A Brief Summary of Some Serious Flaws in the Domestic Violence Act
1. The DVA requires the Court to determine matters on the standard of ‘proof’ called the balance of probabilities. This may be suitable for legal decision making in some areas and perhaps for a strictly time-limited non-contact order in relationship conflict situations, but it’s inadequate and unjust when used to deprive or limit in ongoing fashion various fundamental rights of accused individuals such as the right to parent one’s own children and even to interact with them, the right to occupy one’s own house and to use one’s own possessions, the right to freedom of movement in the community, the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to maintain a previously determined firearms licence and possession of firearms and the right to withhold consent to participate in treatment programs.
2. This removal and limitation of normal rights is also done under the Act to a respondent’s associates simply on the basis that the Court believes, without adequate or any evidence apart from the applicant’s claims, that the respondent has encouraged those associates to act against the applicant in ways that would amount to domestic violence. I.e. the Act allows rights to be removed from people who have never done or even been accused of doing anything violent.
3. The DVA states that its object is to protect ‘victims of domestic violence’ but then fails to require a reasonable standard of proof that there has been any domestic violence or any victim.
4. The DVA’s definitions of domestic violence are vague and unlimited, including the phrase “but not limited to” and undefined terms such as harassment and financial abuse. No boundaries are provided around what can be defined as domestic violence, meaning that all manner of normal relationship behaviour can be and is routinely treated as violence.
5. The DVA requires the Court specifically to take into account the applicant’s feelings when making its determinations and orders. This further erodes objectivity of decisions and the already inadequate’balance of probabilities’ standard of proof.
6. The DVA purports to improve safety by banning communication by a respondent towards the applicant. This means that the respondent is prevented from expressing his/her feelings to the respondent and from discussing the relationship issues. This will result in pent up emotions likely to decrease the safety of the respondent. The primary DVA basis is fundamentally flawed. In effect, the DVA only protects already quite safe applicants from the inconvenience of having to hear the feelings and concerns of ex-partners etc who were never at much risk of committing violence. Those respondents who are truly at high risk of violence are much more likely to be pushed into extreme violence by being banned from attempting to communicate about the problems.
7. The DVA continues to apply the provisions of ‘protection’ orders automatically to children, although since the 2014 changes the Court is now more easily able to make specific orders enabling contact between the respondent and children. For truly dangerous respondents, having their contact with their children routinely banned even when they have never done anything violent to those children will only increase risk towards the applicant. The results have been that numerous homicides have been committed by respondents subjected to the injustice of the DVA when they may never have reached that extreme point without the DVA.
8. Similarly, the inadequate standard of proof and poor respect for accused’s welfare and rights inherent in the DVA also provokes stronger anger and resentment in respondents and actually increases risk to the applicant. This was all predicted from the outset of the DVA and time has confirmed those predictions.
9. The DVA requires the Court, except in particular circumstances, to force respondents under threat of imprisonment to attend and to participate obediently in feminist indoctrination programs called ‘non-violence’ programs. Aside from amounting to a form of periodic detention on the basis of no reasonable justice process, this is an appalling abuse of commonly accepted human rights around consent to treatment and freedom of choice. Even prisoners, convicted beyond reasonable doubt of actual crimes, cannot be forced to participate in programs. But not so for respondents under the DVA. When totalitarian states elsewhere do this stuff to their people, NZ governments sanctimoniously criticize them at the UN yet here they are doing the same thing in NZ.
10. The DVA allows temporary ‘protection’ orders to be made against, i.e. many fundamental rights to be removed from, respondents without notice, i.e. before the respondent is informed about allegations or given any opportunity to reply to them. ‘Temporary’ is open-ended because the DVA allows the Court to extend it as often as pleased for 3 months at a time, and in effect this often means fathers are restricted from all contact with their children for large proportions of the children’s development before matters are dealt with.
11. Temporary ‘protection’ orders become final, meaning life-long (unless the Court at some time agrees to discharge the order), after 3 months by default if the respondent has not notified the Court that he or she wishes to be heard. However, the respondent only needs to be served the order, i.e. made aware of it at all, “10 clear days” before the end of the 3-months. If the respondent then doesn’t inform the Court (s)he wishes to be heard, the temporary order by default becomes final and permanent. Without-notice orders are made en masse and in routine fashion by a judge somewhere in the country on rotation who has never met the parties, on the basis purely of the paperwork so long as the requisite allegations are included (which the lawyers will ensure). That means the without-notice orders sometimes become permanent without any realistic Court scrutiny of allegations, without any cross-examination or judge’s examination of the accuser and without any need for corroborating evidence beyond the allegations. This all gives rise to huge injustice in cases where personal resources or circumstances of respondents impair their ability to deal with the system. If the DVA were based on any principle of fairness towards those accused, ‘temporary’ would be very short term (a few weeks) and would automatically lapse unless the applicant provided some corroborating, credible evidence of the respondent’s history and current risk of violence, and that evidence is scrutinized in realistic fashion.
12. The DVA, despite introducing a radically poor justice method for people to be found guilty of violence and punished accordingly, never included any requirement for evaluation of its effectiveness. It is not effective and we claim, on the basis of monitoring news articles since the inception of the DVA, that it has actually increased the most severe forms of domestic violence including homicide that it purports to protect people from.
These are only a few of the serious faults in the DVA. We claim that those faults were included and have been tolerated ongoing only because it’s mainly men who are disadvantaged.
I can now restore the conscious part of your objection.
I will even add conscientious to make up for my own prejudice.
This is good job, very well put.
Here is the typical police response and attitude
Arrest first, question later
I love the specificity in the comment.
Just as MoMA Says:
And for Mama… I would not trust their stats.
But it is a direction in the right step. 🙂
6,,no offence JC,, but please do not send me to that place, it is just that I must spend only limited time in those spaces… and I do not trust their stats.
and once again and always thank you for the research.
I see this statement as a conflict of legal processes.
The Criminal Justice process is obliged to demand a standard of process, to the point of a case to answer before any case is heard.
This is a Civil Tribunal hearing a claim processed by an Officer of the Court. It is a subjective claim processed by the subjective thinking of the Officer.
You’re approaching this from a beyond reasonable doubt perspective, most men do.
I don’t like what they’ve done either, and while this approach may attract the attention of male casualties because they can relate to this, it doesn’t help impartial observers grasp the difference.
Here’s a link to the Court of Appeal Decision posted last July.
Comment from Ruth Busch
Many people on this site have no doubt been very badly hurt by significant prejudice against men that permeates the field of domestic abuse. This prejudice is what has caused me the most harm. As I have noted in other posts that prejudice (twice) almost drove me to take my life.
As you will all (hopefully) be aware by now, Audi Alteram Partem means listen to the other side, and that is the fist limb of natural justice. I know how horrific it was for me to be abused, but if I am true to my pseudonym, I must also be aware of how horrific it is for a woman to be abused.
It is often suggested that balance is important. I must then suggest that the original posting and subsequent comments lack balance. This tread is weighted to the perspective of the innocent man who is deemed an abuser just because he is a man and how unfair and harmful that is. That is my story and that, maybe, is your story too. It is a story that has been deliberately suppressed. It is a story that needs to be told and needs to be told frequently and loudly. But it is not the only story.
The “balance of probabilities” is not the standard of proof used in granting a Temporary Protection Order under the Domestic Violence Act (DVA). It is far worse than that. No proof is required. Natural Justice is thrown out of the window and the applicant (alleged victim) of abuse is believed (pretty much) without question. From my experience this will be especially so if the applicant is a woman.
In any civilised society we trade off our freedoms to protect the rights of others. We give up our freedom to drive our cars as fast as we like to protect the rights of other motorists to stay alive should we accidentally crash into them.
The same needs to be the case with a genuine victims of serious intimate partner abuse. The DVA requires us to give up our rights to natural justice to protect the rights of the victims of domestic abuse. I, for one, don’t mind doing that. I’ve been a victim of intimate partner abuse and I know how horrible and life-threatening it is.
But, and it’s a big but, we only give up our rights for a few days. A protection order can, on application by the respondent, be discharged. Then, natural justice will apply. Then, we can have a fair hearing. The standard of proof is (as with all civil proceedings) ‘on the balance of probability’ and not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as applies in criminal proceedings. This does not place the applicant or respondent, man or woman, at any disadvantage. The same standard of proof applies to all parties.
