MENZ ISSUES

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

The Real Problem…..

Filed under: General — triassic @ 7:38 pm Tue 14th August 2018

I have come to the opinion that the root problem for men, and in particular white males, emanates from a political dogma that was spawned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as laid out in their published material, Das Kapital.

In short, it paints a picture of the oppressor and the oppressed within an economic frame and sets up the solution as a war of one group against another. By the 60’s most sane thinkers could see, from viewing both the Soviet Union and China, that it failed to produce the utopia promised but instead producing a bureaucratic monster that crushed both groups.

Around the same time in the mid 60’s came the contraceptive pill, thereby giving females sexual freedom and an autonomy not experienced by women ever before. This major event created a perfect wave that was picked up by bitter Marxist female intellectuals and assisted them to pitch females against males within a social frame. The patriarchal hierarchy, dominant male verses the feeble female at the bottom of the heap. Men were oppressors and females were the oppressed. Whilst there were a lack of equal opportunity’s on both sides only one side got to speak. The narrative began as equal opportunity and ended up being a demand for equal outcomes. Competency became a dirty word.

Neo Marxism was born and is nesting within the capitalist system. Feminism was to be only the first identity to achieve a political voice with many others following.

Every evil outcome of Marxism 1 shows up in Marxism 2;
Shut down free speech by calling it hate speech. Put up walls. Shame and destroy people who dare to question their dogma. Misrepresent others opinions. Not recognising the individual, as you must belong to a group, thereby making individuals irrelevent and dispensable.

The end goal of this pernicious ideology has to be tyranny. Fight this demon and our society will be the better for it. As a great philosopher once said…”it won’t happen over night but it will happen” 🙂

I have made up a t-shirt slogan illustrating my point.

73 Responses to “The Real Problem…..”

  1. Downunder says:

    And along comes Joe Bloggs and says WTF!

    What do you say to the man in the street?

    He’s the one getting the sharp pointy stick shoved up em, and can’t work out what he’s doing wrong.

  2. mama says:

    ” REAL” problems for the people of the time period they are living within come from the current society, of course history shapes in an ultimate way but also changes with time.

    I believe the current “real problems” are coming from rapid change that have occured in but a few generations, these have indeed largely included the man/woman debate.

    Men have gone from being the Man who brings home the bacon to some one whose necessity is being questioned in the family unit, to mention one massive change for him, and what a BIGGIE that one is…

    Woman in this same time period have gone from apron and purse strings to no strings at all, has been given right to be a victim when ever required and is protected by the state.

    I am sorry that I can not comment on the Marxist stuff, been too busy all my life to study such important stuff, but I do have the freedom to say what I feel the real problems are today.

  3. Downunder says:

    It’s certainly the right year to write this post.

    People with opposing views are celebrating the 200th birthday of their economic sage.

    He lives on in the dictatorship of their thoughts.

    Individual adherence to Marx’s beliefs or what they perceive his beliefs to be so that they would dictate the desired outcome.

    To me this is largely behind the arguments of freedom of speech, as we’ve seen here

    It is not so much what is said but whether that threatens or is perceived to threaten the desired outcome.

    So, how would that be described, now. This war of words that we can write about rather than get out on the street and yell at each other about, or as we see in other countries, react violently to.

    Recently Don Brash gave John Key’s Ministry an 0/10 for economic management. And he’s probably right. A CEO, easy way out strategy, make the money spin work for my tenure.

    Yes it did, and we have to live with the current position of our business of government.

    Roger Douglas was an adherent of Popper. Many would not have heard of this post war European who lived in New Zealand.

    But is this our problem … That governments are ‘supposedly’ understanding and adhering to philosophical dictates that expect commerce to provide an ideological outcome.

    Is the age of the political economy being distorted and perhaps destroyed in a battle between philosophy and economics?

  4. mama says:

    It sure is hard to pin point the philosophies of our recent governments, Clark, Key, it sure was not for the average NZer.

    Greed and fashion in the Real Estate Industry has led to a ridiculous and unnecessary outcome.

    So no philosophy and no economic outcome. The shame of a lifetime. 0/10 indeed….

    We need Duncan Macgregor! Freedommm!!!!

  5. triassic says:

    #2 Ideology drives policy which is converted into legislation. That’s why one needs to identify the source of the policy in order to deal with the causality rather than spend time dealing with the effects. Identity politics is now ubiquitous and to understand, identify and call it out when you see it in action is the only way we can put a stop to it.. The regressive left uses stealth to get their ideology accepted by the masses. By using the compassion narrative they weasel their way into hearts and minds. After all, only a misogynist wouldn’t feel sorry for the poor down trodden female, Only a homophobe would question the demands of the minorities of the LGBT community such as the use of gender pronouns and other such nonsense. Only an Islamophobe would question the dogma of Islam as opposed to the individual Muslim. ect ect. Fact is, you can only fix problems when you can identify the cause.

  6. Downunder says:

    Ideology drives policy which is converted into legislation

    I seriously disagree with this, Triassic.

    Ideology invents ambiguous legislation and the ideal is implemented or manipulated by policy and in a similar way we see judicial activism.

  7. triassic says:

    I quote the process that both Government and Corporate Companies undergo. However, if you are referring to weak and confusing legislation then I agree with you. Take Section 21J of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 which provides the court with a discretion to void a relationship property agreement. Section 21J(4) sets out the matters which the court must have regard to in making its assessment:

    The last item in the list is the following….
    Any other matters the Court considers relevant.
    Now that’s an invitation for judicial activism and uncertainty for any fool who would rely on the document for protection.

    Why is the document weak? I claim because the ideology behind it is biased toward the gender who is most likely to be attacking the telos of the document. Take a guess which gender?

  8. Downunder says:

    #7

    You’ve said a lot in a short space. Perhaps other contributors might like to dissect this and relate one piece to their own experience.

    Any other matters the court considers relevant.

    This may include your political views. When you get media extracts turning up in your court case as evidence.

