you better hope they still love you and wish to repair the relationship otherwise you could face been dismantled in the most extreme way possible even by people you thought were your biggest allies and at this time theres very little that you can do about it.

    4. This is not the time to find out that they are involved or have been involved with another person .Most always that person has a connection to someone in your direct or outer circle.

    *This is deliberate and premeditated believe it.*

    Your about to lose everything YOU believed in and tragicially that involves share guardenship of the children, ownership and rights.

    So I applaud any on here who advise you to keep your cool but seriously get educated.

    Its ridiculous Mens false sense of security when the figures for failed Marriage and relationships breakdowns reveal a different truth as well as revealing the evil truth about what could transpire directly after.

  33. Man X Norton says:

    Briefly returning to the topic of this post, I read the Christin Munch paper from the University of Connecticut, in the journal American Sociological Review, that formed the basis of her claim that men earning less than their wives are more likely to be unfaithful in order to assert their threatened masculinity. Oh, and men are also more likely to be unfaithful when they are earning more than their wives, because in that case they think they deserve it.

    The paper’s measures did show the patterns of infidelity Munch claimed, but it was difficult to know whether the complicated mathematical manipulation of those measures introduced any bias. For example here’s an excerpt from the paper:

    Because these data include multiple observations per individual as a result of the panel structure, I introduce a random-intercept term to address the dependence among repeated observations for the same individual. The models take the following form:

    log (pit|1 – pit) = xit β + αi + εit

    pit is the probability of engaging in infidelity by the next year, xit is a row vector of variables for individual i at time t, and β is a column vector of regression coefficients. Residuals are composed of two parts: αi represents random intercepts for persons, assumed to be uncorrelated with xit and normally distributed with a mean of zero and constant variance; εit is a random disturbance term. I estimated the models using the xtlogit procedure in Stata 13, which uses an adaptive Gauss-Hermite quadrature to calculate the parameters.

    No doubt it’s quite possible to work out the implications of this and other data processing in the study but I couldn’t be bothered. So one has to rely on the journal’s peer review process and assume that at least one of the reviewing sociologists both understood the statistical manouvering and could vouch for its validity.

    More fundamentally though there are major problems for drawing this author’s conclusions from what the study actually did, even if one accepted that the numbers she finally derived were meaningful.

    Firstly, the measures of ‘infidelity’ were derived from self-report information concerning marital status from year to year plus the number of sexual partners the subjects said they had over those periods. Essentially, if a person reported being married one year and still reported being married two years later but in the intervening year claimed to have had more than one sexual partner, this was counted as infidelity. So the measures did not even come from direct reports of infidelity and will have included cases of temporary separation involving other sexual partners before reuniting with the spouse, as well as other possible scenarios that did not in fact involve infidelity.

    Secondly, the measure of ‘infidelity’ was further unreliable because it was based only on self-report (or more correctly, derived from only self-reported information). No reliability check was employed. The measure of ‘infidelity’ assumed that the subjects were honest about their sexual exploits and further that both men and women were equally honest. It may be that men exaggerated their number of claimed sexual encounters and/or that women lied in the other direction. Indeed, the heavily feminist sociological theories that the research was based on would predict that men could be expected to assert their masculinity by overestimating their sexual exploits but that women would not do so, while many contributing here on MENZ Issues will attest to women’s propensity to deny any wrongdoing they may commit. Regardless, the study should not have tried to make conclusions about infidelity but should have talked only about ‘self-reported claims about sexual encounters the author assumed to be infidelity’.

    Thirdly, even assuming the findings were valid and did actually bear some relationship to the subjects’ real infidelity, that the author predicted the measured correlations on the basis of certain feminist sociological theories did not mean that those theories were necessarily the only or best explanation for those findings. The author described theories of ‘social exchange’ and a theory derived from that called ‘equity theory’. I was unconvinced by the reasoning offered to suggest these theories predicted rather paradoxical outcomes for men and women based on dubious stereotypical generalizations about masculinity and feminity. The findings even if valid could have been explained in other ways that the author’s many control measures did not cover.

    Anyway, that was an attempt to critique this research in a somewhat more formal and informed way than Jill Goldson’s opinion piece did. Ms Goldson rather missed the point concerning the research, but I liked the fact that she stated

    Advances in child developmental psychology have proven that children thrive best with both parents in their lives.

    (…even if she then tried to sanitize the deleterious effects on children from parental separation by adding

    …even if separated… ).

  34. Man X Norton says:

    Thanks Murray, I’m sure that US research misrepresented to justify mandatory arrest of males was influential in the NZ Police policy of evicting the man from his home regardless of who was the aggressor or the primary aggressor.

    Thanks Ant; yes I remember the Neville Robertson and Ruth Busch roadshow and I’m sure they were also influential in getting police to discriminate almost routinely against men in domestic call-outs. I was taken in by the emotive and unbalanced content of the Robertson/Busch presentation and it inspired me to give a substantial donation to Women’s Refuge. Then I read Warren Farrell and took a closer look at the statements, policies, philosophies, teachings and advice from Women’s Refuge. I would not donate a chewed piece of gum to that lying bunch of vipers now, not until they start showing some integrity and fairness.

    Thanks Hornet for your efforts to explain, justify or deny (actually, all three) police discrimination against men. The fact is we often hear testimony from men who did not retaliate at all, who had injuries from a woman’s assaults but the woman had not a mark on her, yet the man was told to get out of his home, or more recently issued with the ‘safety order’ and forced out of his home. I would still be very interested to know exactly how this ‘target the male’ policy was conveyed to front-line officers throughout the country. The same goes for other police policies, such as those in which they readily assist a female to seize what she claims are her possessions from her ex-partner’s house after she has run off with someone else, but they refuse to assist a man to do the same thing (even when it was police who ordered him out of the home containing his possessions).

  35. Downunder says:

    Man X Norton

    Talk to JP I sent him the research papers about this a while back. Hopefully he still has them, but if not I can have a fossick around for the links.

  36. Man X Norton says:

    Downunder (#35): What were the research papers about?

  37. Downunder says:

    Development of domestic violence policy.

  38. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Downunder, the references to papers about development of NZ DV policy, could you please put them in a new post, or under the old post:

    Thanks very much,
    axe-murderer – spinning aimlessly without policies or direction…

Leave a Reply

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.

Skip to toolbar