MENZ ISSUES

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

Jumping on the Family Band Wagon…

Filed under: General — mama @ 10:49 am Fri 21st June 2019

With the flurry of surveys and much talk about the rise of the want for a more Conservative governance both here and across the world, the heart of the Family is taking a bow amongst those wanting more conservatism and less Me me, individual me.

There is no doubting that at the same time technology is set to take another leap, on line gaming will increase and only Family can keep this from becoming a track that children take and become unreachable.
Parents used to question themselves on how good was it? to sit wee Johnny and Martha down in front of the TV, but now device time has soared, children are even growing new neck parts to make up for the way they stare down into their devices,,, do we really want epidemic after epidemic, where is the control, where is the care.

A call to Family is a call to Fathers, and their families, if we have to fight for Family Values then it must be together, Family values are at the very heart of the issues that Men all over the world are facing.
This really could be an opportunity more suited to the Male in that he is not going to say ‘ME’, he is going to say US, our FAMILIES and a Soul for our Societies.

55 Responses to “Jumping on the Family Band Wagon…”

  1. Evan Myers says:

    Not so long ago I had a conversation with a Polish Tourist.

    Intelligent girl, mid 20s tourist, fluent in English.

    I was curious about her country’s fairly dramatic shift back to national Christianity. While she was aware of it, she was ambivalent about the reasons.

    I felt as she’d grown up isolated from any strife she couldn’t muster an understanding of why that had happened or what the causes might have been.

    The fundamental difference here was that she had no problem engaging the entitled old white man. And she had questions about our country also.

    This is part of the current culture where we have lost our intergenerational pathways.

  2. mama says:

    I fully agree E[email protected],,,my own daughter can not be drawn into serious conversations around societal effect and cause, the issues are now so many that it is easier just to like someone on F–er Book.

  3. Evan Myers says:

    Since civilized development there has at any given time been a social problem in a city. Various philosophers have been like our modern opinion writers taking a broader view of that situation.

    You have someone like Empedocles examine this from the point of view of love and strife.

    Someone like Rousseau bounces around like a yo-yo on a mood ring.

    His principle of a social contract is in the sovereign authority or final authority resting in the people. His preferred contact was along the lines of Spartan democracy.

    But that aside he said the principle of social contract wasn’t any absolute structure. It was up to the people to decide what form any social contract takes.

    The more recent problem since the beginning of the 1800s is what funding model supports that contract.

    If we ever owned our sovereign authority we’ve certainly lost it by not understanding our obligations to it. How do we preserve it’s existence.

    I think Britain faced a similar problem in the early 1800s and going back there are multiple snapshots of the same dilemma.

    Do we realistically understand this social cycle?

  4. how does the government control the increasingly widespread online game?

  5. JustCurious says:

    Someone not so long ago said to me (apologies if I have posted this already):
    “there are two types of women…
    The one who gets married because it is in fashion.
    And the one who gets married because it is her mission.”

    WE must remember that in this society marriage, families and family unit have different flavors and connotations. WE live in a modern and, open and liberalized society. I speak in the traditional sense (man – woman – parenting)… Fuck I feel old at times…

    The ones who gets married because it is in fashion (All my friends got hitched and are now raising families, we got nothing in common anymore), will divorce when it becomes in fashion.

    Whilst the one marrying because it is her mission is the example of a woman with a mission and her mission is her family and raising and supporting that family to her utmost best.

    Short minded people will ask (is that it for a woman? Breed, nurse, raise and then release?)

    I do not speak from that frame of mind… Both men and women UNequally feel the empty nest when the children leave home… and both parents must either reaffirm themselves (mission) or reinvent (re-fashion) themselves.

    I think the reason we are all on this site is because of that fashion lady we fell in love with once.