    The court does not have to disclose what it considers relevant. This is where judicial activism turns to judicial corruption, when the court engages in a conspiracy to injure.

  9. Downunder says:

    @Trassic, there are some interesting thoughts in Quillette including Post-Marxist Feminism, whatever that is?

  10. Downunder says:

    @5 I accept where you are coming from in terms of policy driving legislation but in terms of a political manifesto converting to legislation to produce a result.

    Like you point out legislation has been watered down and left vague in areas that its proposers don’t wish to make clear, in the knowledge that their judicial allies will supply that interpretation.

    Feminism doesn’t respect the separation of powers. They operate a collective mechanism determined to provoke Feminist ideals.

  11. Downunder says:

    @5 The development and use of policy has expanded considerably almost to the point where it is questionable which is running our society.

    Looking at a pre election promise, say … “We will get tough on domestic violence.”

    On the other side when the police were tasked with implementation they adopted an easy out response.

    Rather than treating each situation as an investigation, they adopted a policy of remove the male.

    Whether that still exists I don’t know, but there was clear evidence that this happened.

    Then there is manufactured research, whether that is within a government department or a research body, either will suffice when it comes to justifying a desired outcome.

    On this site I mapped one specific example of this from 2013 – 2018 following the Domestic Violence Leave Bill to point this out.

    This in one small example of common practice.

    (Equally we have manipulation of legislation, and I illustrated Judith Collins’ deceptive manipulation of the Child Support Act, during her time as Justice Minister.)

    Policy in my mind has become a dirty word.

  12. mama says:

    Excuse me to suggest something A Little less heavy……A Little Big movie we watched on netflix the other day.

    CAPTAIN FANTASTIC… a look at a couple who decide to raise their family apart from society.

    Subject matter along the lines of this discussion, in no way a chick flick by the way.

  13. MurrayBacon says:

    #11

    Policy in my mind has become a dirty word.

    Fair comment.
    Surely then, this makes it all the more important that wherever policy is being considered, that all affected parties accept the invitation to take part in discussions?
    Taking part is one thing. Success at times is more important, so be prepared.
    Sure, some voices may be “erased”, or belittled, or sidelined, for a time.
    Men have to fight “harder”. This has always been true in the past and likely the future too.
    The sidelines are waiting for those who give up.
    Lets learn very carefully from the past and do better in the future.
    Sorry about the mashed metaphors.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWIwlfo9_OM

  14. MurrayBacon says:

    I apologise unreservedly, if my comment above is read as any disrespect for the work of men who have protested about impacts of policies and defective “judges”.
    That is not my intention at all.
    I know the effort, time, money and heart that has been put in.
    It may look as though what was achieved wasn’t much?
    It is easy to criticise, but there is little value in that, if any at all.
    That was the environment of the time. Many other groups also suffered harms.
    The future is still as important as it ever was. Especially for our children.
    Lets learn very carefully from the past and do better in the future.

  15. Evan Myers says:

    We have policy on the hoof. The new NAIT (to do with animal tracking) policy from the government is to get tough and search properties without warrants.

  16. Evan Myers says:

    What is the significance of the fist in the star symbol in the post?

  17. Downunder says:

    13 and 14

    In terms of the policy problem and being involved …

    Yes, there was the way it was and it is human nature to resist change or simply want change not to occur.

    Many people are happy in a lifestyle of organised religion and even for those who are not the same pattern of behavior is blind to change and that I think is central to male issues. We look at how it was and don’t identify the change.

    The end result is varying opinions at the extremes of don’t waste your time and try harder.
    [Doesn’t that sound remarkably like you and I.]

    In respect of that let’s identify what has changed.

    The Law Commission.
    Many of our law changes relating to the Feminist agenda are driven through the Law Commission.

    It is very hard to have any influence of this legal body that often introduces intriquicacies to the Law beyond the comprehension of parliament let alone the population.

    Here ends the parliamentary debate of the basis that
    – we accept the commissions advice
    – and don’t want to make bigger dicks of ourselves than we already are debating something we don’t understand.

    Corruption of Parliament

    These omnibus bills, just slip that one in there, ignore that and only debate what the bill is fundamentally about.
    (That’s the way some of the more draconian aspects of the child support act have been passed.)

    Back to policy and the large policy drivers are …
    Universities
    Government Departments
    Commissions
    Parliamentary closets.

    Referring again to Domestic Violence Leave Act and the policy development at Auckland University.

    The University is not being held to account for what happened here.
    We have university research funded by a government woman’s union, that was organised by a women’s refuge radical. A PhD research by one lecturer and one young girl become the ground for a law change.

    Then look at the changes in the police. This department was essentially restructured under the Clark Ministry to operate in the fashion of other commissions, like the Families/Children’s Commission.
    This largely escapes the casual observer, that we have a Police Commission both running a law enforcement department and undertaking research, such as Domestic Violence Research, drawing on experiences outside of New Zealand to create policy for New Zealand.

    Parliamentary closets of policy analysis aren’t there just to give a few girls a high wage. They are there to work out which policies to support and which to squash to achieve a desired outcome.

    When you put all this together you notice that the electorate is largely excluded from the legal and policy development of the country … without wishing to start the same cyclical debate AGAIN, I hasten to restate that old well known pathways no longer work, and what is working, is not working for us.

    To conclude one might make two observations

    That this looks remarkably like the development of a People’s Republic.

    Perhaps all roads do not lead to Rome. Some may go back further to Egypt.

  18. Doug says:

    Thanks triassic. You are spot on. Marx represents the ruling elite. The new world order is nothing more than a reversion back to the old world world order: The Dark Ages that came out of Africa under the name of Yahweh and which was brutally forced on Europeans, millions of whom were tortured to death as heretics and millions of young men who bled to death on battlefields

  19. triassic says:

    #16 I am now living in Ho Chi Minh City and socialising with local intellectuals who advise me that the closed fist of Marxism, under Communism, was first used to grip the hammer and sickle when it represented workers. With Neo Marxism representing so many identities it is easier just to have a closed fist. Check out any group using it in a March and you will know what they really stand for.