MoMA is concerned about bans on communication because respondents won’t be able to express their feelings. The problem here is that (aside from false allegations – that can as above be challenged in court) the respondent was expressing her or his feelings with her or his fists. Some time out and/or undertaking a non-violence programme may give the violent partner time to cool down and reflect on their behaviour.
Programmes are better than gaol time, but if the programmes are based on the Duluth model then they will fail. Recidivism will be equal or often greater than doing nothing. That is however a problem with the programmes, not with the DVA.
To suggest that the DVA precipitates familial homicides is a bridge too far. Deeply disturbed women and men have been murdering their children and partners well before the DVA and will continue to do so with or without the Act being in place.
The research consistently shows that domestic abuse is mutual in 50% to 60% of the occurrences. When not mutual the non-violent partner is 50/50 female/male. Women though suffer about 70% of the injuries including death at the hands of their partner.
When Police Safety Orders and Protection Orders are issued against women in somewhere between 30% to 50% of the cases, then that will be a sign that the DVA is being applied fairly. In the meantime some prosecutions against police for breaches of the Human Rights Act when they in bad faith issue PSOs against innocent men, and more men taking Protection Orders out against their female partners, will help level the playing field.
A couple of days ago, Audi there was
@12 My position hasn’t changed Evan. On looking through the Act I can’t see anything wrong with it. How it is applied is where problems lie. It is applied in a biased fashion because we live in a society that is biased against men. I suggest that the challenge before us is to change that bias, not to change the DVA.
I quite like Audi’s most recent post. The brain washed Judges.Police officers have to toe the imposed ” It is all men,s fault line ” Will tell you a concrete example from my Court hearing:
When the applicant couldn’t answer my question why she doesn’t have any Statement/Affidavit from the direct witnesses of my ” loitering” the Judge leaped in her help and suggested that she ” felt pushed” by my three Affidavits from her direct witnesses and friends which said the Applicant wasn’t even thee .
My three Affidavits were described by the Judge as ” me developing a tunnel vision when trying to
get to the bottom of the things ” and that is how I psychologically abused the applicant .
Can you imagine how I felt ?
I guess that is what Audi wants to change. Good on you Audi . No DV Law can be a good one with such a distorted/gender biased Judges’ attitude . The Judges’ gender biased attitude can not be changed in one day because they see the aggressive feminists are winning in all fronts. Judges are not stupid , they will join the winning side
When an innocent person is punished in any way, or humiliated, or even spoken down to, they are being seen as at least partly guilty. The other part of the guilt lies with the other party and with the system for its bias stance.
When two adults disagree ,should it be taken into the public arena, both parties should do the ‘management/containment’ , decision around children should remain aside and treated fairly toward parties.
The NEED to keep family out of court proceeding should be the ultimate focus.
#11 and #13
Audi, I have as much faith in your thinking as I do in that of a stopped clock.
As MoMA points out.
Not accepting that there is a reality to feminist dogma and its social model is up to you. As pointed out here it is reflected in our law.
Suggesting that the protection order is advanced on no evidence would naturally fit you into the easily excluded insane element of the men’s right movement (if there is such a thing).
The balance of probability is not a singular burden of proof;
In some cases it prefers clear and concise evidence and in others a preponderance of material.
That is how the Feminist agenda is continually advanced and bias is established.
That is nothing to do with the application of the legislation, it is the law
isn’t the balance of probabilities a series of extrapolations made to support speculations?
The outcome 🙂 is a speculation as to whether or not the party could be found guilty.
Since allegations are made, a man is guilty until proven innocent.
So if there isn’t enough evidence to support the defendent’s claim liberty is given to a judge to impersonate a behavior specialist and express an opinion as to whether the reported incidents giving rise to the claims are factual and could have happened.
However, unless the defendent can provide incontrovertible proof that the alleged incident did not happen in its entirety. The judge must express an opinion on what he thinks may have happened.
That is why they say an affidavit must be responded to point by point.
So after every point is tallied and weight given to each and conflicting testimonies reconciled, what is left is a balance of probabilities. Which is then turned into a decision.
Essentially the judge is no longer a neutral party administering the law under oath and without fear but rather is practicing law on the bench.
Now how do we get here?
The courts are bursting at the seams. A jury trial in the criminal courts will take let’s say about a year, on average.
To speed up the process, one elects to stand before a judge alone trial, instead of before a jury or peers.
This effectively removes the balance of probabilities from the judge and vests the truth into the jury. But with the onus on the jury to appreciate all available facts and make up their own minds over what truly happened.
However, because most parents simply want to get rid of this nightmare they thus elect judge alone trials. This is not by choice but rather forced upon their person by all the foreseeable delays and unknown factors, and the most important factor, their belief in their innocence and in justice.
And they thus surrender their most important right (to be trialed by a jury of peers.)
The Family Court as well as other courts do this under the pretense of privacy and the best interest of a child. But this in itself is not lawful nor fair and just. It is a lie.
When you are charged in the criminal court, the dynamics are the same. It is father against mother or child against parent.And yet this is a public and open court.
The dynamics are the same albeit consequences are worse in the criminal court where you might loose your freedom.
#18 That all sounds a bit mumbo jumbo to me – especially the bottom line where you appear to confuse liberty with freedom.
@19 are you one of those pedantics?
But you are right i could have written it in bullet points
1- Do not go to court
2- If you have to go to criminal court
~~~~~~~do not waive your right to a jury.
~~~~~~~Otherwise the balance of probability exercise will be default
~~~~~~~and you might get convicted for something you did not do.
1-The family court is judge alone – therefore no jury
2-Secrecy of family court is not justified as consequences are less
~~~~~than in criminal courts where consequences can be disastrous
~~~~~to one’s freedom and liberty of movement.
The obvious point being that balance of probabilities is only valid in judge alone trials.
If you consider about 96.75 percent of people on this board are victims of either the familiy courts and of the DV Act in the criminal courts (where most parents are victimized due to their election of a Judge Alone trial)… can you see where the problem may lay?
Some (let’s say interesting) comments here.
@15 Mama is concerned with innocent people being punished. But in a society that is ruled by law then sometimes innocent people will have charges leveled against them. They must be given support to defend those charges, but we have to accept that life is not always fair and innocent people may on occasion need to defend themselves.
@16 JC suggests my comment about people expressing their feelings with their fists is “interesting rhetoric”. This site shows it’s passion in supporting innocent men. But let’s be a bit real here. The innocent female victims of brutal intimate partner abuse surely need our sympathy and our support as well.
JC is also suggesting that it may take 15 to 20 months for a defended hearing. In the case of the Domestic Violence Act if a respondent to a “without notice” Protection Order wishes to have that order discharged then section 47 (6) (a) of the Act requires the registrar to assign a hearing date as soon as practicable, and no later than 42 days after the application for discharge.
@17 My previous nemesis Dowunder is starting to warm to me. He now thinks that I am perfectly correct twice a day. Thanks Downie! He though is regrettably incorrect in supporting MoMA’s asserting that the Family Court needs to take “feelings” into account. In fact they are required to take into account the applicant’s “perceptions”. A small but significant difference.
Downunder and others are also quite hung up on the balance of probability proof that is used in the Family Court. It is seen as a bad thing when used against men. But it is a two way street. The ex may be claiming you are a bad father but you can win the argument that you are a good father using the same balance of probability criteria. Would people here prefer to have to prove that they are a good father beyond reasonable doubt?
I do accept wholeheartedly that there are nefarious feminist dogmas that are badly hurting us. But I can’t accept that these are included in “the Law” in New Zealand, unless Downunder can cite statute and/or precedent where feminist dogma has been codified into law. Making allegations is one thing. Backing them up with documented evidence is another thing altogether.
@18 JC suggests:
Sorry, but I don’t understand how a Judge loses neutrality by tallying and reconciling?
@21 JC is very concerned about “Judge Alone Trials” I’m less concerned about that. Judges are sworn to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour. Some of course keep that oath better than others, but I’d personally prefer a Judge over the randoms that may turn up on a Jury. Regardless there is always the option of appealing should justice not be done on the day.
# Audi,,, Men who find them selves in the public arena when their relationship has gone awry, find that they are disregarded as far as the importance at maintaining their own very Fatherhood.
Where is the family approach, to have to defend your right to be a Father is outrageous.
Same scratched CD, New Player
Crimes Act 1961
194 Assault on a child, or by a male on a female
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who—
assaults any child under the age of 14 years; or
being a male, assaults any female.
196 Common assault
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year who assaults any other person.
@25 Holy Crap! I bow to your greater knowledge Paul. You are right and I was wrong. That is discrimination against men codified into law. That has to be repealed!
