The Rights of Men
We often talk about the disposable male; I attribute this phrase to Warren Farrell, but only because that’s where I heard it first.
In being disposable the corollary is that male rights must also be disposable. Just to be clear, I am not talking male rights v female rights (which we often compare on this site) but simply our rights within a civil society.
At this point you’re thinking, ‘can I be bothered getting into this philosophical rubbish’? I just want to get on with my life.
But that’s just it, how can you get on with life when your rights are arbitrarily dismissed, impeded, or removed?
How did you end up here anyway?
Yes, of course it happens all over the world, and so easily in New Zealand because … that’s another story.
An example of this is progress:
In 2007 we had a Family Court Matters Bill before parliament. Amongst the submissions to this bill was one from the Law Society that outlined that the bill was a breach of human rights because it did not allow DNA testing to confirm the relationship between a father and a child.
Some will recall, at that time, we had an ideologically-minded (feminist) Labour Party led by Helen Clark, and then Minister for Courts and feminist lap-dog Rick Barker (figuratively speaking) flipped the bird and told men in New Zealand that they could get stuffed.
The transgression probably doesn’t impact on a great number of New Zealand men – and not to dismiss the severity of the impact that this can have on any man’s life – but the greater travesty was that we ignored the fact that a minister of the crown allowed legislation to pass that gave priority to party policy rather human rights.
We ignored the fight for rights because it didn’t impact on those of us happily living in our own little bubbles.
Is this the single biggest fault of men in modern society?
Have we always been like this?
The continuing story of, The Rights of Men
You bring up an excellent point.
I’ll add that women should be very grateful for Helen Clarke and her lesbian friends as well as all the heterosexual and other gendered women who worked behind the scenes to promote them, etc. I’ve had men say, “You [single parents] need to get organised like the lesbains did” and women tell me just how difficult it was to get Helen into power. They remember things men said, lol.
I’d like to see single parents having an input into our neoliberal system. Our teachers earn less working full time than they do working part time while a lot of single parents work as caregivers of the sick, disabled and elderly for which employment amendments forced them into contracts to pay middle people and took away their holiday and sick pay. Then there’s no childcare for our shift workers such as nurses and on call jobs such as midwives. How are they meant to work the night shifts?
National even took away morning and after tea breaks. Grrr.
……… On another note and to add men’s issues to my comment.
Remember John Tamihere saying, “Where else in the world do Amazons rule?”
Well, that investigate article is priceless IMO. He explained well why fathers [and single mothers] can’t fight for their rights. They are too busy working and raising children every other moment (or many/most moments).
The good news is that we have a fabulous tool being the internet. Men’s awareness is big these days, thanks to men who slugged away while being ridiculed, etc. Lobbying isn’t as hard as it used to be and if, IMO, men’s issues were directed at governing bodies rather than feminists (all the time), then a lot of men would add their name to a petition or such. (just a thought) 🙂
Comment by Julie — Thu 11th September 2014 @ 10:34 pm
I have all the rights I need, as a man, so long as I avoid crowds.
As soon as we need to argue this point, we lose – to other more worthy parties, generally.
So it helps us to say as little as possible – unless we really believe in a more perfectible society.
I have some old bronze medals that are testaments of society’s gratitude to my poor, dead male forbears who believed in social obligation. Oddly enough, I think I’m the last one who knows of their existence.
Comment by rc — Thu 18th September 2014 @ 8:37 pm
The world’s becoming a much smaller place, best avoid crowds and women to preserve those rights.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 18th September 2014 @ 9:21 pm
This is a good look, at The Bill of Rights.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300581191/covid19-court-cases-show-our-bill-of-rights-act-is-not-as-strong-as-some-might-wish
The important bits, from the article.
The Bill of Rights Act does, however, stipulate that wherever an act, such as the Health Act, can be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the Bill of Rights, then that interpretation is to be preferred.
Thirdly, the Bill of Rights Act, on the whole, does not protect absolutely the rights of New Zealanders, but any restrictions on those rights must be justifiable.
Finally, the attorney-general is required to report to parliament when they find any proposed law appears to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
One aspect of this part of the constitutional process is a “declaration of inconsistency”, which allows judges to signal to the Government and parliament that a law has seriously problematic implications for the protection of rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights Act.
………….
So the only way to use the law, is to aim for the declaration.
The declaration, may be ignored or acted on.
You must prove, a less harmful option exists.
You must prove, a compliant option exists.
You must prove, what you argue about is not compliant.
Hmm, that sounds easy on so many subjects.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 6th May 2022 @ 9:51 am
So the end result becomes, on what grounds is Rights breached.
There is others, but this is problematic.
Freedom from discrimination
(1)Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.
So actually, the starting point is the HRA.
But they know that, so have this.
(2)Measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue of Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993 do not constitute discrimination.
So discriminating, is acceptable.
One must put the thread, through the eye of the needle.
Can any circumstance even exist, where you can’t discriminate.
If done to men, it is to help women.
What then is done to women, to help men.
Threading the needle, let’s you sow.
So it must prove three things, and exist where it can’t.
The only solution, is to sow something different.
One they least expect, and have no plans for.
I said I had a cunning plan, it’s also very difficult.
But I will begin, at some point.
I have got a distance limit, and I will start the writing.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 8th May 2022 @ 10:12 am
Obviously the Human Rights Commission, is a dead end.
How do you complain, when you are not involved.
I suspect that’s why complaints fail, and it goes silent.
So actually the first step, is not them and can be ignored.
The first step, is experiencing having rights violated.
And having it as evidence, that can’t be denied.
And even on a subject, not from the males perspective.
An example would be, discrimination on age.
That group due to there age, are treated like this.
They just happen, to only be boys being violated.
They can’t claim, supporting a discriminated group.
Do they help adults, but abuse children.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 9th May 2022 @ 6:19 pm
I think I could inherently, be a breach of 27 Right to Justice.
At least I know the problem well, so I can think up solutions.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 10th May 2022 @ 5:32 pm