  20. Downunder says:

    @Triassic #16

    Do you think there is a tendency to equate an answer to suit one’s position?

    We see Feminists (and this was talked about in the recent free speech post) labeling anyone whose opinion undermines their desired position as hate speech and anyone who dares to go there, misogynistic.

    In a similar manner does a capitalist suggest that what Feminists do is Marxism as a safe position. It supports their political allegiance and uses what they oppose to suppossedly undermine Feminists without attacking women.

    Downunder
    Any ideology that deems hierarchy’s as a political or patriarchal construct is deluded and builds their ideology on a false premise. Hierarchy’s are important in any society for it to function. They exist in the animal kingdom and indeed 350 million years ago in Lobsters which host the same nervous system as humans. Aristotle had a good understanding of how rewards should be distributed.
    Ed-Triassic

    This may make political sense but it also tends towards an elitist position that ignores what radical Feminism is involved in and the effects on men in other groups outside of the group that holds this position.

    In the rise and fall of civilizations there must be common ground in those periods but perhaps disguised by the technology relative to that period.

    Looking at the unstable period of the late Roman Empire, the elite may not have invented the pill but they certainly valued the availability and use of goats bladders.

    The social effects of birth control in the elite reduced their numbers dramaticly much as we are seeing across our entire population spectrum, rather than one part of society.

    There are two words Feminism and Marxism that we view as bound to the period that introduced their use. That suggests this was the advent of the behaviour they are describing.

    The Romans loved libraries, not only in Rome. They build a significant number within the regime. That allowed the likes of Shakespeare to succeed to the extent that he did by using translated stories from the literary successes of earlier writers.

    In the same way contemporary writers recorded behaviour within Rome that we would equate to Feminism and Socialism. They appear as components in the structure of the Empire, rather than independent philosophical entities competeting with each other.

    Captains of business as the era described them had their part to play in the downfall of the Roman Empire. In the period of recovery when multiple locations are out to rebuild the one true Empire Marx produces his version of what not to do again.

    Likewise Feminists picked up from where their elite females left off. The information was there and its distribution greatly enhanced by the advent of the printing press.

    Perhaps the political focus on Marx ignores more relevant information that is available and is important to us.

    The financial failure of Rome was not in isolation. There was a combination of factors that became insurmountable and this included the Feminist type behaviour of Roman women, in both the elite and classes.

    Believing in the political elite didn’t work for the Greeks in Athens either. The Polis insulated and isolated itself from failure and that in turn led to its inevitable failure.

    My view is that the effects of the Feminist element in our civilization are more visible. Our ability to discuss and distribute information is unprecedented.

    Yet, when it comes to being rational, sensible, reasonable, call it what you like we don’t confront individuals who are undermining our civil processes for their individual purposes, because they are the demands of ‘women’?

    This is the difficulty I have with the mantra that Marxism is the cause of all ills. It’s not.

    And it shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to examine and criticise Feminism and its negative outcomes.

  21. george simonovski says:

    @triassic

    Thousands pages og ” Das Kapital” explained in few words ?

    1. Marx’s Phd Foerbah Thesis number eleven : “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” You don’t agree with that?

    George
    I don’t have a problem with change providing it benefits society as a whole

    2. You call China ” an Utopia ” Really ?

    Not sure what you meant to say here George as I wrote that utopia was promised to the Chinese under Marxism but it failed dreadfully.

    3. Marx most staunch supporter Friedrih Engels is the one who wrote The origin of family, private property and state ” after Marx death, using his empirical and theretical materials. Engels proived his text by having a happy family and wel brought up children . Marx had aslo happy family and was supported by his devoted wife . Pleas read it .

    Engles and Marx may well have been exemplary men and if so they would have turned in their grave had they seen their life’s work in action. Empirical evidence from China and Soviet Union agrees with that. I do not put up an ad hominem argument. I am specifically attacking the Marxist dogma remaining in the neo camp.

    4. By trivializing Marx , you are trivializing his predecessors : Hegel, Adam Smith, Foerbah and so on …

    Neo Marxist reject most of Hegel

    5. Blaming Marx for modern feminism ? It might look tempting to use his books for a valid point and I do agree that modern unhinged feminism is a great evil that destroys families , but Unftunately Marx has nothing to do with that.

    6. Who benefits from stupefying the mankind by aggressive feminism , unhinged consumerism , destroying anyone who thinks with his own mind etc etc . No award for ten right answer dear triassic .

    7. I am a victim of NZ Family court . I got a P.O. The Judge wrote in her Verdict : ” George is form Macedonia has a loud voice and is a dominant person while —- is a shy woman from Japan…. and that …her allegations don’t have a base in reality …

    I was given a PO because Quote” I developed a tunnel vision on trying to get as many legal affidavits as possible ( 4 Affidavits ) from the direct witnesses of her loitering allegations and that was a psychological abuse toward her . what has Marx to do with an emotional female Judge who delivers PO as confetti based on racial stereotypes and although she admitted on teh Court hearing she hit me many times , let alone her numerous calling me names like animal, primitive Macedonian, barbarian – The Judge found that acceptable . Will stop there , just thinking of that makes me angry .

    Your Judge has a law degree. The humanities and social sciences in our universities have been corrupted with Neo Marxism. Have a look at the curriculum material for obtaining a law degree and you will see my point. Being a judge in the family court guarantees exposure to more of the same dogma.

    Punch line : Modern feminism has nothing to do with Marx . The real feminists ) activists for equal man – women rights ) were Rosa Luxemburg and Clara Zetkin in mid 19th century . The modern unhinged feminism might have used some of there two noble women sentences just to make themselves sort of respectable , historical movement but all for wrong reasons .