Downunder has referenced a post from 2008, so that and your comment gives me pause to think what I would have thought about that legislation 10 years ago.
Ten years younger and without having been exposed to the frightening statistics on female perpetrated abuse I would have said “fair cop!” As a small child I was told to, “never hit a girl” or someone who wears glasses for that matter!?! I don’t know the provenance of that particular section of the Crimes Act, but if it came from 1961 it was more likely driven by male gynocentricism than feminism.
I guess it is about abuse of imbalances of power – for which I have some sympathy. An ex-colleague of mine was a diminutive man who was regularly beaten by his gargantuan female partner. He held no power over her – quite the reverse – and that is why that section of the crimes act must go.
@23 Hi Mama.
Some deeply disturbed psychopathic or narcissistic men (and, but less so, women) have killed their children as a perverted from of retribution against their partner.
So Mama, imagine you are a judge in a family court application where the applicant is painting a picture that looks very much like the father is just such a disordered individual who is likely to kill his own children.
What would you do? Defend his right to be a father? Or defend his children’s right to live?
I don’t envy in the least the huge burden of responsibility placed on Family Court judges.
Commentators on this site mostly only see things from the side of the innocent man/father. But there is more than one side to all the stories told about domestic abuse.
I think what you are missing Audi is empathy and experience and these two cannot be faked.
🙂 Thank you for that, that was my best laughter for today.
aye aye. captain let’s do that… and welcome to reality.
not commentators but victims of unjust laws.
Not just men but the whole populace has felt the teeth of this vicious system. And the hurt is very much the same. So to be called a commentator suggest a certain remoteness that only you can claim.
And here I thought we were trying to dispel the feminist fallacies!!!/???!
Of course there is such an option. And of course there must be such an option. Remember, you are not meant to be there in the first place? And here you are recommending another serving.
First serve may have cost you between 8 and 16K. An appeal? … hmmm … sure…why not… let’s tally the time, effort, energy… cost…unknown outcome… and the balance of probabilities that if you failed the first time and yet, was innocent, you will have first to establish what went wrong during the hearing and further be able to prove your innocence, again. wow, An appeal is such a great idea. I love it. what, another 20000?.
But let’s not digress and follow your rethoric backwards
I think the point of this exercise is lost on you and as mama points out
…thanks mama… that sums me up.
Audi @27: this contribution seems tainted by a bias in my view.
For a start, curious things can happen to a good man’s thinking and perspective when he finds himself unexpectedly having been pushed through the looking-glass into a feminist male hating world which condemns him for everything while excusing females for everything they do or don’t do. You see the same rules do not apply equally on both sides. A guy who has always assumed “a fair go” can be up-ended by this. No, I am not defending it, but I do not believe that those fathers were necessarily always like that – but were overwhelmed by irrational injustice and hopelessness. Also if for example a father thoughht his ex might parade a procession of “uncles” through the lids lives (bedrooms) well that can mess a guys mind too. And yes Audi – I have had to deal with this myself. No, I’m not saying that on average males are worse than women around children – but they are no worse and no less trustworthy. According to some stats however it could be argued that males are a tad better for children – presence of the bio father does give children a statistical edge – solo motherhood for example. However your example never the less portrays the stereotypical feminist model where the father is perhaps not positive for the children, and that there is no problem with the mother. Also that the judge is unbiased – and in this world I think many judges were born into a feminist world, feminist perspectives and have to apply a legal system demonstrably skewed against males, and male-ness. For these reasons, I am not with you in your @27 contribution. It is not in the children’s interests to start out with some belief that by default, children are better off and safer with their mother or other women. Many fathers sacrifice all and even their lives for their children. They do this while lacking the legal support, the financial support, and having no refuges, and very few non-biased advisory agencies. There is no network – which is why any group, even one which is busy splitting hairs is important. Something might grow out of it.
This world has no shortage of negative opinions about masculinity, and men are used to being assumed guilty without a hearing of any kind – #MeeToo for example. And for many of us those false allegations, which I can attest do not serve the children’s best interests either. Winning by telling lies is not a good example to set for children.
Both from above.
… and you have to admire his persistence?
There is discussion above about parents murdering their own children in spite.
As discussed, this dynamic has always existed, both in men and women. This is a factor in infanticide, where mothers are presently given more “tolerance” than fathers.
Evolutionary biology is forgotten, in trying to take a “rational” approach. Somewhat similar behaviours are seen in many species, when the parents or the whole species are under extreme threat. Modern understanding of animal decision-making would challenge the use of the word “spite”. That is a cerebral rationalisation, of what is much more a behaviour based on hormones, fight or flight, childhood trauma and survival instincts. These all wrongly brought into play in the extremity of the non-proportionate games being played, for keeps.
Depression issues are also largely ignored, where it appears that supporting both parents offers the most constructive and life saving and lowest cost approach.
The king hit custody approach is a form of testing parents to destruction. If they fail the test, the legal worker “deems” them to have always been an unsatisfactory parent. Thus the king hit was “justified”, by events that had not yet happened at the sentencing! This same integrity is often used by judges in CYFs cases – I know they have a new name on an old organisation.
This non-proportionate response has the same integrity and intellectual basis as dunking witches into rivers. If they drowned, they were innocent. If they lived, they would be burned at stake. Judges in those days had hard hearts. Nothing useful has changed. Perhaps more of a way of disposing of women who may have been made pregnant, that shouldn’t have?
Social science research in USA warned that extreme, heavy handed removal of either parent would in some cases precipitate extreme violence in a very small proportion of parents.
In other words, the police arrest studies recommended a proportionate response, similar to what is recommended in sentencing manuals all around the world for all other offences and is also seen as an essential part of natural justice.
Proportionate doesn’t allow for differential sentencing based on sex.
Proportionate response does not allow for standardised “solutions” irrespective of the facts of the individual case. With standardised solutions, judges would not actually be required!
However, some one eyed feminists cherry picked this research and pushed for a king hit approach to managing the custody of children.
As well as breaching natural justice, that is quite against the developmental interests of children. Maintaining a workable relationship with both parents, is seen as being almost always in the interests of the children.
The police arrest studies were completed and results released, before the Domestic Violence Act was drafted. So we have no excuse for drafting dangerous and defective legislation, after the publication of the conclusions of the police arrest studies, other than laziness and stupidity.
The greatest sin of all, is to be continuing with this act, without competently and broadly evaluating how well it is working in practice.
The police arrest studies are fairly readily available through library requests. Or if you would like to read a cut down summary, I included them as appendices in a submission made to a review of the DVAct, many, many years ago.
In other words, I am supporting MoMA, but in stronger language.
There is a better way!
Yes, I admire his bravado at playing with fire.
But what i admire most is that he does not shy away from speaking his mind.
Of course his opinions tend to invalidate our common individual experience of the law and system, both biased.
And incidentally emphasize his own ignorance of the real issues.
But that is good. Imagine him as a judge, or a cop or a social worker…
The psychology is already here..
The question is how well can we help him see the other side?
Our side and the human factor?
#30 I initially didn’t believe the stories about feminist training for family caught judges after appointment and before taking up duties.
As I now understand it, it is a one week training course and does exist. It is presented without challenge to it’s integrity.
So maybe judge’s behaviour isn’t so surprising, when this is taken into account?
#33 In your previous research (reflecting on the operational period of UOF) I noted the rapid decline of temporary protection orders being made final – as a % of applications.
The demise of UOF and Dogue’s published admission that the Family Court was ‘a failed experiment’ occurred at the same time in 2004 followed by a reversal in that trend with a sudden increase of temporary protection orders being made final (as a % of applications).
The other side of the story here is get rid of the light shining into the black hole and we can do what we want down here.
@35 So, we can then acknowledge something else?
Feminists didn’t only redefine the word Family they also redefined Court.
A political and civil tribunal, called the Family Court.
Murray Bacon @33: I was trying to point out that babies grow and some become judges and some do become lawyers, and then family court judges. From Birth, these are immersed in a feminists propaganda filled world. Their schooling now is feminist, and so is university to study law. The law is feminist as is national and international law. The agencies interacting with the court are feminist too. So what is acting in their lives and experience to off-set that one sided programming? – what the media?? I doubt it. On that basis, I am unrepentant in my assertion that even judges are indoctrinated.
Only this morning I read an item where a new mother was already picking the extreme feminist books her one year old will use learning to read. The child will be indoctrinated into feminism from birth, and potentially end up as a judge too. If a man contemplated indoctrinating the male side of this, he would without be vilified as an abuser. Family court judges are not raised isolated away from feminist indoctrination in sterile pure fair world.