    Ewan – above… Jean Jacques Rousseau, a yo yo 🙂 But then you got hobbes and Locke as well as many others pulling each other’s hair out.I am certain it was Socrates that said that the fulfillment of a man’s life is in his political participation. Please do not quote me on this. However the point made was not to wait until the end of one’s life to engage in politics but rather to make politics a citizen’s business at the earliest age.

    Good point though re chosen form of government and chosen method of reform… It seems the current consensus is that of Hobbes whereby one can strip oneself virtually of every right as if before a monarch and I see often judges usurping that role. IT appears our authorities know this but we do not. Or to put it another way both in form and in substance but without notice nor disclosure.

    As far as the family, we must reinvent it with the child at the centre.

  6. mama says:

    #4,,Winda,, do not expect this from government, the Family must be responsible and guide the control of such things.

    #5,,Judge Curious,, no need to re invent, nothing is rounder than round, is it?

  7. Boonie says:

    no need to re invent, nothing is rounder than round, is it?

    I spot a question mark.

    I think there is and for at least two reasons.

    The idea that the pendulum swinging too far and coming back is not seen against the rise and fall of civilization. Within intervention a civilization has a circular resolution that ends in failure – back to where it originated from nothing.

    There is always philosophy within society and while we reflect on two main periods of thought in the Mediterranean cultures and then the enlightenment life is adjusted by current philosophy – in New Zealand Karl Popper in particular.

    While this current period of philosophy including feminist philosophy drives social change, few of us participate in it.

    There was an interesting book written by Richard Pebble in the heady days of the old ACT party in the late 1990s which attempted to reconcile old ideas into a new environment.

    An annoying little politician at times but perhaps just ahead of his time and now irrelevant to the current party.

  8. Downunder says:

    “As far as the family, we must reinvent it with the child at the centre.” #5

    That might be stated another way, in that we look at the state the family is in today and ask if we destroyed the ‘State of the Family’ supposedly in the best interests of children.

    Being old one remembers ‘The State’ being the public service rather than the enemy of ‘The State of The Family.’

    Then family being redefined in various ways to operate in a fashion that is conflicted with the thinking of various groups of people.

    These are concepts that many people struggle with, and you can see that repeated throughout the existence of this site.,

  9. JustCurious says:

    #7 #8 Funnily enough
    I draw a blank as to what steps need to be taken to bring back the family at the center of society.

    It is easier to criticize than it is to propose solutions. (pointing the finger at myself)
    However both your suppositions and proposals are rather interesting and on point so will ponder on them.

  10. Boonie says:

    Probably the most fundamental change is that reproduction was removed as a primary legal platform in the family.

    That’s a significant conflict with Feminist ideals of female what constitutes freedom in their philosophy.

  11. Boonie says:

    female and what*

  12. JustCurious says:

    10 # This is where it is rather funny… Freedom of one stops where freedom of another starts…

    The strongest woman needs emotional support and shielding/protection from a man/society.
    Imagine if the state was not here to provide for their needs and specially when pregnant and nursing.
    Case in point our prime minister… How do you run a country when nursing? And without family support?
    Imagine if this country was suddenly bankrupt and there is no way to pay the DPB?
    How many households would be affected?

    Maybe the shift is now to seek and adopt a more holistic look at our biological needs and structurally reinforce the family according to the best interest of all involved?

    I am sure though and also certain that some big heads have contemplated all these issues and have already charted a path towards a family reunification -and a state behind – instead of right in the middle.

  13. Evan Myers says:

    children are even growing new neck parts

    A bit of scientific bullshit the was published before it underwent any reasonable scrutiny of peers?

  14. Evan Myers says:

    @12 A State right in the middle?

    I don’t see the State as being political in the middle.

    Ideological motivated to a social model that as you say we do not see the social contract for.

  15. Boonie says:

    I think what #12 is struggling with is that the social contract is political and legal not ideological.

  16. JustCurious says:

    #15
    The Social contract (in me wee mind) is our reality.
    Or our felt communal experience of each individual’s realities.
    The political is. in fact, the only ideology.
    the legal, is the interfaces between the two.