    George, I could use up a gigabyte of space on this subject but my point still stands that it is not only 3rd wave feminism that threatens us but IDENTITY POLITICS as pushed by the radical left. I read Das Capital when I was 20 and was very impressed. At 23 I read The Gulag Archipelago by Russian writer and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. My eyes were opened to all the flaws of Marxism.

    The real answer about the aggressiveness and devastating effects of the modern feminism can only be found by asking ourselves a simple question : Who benefits from it ?

    SO, WHO BENEFITS FROM THE MODERN AGGRESSIVE FEMINISM ?

    NEO MARXISTS

  22. Evan Myers says:

    @Triassic

    Is this post-truth stuff the way that Feminists try to frame a debate around their emotions to ignore what they don’t like?

    Evan, I believe so. Of great interest to me was Germaine Greer’s stance against the ‘feel sorry for me’ metoo# movement.
    She advises women to take responsibility for themselves and taking action immediately. Age brings wisdom.

  23. JustCurious says:

    Linking Marxism with Feminism can be done.
    Same as hitler linking Freud’s thoughts with his Aryan supremacy.
    Blaming marxism is willingly providing a scape goat to feminists – mercenaries and weapons of mass social disruption.
    But the question should be are feminist (gosh I do dislike that word “feminist” marxists?

    JustCurious
    To answer that I quote Warren Farrell. “Communists used the iron curtain to shut down criticism and free speech and Feminists use the pink curtain with both having totalitarian ideals.” Remember that the demand coming from their camp now is EQUITY. That’s the old Marxist ideology that demands one to be handed status and goods based on your identity or group, be it female or worker, etc.
    Nazis, having murdered around 20 million people, have nothing on the Marxists. In total, Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987. That is, when Marxists control states, Marxism is more deadly than all the wars of the 20th century, including World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The evils of Marxism are underestimated by many.

  24. JustCurious says:

    @22 – you are spot on.
    The problem I believe is the language used, one is emotional and the other intellect-logical.
    So the emotional or emotive argument create emotional reactions in people therefore driving the implementation of policies which are sadly pseudo intellect-logic based.
    Just like an emotional purchase. First you buy and then you justify the need for the purchase.
    But the person in charge of advertising studies your every habit and presents you with choices you are very likely to opt into as opposed to opt out of.

  25. george simonovski says:

    @triassic

    Again simple question for you : Hitler choose Nietzsche’s philosophy and Richard Wagner’s music to justify his genocide . Does make them nazists ?

    Another one : What do you think why Marx’s political economy ( you read DAS KAPITAL) didn’t you ? is almost forbidden in West ?

    Back to who benefits from feminism and its aggressiveness ? The only one who benefits is the same one who benefits from alienation among people , alienation between men and women , alienation between parents and children etc. Alienation happens when 1% of population owns 90% of country’e wealth to start with. Marx wrote about that 200 years ago. His prophetic words are still valid nowadays , aren’t they ?

    Feminists , middle class , and the rest of the populations have been increasingly stupefied and degraded to pure unconscious consumers and voting only use .

    There is no need to muddy the waters by extrapolating some dubious empty words like NEomarxists and other fancy but empty labels . Feminists are only useful idiots to whom ? Again a question for you. ? –

    Feminists point of view ( heard it personally just a day ago ) A young girl has any right to walk drunk in 3 a.m in Queen St , Auckland dressed up only in a short T shirt . This mature teacher who said that don’t have children but has lot of ” modern” Marxists ( ha ha ha ) opinions . What has Marx to do with her educated stupidity ?

    Again, feminists and other deluded group of people who don’t have real life ( family , obligations, children ) are just useful idiots to guess Who or What ?

    Hitler choose Nietzsche’s philosophy and Richard Wagner’s music to justify his genocide . Does make them nazists ?

    25
    George, it would appear that you are an admirer of Marxism and I therefore understand the dichotomy my argument creates for you. We appear to agree on the evils of radical feminism and it’s insistance on equity or equal outcomes. For your perusal I give you a link to a good discussion from Joe Rogan’s video blog on this subject

  26. JustCurious says:

    @23 I disagree with your conclusion and facts as quoted

    JustCurious
    To answer that I quote Warren Farrell. “Communists used the iron curtain to shut down criticism and free speech and Feminists use the pink curtain with both having totalitarian ideals.”

    You must understand what totalitarian means. What Marx envisaged and intended.

    Remember that the demand coming from their camp now is EQUITY. That’s the old Marxist ideology that demands one to be handed status and goods based on your identity or group, be it female or worker, etc.

    Here you are wrong and are lumping equity with equality of rights. And the marxist ideology – as far as I can recall – seems to make no difference among genders within its worker category. What is sought was to remove the bourgeoisie class and make a classless society and to some extent even stateless which is almost impossible.

    Nazis, having murdered around 20 million people, have nothing on the Marxists. In total, Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987. That is, when Marxists control states, Marxism is more deadly than all the wars of the 20th century, including World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The evils of Marxism are underestimated by many.

    You are speaking of ideology at the hand of a mad man, I can think of Hitler, Stalin and many others whereby the ideology creates the political change which is then used by a few individuals as an instrument of mass murder to silence those they do not like or are threatened by.

    We could talk the same way about any religion.

  27. JustCurious says:

    Your arguments are convincing triassic but we must return to the drawing board.

    We may find many parallels but I doubt “feminism” is based on marxism.

    TO say that would be akin to lump all freedom or equality of rights movements into marxism.

    WE may as well go back to America and into Mc Carthism.

  28. george simonovski says:

    I am not happy with the ” admirer’ label you are trying to put it on me . I just happen to have read his books .

    I appreciate Martx mostly because of his political economy research and his efforts to explain to explain : surplus of profit, why and how societies move through slavery ,feudalism, early capitalism, imperialism, socialism , theories about alienation of workers.people and the list go on and on – 200 years ago.