@28 and 29: Okay JC, you have really pissed me off now, so you are in for a serve. Buckle up, here it comes:
I make a genuine and heartfelt apology and all you can do is mock me. I have made several apologies since I have been on this site but have never heard anyone else here apologise for anything. What’s the deal here on Menz? If someone admits to making a mistake they get attached! It’s okay to admit it when you’ve made a mistake people!
I suggest that an unjust law needs to be repealed and you mock me even more. Last year 475 men killed themselves in NZ. Every single one of them had lost something. Do you know what they had lost JC? Every single one of them had lost hope. If your sense of reality is one where only bad things happen and nothing ever gets better, then I feel very sorry for you and humbly suggest that you need some help. I’ve been there. I’ve had learned helplessness. But now I’m getting better and I’m taking action and things are going to change. You can carry on being a keyboard cynic if you want. I’ve got better things to do, trying to save men’s lives.
You “think” I am missing empathy and experience. I think that you are not doing anywhere enough thinking. I have shared on this site that I have twice been suicidal as a direct result of widely-held feminist contempt for men. You know nothing of the details of my experience and yet you, from a position of ignorance, “think” you can know what has happened in my life. Get a grip JC! One the best lessons people can learn in life is to discern the difference between what they know and what they can’t possibly know. Unless I tell you, you can’t possibly know about my “experience”!
As to “empathy” you make a conclusive determination on the basis of my using the word “commentators”.Really JC? Really? You can tell all about my character by one single word? One (perhaps poorly chosen word) word tells you that I lack empathy for men who are suffering. But you blithely ignore that I am proposing and want to work for a group that fights to save men from harm. If I didn’t have empathy then I wouldn’t want to help others who are suffering. If I didn’t have empathy I’d just be content with bitching about feminists on a Men’s site. You are being pathetic JC. I say some things that you don’t like and rather then deal with the issues you attack me personally. Grow up! You are clearly a smart guy. Use some of that intelligence to think logically about the issues.
Psychopathic and narcissistic personality disorders are what? Feminist fallacies! Personality disorders come from a field of science known as psychology. Yes we all know individual psychologists that are complete nutters but that doesn’t discredit the entire field of study. When narcissist Clayton Weatherston stabbed Sophie Elliot to death in a frenzied attack… that didn’t happen? That was a “feminist fallacy”? Perhaps you think Sophie had it coming because all men are all good and men only do bad things in response to bad women? I happened to mention those disorders to make a point because Mama was talking about fathers and those disorders are more commonly found in men. If Mama had talked about mothers I would have mentioned borderline personality disorder, that is more commonly found in women. Many people on this site seem to me to be so hurt that they can’t get past erroneous [Men = Good] [Feminists/Women = Bad] binary thinking.
No doubt there are many good men on this site that have been hurt by bad women, but that’s not the entire world people! That is just our story. It’s not every story. You suggest I have “remoteness.” Have you given much consideration to what distance is required to have perspective?
Yes lawyers are expensive, which is why I have suggested that one action we could do is get together a pool of lawyers willing to do pro bono work. Another thing you don’t know about me is that I am working quite hard to get the court system changed to make it much more accessible to self-represented litigants.
Yes there should of course be a family approach in the first instance. There should also be couples’ counselling. Feminists hate couples’ counselling, even though it is shown to work, because they want to get the woman isolated so they can start to brain-wash her.
But to suggest that parents (Mothers as well as Fathers) should never have to defend themselves makes no sense at all and is furthermore a very dangerous concept. Wake up and smell the abuse! There are some incredibly dangerous parents out there who should for the children’s safety be kept away from their children. The fact that we are all innocent men who have been falsely accused does not remove the reality that there are some genuinely very disturbed and dangerous individuals out there.
#36 Dear Downunder, you point out the legal games that judges use to “justify” their own behaviours.
Death by multiple cuts, where the in-caught perpetrators justify their own actions, by claiming the real problems were caused by the actions of other in-caught perpetrators.
All of these games reflect the lack of need for an evidence based proportionate response.
These types of behaviours are likely to occur when caughts work in a vacuum of no public accountability. Nothing new under the sun, this has been said for hundreds of years.
I am not sure what you are talking about here?
In my experience and that of many men I encountered, WTF is going on here.
Communicating that experience, or in your case an analysis of it has always been a pink brick wall, not a lace curtain.
The individual actions of system participants isn’t in itself a view of any degree of the entirety of what is going on.
The public at large don’t accept the reality of the whole picture or even that the whole picture could be an accumulated replication of their extreme experience.
Likewise with the media your experience makes you a visual analyst of the propaganda effect.
But there is no Goblelina in the background. It is an accumulated effect that in some cases is simply compliance with teaching or an obligation for recognition.
In the end the expertise of the long tooth is lost in the complexity of their accumulated experience.
Such that historically it is only after the event that the reality is clearly known.
@36 I don’t think we are on the same page.
It was the temporary protection order that brought men into contact with UOF. When men didn’t turn up to court with a Feminised lawyer judges weren’t handed a wad of compliant paper work that could be rubber stamped into a final protection order.
We influenced that process, halved their cash flow, and had a ready flow of media information from being in the court.
We were the other side of the equation, the light in the dark hole.
“Redefining”is their trick.
Take violence for example.
We know males are more than twice
As likely as females to be victims of violence.
So they define some violence as “domestic”,
Then tell us that’s the only violence of concern.
Three taps on the hat , and we have All concern
For female victims, no concern for male victims.
All concern for male violence, no concern for female violence.
@43 and you know that because you experienced it and understood what happened.
But to those who are not in that position a word is not redefined.
Dear Downunder, thanks for the clarification.
Coming back to what can be done to help men in these situations, that we can do within our resources:
(a) present a large handful of parent’s experiences, using the DVAct, in particular to show long term consequences for all involved participants, ie mother, father and children
(b) offer suggestions of how to get the best from this system, within the limits imposed by how the system tries to operate ie how to protect yourself.
Some material, but more focussed on child support payments, is available here:
It is possible to put together more material, more closely focussed on DVAct. In the past, most parents were cowed into silence under explicit threats of losing access to their children. Many of these children are now into their 30s, so more people will be willing to speak publicly.
Credibility is a big issue and judges have worked hard to publicly discredit both fathers and mothers who go through family caught$. This discrediting must be slowly losing its effectiveness, now that there are so many such parents around. Counting close family too, the numbers of directly affected people must be approaching a million people.
In all of this, secrecy is a huge barrier. To move forward, we need to overcome these fears about honesty and openness.
There are also quite a few books discussing these issues. Alec Baldwin’s book A Promise to Ourselves: A Journey Through Fatherhood and Divorce is well written and describes the games extremely well. Although american, it could have been written in NZ.
Please add more suggestions……
#39,,Audi you say…
I say…If the man comes out all nasty like in his screaming affidavit, refuses to communicate and acts like a victim, even claiming that the woman hit him…he will probably be seen to have some disorder or another, they have an order for that disorder.
Put the shoe on the woman foot and everything will almost certainly be the opposite, even when it comes to the children. Disorder or not.
and for a break now…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fZuW-aJsg
Visibility is a key issue.
Perhaps what is not well known is how Jim and I worked together after the collapse of UOF.
Jim’s visibility attracted vulnerable guys. Often at the last moment, after work, the day before the court case.
We could interview and prepare an action plan at short notice. I could turn out the paperwork overnight which Jim collected at 6.00 in the morning. I occasionally went to court but Jim was generally the McKenzie friend.
It was free, and as you are aware very successful but that was off the back of what was gained from participating in UOF at that time.
We were also human and not an infinite resource.
We both experienced (and I still do) have to put up personal attacks and retribution for my part in these activities.
#48 Thanks Downunder. I am not aware of the details, but guessed that was what was happening.
I am keen to try to ensure those sorts of things keep on happening. The divisions and mistrusts between all of us, serve the other side more than the fathers that need to be helped.
That is why I am keen to archive experiences, so that they may be more freely shared. None of us know the whole story.
I wouldn’t call it mistrust Murray, rather different spheres of personal interest.
But, we’ve all got somewhere with that.
Yes Audi, that is what I do. I read people’s minds.
My comment are here only to shine the mirror on your own thinking and your statements do all the talking.
But seriously Audi – I mean no harm or ill-will.