    Legal may deviate from the social contract.
    But lawful cannot be removed from it.

    So the SOCIAL contract(here) establishes the basis of the relationship.
    We are the beneficiaries and they the trustees. It is our trust that binds us to them. And they are of us.
    The question is what society can you imagine for your grand children?
    The rest is ideology

  17. Evan Myers says:

    Social CONTRACT

  18. Boonie says:

    @16

    The is not the basis of Rousseau’s social contract.

    Bis was a rebellious against the monarchy.

  19. Boonie says:

    That is not the basis of Rousseau’s social contract.

    His was then a rebellious against the monarchy

  20. Boonie says:


    Imagine if this country was suddenly bankrupt and there is no way to pay the DPB?
    How many households would be affected?

    .. not that this is likely but a better question might be;

    Is the DPB paying for a ‘constructive domestic purpose’ or is sponsored insanity?

  21. Evan Myers says:

    I doubt any committed father that’s past through this website hasn’t had the experience thrown at them of
    You’re not in control of me …
    You can’t tell me what to do …
    My teacher/sister/auntie whatever knows better.

    You get a decent genuine non-political dedicated teacher pulling her hair out and quitting.

    Teachers like her didn’t have to contend with this bullshit and I know how lucky I was to have good teachers teaching in a disciplined environment.

    It was that pivotal point before feminists ran wild.

  22. Boonie says:

    You got to laugh when you look back.

    I was in my science class one day and a few boys, myself included, were having a bit of a Spike Milligan session down the back of the class. This was fine until I went to walk out the door and suddenly I found myself going backwards. This little woman … and she wasn’t short of brains but she didn’t have a great physical presence … had her finger hooked under my collar.

    She gave me a bit of taking to and told me I would be getting … I’d be getting what amounted to chair detention.

    I realise now there was a lot of thought went into this.

    She sat me and the smartest girl in the class, front and centre which made us experiment partners and then drummed up a competition for best in the class.

    We both quietly took the bait and we each got 80 (and one half percent) in the term test.

    She went through every answer and the pair of us argued every answer for that half percent.

    She wouldn’t budge on single mark. The worst part of this was that I immediately got accused of cheating and copying her answers.

    That back in the middle of last century is what you have to call one pretty smart high school teacher.

  23. Evan Myers says:

    @24 Bunch of wankpuffins.

  24. Boonie says:

    The population they’re talking about wouldn’t even have a power socket to charge their phone.

  25. Boonie says:

    @24 “Does the family stand a chance?”

    About the only thing the happens naturally for humans is reproduction.

    Some people have this expectation that everything else will just happen.

    If we separate reproduction from previous cultures as Feminism has done, then there’s a problem. Whether it’s liberal feminists claiming victimhood or radical feminists claiming superiority the reproduction rates don’t indicate any culture of survival.

    Realise the failure now or accept it later?

  26. JustCurious says:

    Failure? Or success in
    Reproduction without responsibility?
    Or
    child rearing without accountability?
    Or is it success in character building without the two above…
    With parental guidance and authority removed?

  27. JustCurious says:

    @19 Boonie
    “The is not the basis of Rousseau’s social contract.

    His was a rebellious against the monarchy.”

    Monarchy or demonic-mediocracy turned minority dictatorship?

    @20 ~ “Is the DPB paying for a ‘constructive domestic purpose’ or is sponsored insanity?”
    Well framed…

    Or is it possibly a well oiled economic lever for recruiting informants in the war to destabilize the family and grant more power to the Police as rights taken away from the parents?

    This of course feeds the system with power to confiscate money from parents (males), powers to extract men from their homes, and power to erect legal walls between members of the same household and deny a parent child reunification for as long as one of the parents chooses to marry the state.

  28. Boonie says:

    @29

    If you look at Rome which was originally a monarchy neither situation was a rebellion against the monarchy it was a rebellion against the tyrant or the tyranny.