    But For God’s and truth sake , for the sake of many wrongly accused men and destroyed families please leave Marx out if any connection with feminism. Extreme, aggressive feminism or any other extreme aggressive group are mostly consisted of deluded people who have not any family/children or who have dysfunctional family life plus a desire to be part of the group plus voids in their lives or they just bored.

    They are just useful idiots to the expanding consumerism and stupefying people . But the damages they are inflicting to teh families i.e men are tremendous .

  29. Evan Myers says:

    Return to McCarthyism

    We’re already there.

    The Greens leader Davidson says she received threats and wants to reclaim the word cxxt but produces no evidence.

    Then the male coleader complains loudly that people are being rude to their female polictians.

    But at the same time this rebellious nature of the young female leader appeals to the rebellious youth and young voters.

    Dangerous stuff isn’t it?

  30. JustCurious says:

    @28 – sensible output –
    @29 – you are right, we are. We may have moved from Mc Carthism into RICO suits but the effects are the same.

    Parliament took our rights to discipline our children and vested it in the Police power to use discretion not to prosecute.

    Instead they mass prosecute to raise domestic violence numbers and funding and save themselves the efforts of investigating case by case.

    So when we read the statistics we must always remember that they are manufactured for a purpose.

    Family Violence Investigations: When an officer attends an occurrence that they consider might have had some form of family violence, they must record it as a Family Violence Investigation. A given Family Violence Investigation may relate to one or more offences and/or non-offence incidents. Many factors influence police decisions to undertake Family Violence Investigations and these change over time. Because police choose to undertake Family Violence Investigations, these statistics are not suitable for use as proxy indicators of demand volumes or of the prevalence of family violence in society, as patterns in the data will be misleading for such purposes.

    Every case of parental discipline is now adjudicated. A Process by which the Police as well as lawyers and courts feed mercilessly on men. (on this account I am impressed by the caliber of Judges I have met so far and they are not shy to tell the police or CYFS to get their facts rights or to tell them the law does not condone their actions). Problem is it may takes years to get before one of those judges.

    I may be misunderstood but feminism is of no concern. What is of concern is what is being done legally that is unlawful.

    Imagine something as “Assault male on female” but no counterpart as “assault female on male.”

  31. Evan Myers says:

    When you look at the persecution and imprisonment that occurred before and during the McCarthy period, later found to be illegal and unconstitutional we should have learned from that not to let the same thing happen in New Zealand.

    When it comes the legal pathways of the Family Court that is obviously more alligned with McCarthyism than Marxism.

  32. Tony says:

    The North Shore capo di tutti capi Family Violence Dept is Rhona Stace or actually Ron Stace .He/she allocates community unpaid work restorative justice measures only to thiefs , heavy physical assaults perpetrators, conmen, bashers , and so one but not to the first time breachers of Protection orders .

    Breaches are mostly claimed by stalking women when they secretly take photos of unsuspecting men’s back sides and then claim ” loitering”.

    The above happened to me. Luckily the Judge rejected the Police accusations but it took 5 painful months of waiting and one day spent in jail whereas I was assaulted and vomited all over me .to get to the Court hearing .

    I asked for community sentence ( my ex took secretly photos of my back side while I was shopping)but was refused one by Ron/Rhona . In the meantime she/he allowed many really heavy repetitive offenders to get only community sentences

  33. george simonovski says:

    @Evan Myers

    ” But at the same time this rebellious nature of the young female leader appeals to the rebellious youth and young voters.

    Dangerous stuff isn’t it? ”

    SPOT ON

  34. mama says:

    #32..Hi Tony,, so if you have a protection order against you, it can be a worry if the woman is obsessed with bringing you down,, the protection order lasts forever??

  35. Downunder says:

    If there are children involved, the mother has dropped off deep end, and the father has progressed through the court in a saintly fashion a protection order can be withdrawn.

    A comment from Alan Harvey recently (a Wellington based advocate) suggested there had been of recent, an increase in the number of successfully dismissed protection orders, although these things tend to swing with the politics of the current government.

  36. mama says:

    Thank you Downunder, nice to know of possibility, this would surely mean that the mother, lets say, would have to okay a withdrawing of a protection order??

  37. Downunder says:

    My understanding is it is the courts order that is given to the mother and the court can take it back, so to speak, if the order is not doing what it should do.

    In the cases I’m aware of from years ago now, this swung on the order automatically applying to the children, but the mother’s behaviour not serving the children’s best interests.

    These things evolve.

    You would be better to talk to some one who is more up to date with the which way the wind is blowing in the court.

  38. JustCurious says:

    @ triassic, after reading this piece here

    It kinda looks like maybe you have a lot of it straight.

  39. JustCurious says:

    Under ‘Oppressive Role of the Family’:

    “The family institution is a repressive, conservative structure that reproduces within itself the hierarchical, authoritarian relationships necessary for the maintenance of class society as a whole. It fosters the possessive, competitive and aggressive attitudes necessary to the perpetuation of class divisions. It moulds the behaviour and character structure of children…. disciplining them and teaching submission to established authority. The family represses sexuality, discouraging all sexual activity which is not within marriage. It distorts all human relationships by imposing on them the framework of economic compulsion, social dependence and sexual repression.”

  40. Downunder says:

    #38

    Anarchists (and latterly their more Marxist ‘libertarian socialist’ arid ‘anarcho-communist’ fellow leftists) have preferred forms of organisation which will lead more directly to the situation which is ultimately desired. Thus…they posit small, autonomous, non-hierarchical collectives which provide personal as well as political support and are part of local and national networks which can be co-ordinated to work on important matters. The groups may choose to work autonomously on specific issues e.g. oppression of women, racism, or the environment, to become involved with community struggles, or to be part of the larger national campaigns. They may offer direct political action (e.g. groups such as HART,…..Matakite..) personal assistance (Rape Crisis, TPA – Tenants’ Protection Assn,) information and education (New Perspectives on Race, Women’s Centres) skills and expertise (The Wellington Media Collective) or a combination of all these activities e.g. cultural activities such as guerrilla theatre.