Just echoing back your thoughts. However spinning them in such a way you can see the unintended side of your speech.
I am coming from the point of view the meeting must happen but for that to happen with the maximum number of people,
1- either you need to stop commenting (certain positions denote a lack of awareness of what the people you are inviting have gone through and the laws causing harm and you may be alienating yourself from them) or
2- you must be challenged for your comments (so that you have a chance to reflect on your own position/and others before the meeting and perhaps even re-educate ourelves further.)
I believe the latter will achieve more results. And I am simply taking the liberty here to do so.
45,,, bring Alec Baldwin here,, we will invite him to the Mens’ Event next year.
I am sure he will be bloody good at ‘roll playing’, oops I mean “role playing”.
@30 Hi keith,
Thanks for your comments and for sharing your concerns that I am demonstrating bias. I must though take issue with some of the things you are incorrectly reporting about what I have said.
I never said that, I don’t believe that, and I am vehemently opposed to that sort of thinking. What I have said is that there are some deeply disturbed parents, both women and men, that children need to be protected from. That is not remotely like what is being attributed to me. However, what I am saying is just a bit of a challenge to the ‘all men are all good’ sentiment that seems to pervade this site.
Huh? Once again I never said that or anything remotely like that. I am all too painfully aware of how much judges are biased against men. I am working exceptionally hard in my own personal crusades to challenge that bias.
And again. I don’t believe that, I don’t think that and I didn’t say that.
By all means challenge me, and challenge me strongly for anything I say. But challenging me for what you assumed I meant is not helpful to me, to you, or to other men.
@46 Hi Mama,
I’d like you to hear something:
“I get it!” I get it. I get it. I get it. I get it! There is no need to keep on telling me about how much men are discriminated against. I get it. There is no need to keep on telling me how much men’s stories are twisted and used against them. I get it! There is no need to keep on telling me about how much women are given a free pass. I get it. There is no need to keep on telling me how widespread this is. I get it! There is no need to keep on telling me how much this is hurting men, and women and their families. I get it!
Now I’d like you to get something. It’s a different thing. It’s not about discrimination against anybody. The thing I want you to get is that there are some deeply disturbed individuals who are abusive to their children and will continue to seriously harm their children unless society intervenes and separates these parents from their children. Can you get that?
What you don’t get Audi is this is not your post.
It’s not about you.
Understand what a blog forum is.
Then go and put up your own post.
Thanks JC. I genuinely appreciate the more conciliatory and constructive tone of your message at 52.
I relish challenges and constructive criticism. Without these anyone’s thoughts will become incestuous. I have though called-out attacks on me personally, rather than critiques of my ideas. I’m also not accepting of critiques of what anyone assumes I meant as opposed to what I actually said.
I have further taken quite a strong position against relentless apologetics for all things male, and against misogyny, and will continue to do so.
You suggest that I demonstrate a lack of awareness of what people have gone through and the laws causing them harm. As many have said, we have all come to this place through different paths. I have my path, but I have also been reading about how other men have been harmed for the past 6 years. I am aware of a multitude of ways that men have been harmed by the ever more rampant contempt for men that is sweeping over western society. Nothing I have read on this site surprises me.
Where I seem to differ from many here is in my analysis of what is causing this phenomenon, and by extension what to do about it. I’m not too interested in just complaining. I want action, but more importantly I want action that gets results.
Some have opined that the feminist revolution has been the most successful revolution in the history of humankind. I tend to agree. But all revolutions end up in what is sometimes referred to as the decadent phase. I want to be involved in the most successful counter-revolution, ever, against the decadent phase of the feminist revolution.
What has been done so far (although valiant) has not been enough. What are you if you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result? Although I have enormous admiration for those that have gone before – it’s time for new thinking, new actions, and new results.
# 55,,,,DEAR AUDI,,,Of course I GET what you say there, it is not the worst case scenario cases that are involved in gross misjustice, it is the ones that do not warrant such extreme concern….and how the worst cases effect not only Men in general but especially the ones that are innocent or venting only.
I am of the thought that there is gross injustice by way of perjury happening under our noses and that is has been encouraged and coaxed…
I know it is addressed to Mama.
However you may be preaching to the converted already.
We get it. We’ve felt it. WE know it.
We are not those people.
And the point you are trying to make is the same as those propagandists have made so subliminally most people think these are their own thoughts and ideas and convictions.
strangely enough you are pointing directly at the instigators with the below.
I know this may sound harsh but am just a fool… mirroring the mind of a wise man…
@59 Hi JC. I genuinely don’t understand what you are saying. Could you please explain it to me?
My Apologies Audi/ I have been hard on you.
Please ignore. Was meant to be a joke but it could be interpreted wrongly also.
Enjoy your evening and looking forward to the recap of the meeting.
Some comments were made about men killing partners and kids and the involvement of the DV act.
One reference was to Clayton Weatherston.
The relationship was a toxic one, exactly the same in type as ones were females purpousfully use sex to control and manipulate men to get what they want. Sophie’s diary shows this happening but also that she wasn’t doing it intentionaly. This was not what Clayton was thinking, he saw it as intentional. Clayton went a month prior to the doctor as he was struggling psychologically and was medicated. The day after his arrest the doctors went oops wrong meds. So it wasn’t Claytons personality disorder, or the toxic relationship. It was those things combined with Clayton taking mind altering drugs. Without either one of those three things the event would not have happened. The DV act was not involved.
A good DV act example is Livingstone who killed his two kids and suicided.
Agian he had a personality disorder. Agian he was badly medicated. He was seriously harmed by an anti smoking drug. Was medicated for the harm, it was wrong, remedicated, and was wrong agian. He allegedly offended and seeing his kids went trough the FC. He was given 6 supervised visits with his kids. He did not murder when he could see his kids. He murdered when this 6 visits were used and he was no longer permitted to see his kids. By all accounts he was a loving involved father. In his case it could be said that if any of those 3 things didn’t occur the murder may not have happened. His personality disorder, medication, banned from seeing kids.
While personality disorders are both present people with those disorders don’t automatically go around killing people. Otherwise we would have thousands of murders. Medication errors are clearly very dangerous and probably influence suicide rates. Toxic relationships play a role but feminism prevents society addressing bad female behavours. I call them Oxytocin abusers and violence is a common ending as the male progressively goes crazy.
In the Livingstone case the FC did play a role. It banned him from seeing his kids. The court could just has easily given an open ended supervised visit plan. They gave him no option other than fighting in the FC. Spending moonbeams that he didn’t have on negligible if any gain. He however gave up, plus the personality disorder, plus the medication error, resulted in the murder. Without the FC role using the DV the murders would likely not have happened. The court failed to take into account that 100% of what was happening was due to the anti smoking product. He should never had been banned from seeing his kids due to something of no fault of his own. The supervised visits may have been correct but it was manifestly unjust to stop them.
The FC does cause after the fact murders using the DV act. Ask parliaments self immolation victim.
Thanks DJ Ward. In monitoring news articles we have seen many cases in which homicide or very serious violence was committed by men who had ‘protection’ orders made against them. It would be good if someone had the time to collate these cases as well as possible. The actual number of such cases will be considerably higher because the existence of ‘protection’ orders isn’t always mentioned in news reports. Sure, that doesn’t prove the orders had any role in the tragedies because some of those respondents will have had high violence propensity and may have committed the violence anyway. But the number of such tragedies certainly provides no good evidence that ‘protection’ orders actually protect people against those with propensity to commit serious violence. There has been no research ever showing that people on average gain protection from those orders. On the other hand, it’s reasonable to assume that the restrictions placed on respondents, especially preventing or restricting their contact with their children and more so when based on untruths as the majority of those orders seem to be, are likely to elevate stress and anger in some of those respondents beyond their point of self-control. It’s foolish to pretend otherwise.
Another of the many failings in the DVA is that it provides no imperative to punish perjury.
We have previously said that if the State wants to ensure protection-order applicants are actually protected, then every respondent will need to be imprisoned for life or put to death as soon as the order is imposed. This may as well be the next development, given current indifference to justice and fairness towards men and their welfare.
62, we can’t ask him DJ. Sid Hanzlik is Deceased.
Best we can do is speak for him, what do you think about this meeting Nov 3?
You into it?
The minute an order is discussed it is insisted that a couple be in the hands of a PRE caught service. This service would come to the same stumbling point when it comes to the use of perjury,….
and then some one says…….
@60 – here is an excerpt from a post in this thread @13
It makes some very interesting comments but also describe a journey that is all too common for some here. My commnent at 60 is basically saying same but without the sarcarsm.
