NZ Herald’s White Knight Series on Family Violence
Those who haven’t read the NZ Herald over recent days may have missed its ongoing series on family violence. It’s typical misandry and misinformation, for example in yesterday’s editorial. The first case used to discuss NZ family violence was of Emily Longley who actually was murdered in England by an Englishman.
What’s really interesting though is the high state of awareness and criticism in the readers’ comments of the Heralds’ misandry and duplicity. It’s incredible that neither the media nor our politicians are yet tuning in to the growing wave of public sentiment against the feminist ideology and propaganda we have been subject to for so long.
We encourage readers to contribute to the comments on the Herald’s articles.
Kerri McIvor today had a rant dissing men, as part of the Herald’s family violence series. She tells a personal story of having had a boyfriend when younger who, when drunk at a party at his place and after she was disgusted at him for being drunk and telling him she was going home, hit her across the face, dragged her into his room, threw her clothes out the window and locked her in. Well of course, that’s her version of what happened and it may not exactly have been like that. When he later came to the room and crashed on his bed, she whacked him in the face and left the relationship. I note that her opinion piece didn’t have a ‘comments’ section; I guess the Herald is tired of being called out on its feminist propaganda.
Clearly if what happened was as Ms McIvor claimed, that was unacceptable and she could have pressed charges. However, her revenge punch was no better, so what’s she doing dissing men?
Her piece has one token sentence acknowledging that men are sometimes the victims of women’s violence, but I suspect this was inserted as an afterthought under editorial request after all the critical feedback about accuracy and balance. The rest of Ms McIvor’s article was typical misandry, referring to offenders and victims in gender specific terms and encouraging women to trash their children’s families should a man ever err.
It’s the same over here in Oz. All the top sportsmen are lining up to tell us that we shouldn’t be bashing women, as if that’s going to stop a violent man who is that way inclined. Some time ago a young man who I know really well said to me “I hate women and don’t trust them and would never have a child with one.” I said to him , why do you say that?? He said because of the way my mother treated my father and how my dad had to work 3 jobs to pay for the child in her custody and had no money left to feed us properly. We have sown the wind my friend and will soon reap the whirlwind, and many angry young men from father deprived homes are feeling very angry towards women these days. And who do we blame for this?? Violent fathers?? No, absent fathers who have been estranged from their sons by a man hating, biased family court and IRD process!!
It’s remarkable that with all of the press around family violence that no one is actually focusing on the mother,s new partner.
This is the guy who sees your children more than the natural father does.
This is the guy who has not had his credibility held up to the light.
This is the guy who’s first care is not for your child.
Spastically this is the guy who committs ofences against children.
The natural father, if not a beater basher is a protector of his children.
The court process, initself or by making it so difficult for the protector or by not supporting him when court directions are not adhered to plays into the hands of the mothers new partner, spastically the abuser.
Just a silly idea but if the reasonable natural father was supported or even encouraged would this mean that a protector, a safe environment is available for the child.
Are we better with the status quo, make it so hard for the father, don’t support him or encourage him, support the mother so that the father fucks off in disbelief and frustration?
This must be the design, so many people who have been through the process find the same thing. Grand parents, families have seen this happen time and time again and how has it really changed in 30 years then? Lauren Quantaince of north and south ndid her piece called Court of Injustice ( on google) in 2001. Let’s talk about the elephant in the room.
Support the decent natural father
Help him to have a consistent relationship with his children.
Let’s talk about the mothers new intimate partner (that’s the term given to this new arrival)
It is well known that mummy’s new man is 50 times the risk.
I have attended several DV lectures by Mark Henegan to his third year law students and he makes this point clearly.
Often mummy’s new partner is male and sloppy journalists, and those with agendas, imply daddy is the baddie.
The process design criteria.
Let’s design a process where all men have no access to their children as of right.
This should repell the natural father
This process should ensure that he leaves the child/children.
Let’s ensure that the way is paved for the mothers new partner to abuse by getting the natural father out of the way.
Lets send the father around in circles
Let’s cripple him
Let’s ensure that we have a fatherless society for children
Let’s make sure the children have every opportunity to lack a decent male role model other than the succession of new intimate partners the
Let’s know about all of these things but not change it for 30 years.
Let’s put some propaganda around it.
Let’s label all of those who see the process for what it is as ” someone unable to accept reality” “or a perpetrator of conflict”
Let’s protect the process and all those who make money off it
Let’s ensure that the governing bodies of the so called professionals who participate in the process are actullly ” self governing”.
Let’s put some propaganda around this to illustrate, fairness, arms length behavior, independence and transparency. Yes Transparency.
We want a process which ensures that fathers leave their children to the mother and potentially her new partner and are likely to spend their lives associated with the police, courts and lawyers so that their existence can perpetuate.
Let’s tell people that we are changing, streamlining, er making even better the greatest process out there but not change the fundamentals.
Now with a process design criteria like this one all of the readers must agree – we have achieved process perfection, how do we improve perfection? You can’t and that’s why nothing has really changed in 30 years.
It may be that we should be celebrating the process,it’s design and how well the criteria is met. We must not be attempting to change it.