    When you read this assessment by Barbara Faithful it’s not hard to see how ideologies divided into groups that suited personal situations or persuasions … that not only undermined society but is mirrored in the same disarray in what is now the remnants of the once great Labour Party.

    This in turn has lead to a government of Wallies that have personal agendas and indescribable ideologies, a lack of coordination and direction, along with economic mismanagement and what is described as ‘putting the nice back into Government.’

    It’s a mess isn’t it?

  41. Downunder says:

    The real problem though, is that it is problems and many of them.

    1. We’re left trying to describe this, and there will be many versions of Triassic’s post.

    2. New concepts arrive like ‘Cultural Marxism’ (We don’t like any of your shit, we just don’t like Capitalism)

    3. Then the tiger bites your tail and you have a distinct version of how much that hurt.

    4. For many participants on this site it is a working up process trying to fit an individual experience into a social explanation of what went wrong, and who was the corrupt bastard responsible for this – it’s often a Feminist enabler.

    5. Relating the two ends is not easy, nor is it a study many can be bothered undertaking, when they are struggling to maintain a life while dealing with the next confrontation within their social position.

    6. The political (going there is not in our best interests, avoid that at all costs) actually just give us a bigger expense allowance so we can try harder to sell our position amongst the diversity.

  42. Downunder says:

    If you had shown me that extract by Barbara Faithful 20 years ago, it wouldn’t have meant a lot – it was far removed from the coal face of Family Court fantasy and the false allegations that were rife at the time.

    Reading the above extract today, the first connection I made was to Vmans recent comment

  43. JustCurious says:

    Kinda funny that it all’s been said before.
    These newsletters are priceless are rather priceless.

    We’re left trying to describe this, and there will be many versions of Triassic’s post.

  44. mama says:

    yes, kinda funny alright and we are left to laugh our craziest of laughs.

  45. RealMum says:

    Triassic: Very well written and I read
    Every word. A movie came to mind while
    Reading by the name suffragette.
    I couldn’t put it any better myself when
    Expressing a life lived seen and not
    Heard. Today has 10folded to way before
    Our parents parents parents parents….
    And yet my greats would say yes my day was
    Hard but nothing like this generation.
    I guess in different ways.
    Thank you for your help with beginning
    To feel like im allowed to breathe think
    And talk to the right people.
    I must try to remember at my lowest of lowest
    Days there are still the very few who
    Would pit a hand out and care.

  46. Evan Myers says:

    #44 you have to keep an ear out for those crazy laughs, they appear to be able to get around without broomsticks these days.

  47. Evan Myers says:

    I understand this to be a quote from Maggie Thatcher … and would relate to Britain but interesting none the less;

    The choice facing the nation is between two totally different ways of life: no less than the chance to banish from our land the dark, divisive clouds of Marxist socialism and bring together men and women from all walks of life who share a belief in freedom.

  48. JustCurious says:

    I was just rereading post @30 this morning

    When an officer attends an occurrence that they consider might have had some form of family violence, they must record it as a Family Violence Investigation.

    SO think statistics and return here.

    So the Policy is if in doubt, boosts the family violence numbers; and
    if you still in doubt, press charges.

  49. Downunder says:

    #48 This is common in Feminism; manufacture the need for the policy.

    I went to great lengths to point out the same process in the ‘research’ for the recenty passed law for workplace family violence leave, where you need only produce a ‘document recording family violence’, and now you see these processes cooperating.

    That’s what they are up to but we need to look at how we are responding.

  50. Downunder says:

    Quoted from above;

    To answer that I quote Warren Farrell. “Communists used the iron curtain to shut down criticism and free speech and Feminists use the pink curtain with both having totalitarian ideals.” Remember that the demand coming from their camp now is EQUITY. That’s the old Marxist ideology that demands one to be handed status and goods based on your identity or group, be it female or worker, etc.
    Nazis, having murdered around 20 million people, have nothing on the Marxists. In total, Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987. That is, when Marxists control states, Marxism is more deadly than all the wars of the 20th century, including World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The evils of Marxism are underestimated by many.

    As much as I respect Warren Farrell’s efforts you could write a book about how his perspective is relevant to the USA rather than NZ. His anti Russian perspective quoted here is specific and an isolated view of Marxism.

    On the face of it, probably not factually incorrect and it supports the author’s point of view in attributing blame to a source for the purpose of this post.

    But consider the difference when you look at say the development of railways in these two countries. Find a railway in America that wasn’t built by private enterprise and then try and find one in #NZ that wasn’t built by various Crown Entities.

    Naturally you have some difficulty blaming Marxism for the evils of Feminism that we experience in this country, when you are talking to a audience grounded in the development of this country.

    Feminism is not only dogmatic in its defence but vicious in isolating and disposing of it critics.

    This is the point I am obviously rather determined to make. That in understanding our history and understanding the Feminist agenda we see a group of females who are at the core of our social dislocation.

    Some are home grown and others like Ruth Busch (an American Feminist whose name is perhaps not as familiar as say Margaret Wilson) who although mostly hidden in the background has been one of the most distructive influences ever known in this country.

    If you were to draw a realistic comparison between the likely number of deaths caused by her influence in our small population rather than millions due to the Cold War Russian invasion of Europe that might start to get people’s attention.

    And Vman recently drew our attention to this when her name turned up among the bunnies in Andrew Little’s rabbit hutch review of the Family Court.

    Triassic rightly points to the distribution aspect in the above comments. And remember that vulnerable females are being taught that this is a natural entitlement in a Feminist view of the world.

    Once again there is some difficulty in convincing this audience that they hold an misconcived belief that suits the purposes of the Feminist leadership.

    Do you blame Marxism for the Feminist activity any more than you blame the Police for the Feminist demand that they take a subjective approach to statistics.

    Too many men take the view that if criticism of Feminism might affect my share of the distribution I’m happy to shut up.