    Well, if you can’t identify the tyrant for a start …

    Let’s not sink into conspiracy.

    Athens ended with political isolation of its elite. That situation could be anticipated in any social contract that became anti-social.

    Under the name of social conscience Rome went down a similar path. It gets a bit confusing as to what happened in Rome the city as around 330 AD the capital was relocated to what became Constantinople. Probably for the reason we face now.

    There’s an element of law changes being made through policy that suits a small number of people.

    But conspiracy and suspicion of authorities is a theme that possibly comes about in the absence of the visible social contract.

  29. Downunder says:

    Being in Athens at the 2004 Olympics as a tourist it was made quite clear that a woman sitting on the footpath with a baby begging was not to be given any money.

    OK, your country, your rules. And there were a few around but I never saw anyone stop and toss a coin.

    I’m not sure what that was all about in a country that’s, I think about 98% Christian but obviously there were reasons for that.

    Possibly it was drugs related.

    That’s an issue with the DPB we’ve known about for many years. Easy target for the drug dealer. But then there’s the Green’s culture and you may remember Sue Bradford saying this out loud;

    “The DPB is sacrosanct. You’re not touching it.”

    You’re not touching it infers WE said so. That’s an indication of the thinking of a social contract you can’t see.

  30. Boonie says:

    I am generally suspicious of any US news these days however …

    The Wall St Journal is reporting

    For under 55 age group the rate of divorce is at a 40 year low.

    The number of people getting married may be less but at least they’re staying married.

    But what’s up for the menopausal baby boomers?

  31. Evan Myers says:

    I wonder if any political parties will be proposing restrictions on the DPB like a maximum number of years or

    Only if the father refuses custody?

  32. Evan Myers says:

    What happens to your body when you’re stuck in an office for eight hours a day, sitting at a desk under artificial lights and without much of a break?

    Here comes the next get women more money scheme.

    A commercial violence leave act?

    We had this discussion here recently – the place feminists would go for more money.

  33. mama says:

    The Minister for Women said last night on the public news,,,,we need more women to be going for local council positions, we may need to look at paying their child care costs.

  34. JustCurious says:

    #30 – “There’s an element of law changes being made through policy that suits a small number of people.”

    Inference:
    1~the system is used by the minority against the majority (statement of fact);
    2~The minority’s use of the system negatively impacts on the majority; And
    3~ Both (1) AND (2) above are irrefutable facts

    “But conspiracy and suspicion of authorities is a theme that possibly comes about in the absence of the visible social contract.”

    That’s burying one’s head in the sand faced with the above.

    Visible social contract is your Bill of Rights
    IF they are being constantly breached by legislation
    Then conspiracy and suspicionS GIVE WAY TO LEGITIMATE CLAIMS…

  35. Downunder says:

    @36 My view is that the simple concept that Rousseau started out with was a starting point. He died before his theory was even tested.

    The modern social contract has gained significant depth to the point of confusion, mismanagement, and conflicted positions.

    Without duscussing that massive process and looking at only the top layer of this pile of sheets … the one occupied by Feminists;

    First, what we don’t already know of this is hypothetical. But if you don’t believe there’s a hypothetical element you don’t understand Feminism. For men it’s a process of continuous negative change … what now?

    Second, in the nature of our current contract we expect that a legitimate government would not contract it’s citizens into an unreasonable contract.

    And this is where we start to come apart. As what is considered reasonable for whom, and in relation to this site, that generally revolves around men and women.

    At the same time there has to be a social model, and a complimentary economic model working together to allow that contract to work.

    The only time I’ve seen that discussed on this site (and I havent read everything) is between Triassic and myself in a post he made back in I think 2006. These ideas of the physical model behind the contract are not something the average citizen worries about in a functioning society.

    Then there’s the matter of conformity. Are the citizens going to wear this?

    Or, will they need to be made to conform.

    I don’t see the contract as intended to be manipulated to the advantage of a few people. And I think most people would rather have a functional contract than a dysfunctional society, and expect the contract to work.