The NZ Herald is descending into a trash paper. Every day it has more articles about what’s happening between people on ‘The Bachelor’ tv show than anything else, probably ‘sponsored’ articles as part of an advertising deal.
Now their series on family violence is becoming more and more misleading and male-bashing. They appear to have removed the readers’ feedback function from these articles because so many readers were calling out their feminist sexism. They have had several emails from the Ministry of Men’s Affairs urging them to present this important area in a balanced and accurate way. Yet today their articles in this series commence with the ridiculous statement “New Zealand has the worst rate of family and intimate-partner violence in the world”. A formal complaint will be made concerning this blatantly dishonest statement, and we encourage others here to make their own complaints in support.
There is no way NZ has the worst rates of family and intimate-partner violence in the world. The claim up to now was that NZ has the worst rates in the ‘developed world’ and that is a bit closer to reality but still incorrect. That claim was based on poor self-report survey research but at least it was based on something. In fact, the US has higher domestic homicide rates, Canada has higher partner homicide rates, Russia has higher domestic violence rates according to crime statistics. As for the rest of the world, numerous ‘3rd world’ countries have much worse rates and the Herald’s latest claim is totally indefensible, another whole level of deliberate, blatant b.s.
One of the articles today describes various police call-outs and cases appearing in court. One paragraph is headed ‘And it isn’t only men’ and describes a case of a woman stabbing a man with scissors. Unlike the other cases concerning male offenders, this female journalist felt the need to speak positively about the female offender being committed to finishing her anger-management course and having moved with her kids to emergency state housing. (Imagine if a man stabbed his female partner with scissors; would he be allowed to retain care of the children?)
The other cases are also interesting. One police call-out describes both partners having bite marks but the assumption is made that the man’s bite marks were ‘from where she tried to fight back’. Yeah right.
Another police call out involved a woman who ‘got mad’ because her husband put a t-shirt on the table, whereupon he slapped her on the back and she called police. WTF? If a man ‘got mad’ at a woman for putting a t-shirt on the table he would be seen as controlling, emotionally abusive, having an anger problem. If his wife then slapped him on the back it would be excused as her standing up against his abuse.
One of the cases before court was about a Chinese employer who had recovered money from a long-standing debtor and needed that money to pay his employees. The article states “But his wife had other plans for the cash. He assaulted her”. The ‘other plans’ will be a euphemism for her spending the money without consulting him, on some selfish preference of her own and without consideration of the need to pay the employees who were actually maintaining her privileged lifestyle. If the gender tables had been reversed the man would have been portrayed as a selfish power and control abuser and probably charged with some economic crime, while the female’s minor violence in response would have been excused as understandable and police would not have charged her.
Then there was the engineer who gave his teenage daughter a ‘back-handed slap’ during a ‘blazing row’, then allegedly ‘dragged her to the house and pinned her to the wall by her throat’, because he was ‘angry that she had been wagging school and spending the night at a boyfriend’s’. More likely, he was angry that she was being verbally abusive to him in refusing to respect his adult wisdom and parental authority as he attempted to set boundaries in her best interests. Though her age isn’t mentioned one assumes she was under 16 so his actions could also be seen as protecting her from sexual crime. But no, a father’s authority is rubbish under feminist ideology and it’s better to let under-aged teenage girls rule the roost, make decisions that will damage their education and future independence, get pregnant and so on. Yes, he should have been able to contain his anger and could have used alternative ways of enforcing his parental wisdom, but quite frankly there are now few options for responsible parents to establish their authority and to have their boundaries in the best interests of their children respected.
The article made much of the many women who call police then play the matter down and reject police involvement on their arrival. It fails to mention that the law allows police to press charges independent of a complainant when they have evidence to do so. If police did not press charges in the call-outs described, then one can assume there wasn’t much evidence or that what they saw suggested the woman had also been violent. The article pushed an assumption that those women backed down out of fear. That may be so in some cases but no consideration was given to the likelihood that in some or many of those cases the woman had misused the police and the threat of using our biased, anti-male legal system unfairly against the male for daring to stand up to her on some matter. Or that some or many of those women may have recognized that they had also been violent in the situation and deciding that it would be unfair to get the man in more trouble.
The apparent complexities of most of the cases described in this article were consistent with the research that shows most partner violence involves women and men reacting with various forms of violence towards each other in situations of conflict. But no useful analysis of this was made. Instead, even though the article even described a case of a violent female offending against a male victim, it referred elsewhere to family violence in gender-specific terms as if only men ever do it and only women ever are victimized. What a crazy, dishonest world feminists are creating. And why would a national newspaper push this stuff? It really makes no sense.
At least the Press are prepared to say Mummies new intimate partner is a perpetrator.
Some fathers wild say when the child gets abused by the i others intimate partner “it’s the mothers fault”. The child is her responsibility at that time, she chose the new partner.
The feminists still blame the man. Do we care who’s fault it is? We care that it has happened and may be happening thats because we are fathers who care.
The mothers rights appear to trump the child’s in such a situation.
A couple of years ago I was part of a construction crew working on a high school in Queensland Australia
The site induction was beyond anything I’d ever experienced.