  51. JustCurious says:

    @50 – Say as you please:-)

  52. JustCurious says:

    What do you mean?

    That’s what they are up to but we need to look at how we are responding.

    Who is is responding and how?

  53. Downunder says:

    #51

    @50 – Say as you please:-)

    I just did.

    That’s what we do. That is somewhat more constructive than wasting data with a vacant response.

  54. Downunder says:

    #52

    They is a collective of women that has developed over 4 decades.

    We is anyone NOT in that group.

    The extremes of responding are possibly nothing in ignorance to active criticism albeit a minimal effort.

  55. mama says:

    Holy Hell, the snow ball is still gathering and getting uglier as it goes..

    Just heard a woman in the UK, maybe an mp or what I am not sure, but she want any hate crime of women to carry a heavy hammer…

    Treating misogyny as a hate crime is a ‘waste of time’ officers say as …
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk › News

  56. Evan Myers says:

    In terms of EQUITY as we see it in real time;

    Clare Curran is promoted to a cabinet position in the Prime Minister’s determination to satisfy gender equity principles.

    This is the same disastrous process the Greens want to impose on our board rooms.

    The first thing we see in response from the opposition is sympathy from Judith Collins as she chambers to join in the sisterhood.

    That’s another side of equity that feminism demands within the sisterhood.

    If it had been that other cabinet monkey Twatford she would have laughed him all the way to a bye election.

  57. Downunder says:

     The narrative began as equal opportunity and ended up being a demand for equal outcomes. Competency became a dirty word.

    Triassic hasn’t used the word equity as such. Is it only Feminists that expect to be paid more for doing less.

  58. Downunder says:

    Nazis, having murdered around 20 million people, have nothing on the Marxists. In total, Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987. That is, when Marxists control states, Marxism is more deadly than all the wars of the 20th century, including World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The evils of Marxism are underestimated by many.

    This has been quoted from Warren Farrell and probably needs some perspective; I don’t see this as a valid supporting statement in attempting to understand Feminism.

    The 110 million is a guesstimate … of the highest possible number of deaths that might have occurred.

    Also it is a world total that breaks down to 70 million behind the Bamboo Curtain, and that relates to Cold War Asia as opposed to the 40 million that relates to the Cold War Iron Curtain of the USSR.

    When you look at the European conflicts the 20 million civilians disposed of by the Nazi regime in the 6 years between 1939 – 1945 is much more significant than the numbers disposed of during the communist experiment over 70 years and their figure may in reality be much lower than 40 million.

    When you look at reasons for these deaths it is very clear in the Nazi view of the world. They eliminated the Gypsy, the disabled, the uncooperative or ineffective worker. They were vengeful against the Jews given the Jewry had financed the British war machine.

    But the deaths during the Communist uprising are not so clear.

    How does that relate to us?

  59. freaked out says:

    Curious @ 51 – Feminism has been a series of lies and false statistics as everyone knows but it’s biggest travesty is the many childless cat ladies today who traded in a career for real happiness that is found in having family and children. Childless career women get completely washed out after being porked by hundreds of different men, belonging to everyone and no one at the same time, and cynical when they finally realise what a crock of shit feminism is

  60. Downunder says:

    Looking at our on NZ history we have conflicting situations.

    Māori had a good understanding of trading and Capitalism from the early European.

    Looking at the Waikato tribes who build transitional villages that combined their traditional pā with European styled buildings, a flower mill on the banks of a river and productive gardens, they learnt to be successful producers on productive land.

    The first export from them was a whole shipload of potatoes to America. A notable achievement that was cut short by the later land wars over productive land.

    A fair analysis of that would be to say that Capitalism was responsible for the distruction of what was something closer to a socialist enterprise and responsible for a significant number of deaths.

    Looking at the situation within Māori, using one example.

    Māori on the Chatham Islands had a very defensive position. Easy for them to raid other tribes but very hard for other tribes to raid them. That’s until one chief from the Bay of Islands aquired at sailing ship to transport a raiding party and hence the Chatham Island Massacre.

    That’s not intended to be a statement about Māori but about a shift in the balance of power between these two groups.

    The Māori population had been around 100,000 but was reduced to around 30,000 through the introduction of modern weapons to their tribal conflicts and exposure to foreign diseases. In many minds their race was seen as already extinct, past the point of no return.

    It was a combination of Christian institutions and government programmes that halted that. It was a organised intervention, a religious socialist venture that brought Māori back from the brink of extinction.

    It’s not hard to see why Māori generally sit to the left of the political electorate.

    That’s not our whole history but it does point out that when a culture experiences external change there can be unanticipated casualties brought about by factors outside of what was intended.

    One in particular is that socialism unfortunately facilitates revenge.

  61. Downunder says:

    #59

    Feminism has been a series of lies and false statistics as everyone knows …

    I think a major problem is that everyone does NOT know.

    Within the Feminist leadership and that’s almost like an invisible political party that has members in all political parties but it’s their second allegiance.

    Competence is a dirty word

    Get someone in there who is on our team. They’re not there because of their competence but for

    the control factor
    the revenge factor
    the manipulation of information
    the defense of their own

  62. Downunder says:

    We don’t know our history well enough.

    We saw a good account by Barbara Faithful of how the Feminist machine brought its hatred into the academic world.

    The twisted truth.

    Is fighting the twisted truth with another twisted truth the way out of this?

    Our country has about 200 years of modern history that is very different to the rest of the world. We are getting lost in someone else’s past rather than understanding and owning our own.

    I am not seeing a way forward with some academic condemnation of Marxism.

    We can’t explain Feminism well enough for busy people with busy lives and children to understand how damaging it is.

  63. Evan Myers says:

    We have a country of confused women who try to reconcile their every action against a confused ideology that even Feminism can no longer explain.

  64. mama says:

    Do you think it already too late??

