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

The Division of Men

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 7:09 am Thu 23rd December 2021

This might be viewed and often is on this site as a division of men into various groups of men, be that religious, racial, intellectual, or some perception of right and wrong among other things … class or status is something we claim to have overcome but not so much when there are the cases we don’t hear about.

Over the preceding 50 years we’ve seen a transition from a predominantly sacred society to a more secular society and individual based rights rather than collective obligation.

This “law of the individual” is politically convenient when it comes to the game of divide and rule and the political mischief of the narrative.

I don’t recall a discussion here though of, division of the individual, in the sense of not able to be divided, which is the essential etymology of the word.

We tend to talk about an attack on us, as the male gender, our rights, our status as fathers, or our identities but not as a soul destroying exercise – the crushing of the individual spirit – which the family court is so apt to do – there’s a slow trail of bodies over many years that’s become very matter of fact rather than sentient.

I noticed this week the English court judgement on hate speech had warned of the perception of the individual being a step too far in determining the value of hate speech.

Rather than the preservation of free speech I saw that more as a defence of the integrity for the individual against claims of victim status – in that respect, the behaviour of our family court not allowed to wander lose on the streets with the enforcement left to the discretion of the police.

It’s quite a complex judgement beyond the summary and one we shouldn’t ignore when it comes to the inclination of our own feminised society to dwell as it usually does on the lowest denominator in preservation of its ideals.

We’re suffering under a similar weight of Covid demands where the dissection of the individual is secondary if not insignificant to the political demands of our administration.

It’s a step past democracy in that respect, far from love and kindness, and not so open and transparent with so many people being sucked into the pit of panic and deception.

9 Responses to “The Division of Men”

  1. Evan Myers says:

    Hard slog without an independent media and the wait for the persecution of the 5th Estate.

  2. DJ Ward says:

    The men in Jordan’s parliament, just had a punch up.
    While on a bill, creating more equality for women.
    The bill, accused of other things as well.
    So the fight may be, a coincidence.
    Not just to the bill, giving women some equality.

    Of what I’ve read, the bill is a reasonable change.
    It shows how sensitive, humans are to the subject.
    And how extreme things can get, like the Taliban.

    A blatant bias exists, against women.
    If a male takes a foreigner, as a wife.
    The wife and children, become citizens.
    If a female takes a foreigner, as a husband.
    The husband and children, do not become citizens.

    It is hard to see, how men became divided.

  3. DJ Ward says:

    It is harder to see us together, than divided.
    Every issue or argument, with two sides.

    Since there is only one thing, that is true on any subject.
    How then do we become divided, taking sides on everything.
    Is it culture and morals, religion and biology creating sides.

    Anthropology would say, give things time.
    Things that are closer to the truth, will work well.
    Things that are farther from the truth, will not work well.

    Are not all the nations, just experiments for the greater good.
    There own quirky laws, governing the lives of humans.
    Even the nations at war, are divided into sides testing who’s better.

    One cannot blame humans, for being divided.
    Without it humans, cannot get better.
    It would not experiment, and test the truth.

  4. Evan Myers says:

    In collective living security and identity are critical factors. Once any size of people starts alienating individuals they look for alternatives.
    The radical, the fringe element, often form under a fascist type personality.

    That has evolved in a global world to a new generation of activist movements looking for more than their lost freedom.

    What hasn’t changed though is the fanatical commitment, our schools breed and educate seemingly progressive and necessary new-generation social movements who will somehow rescue us from our diabolical past.

    A political tyranny that’s turned society on its head using feminism to disable social cohesion.

  5. Downunder says:

    We’ll kill ourselves because of stupidity.

    The failure to recognise it at least.

    There not much difference between saying the greatest progress is made by the scientific extremes and the survivors were the fringe of civilised collapse.

    Avoiding that is not only a matter of concentrating power in the people but them knowing that is both essential and defensible.

  6. DJ Ward says:

    The public can be led to believe, with propaganda.
    The policy may sound good, like PSO legislation.
    It would be hard to find, opposition even by myself.

    But they did not say, they would have policy of only giving them to men.
    Would then such things, be supported into law.
    They blindly support justice, and injustice.

    Many years later, PSOs are still supported.
    A vital tool, for the police.
    The wrongly treated, ignored as policy.

    When they made the Care of Children law, did a single man speak.
    That men would automatically be banned, but no women.
    Is there no greater division, of ones rights.

    They can create a law, that bans only men from children.
    Yet despite endless articles, media remains silent on the subject.
    Policy to ignore men’s suffering, and only printing female issues.

    Yet today I see, the results.
    Domestic Violence, is not being controlled.
    And far to many children, fatherless.

    The government, has done the unthinkable.
    It has taken sides, and persecuted the other.
    Telling the public one thing, and doing the opposite.

    There seems no division, on the rights of men.
    Without consideration, there can be no division.
    Results without objection, from those representing men.

    Division cannot exist, without opposition.

  7. Evan Myers says:

    @6 You have the typically invalid view of men not understanding the family court.

    It is a civil court
    The protection order is a civil order
    Given to a woman it names a man who becomes criminally liable for disobeying the court order.

    The reason I point this out is that as a man in such circumstances you cannot apply to the court “to have someone taken off you, that hasn’t been given to you.

    You need to ask the court to take “order off the woman it was given to.”

    You could effectively regard that as the cancellation of a high court injunction.

  8. DJ Ward says:

    I think the subject, gets confusing.
    Police Safety Orders (PSO), vs Protection Orders (PO).
    One is created, by a police officer.
    One is created, by the accuser.
    They are, different things.

    The PO, is in effect a piece of law.
    Created using, untested accusations.
    And evidence, is not needed.
    Men create them as well, as a minority.
    It’s purpose is hard to argue with, as the intent is good.

    We of course know, the reality of the PO.
    It so easily bans a parent, from seeing the children.
    It implies it protects people, but also abuses parental rights.
    You will find no statistics, on children stoped from seeing a parent.
    There is no measure, of the harm done.

    I have had a PO, taken against me.
    And got it discharged, in court.
    Stopping it, at the temporary stage.
    So my typical, invalid view.
    Is actually, based on personal experiences.


    #6 is actually how democracy works, as a process of evolution.
    A good example now, is Hong Kong.
    Where opposition is being crushed, so no division exists.
    Democracy, is now dead in Hong Kong.

    Just as no opposition existed, for the creation of the DV act.
    Things can be far better, of it had opposition.
    It’s flaws exposed prior, to passing into law.
    Would a contested law, be a better law.

    The evolution of ideas, is harder without division.

  9. Evan Myers says:

    @8 I do not agree with your thinking.

    Police do not create a Police Safety Order, they issue one.

    In that respect the order already existed before the circumstances and without the consent of the parties involved.

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