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

Core Values

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 6:05 am Wed 10th May 2017

Can I start by giving ‘core values’ some definition:

Guiding principles that keep us on, what we historically referred to as, the straight and narrow.

They were defined, and I say, “were”, as I am sure many have been lost, altered, or redefined in the past 50 years.

They have existed in many places, organisations, work places, education, professional societies, to name a few.

It would be interesting to see comments on what you see as an impact on men or fathers, or their social relationships, arising ftom the loss of any core value or values.

You may not be able to relate to specific core values but have been left in a situation which you instinctively know is wrong and shouldn’t have happened. If you tell the story others might offer suggestions of what core values are involved, or absent.


  1. Easy one: not making assumptions based on gender. The lawyer for child for our girls could not believe Eldest want 100% with Dad, but the moment she wanted 100%:with Mum it was granted without question.

    Comment by QuirkyFriend — Wed 10th May 2017 @ 1:47 pm

  2. There are so many of them. Perhaps someone will be intelligent enough to categorize them into a smaller number of more fundamental groups.

    One core value may be to treat others how you want them to treat you. As for everything, this is not absolute or always simple but it applies in most situations. A judge may need to rule in a way that the judge would not like if on the other side of the bench, but that judge can still treat the litigant or defendant as the judge would prefer to be treated if in that position, within the constraints of law and public expectations.

    Another core value may be integrity, in the sense that it’s the opposite of hypocrisy. The feminists constantly show hypocrisy, demanding privileges for women that they don’t wish to accord to men or that they want removed from men. Feminists now commit the same unfairness towards men that they complained were unethical when shown towards women in the past.

    Another core value may be compassion. That’s another of the gripes men have with feminism and how that ideology leads women and some men to behave and think. Little or no compassion is ever seen concerning men’s perspectives or sacrifices. When it comes to children, compassion is often lacking for men’s grief at having their bonds with their children lost or degraded.

    Another core value may be fair representation of the evidence. Choosing to focus only on the bits of evidence that support your existing or preferred belief whilst disregarding other evidence that may provide challenge, balance or fuller understanding, tends to lead to unfairness and poor policy. Feminists do this constantly, for example by undertaking research that measures some harm or injustice done to women but not bothering to measure the same for men, then implying their research showed women disadvantaged relative to men. Many people in the men’s movement breach this same value, refusing to acknowledge or take into account the statistics they don’t like, such as that about 80% of family violence homicides are committed by men.

    The last core value that immediately comes to mind is logic, at least when it comes to making claims or arguing a case. Illogical thinking and forms of argument are very likely to lead to false beliefs and misguided policy. Feminism loves illogical narrative and there are lists of false forms of argument into which nearly all feminist communications fall. That is not to say that emotions or intuitions have no value, but it’s important to admit when one’s opinion is based on emotional or intuitive preference or faith, rather than claiming something is so without good evidence or arguing something on illogical grounds. Those arguing to ban smacking operated almost entirely on illogical argument in which the premises had not been proven yet the conclusion was confidently asserted. We are now seeing the developing outcome from the resulting policy, our streets and shops becoming increasingly dangerous because youth without fear but full of self-entitled ‘rights’ are committing frequent, serious crime, and communities are demanding more and more paid police to exert the control and authority that parents previously maintained.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 11th May 2017 @ 11:16 am

  3. Man x Norton @2; I agree absolutely with your item. If only we had those qualities at play in these actions – Wow, no need for MENZ and a host of other groups. No doubt there are other useful attributes too, but what you put there, not the slightest quibble from me.

    Comment by Jerry — Thu 11th May 2017 @ 1:08 pm

  4. One core value is honesty.
    This case shows a group of people with none.
    It involves a women who can’t have kids.
    She convinces a friend to have the kids for her.
    Important point.
    They lie about who the mother is.
    They lie about who the father is.
    The not official adopted parents split up.
    Many years later child support come knocking on the pretend fathers door.
    For back child support for one child.
    They wanted $360,000 (WTF that’s just nuts)
    After one year they added $93,000 in penalties (WTF that’s just nuts)
    They probably assessed his assets in advance, approx $360,000 and went we will have that thanks.
    Important point he is not the biological father.

    All admitted in court.

    Who should pay?
    The biological father?
    The biological mother?
    Nope, according to the court.
    The biological mother who defrauded the health system by pretending to be someone else.
    No official adoption so she trafficked children.
    Involved by admission in putting false details in a legal document.
    No punishment.
    Pretend mother.
    Committed fraud creating the birth certificate.
    Committed fraud every time she used the child’s birth certificate to get something.
    Supports the case against the male.
    $360,000 windfall so why wouldn’t she.

    As for the judge.
    “Scarano’s application, High Court Justice Christine Gordon said the objection to child support payments should be dealt with by IRD.”
    Nope it’s her obligation to uphold the law.
    She has allowed, therefore conspired to allow fraud to take place. She had the opertunity and obligation to stop the fraud by ordering a paternity test. She should no longer be a judge as a result of this case.
    Since both females have admitted he is not the father how can she then judge he is the father.
    In sending the case back to the IRD will result in the IRD saying the court has decided he is the father.
    When he is not.

    But my guess is the judge is a typical feminist judge.
    With thinking like this.
    “Brenda White and Scarano’s marriage ended in 2001 and she moved back to New Zealand. After the death of her friend Carol, she married the girls’ biological father Ken White, and they raised the girls in Morrinsville.”
    That’s right.
    The Judge has decided that while the girls were in the care of the biological father.
    The not the father should pay child support.

    Core value.
    Due to the fact so few have it.
    This case shows why compulsory at birth paternity testing is desperately needed.

    Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 21st May 2017 @ 10:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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

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

Skip to toolbar