    NZ is renowned for its’ innovations in some areas, surely something can be done to see common sense as a way forward…..it is such a shame when you think about the above comment from Downunder…”we are getting lost in someone else’s past past rather than understanding and owning our own”.

  65. Downunder says:

    Perhaps that problem lies within something Triassic said;

    Around the same time in the mid 60’s came the contraceptive pill, thereby giving females sexual freedom and an autonomy not experienced by women ever before.

    The debate hasn’t mentioned children.

    The child is perhaps the Feminist’s best weapon alongside propaganda.

    When you look at quotes from Hitler, and this is from memory rather than copied, he said something like,

    “When an opponent fails to come over to our camp, I remind him, your child is already in our camp.”

    But let me translate with a modern Kiwi comparative, and I’ve had this said to me …

    “What you think doesn’t matter because you won’t be here.”

    This is another issue I have with the solely Marxist comparison.

  66. Downunder says:

    Men not included

    “We will get all the women gathered together across the parties to be able to help design, maybe, another bill that we can all support unanimously in the House,

  67. Downunder says:

    This could be history in the making. The vote was just a joke, now we find out what women really want …

    As part of celebrations marking 125 years since New Zealand women gained the right to vote, an event hosted by Ali Mau and Mc’d by the Topp Twins will look at What Women Want.

    The event, being supported by Stuff and NZ On Air, is being held at the Raye Freedman Arts Centre in Newmarket, Auckland on Wednesday.

    Then a week later, on September 19, the two sessions of What Women Want will be uploaded to Stuff.co.nz as a Suffrage Special. That date is the 125th anniversary of Governor Lord Glasgow signing into law the Electoral Act under which New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world where all women had the right to vote in parliamentary elections.

    What Women Want has a chat show format and will involve women leaders, activists, comedians and change-makers. Mau will ask contributors several questions connected to their work and area of expertise.

    [JP please insert here that little cartoon you have about what women want. ]

  68. mama says:

    So what women want is to shack up with other women ???

    No men in their life…

    Let’s see..hmmm A WORLD WITHOUT BLOKES.

    at least the cycleways will get used…dykes on bikes…WHO SAID THAT???…ME!

  69. Downunder says:

    “When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

    This is the quote I was referring to above. It is available on the net now however the first time I found this was in a 1960s post war analysis of the first and second world wars.

    When you read something like this … not in isolation … but in the context of the political background to Nazi Germany you become more aware of how a population can be maneuvered and directed by its political force.

    I have heard many people say, “How could this have happened?”

    When you read these older books, it becomes an understandable process and it surprises me that there is so little comment about the similarities between 1930s political Germany and Feminist behaviour.

  70. freaked out says:

    four years before women were given the right to vote, men were given the right to vote. It was men who voted in that right for women.

  71. mama says:

    Downunder,,,, I always thought Aunty Helen looked remarkably like Adolf, it blew me away when I put that moustache on her, now I do not believe in Reincarnation either but……..it looked like a good case for it….and

    Freaked out,,,, damn,,, that is true but it would have happened eventually anyway,, the question now is ..has it gone too far and if so what is to become of us, the human race.

  72. Downunder says:

    Under the Weimar Republic, the status of women was one of the most progressive in Europe. The Weimar Constitution of January 19, 1919 proclaimed their right to vote (articles 17 and 22), equality of the sexes in civic matters (art. 109), non-discrimination against female bureaucrats (art. 128), maternity rights (art. 19) and spousal equality within marriage (art. 119).[7] Clara Zetkin, a prominent leader of the German feminist movement, was a Member of Parliament in the Reichstag from 1920 to 1933 and even presided over the assembly in the role of Dean. But Weimar did not represent a huge leap forward for women’s liberation. Women remained under-represented in the parliament; motherhood continued to be promoted as women’s most important social function; abortion was still prosecutable (§ 218 of the Criminal Code); and female workers did not achieve substantial economic progress such as equal salaries.[8] With the emergence of consumerism, businesses and government had an increasing need for labour; although work became a route to emancipation for women, they were often restricted to clerical work as secretaries or sales staff, where they were generally paid 10 to 20% less than male employees,[9] under various pretexts, such as the claim that their understanding of domestic tasks freed them from certain household expenses.

    German woman secretary, in 1938.
    While most of the other parties under the Weimar Republic ran female candidates during elections (and some were elected), the Nazi party did not. In 1933, Joseph Goebbels justified this position by explaining that “it is necessary to leave to men that which belongs to men “.[10] Germany went from having 37 female Members of Parliament out of 577, to none, after the election of November 1933.

    In a linked to description of the Weimar Republic …

    The Weimar Republic (German: Weimarer Republik [ˈvaɪmaʁɐ ʁepuˈbliːk] (About this sound listen)) is an unofficial, historical designation for the German state during the years 1919 to 1933. The name derives from the city of Weimar, where its constitutional assembly first took place. The official name of the state remained Deutsches Reich (English: German Realm), unchanged since 1871. In English, the country was usually known simply as Germany.

    A national assembly was convened in Weimar, where a new constitution for the Deutsches Reich was written and adopted on 11 August 1919. In its fourteen years, the Weimar Republic faced numerous problems, including hyperinflation, political extremism (with paramilitaries—both left- and right-wing) as well as contentious relationships with the victors of the First World War. The people of Germany blamed the Weimar Republic rather than their wartime leaders for the country’s defeat and for the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Weimar Germany fulfilled most of the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles although it never completely met its disarmament requirements and eventually paid only a small portion of the war reparations (by twice restructuring its debt through the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan).[5] Under the Locarno Treaties, Germany accepted the western borders of the republic, but continued to dispute the eastern borders.

  73. Downunder says:

    Perhaps the interesting thing here is after ‘The Great War’ to end all wars Feminism was quick to establish itself in Central Europe, albeit briefly before being squashed by the German Socialist regime, pre the Second World War.

    I’m wondering if anyone has had a more in depth look at this period and what they might make of it?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Skip to toolbar