    If you say it’s not working I agree. If you say that people with valid objections are having the shit hammered out of them to shut them up. I would definitely agree with that.

    Mostly I express this in terms of the House of the Bitch. If that dysfunction-junction doesn’t work, then more and more homes will fail as that in essence is the source of reason in our homes, or should be.

  36. Boonie says:

    @36 the Bill of Rights is not social contract.

    It’s a piece of legislation that works in reverse to what a lot of people think.

    Most of the legislation past is as advised by the Attorney General contrary to the BORA. There’s a report in parliament supposedly outling these inconsistencies.

    That makes the legislation supposedly contestable but you meet some stiff opposition getting any traction on that.

  37. Boonie says:

    That’s somewhat ambiguous …

    A report accompanying each piece of legislation outlining the inconsistencies.

  38. JustCurious says:

    #37 —Great input….
    Everyone chases after symptoms but; without a proper “understanding” meaning [Apprehension, consideration and comprehension] between the state and society, then there is no way to separate lawful from legal.

    #39 — Before the legislation is made, a report is made highlighting its inconsistencies with the bill of rights.

    That should be clue enough as to where the failing is
    .
    Any inconsistency with BORA MEANS that part of the proposed law is UNLAWFUL OR IN BREACH OF OUR RIGHTS…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    That is essentially the contract… Call it social or otherwise…

    Now the real question is what methods do we have to change these laws so they can be fair and just or that they can be stayed until such time as they have been made to not be discriminatory, trans-regresso-repressive and fair and in line with our inalienable rights?

    The real problem I think is the Law society is in bed with the law makers.

    The law society makes recommendations about proposed legislation but closes its eyes and let the parliamentary people decide on the legislation.

    NOW THE REAL ISSUE
    NO Court or judge has the right to complain about the legislation being lawful or not.\
    Their only right is to use it and interpret it however way they wish on the day.

    If you note, the interpretations differ based on the level of court.
    The lower courts tend to interpret these laws verbatim and simply seek convictions.
    The high Court on appeal often has to look at at the legislation and permit themselves, at times, certain forays in the interpretation and may even at times, interpret it according to it’s purpose and intent contrasted with the bill of Rights

    In Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] NZAR 148 a full bench of the High Court held that adopting a policy to automatically arrest a suspect without allowing for exceptional circumstances was not lawful. The High Court also held that a failure to consider the discretion to arrest was unlawful and arbitrary under section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Discretion must be used by staff.

  39. JustCurious says:

    BORA

    6~Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred

    Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.

    7~Attorney-General to report to Parliament where Bill appears to be inconsistent with Bill of Rights

    Where any Bill is introduced into the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General shall,—

    (a)in the case of a Government Bill, on the introduction of that Bill; or

    (b)in any other case, as soon as practicable after the introduction of the Bill,—

    bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights.

  40. Boonie says:

    @40 That is essentially the contract… Call it social or otherwise

    No. I don’t agree. You are viewing the BORA the wrong way around.

    The social contract establishes the relationship between citizens and our obligations. The Bill of Rights is a buffer that sits between government and citizens as a mechanism for citizens to seek the protection of the courts.

    Not as a mechanism to overrule the supremacy of parliament.

    Yes. I agree the law society and the law commission have become a social menace in terms of its service to parliament in providing legislation for parliament to modify the social contract.

    You can see their direct influence in a simple version of events if you look at the Court of Appeal decision that government departments function in unison.

    Probably the only legislation that’s apparent in is the Family violence act as was pointed out in the most recent post.

    This circular system is functioning basically at the behest of Feminist demands.

    It men then that are left trying to find some Avenue of redress.

  41. JustCurious says:

    #41 What’s the purpose of
    “bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights.”

  42. JustCurious says:

    #42~Social contract – I never meant to focus on it…
    It does not have to be a concrete handshake cast in plaster
    Nor a utopic fantasy driven out of a comic book on philosophy
    It’s just a concept of natural justice denied by forms and procedures.