The feminist agenda has worked so well, we are all programmed one way or another to give our dues to it. And we may even use logic borrowed from such a successful campaign.
It is not intellectual. It is something you feel deep inside you and you know you are not safe. Those who have gone trough it know and no amount of rhetoric can explain what it is or what it feels like.
What most people do not understand is that from the minute you are involved, you are judged and condemned. And if you are freed afterwards and not convicted, it is even worse because 9 months of your life have been stolen. In this case it was 9 months.
Thanks to Dunnuffingwrong or is it voice back from the bush?
@65 Mama exposes some of what we are up against.
@66 JC reminds us of the harm caused as eloquently stated by Voices.
@What-number will it be before we unite to fight back with our voices, and make those voices heard, loud and clear?
This is @66 an awakening… and from a reasonable person whom has believed in the below.
When you re look at it, you see the same old story of the big bad wolf that will take children away.
However this story is for adults and not children. Parents of course want to protect their children and they subscribe to the belief that children will be protected.
But instead these are used to target indiscriminately all parents and all males
2007 is when the anti smacking law came (11 years ago). The premises were that no parent would be criminalized. Reports of concerns have increased, police prosecution has increased, families are being mauled.
It is not just a failure. It’s beyond that. It is a direct lie that parents would not be criminalized. Since we all know the law is blind, how do they distinguish between good and bad parenting?
Effectively what has been done is to raise children’s rights over the adults and parents and the balance of powers vested in the Police and Cyfs.
1995 is when the DV Act came about (23 years ago). Same as above. More funding and more policing is being sought out and is required because it seems the problem has gotten worse. This Act effectively empowers women against men and the balance of powers vested in the police.
And the rate of abuse has increased on both accounts. However looking at the suicide rates, things have gotten catastrophic. And they are directly linked with these two policies and associated laws as well as the Police’s right to prosecute.
I cannot imagine either. There is no support. And they usually do not.
I have felt this way too. It’s like being locked out of your own life. And whatever you do, will cost you. You simply get punished and punished and punished ad infinitum it seems…
Depression, escapism, substance abuse and suicidal ideation become normal. And it gets worse when you have to attend counseling with convicted murderers and child abusers and all you can see is that you are not one of them. But you have to show you attended and at times that you participated.
This is a personal rant I keep revisiting. Choose your women wisely. Don’t just race for that pussy whip. Look for compatibility in moral, religious or even business value and ethics in a person. I think half the men that end up where they are have a big part in it. They shacked up with the wrong woman.
And in this case, poster got played.
A tradie gets together with a nice woman with 12 year post relationship trauma. She comes to him whining and bitching about the ex who is unreasonable, controlling and abusive. Of Course, what man could resist being the better man?
He is of course on cloud nine. First he receives such favour from maybe someone he did not expect ever to be dating? Someone who is probably older? Or worse, someone who is financially independent?
Life can be good for a while but then demands start to accumulate until one decides, shit where is my mind? I need some time to myself…. That is when the shit hits the fan. His claim for independence becomes a threat to her sanity which is essentially based on control.
But this is essentially the crux of the matter…
WE delegate our common sense to others and we expect them to fix our personal problems…
But then even the dissenters are silenced by society itself
Anyone standing up against the anti smacking law would be called an abuser or as in the past “a nigger lover” all they get is abuse and scorn. They are derided and persecuted.
It becomes man against woman and child against parent and more authority to the state to destroy the family.
WE have already united. However these issues are first and foremost in the minds of those willing to participate.
And the question is where do you stand Audi on these issues?
Does anyone know what happened to the Voice for Men website???
You wouldn’t really know where Audio stands on anything. He moves from thread to thread making some times conflicting comments that often defend his Feminist position.
NO, we are not united , that is the problem .If you want to see a united front just have a peek into women/feminists blog forums and organisation like Shine and many others and compare it to ours one . No, Sir we are not united .
From what I read in Audi’s comments, he agrees with you . Except that he is aware , as I am , that there are some real violent men hurting women and children . Of course there are some violent women doing the same .
With all the due respect, what I think you don’t understand is the quality and cleverness of Audi’s
” marketing concept” how to sell the idea of men being unequal to women in front of Law .I am saying deliberately ” marketing’ because we/Audi is trying to ” sell” a new product to the market. The new product is called Men are not equal to women and men are discriminated ” The market is teh goverment/Police/ legislative nZ bodies and the silent, neutral , NZ majority.
It is a bloody new product , isn’t it ? Never sold before . Well If you have to sell new product on the market, you need clever marketing strategy which has to be repeated over and over again just to get to people’s mind .
The truth and the facts , nowadays , have no marketing value . Just see how feminists are selling successfully their shitty product to the market.
I don’t think you are willing to see our fight in that light Sir. But luckily many others are . It would be fair to write to Audi and say: Sorry Audi, although we are on the same page I don’t really understand your concept ”
@69 If it’s not temporarily down it wouldn’t be hard to understand why it has disappeared.
@ 68 and the others
Just have a look at the marketing strategy Republicans use to defend Bret Kavanaugh . They were successful because they formally sideline with the woman accuser in a very clever way. They did not dwell in truth and facts .
Audi is a intelligent , clever man who understand the modern times . Again , PlEASE support him although you might mot understand his modus operandi .
@70 Ewan – I do not agree – there is a lot to chew through in here. Audi needs time to digest.
@George – you might want to be careful that you are not selling your personal vision of Audi.
And yes we are united. And you will find that by the attendance numbers. We all have the same goals and we will prevail. So relax mate and enjoy the fun…
I would prefer to think you don’t understand Audi’s concept rather then you being ill meaning and sabotaging person . If you don’t understand it please comment on my last posts , but if you are deliberately trying to sabotage Audi , then you have personal problem
Thank you JC for noticing my comment. I would have learned something valuable from you if only you replied with arguments over my arguments . But you didn’t
NO we are not united , that is the real problem . Whenever a new kid in thee block suggest some well thought out action , he is either ignored or sabotaged bu the same old worn out , flying nowhere labels
@75 There have been some very interested statements around natural justice.
Before hostilities develop you might want to consider this.
Regardless of how good any marketing campaign is and bearing in mind it’s not being financed by a brewery any half arsed journalist is going to rip the backing commentary to threads if there is not a consolidated position.
You wrote : “So relax mate and enjoy the fun…” I am really glad Audi has a different attitude than you .
I mean the funny thing is that this whole shebang is madness.
First of all the call out made by Audi is in itself the epitomy of bravery.
Not just by the sheer grandeur of the aim but the fact that he is braving our common hurt and madness to steer it towards resolution and perhaps even paving the way to successful action to protect others.
He should be commended for it.
What we see now is that hurt coming out but behind that hurt is the fear of being let down.
Effectively, the madness of this enterprise is that every one here is a risk for himself and for each other if they do not find a way to manage this hurt.
What could turn out to be a great movement can easily be sabotaged as easily as saying 1 – 2 – 3…. so yes, many precautions have to be met.
I know in trying to say so, Audi is made to swallow his own words because effectively they are turned against him. I think great… it shows what kind of man he is… Will he persist or will he give up?
Or will this prepare him to forge through in his convictions that we, no matter how opposed we seem to be to his plans, attitudes, opinions, positions and stances are worth the struggle.
If he can get past this, and we rally and unite; I am certain there is no feminist agenda to stop us in our way.
I do not know however that better a fish today than 2 tomorrow. And Audi is currently that fish.
The rest is just ink under a bridge.
You are absolutely right- ” consolidated position” must be . It has just happened , unfortunately , that so far our consolidated positions did not work the way we wanted. Another reason to try Audi’s one , a little bit unorthodox you may but never the less innovative and clever , at lest that is how i see it
@74 – no need to argue – we both want the same thing… If you reread your posts, many of the things you say have already been suggested by me.
I am in agreement with you except you claim we are not united but I doubt not we are. I however have no other argument than faith. WE are ONE.
@68 Sure JC, I’m happy to tell you where I personally stand on those issues.
I have disagreed with that by saying:
Perhaps an example will help? I recently watched a documentary about a 4 year-old girl who was having serious behavioural problems and was now with a second set of foster parents because the first seemingly lovely couple couldn’t cope with her. She lived with her birth mother up to the age of 18 months before the authorities took her away from her mother. Why you ask? The mother was earning some extra income by regularly renting out her daughter to pedophiles so they could have sex with the infant!!!