We were warned of a new type offence that was new to me. It was called “leering”. This no leering rule warned that we weren’t able to look at a female or child for more than two seconds. I shit you not. Three seconds is a form of abuse and subject to site removal.
Also we were told that camera’s were not allowed on site.
Stupidly phones weren’t considered camera’s in their site induction form.
Unless you were a supervisor in which case photographs of the job were a requirement and sent daily to report progress as long as you take care that there’s no children are visible in the background.
Supervisors were considered less likely to be abusers or leerers apparently.
I don’t imagine that a female group of workers visiting the school would have been presumed to be potentially dangerous.
Bob McCoskrie: Family violence is still not just a male problem
I do recommend to read the whole article!
So, if Owen Glenn’s $2 million women cannot find hints of solutions, just collect half stories, is there a solution to be found?
Very well said.
The solution is hidden in plain sight. It is slowly being put into action, mainly by schools – positive community mental health promotion. Listen to your own feelings. Listen to your neighbour and maybe even help them – be there for them. Improve your negotiation skills (does that sound like to opposite of the familycaught$?. Better financial planning skills for all students, helping families to make the best of the social and financial resources that they have……
We do need to make sure that the dragging social force in familycaught$ is reduced, as schools will be limited in what they can achieve, while the robber barron$ are taking unbridled advantage of temporary mental health problems in the community.
Many thanks to Bob McCroskie and Family First.
How can the Herald in all seriousness publish numerous articles treating family violence as something caused by males and suffered by females, when the editor knows events like this happen quite often. In this case a woman runs over a man in her car because he didn’t give her money as she expected. The police are tight lipped and won’t even accept yet that the assault with a car was deliberate. When a male does anything like that to a female, police are much more forthcoming with prejudgment and condemnation.
Oh, and this case may or may not be one of domestic violence but again contradicts the feminist mantra that violence is a male issue. This victim is still in a serious condition with critical head injuries in hospital after being found gagged and bound on a road in the Dome Valley following a violent attack including with a hammer. One male and two women are now charged with the violent kidnapping though the actual violence charges haven’t been laid yet. The two women were reported to be chatting and joking with each other whilst in Court. Aren’t men violent huh?
But this case was one of domestic violence, in which Tania Shailer in conjunction with her partner regularly attacked a 3yo boy entrusted to their care until he died from the injuries they inflicted. Now we learn that Women’s Refuge was supporting Tania Shailer at the time she was gradually killing the wee boy with violence. Women’s Refuge management are now trying to back-track their way out of an admission by one of their ‘social workers’ that the wee boy’s sister told them about the violence but they ignored it.
So what was mummy doing?
Was she at home with her young son?
Was she reading a bed time story?
No! Well where was she? What was she doing?
Look at the Morrons she left the children with, I wouldn’t leave a concrete block with them, let alone a child.
I never left my children with any one, I was reading them bed time stories, my children didn’t get bashed.
Why did it take 13 hearings in the NZ Family Court to achieve shared care?
3 psychologists reports, the mother hasn’t bonded with the children but the father has (report 1)
I apply for custody – quick a new report before the hearing but 12 weeks after the first (the miracle report mummy has now bonded in 12 weeks apparently)
Hearing, gee look at the psychologists report before the court, mummies now bonded.
Report 3, 18 months later, mummy hasn’t bonded after all – no we just got the court appointed psychologist to say she had so dad wouldn’t get custody ( same psychologist for all reports Jo Leach) so is she just a bullshitter to ensure a given predetermined outcome then?
Really, we expected to believe this?
The given issues (I suggest)
The mother is a nut
The children are young
The children can’t articulate mummies adverse behavior before access, after access so give her what she wants or she may take it out on the children but give dad something he can live with and stay involved.
What will that be in terms of access? Ok That is the best mitigated outcome then.
Now counsel for the child, ensure that the report/submissions support that outcome and the judge can make directions with that outcome which are supported by the evidence/submissions – job done.
I say that may be how it works.
So what is wrong with this picture?
It can be argued that the best interests of the child have been supported but that was decided before the hearing and dad was not involved.
But they were not, my son went through hell, unnecessary.
We could say at least Jo leach came clean in her last report. She had no choice, three teachers were all going to be summoned, she knew it.
It makes a mockery of the concept of the justice process.
They could have come to me and said, mums a nut, the kids can’t talk she will make life hell for them if you have greater access or custody hang in there until this date, you don’t need a hearing, can you work with us?
Instead, the substantive hearing with all of the cost and gravey train crap.
This stuff doesn’t belong in a court because the court has to be seen to behave like a court, evidence, directions, supported directions referring to evidence and submissions. What happens though is that this nonsense undermines the integrity of the court process and the justice process. Especially when they get it wrong and the outcome is more detrimental to the child than it should be because the best interests of the child were not achieved.
Of course a couple of years later a dead body turns up in mummies garage hanging from the neck for my children to walk in on ( a young man who was living there)
Now here’s a question that no one answerd: what the fuck was he doing there?
Mummies house, no problem there, nothing to see here.
So no if the death is associated with the mother, it’s tragic, the father take the kids and lock him up.