  43. JustCurious says:

    #42~”Not as a mechanism to overrule the supremacy of parliament.” You are right!
    Have a read here:
    https://gg.govt.nz/office-governor-general/roles-and-functions-governor-general/constitutional-role/constitution/constitution

  44. Downunder says:

    #43 What’s the purpose of
    “bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights.”

    One would need to ask Sir Geoffrey Palmer I suppose, since he is the author but one might think that because we are a constitutional monarchy it is a process of advising the crown and our parliamentary process.

  45. Downunder says:

    #44 Social contract – I never meant to focus on it… (Really?)

    It does not have to be a concrete handshake cast in plaster
    Nor a utopic fantasy driven out of a comic book on philosophy
    It’s just a concept of natural justice denied by forms and procedures.

    A social contract of some form existed prior to it being given a name and a description. That came about through the absence of minimum standards.

    Now, to you, ‘it’s just a concept of natural justice denied’?

  46. JustCurious says:

    #47! “Now, to you, ‘it’s just a concept of natural justice denied’?”
    (substance over form)… Just a way of speaking other wise we engage with pedantism.

    The focus being not the social contract per se but rather a way to mend it so we can recognize ourselves in it.

    #46! “One would need to ask Sir Geoffrey Palmer I suppose, since he is the author but one might think that because we are a constitutional monarchy it is a process of advising the crown and our parliamentary process.”

    wHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ADVISING THE cROWN AND UR PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS?
    SO THEY CAN FIX THE LEGISLATION?
    OR IS IT SO THEY CAN RECORD SIMPLY THE BREACHES WITHIN THE LEGISLATION?

  47. Evan Myers says:

    Because of the Supremacy of Parliament.

    It’s possible you don’t understand but more likely given your consistent comments that you have some reason to be a fruitless dick.

  48. mama says:

    May I say we all have reason to be seen to be fruitless dicks,,,:dicks,, a nineteen eighties term for idiots, albiet it fleeting or environmental

  49. Evan Myers says:

    No, Mama, I meant that as not intended to give birth to anything of significance.

  50. mama says:

    me too…………..as well an aw

  51. JustCurious says:

    #40~Glad you got that broom out of your ass.
    I bet you feel better now that your intellectual constipation is over…
    looking forward to some common sense finally.
    But let’s not be a dick about the relief you feel…
    However if the constipation was congenital, let us know…
    A Minstel of men would be right up your alley…
    sorry mine estuary…
    forgive me… I mean Ministry
    Big fingers…but small clit..
    I mean small keys
    Still typing on a brick cell phone

  52. JustCurious says:

    #53 in reply to #49

  53. mama says:

    Given the silence of Mens’ groups NZ, no much radio/tv time let alone even getting on this site to promote their services, I guess everything must be just dandy for guys out there, really?,, then why the blown out suicide statistics. We see Men pop up every now and then, in their ones and twos, promoting the need for better recognition of Mens’ problems.

    I know we have talked this black and blue, people talk of their times through out the years, the work they have done and what they achieved and what they did not, we talk of Craig, THANKYOU CRAIG, you musta been a helluva guy, and of Audi,,, Audi was highly controversial in his breaking in to the scene, sure with motivation, seemingly, but then we hear from people present saying they heard no more… a pattern?.. my god it is so hard to get together.

    Can someone tell me why it is we do not have advocates for Mens’ issues, there are plenty of Mens’ groups, some very well funded, what is the f’n story, I WANT TO KNOW!!!, who is the spokes person, why no counrtywide recognition of lack of representation.
    I have spoken to some Mens’ groups, some are genuinely busy and worry about their funding stretch, others seem well funded but are silent,,, WHAT IS GOING ON<<<<BROTHER< BROTHER!!

    Take it out Marvyn…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo-5MI9-yjU

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