If want to live in a fantasy world where all “parents of course want to protect their children” then you are (with apologies) delusional! If you hang onto your “all parents are good” delusion, and spurt that out when talking about men’s rights, you will both make a fool of yourself and discredit men’s rights at the same time.
I am absolutely opposed to smacking children. I think it is barbaric and harmful. It in effect teaches children that whoever is stronger can get what they want to happen by inflicting pain on the weaker person. It also seriously impacts children’s self-esteem and these impacts can last a lifetime. Before anyone here plays the “I was smacked as a child, and it never did me any harm” card, please note that nobody in my time on this site has ever apologised for making a mistake. You for example JC insulted my character by suggesting that I lacked empathy but when I pointed out that you had no evidence of such, no apology was forthcoming. People with strong self-esteem don’t have to hang on to being right. They can say sorry without it impacting their sense of worth. Maybe people on this site who were smacked as children are afraid to admit being wrong, because if they are wrong they will subliminally remember being smacked for ‘being wrong’ and they are afraid of facing up to the pain carried by their hurt inner child?
But, although I personally would like to see a complete end to children being smacked I am not convinced that legislating against that is the right way to go about it. Most importantly the smacking of children is not a men’s rights issue! People here make it a men’s rights issue by fuzzy thinking about an all powerful feminist state trying to control men’s rights to smack their children. Clear-headed thinking shows that the issue is about ‘parental’ rights and children’s rights – not ‘men’s’ rights.
I am happy to work alongside people in fighting for men’s rights regardless of their beliefs about smacking or smacking legislation. It appears that for some here the reverse is not the case?
Thank you for recognizing Audi’s noble , time and energy consuming efforts to do something. He is brave , that is for sure but that is nearly not enough for victory . What is needed is a clever , intelligent macro and micro strategy in today’s marketing oriented world – and AUDI has that .
The old , romantic ” A boy named Sue ” Johny Cash thinking belong to good old times . And is not productive . What I can sense here is lot of personal pain , hurt and self doubts when trying to get out of our existing comfort zone by trying something new .
I was in such a position for a year , feeling good and warm in my own poo , just like babies feel .
But now I see a well thought out, innovative , constructive and honest approach by Audi and will go for it .
Thank you for the clarification Audi and to George too.
Your example speaks for itself. And both the mother and any other person involved should be shot. And yet, I do not believe in Capital punishment.
That is beyond sick.
You make no mention of the father and this is done by the mother.
I can guarantee you that if stats were published of serious harm to children, the majority of abusers would be female. But that is not the point.
Given it was a documentary, I assume lengthy details were provided about the father and possibly more details about the mother’s drug habits, if any? And possibly the extended family?
These sort of information are required to get a better perspective rather than with the feminist minimalist approach which is to give just enough info for people to emotionally react and rush into condemnation so that hasty laws can be erected that defeat themselves and still fail to protect children. Which is what we have as at current.
The point you are tying to make is emotive. About what certain individuals do when those people could be construed as the minority, the seriously deviant.
And to follow that with backing up laws that are demonstrated to be harmful to society in general is simply what we may call non sequiturs… they just do not follow from the premises given.
But I can see I cannot convince you otherwise.
I think You are listening emotionally.
Do you know that is the biggest pitfall in communication between men and women? Listening emotionally?
He says something constructive and logical. She wraps herself in her ego and takes it as a personal attack.
And yet you plan to engage with the feminist world 🙂
And do what? Communicate? Convince? Educate? Share? Create change?
Now that you answered my question – I can clarify what my post at 59 meant.
It meant your logic seems feninist sponsored and it is so embedded in you, you actually believe it is not sponsored.
And that is why your statement below made me really laugh after reading your previous benevolent words.
You would be, based on your own words, the proof of this success…
@85 Crikey it’s hard to get traction here when everything I say is looked at through a distorting lens.
The example I gave was an extreme example that was likely to evoke emotion, but it needed to be to knock you out of your “all parents are good” mantra.
But my point is not emotive. It is rational. Yes that mother was “seriously deviant” but the world of parenting is not divided into categories of “seriously deviant” and then “all the rest of good parents”. Parents, like all other people, exist on continuums. That means making decisions about categorising parents fraught with difficulty.
Next you move the discussion into one about “laws”. Sure, I have said that I can’t see anything wrong with the Domestic Violence Act. What I mean by that is that I can’t see any inherently sexist language in that Act, unlike the USA version called the Violence Against Women Act. I also said that there are serious flaws in how the Act is applied in a discriminatory way against men. There are clearly other issues that need examining on the effectiveness of the Act and unintended consequences that may be heightening the risk to victims. Perhaps in the light of all that the Act needs to be overhauled or replaced – but hey guys – cut me a little slack for saying that the wording of the Act itself is not sexist.
And FYI: You can easily convince me to change my mind. You can do that readily by providing reasoned argument and supporting data from well structured research. Shouting slogans at me though won’t do the trick.
Downunder (who I rarely agree with) makes a good point @77.
I would just change his wording slightly. Replace “there is not a consolidated position.” with “it is full of crap.” If we are to make a dent in public opinion we need to speak the truth and not spurt garbage.
is the sort of crap we need to avoid saying. It is a sad old gender stereotype. I know plenty of relentlessly logical women and hopelessly emotional men. Even if a global meta-analysis showed that women are more emotional on average than men that information is of no practical use, because individual men and women will vary greatly on that measure and will obviously be different in different circumstances. Deal with the issues and leave out the crap.
Shock! Horror! Breaking News! Feminists are making men’s lives miserable right here in New Zealand right now in October 2018. MGTOW might be an answer, but for those of us who enjoy the company of women and want these horrors to stop, there needs to be change. Who needs to change? The feminists need to change – that’s who! [I can hear the scoffing from here!] Of course they won’t change easily. But we don’t need to change the hearts and minds of staunch feminists we need to change the hearts and minds of the general populace, so that hate speech and hate actions against men become socially unacceptable. So yes, we will be engaging albeit indirectly with the feminist world and we will be attacked by them. We need to be on rock solid ground to resist those attacks.
You insult me by suggesting I have no empathy and now you insult me by suggesting I’m a feminist or under their influence. For this insult I expect not just an apology but a box of chocolates to boot. Women who support men’s rights have (according to the feminists) “internalised misogyny.” I guess you suppose I have “internalised misandry”
Have you heard of “splitting” JC? Voices who had a Borderline Personality Disordered partner will be able to tell you all about it. It’s when a part of someone’s personality takes over and sees things from only one perspective. In a way that is what you are doing with me. If I support some things that feminists also support you have to see that as me being taken over and possessed by a nefarious feminist spirit. I have to be deranged in some way if I see things differently to you. Sorry JC, but that’s just a load of mumbo jumbo crap!
I’m at heart a human rights activist. I hate any breaches of human rights, be they against, gays, lesbians, transgendered, women, children, ethnic groups or men. I just happen to be picking up the cudgels to fight for men because I see men as the most (by far) discriminated against group in New Zealand today. That I don’t rant and rave against feminists like others on this site, doesn’t make me a feminist, it just makes me level-headed.
Good Job, Audi
you took it well. 🙂
HORROR OF HORRORS , O Tempora O Mores, AUDI made a terrible, monstrous , unforgettable , cardinal MISTAKE which proves he is a fake, hidden feminist .
He wrote ” exist on continuums ” . It should be ” exist on continuum” . I appeal to everyone not to support him , I mean how could you support such a hideous person ?
Finally it downed to me his critics are 582.3% right, ha ha
Not recommended, Audi, unless you are full of crap, but you obviously didn’t understand what I said.
@89 There, there, Downunder. It’s okay. Don’t go getting yourself all upset. Your original statement was perfectly valid and well valued. Despite the fact that you used very big words like “consolidated” even a simple man like myself understood you. The replacement of “consolidated position” with “full of crap” was what’s known as a ‘literary device’ to help my friend JC understand that veracity will be a critical component of any sustainable success in a men’s rights public relations campaign. Having a consolidated position will be equally important.
Here’s an out of the box idea! Why don’t you come along on the 3rd of November? And bring some of your old cronies along with you? There’s still 4 places available. We don’t see eye to eye on many things, but that’s okay. For someone who has been at this for as long as you have, you have plenty of fire in your belly, and I deeply admire that.
@88 Hi George. I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your support. I feel like ‘you’ve got my back’. If you ever find yourself in a tight spot, I’d be proud to return the favour.
Downunder seems to travel through the universe like a neutrino. At the speed of light and unable to turn corners or stop……..?
@92 Talking of old cronies… Why aren’t you coming Murray? Yeah Murray… Why not?
I just say what i really, really think and feel . That’s all . We are lucky to have Down under and Murray Bacon aka Statler and Waldorf , two elderly and grouchy gentlemen from the Muppet show ha ha .
I sometimes wonder whether supressed vulnerability manifests itself as a variety of disorders seen in the background of domestic violence in a similar way deeply suppressed vulnerability manifests itself as offensive arrogance – either way the effect on other people is less understood.
@95 Hi Evan. People who have been abused (by acts of commission and acts of omission) and especially in their childhood years are petrified of showing vulnerability. This has some serious impacts on their subsequent relationships.
Have a look (on YouTube) at Brene Brown’s TED talk on vulnerability, It’s one of the most watched TED talks ever.
As you can see, Audi is either hung up on what he doesn’t understand or is an apologist for the Family Court. Yes, you can win the argument with the same standard of proof in a protracted engagement in a case.
The idea that you would prefer to have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are a good father doesn’t appreciate that the claim would need to be accepted on the basis that the evidence strongly suggested that you were in fact a bad father.
That is also reasonable doubt of ability not reasonable doubt of intention, or what might have been unintended at that time.
The issue I’m seeing here is a primary consideration to ‘be nice’ or reject the ‘not nice’ that is interfering with objective pathways that might be worthwhile.
Here’s an interesting Criminal Court Drug Case that is worth looking at.
#97…. In having to prove fatherhood, indeed Good fatherhood, you would think it would be eluded to, the history of that fatherhood. This ‘history’ can be backed up in affidavit etc by long term friend and family but not an eyelid is battered in this direction, which seems ludicrous given the fact that the Family Court is supposed to uphold the Family.
Umm… Sorry no Downunder. Neither of your options are logical conclusions. Yet again when you don’t like what is being said you attack the person rather than argue the point. Don’t talk about what I am. Talk about the issue.
“Beyond reasonable doubt” is the burden of proof required of the state in criminal prosecutions because of the imbalance of power between the state and an individual. It is therefore not a suitable burden of proof in civil proceeding when parties have more equal power.
Any fool can say something is no good. It takes a person of insight to describe what would be better. So far many here have negatively criticised the DVA and those criticisms may be valid, but I haven’t heard anyone put forward better options that would both protect victims and preclude false prosecutions or findings.
Also, sorry, but your second to last paragraph at 97 above is too opaque to be understood. Would care to try again in plain English that we mere mortals can understand?
Many suggestions for improvement have been made on this site. For example, detailed submissions have been published here from us and others when the DVA was being reviewed several years ago.
More patronizing stuff, seems almost like trolling. Not worth wasting time on.
Trolling is generally understood by the examples readers see in certain circumstances.
More specifically the common ground to such comments is the intention or attempt to promote an emotional reaction.
That’s a broad spectrum, humorous, annoying, belittling, patronizing, destructive, vicious.
I have to agree, for someone promoting unity with dignity, trolling a website is probably not the best way to start out.
Help me out here Murray! You keep saying that we should learn from the considerable experience of those that have worked for decades in the field of men’s rights. I suppose that Downunder and MoMA would fall into that category?
The thing is: I can’t get them to share any of their experience!
Downunder writes @97 in this thread:
I tell him @99 that I don’t understand what he is saying but he doesn’t explain it for me.
@99 I say:
MoMA replies @100:
Which is all very well and good, but I wasn’t on Menz then so I don’t know what constructive criticisms of the DVA he is referring to.
Both MoMA and Downunder suggest that I am trolling this site – Trolling is defined as:
I have to admit that I have posted provocative messages, but my intentions have never been to cause disruption. My intentions have always been to challenge what approaches are actually best to save men from harm. It would seem that my challenges to the efficacy of some of the approaches of Downunder and MoMA evoke in them a defensiveness that is expressed as, “Not worth wasting time on.”
What should I do? I don’t like giving up on anybody. But maybe it’s time I gave up on them?
That’s a very good effort for a brief list.
You could slip in there that it is not compliant with the second arm of Natural Justice;
#102 Dear Audi,
I see your point.
I know that you are right. I have said the same more strongly than I have seen it from you.
I have said it far less tastefully than you.
I have said the same myself, so often that it is terminally boring.
The people that you are referring to have said the same themselves.
There may be some element of agreement and consensus?
There is an answer that I know of. There are probably several possible answers…..
As I see it, the answer is:
_____ (Redacted to just what can be constructively shown on an open website.)
I hope that clarifies these issues, without introducing any extraneous issues?
Best wishes from a re-demented axe murderer. (Name redacted to protect the criminally insane.)
You may see a point Murray but not the process.
With a predetermined agenda based on a fallacy, how came you have a point.
Looking for what’s wrong in other statements doesn’t make you right nor does it help you see what is wrong.
It’s bit like going to court against a dishonorable lawyer who is misleading the court to deny his own incompetence if that helps your perspective.
It doesn’t come up with the right answer.
Why, thank you…..
The conflict tactics scale (CTS), created by Murray A. Straus in 1979, is the “most widely used instrument in research on family violence.” There are two versions of the CTS; the CTS2 (an expanded and modified version of the original CTS) and the CTSPC (CTS Parent-Child). As of 2005, the CTS has been used in about 600 peer reviewed scientific or scholarly papers, including longitudinal birth-cohort studies. National surveys conducted in the USA include two National Family Violence Surveys (1975 and 1985), the National Violence Against Women Survey (1998), which, according to Straus, used a “feminist version” of the CTS in order to minimize data on female perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV), and the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being. A major international survey to use the CTS was the 2006 International Dating Violence Study, which investigated IPV amongst 13,601 college students across thirty-two different countries.
In a 2005 article in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling listed the CTS amongst the most important advances in the field of IPV research, stating it “was revolutionary because it allowed researchers to quantitatively study events that had often been ignored culturally and typically took place in private.”
However, the CTS is one of the most widely criticized domestic violence measurement instruments due to its exclusion of context variables and motivational factors in understanding acts of violence. The National Institute of Justice cautions that the CTS may not be appropriate for IPV research “because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics.”
“Russian woman, Olga Vaori stabbed her ex-husband in what she claimed was ‘self-defence’. She then took a selfie with her ex, bleeding in the background & sent it on to friends, saying that it made her look like “a beast.”
A link for the above story.
What’s your thoughts on this one fella’s ?
If the killer woman’s allegations were true then it’s an acceptable outcome. Even though repeatedly stabbing someone in the heart whilst shouting at them seems more like murder, provocation appears to have been taken into account to make it manslaughter and the sentence was modest. The sentence isn’t likely to encourage others to take murderous actions when angry at what another person did.
However, one questions how it could be determined that the woman’s allegations were true, given that the man is dead and can’t reply.
NZ rubbish media.
Here’s an Aussie version.
One assumes that there was some evidence (other than believe a drug addict) that there had been a prior rape.
I’m getting a slightly different picture from the second story, when she calls on friends to dispose of the body, then has a second fit of rage and drags it through the streets.
That anger it appears to me is directed at the friends and not the deceased although the body suffers the violence.
The picture I’m getting here is that this woman is not responsible for her actions because of her rage.
I’m struggling with the extent of what you’re calling provocation.
How about old fashioned bigotry.
There is bigotry at every step of society on the issue.
Bigotry in the education system.
Bigotry in the enforcement of laws.
Bigotry in examining the enforcement of laws.
Bigotry in examining case files.
Bigotry in DV services.
Bigotry in government policies.
Bigotry in the process of making law.
Bigotry in law itself.
Bigotry in examining law.
Bigotry in examining cases.
Bigotry in law outcomes.
Bigotry in law monitoring.
Bigotry in complaint examination.
Bigotry in prosecuting.
Bigotry in sentences.
Bigotry in legitimacy of legal status.
Bigotry in recording events.
Bigotry in researching events (above feminist cited excluded)
Bigotry in publications.
Bigotry in intent.
Bigotry in motive.
It is no surprise the (hate men) feminists staged a walk out.
How dare he tell the truth.
If they hated him for an obvious truth then what do these (hate men) feminists love.
Power and control.
Hey I got to 21 things, without trying.
Imagine a case with 21 witnesses.
All saying the same thing.
Would the jury be convinced?
Then another subject as backup with as much bigotry?
Then backup to the backup?
I think equality must be the strategy.
Like mutually assured destruction.
I have a sentence.
It destroys everything ever made by law.